-
Subscribe to Blog:
SEARCH THE BLOG
CATEGORIES
- Aerospace
- Asset Maintenance
- Automotive
- Blog
- Building Products
- Case Studies
- Chemical Processing
- Consulting
- Food & Beverage
- Forestry Products
- Hospitals & Healthcare
- Knowledge Transfer
- Lean Manufacturing
- Life Sciences
- Logistics
- Manufacturing
- Material Utilization
- Metals
- Mining
- News
- Office Politics
- Oil & Gas
- Plastics
- Private Equity
- Process Improvement
- Project Management
- Spend Management
- Supply Chain
- Uncategorized
- Utilities
- Whitepapers
BLOG ARCHIVES
- September 2024 (1)
- August 2024 (5)
- July 2024 (6)
- June 2024 (3)
- May 2024 (3)
- April 2024 (4)
- March 2024 (3)
- February 2024 (4)
- January 2024 (5)
- December 2023 (2)
- November 2023 (1)
- October 2023 (6)
- September 2023 (3)
- August 2023 (4)
- July 2023 (2)
- June 2023 (3)
- May 2023 (7)
- April 2023 (3)
- March 2023 (3)
- February 2023 (5)
- January 2023 (6)
- December 2022 (2)
- November 2022 (5)
- October 2022 (5)
- September 2022 (5)
- August 2022 (6)
- July 2022 (3)
- June 2022 (4)
- May 2022 (5)
- April 2022 (3)
- March 2022 (5)
- February 2022 (4)
- January 2022 (7)
- December 2021 (3)
- November 2021 (5)
- October 2021 (3)
- September 2021 (2)
- August 2021 (6)
- July 2021 (2)
- June 2021 (10)
- May 2021 (4)
- April 2021 (5)
- March 2021 (5)
- February 2021 (3)
- January 2021 (4)
- December 2020 (3)
- November 2020 (3)
- October 2020 (3)
- September 2020 (3)
- August 2020 (4)
- July 2020 (3)
- June 2020 (5)
- May 2020 (3)
- April 2020 (3)
- March 2020 (4)
- February 2020 (4)
- January 2020 (4)
- December 2019 (3)
- November 2019 (2)
- October 2019 (4)
- September 2019 (2)
- August 2019 (4)
- July 2019 (3)
- June 2019 (4)
- May 2019 (2)
- April 2019 (4)
- March 2019 (4)
- February 2019 (5)
- January 2019 (5)
- December 2018 (2)
- November 2018 (2)
- October 2018 (5)
- September 2018 (4)
- August 2018 (3)
- July 2018 (2)
- June 2018 (4)
- May 2018 (3)
- April 2018 (3)
- March 2018 (2)
- February 2018 (2)
- January 2018 (1)
- December 2017 (1)
- November 2017 (2)
- October 2017 (2)
- September 2017 (1)
- August 2017 (2)
- July 2017 (2)
- June 2017 (1)
- April 2017 (3)
- March 2017 (3)
- February 2017 (2)
- January 2017 (2)
- December 2016 (2)
- November 2016 (4)
- October 2016 (4)
- September 2016 (3)
- August 2016 (6)
- July 2016 (4)
- June 2016 (4)
- May 2016 (1)
- April 2016 (3)
- March 2016 (4)
- February 2016 (2)
- January 2016 (4)
- December 2015 (3)
- November 2015 (3)
- October 2015 (1)
- September 2015 (1)
- August 2015 (4)
- July 2015 (6)
- June 2015 (4)
- May 2015 (7)
- April 2015 (6)
- March 2015 (6)
- February 2015 (4)
- January 2015 (3)
CONNECT WITH US
Tag Archives: Organizational Culture
Effective risk management, strategic planning, and operational excellence are crucial for minimizing NPV losses and maximizing project value.
Recent studies and industry reports suggest that a significant portion of mining projects may face challenges that impact net present value (NPV) negatively. Estimates range from 20% to 60% or more, highlighting the inherent risks and complexities involved in the mining industry. These challenges may include cost overruns, schedule delays, geological uncertainties, regulatory changes, and market fluctuations, among others.
In fact, in other reports, McKinsey says as many as 4 out of 5 mining projects come in late and over budget by an average of 43%. EY found that 64% ran over budget or schedule with the average cost overrun sitting at 39%, after studying 192 global mining and metals projects worth more than $1 billion.
How can mining projects improve project execution when it comes to budgets and timelines? Mining companies must grapple with many pain points – cost overruns, schedule delays, operational risks, supply chain disruptions, and geopolitical uncertainty.
One of the most critical areas involves owner-contractor relationships and creating a “culture by design” right from the beginning. Many owners outsource their projects to EPCMs that have historically operated in mining and are typically very engineering focused on getting the design as accurate as possible to maximize outcomes and benefits. While important, it only represents 35% or 40% of the total cost of a typical project and that’s not where we tend to see issues. The other 60%-65% of the scope is construction.
Organizational culture can significantly impact projects in several ways:
- Risk Management: prioritizing safety, compliance, and responsible resource management can lead to better risk identification and mitigation strategies, reducing the likelihood of costly incidents and delays.
- Employee Engagement: creating a positive and supportive culture to foster employee engagement, morale, and retention, leading to higher productivity, better teamwork, and lower turnover rates, which are critical for project success.
- Decision-Making Processes: promoting transparency, collaboration, and innovation can lead to more efficient decision-making processes, enabling quicker responses to project challenges and opportunities – maintaining “single source of the truth”.
- Adaptability: encouraging flexibility, learning, and continuous improvement enables organizations to navigate changing market conditions, regulatory requirements, and technological advancements more effectively.
- Stakeholder Relations: valuing relationships with stakeholders, including local communities, governments, and investors, can enhance trust, collaboration, and support for mining projects, reducing the risk of opposition or regulatory challenges.
In summary, positive mining capital project performance, characterized by effective organizational culture, cost management, revenue generation, risk mitigation, and optimal capital expenditure allocation, can enhance NPV by increasing cash flows and reducing project risk.
USC partners with your organization and coaches your people to significantly impact performance outcomes and get your capital projects over the line on-time and within budget.
USC works with Owner Teams to execute capital projects and prepare for operational readiness during the early stages of the capital project development process, typically prior to the start of the construction phase. Operational readiness activities should be integrated into project planning and execution to ensure early adoption of the desired project culture while building buy-in from the various project stakeholders. There are three key elements to successful projects and capturing NPV.
Culture: Corporate culture is the shared values, attitudes, and practices that define the owner’s project, operation and interactions with its employees and various stakeholders. Culture clashes often occur when people from different backgrounds are assembled.
In capital projects, this often occurs when stakeholders are not aligned around a common set of goals and priorities, potentially resulting in the creation of an unsafe environment and/or low productivity and poor-quality execution. The imperative in this situation is to align stakeholders and define a “culture by design” at the top and instill the culture from the bottom up – deliberately starting at the work activity level.
USC works with successful owner teams to begin this journey from the outset of the project, and usually with a high sense of urgency.
Governance: While most recognize the need for establishing a robust governance framework, with a measurable set of metrics, many fail to execute. Typically, governance frameworks include everything from policies, regulations, functions, processes, procedures, and responsibilities, as well as how project progress and execution performance are tracked and reported.
It is not uncommon for EPCs and sub-contractors to use their own processes and systems to track performance – leading to various versions of the truth on the project. Inconsistent and inaccurate information results in inaccurate project execution planning, ineffective execution, and inaccurate status reporting which in turn results in schedule slippage and costly overruns.
USC works with project stakeholders to ensure governance goes beyond the decision-making of a single project, by developing a “Truth Center” where priorities are set, planning is done, performance is integrated, measured and communicated. By creating a single source of the truth and defining detailed work activities, including who is responsible for what and when, stakeholders can avoid the typical project execution pitfalls. By providing consistency, certainty and coordination, owner teams add to the stability of the project.
Readiness: How many projects are delayed due to poorly defined feasibility studies, engineering delays, late recruitment of key personnel and/or procurement delays? These early delays are difficult to overcome during the project and have a severe impact on NPV.
Many organizations are unclear when to start working on operational readiness – long ramp up times and slow operational start-ups are NPV killers, even for well executed capital projects. Key operations personnel should join the project early in the engineering phase to ensure the operability and maintainability of engineering designs. Additionally, they should play a role in defining and designing the culture for the project. Initiating the design of the operational processes and defining operational system requirements no later than the beginning of the construction phase and completed before starting the commissioning phase.
USC brings 55+ years of experience in shaping organizations and designing and implementing management operating systems and processes to assist owner teams in mitigating start-up risks and unlocking hidden-value to accelerate ramp-up success.
USC Helps You Tackle Key Challenges
- Aligning key stakeholders to a common goal and set of project priorities while defining a common culture
- Ingrain a safety-first approach into a planning and execution excellence culture
- Improving your NPV by developing management process and systems that enable in-shift execution optimization
- Ensuring project execution readiness prior to project startup and operational readiness prior to operational ramp-up
Do you want to understand how prepared your company is to manage project risks while accelerating work execution and operational ramp-up and what the key focus areas that will contribute to improved net present value?
Want to find out more about how USC can help you uncover the hidden-value lurking in your capital project?
For more information, let’s talk it through with a no obligation meeting with one of our executive team members. Email info@usccg.com to arrange a call.
We’ve all heard the term “silo” used to describe insular work groups. Organizational silos may be high functioning within themselves, but they don’t communicate very well with the outside world… or even with the team on the other side of the building. Silos occur within organizations and they can bedevil your supply chain and overall business performance.
Some people say the term arose out of the Lean movement, which may be true, but we think an even older phrase describes the typical silo perfectly: The left hand doesn’t know what the right hand is doing.
Why organizational silos are so bad
There are several types of silos that can strain organizations. Some, frankly, stem from leadership. If the top brass isn’t encouraging the flow of information, collaboration and teamwork, or if shift leaders don’t talk to each other as shifts change — leaving the second shift to reinvent the wheel — you’re going to have trouble. Without strong leadership, departments can set goals that may conflict with each other.
Similarly, organizational culture can cause teams to insulate. If, for example, the workplace is hyper competitive, silos won’t just develop, they will be deliberately built as people choose not to share information and best practices.
Data silos aren’t so much about people, but information. This happens when information is collected and stored by departments, but not shared. One very easy way to think of a data silo is to think about law enforcement. Until rather recently, criminal records and other vital information was stored in individual precincts’ computer systems, with departments in other states, or even across town, not having access to it. Any time your organization has data that isn’t accessible to other teams, it leads to inconsistent decision-making.
Some common problems caused by siloed teams
Silos thwart efficiency, productivity and in some cases, even safety. But the problems they cause can burrow even deeper than that, eroding your trust between teams both inside and outside of your organization.
Decreased supply transparency. Managing a supply chain requires accurate, real-time data. Your supply chain team needs to know the who, when, what, where and why. When you’re in a silo, that information may not be conveyed. It can lead to increased risk and inaccurate forecasting.
Groupthink. Insulated teams tend to be very well aligned. There’s a lot of agreement without much pushback. This is a risky situation called “groupthink,” and it occurs when a group values harmony and conformity, striving for consensus at the expense of their own opinions. Silos are ripe playing fields for this phenomenon.
Less innovation. When everyone is thinking the same way, it doesn’t leave much room for big ideas… or any new ideas. Innovation in the supply chain needs to involve every part of the process.
Tepid collaboration. Insular teams don’t collaborate with other teams, which weighs down the quality of the whole organization.
Duplicated work or job redundancies. This is one of the biggest enemies to efficiency. You may have two teams working on the same thing at the same time, perhaps even getting different results. Or people on different teams with the same roles. It adds bloat to your bottom line. And this goes for data, too. You’ll increase your IT costs by storing duplicate data platforms and information.
Contrasting processes and systems. It’s difficult enough to get your organization into “well-oiled machine” shape with all processes and procedures flowing as they should if you don’t have siloed teams.
Eroded trust between teams. When teams aren’t sharing information and working together, it’s very easy to slip into an “us” and “them” mentality.
What to do about it
Recognizing you’re dealing with organizational silos is the first step. Now what? Here are some simple actions you can take to start breaking down those silos.
Reward innovation. Encourage people to take a look at departmental processes and procedures and suggest changes. Is there a better way to get the job done?
Create interdepartmental collaboration. Create a team made up of people from several departments and seniority levels. Task them to work together and share information in order to solve a problem or create an initiative that affects the whole organization. You can start very small here. This doesn’t have to be revamping entire processes. It could be creating an interdepartmental team that is in charge of diversity and inclusion efforts. Or a team that takes an objective look at your company’s brand (the way suppliers, vendors, customers and even job seekers view you) and offers ways to boost it. Or creating a series of Lunch and Learn programs in which departments share best practices.
Rethink reward structure based on departmental performance. This might be a tough nut to crack if this is the way your operation has always done it. But few things encourage silos more than departmental competition. Instead, reward your managers and supervisors for the performance of the organization, and even for information sharing.
Organizational silos erode efficiency, which in turn can bog down your processes and ultimately your bottom line. Breaking down those silos is the first step toward greater collaboration, efficiency and profitability. Contact USC Consulting Group today for help improving communication across your divisions.