Question

Identify two projects in which you have been involved recently.

1. Describe each project briefly and suggest criteria that may have been used to identify the start of the termination phase of each project.

and

2. Give two examples of activities that were performed poorly during the termination phase of either project, and suggest measures that might have been taken to improve the situation.

Answer 1

Two projects in which I have been involved recently are:

A large scale single location ground-mounted Solar Project

A small scale multiple location rooftop-mounted Solar Project

The first project involved the design, engineering, and construction of a large ground-mounted Solar Project. The Project location was a large open land, The project duration was 10 months. The start phase of the project was the land handover by the customer, after land levelling activities. Therefore, land levelling work was in the customer's scope. After the land levelling was done, the land was officially handed over to start the work related to the solar project. So, Day Zero of the project was when the customer handed over the land.

The termination phase was identified by the commissioning of the project and a 1-month trial run. Therefore, once the solar project construction was completed, and the plant started generating electricity, the plan was kept under observation for one month. During this one month, the performance of the plant was monitored, and only after satisfactory performance during that month, the project was considered to be closed.

The second project involved the design, engineering, and construction of 7 small rooftop-mounted solar projects at 7 different locations. The 7 project sites were located at 7 different cities, on the rooftops of government buildings. The project duration was 6 months. The start phase of the project was identified by the roof handover process. It was the customer's responsibility to clear all roofs from scrap, unwanted material and provide access (like Ladder) to each roof. Only once an official roof handover letter was issued by the customer, the project was considered to have started.

The termination phase of the project was identified by the commissioning of solar plants at all 7 locations. Even if one location was not commissioned, the project would not be considered as commissioned and closed. Therefore, the project would be officially closed only when all 7 solar plants started to generate electricity.

2. The first project faced some issues during the termination period, as some activities were performed poorly.

The termination phase had to be concluded after the 1-month performance trial run. There was a coordination issue between the Project Manager and the Construction contractor over the related work in this 1-month period. The Construction contractor's work contract did not specifically mention the requirement of manpower for 1-month after project commissioning. Due to this, the contractor started to shift his manpower from the project site. However, manpower was required to manage the 1-month trial run. Because of this issue, the Project Manager had to arrange manpower from different resources, as the construction contractor had other projects where he needed to shift his manpower. This resulted in a delay of 10 days in starting the trial run.

The other activity which was performed poorly during the termination phase was getting the solar plant inspected by the customer. The solar plant had to be inspected by the customer, on the basis of a Quality plan which required the customer's approval. There was a delay in the preparation of the Quality plan, and hence the plan's approval from the customer also got delayed. Only after the completion of the inspection, the solar plant could be commissioned. Due to the delay in quality plan approval, the commissioning started 7 days after the scheduled date.

The measures that could be taken to improve such situations are as follows:

All documentary requirements and work-related requirements have to be monitored in detail. Even the smallest of requirements should be given due importance. If the quality plan was prepared on time, the commissioning would not have been delayed by 7 days. Further, if the construction contractor's work contract had clearly mentioned the manpower-requirement during the trial run period, the 10-day delay could have been avoided. During the termination phase, it was not fully possible to avoid these two delays as it was too late to take any comprehensive action. The Project manager tried his best to arrange manpower in the shortest time possible and also convinced the customer to approve the quality plan in lesser time.