Project Management: Solar Panels

Project Management: Solar Panels
Changes in the way that the sub-Saharan region in Nigeria is being used for oil exploration means that there is a need for critical thinking regarding the provision of energy sources for resource development. The importance of this project to the ecosystem is that the exploitation of the environment often comes alongside development. Before additional major business plans are made in the region, there needs to be a plan put into place that allows for more sustainable forms of energy for the region. It is important that we do not exacerbate the problems which already exist today, but also that we can create a workable plan for Shell Oil.
Stakeholder Analysis
The stakeholders in this project include anyone who is influenced, either directly or indirectly, by the actions of the firm including the firm itself and its shareholders. The stakeholders in this case can include the Nigerian people and its government, the consumers of Shell products, those involved in running and working on the project, and those living in the environment around the project. To this end, assessing the needs of all of the stakeholders requires a reciprocal social structure which takes the requirements of all stakeholders into equal consideration. The company must also invest in sustainable development and business practices which subjects their oil exploration to a high level of criticism so that stakeholder needs are met. Due to the advent of globalization and of social media, public sector decision making has expanded to include more stakeholders than ever before (Riege & Lindsay, 2006; Rheingold, 2008). In order for sustainable development to happen, therefore, two important functions must also be incorporated into the planning process, according to the academic and public policy literature: cooperation among various stakeholders and public participation in the project. As a result, firms, even those within the private sector, have come under significant pressures to engage not only political actors in decision making, but also communities and individuals as well (Giddings et al., 2002; Rheingold, 2008). In this case, there is a low stakeholder risk in terms of ideology, public support, and market reputation due to the fact that this project will alleviate environmental issues related to oil exploration. There is a higher stakeholder risk associated with the fact that this project may cost a significant amount of money, which will have an effect on shareholder confidence in the short term.
As Hislop (1999) writes, the management team within construction companies must be fully committed to safety if they want to reap the benefits of safety initiatives and ongoing training within their companies. This means that they must not resort simply to using government guidelines or external programs, but must also ensure that they are evaluating their own company’s needs from the ground up. In this way, safety becomes an underlying philosophy that governs how and when people do their jobs. Jannadi and Assaf (1998) and Weinstein et al. (2005) also note that this commitment must extend through the construction ownership through to designers, architects, engineers and those in charge of work teams. Nonetheless, as Rowlinson et al. (2010) note, there is a challenge in balancing stakeholder needs in the project planning process because of the fact that culturally, some construction leaders are not likely to be able to recognize the needs of workers as being equal to those of management.
Risk Analysis
Kaplan (2009) discusses how, in the wake of the global economic crisis, the subject of risk management has been a priority in the business world and especially to those responsible for policy development relating to business. He relates that while the Balanced Scorecard assessments can go far in mitigating risk, it may be a better plan to deliberately assess risk with its own instrument. To this end, Kaplan (2009) introduces a three-level hierarchy of risk within what he calls the risk indicator scorecard, both of which can help firms delineate which risks they need to pay attention to in their industry and business model, and how they can mitigate these risks. Kaplan (2009) suggests that there are intrinsic operational risks within the firm, strategic risks which are linked to decisions their firm makes to build its business, and global risks which take place outside the firm but which can nonetheless have a definitive impact on its security over the long term. In looking at this project through the lens of the risk indicator scorecard, what is evident is that this project operates at a low risk since the money invested in the project is likely to decrease the cost of doing business over the long term, even if the cost of solar panel installation is significant in the short term.
Leadership can go a long way to offset risk. Gronn (2003) believes that what has been identified as leadership in the past has been transformed into an over-indulged ‘greedy’ concept, in which individual people in the business community have put too high expectations on it as a way for them to get ahead, and therefore limit the ability of individual workers to decide for themselves on the job. Gronn (2003) demonstrates that one of the ways in which this could be achieved is through the elimination of the idea of leaders and followers. In Gronn’s (2003) estimation, truly shared leadership can only be accomplished when the idea of following is no longer a part of business, and instead there is a focus on synergy and interdependence between all members of the business community. Defining who is in charge does not provide the company with anything other than a hierarchy; it does not allow people to grow with each other to make the company better and more safe. In this way, according to Gronn (2003), when people are in a position of power, they need to be aware of their impact on others and the ways in which they can share both purpose and action. This is particularly related to safety in that if workers and leaders are able to demonstrate how they are able to understand each others’ intrinsic responsibilities on the job, and have the ability to change aspects of their jobs to suit immediate risk and safety issues, then they are more likely to respect the challenges they face more carefully.
Project Constraints (Internal and External)
The internal constraints of the project are linked to the fact that this is a new form of construction and development for the management team, and therefore it is untested. There are few people on the team who are have the experience in managing this kind of project in an effective manner simply because it has not be achieved before now. This means that there will be a need to bring in experts from the field in order to ensure that the project is completed on schedule and within budget, and so that few mistakes are made and the risk to the company is reduced. The external constraints of this project are that external experts are not familiar with the way in which the internal crew operate, and therefore there will be a need to develop a shared framework for interaction and work processes so that there is a common understanding of the goals and needs of the team.
In order to address these constraints, communication is key. Research has shown that there is a positive relationship between company performance and participation by employees in management and decision making. In essence, Li (2004) notes that “workers’ participation in management has large positive effects on the productivity performance of state-owned enterprises (accounting for three quarters of all sample enterprises)” (p. 377). This is a significant figure, especially when considering Li’s (2004) statement that the effects of participatory management are also demonstrated to be robust with respect to alternative productivity measures and different analytical approaches. As well, the more participation is evident in the empirical data, the more likely it is that a firm is demonstrating success. The theoretical assumptions put forward by Li (2004) demonstrate that there is a need to recognize the participation of workers on a well-run organization, including those that are responsible for construction. When individuals are empowered on the job, they have the ability to make decisions on the fly that will allow immediate safety concerns to be rectified. If individuals have to get permission to take leadership and make decisions, then often these concerns will go unheeded. Individual construction workers need to be able to decide when and how to take action without the go-ahead of a supervisor.
Scope of the Project
Solar power will be captured as energy in a broad array of solar panels at the site. Huesemann (2006) notes that the direct capture of sunlight by solar thermal receivers can focus sunbeams to generate steam for electricity generation and convert 22 per cent of incoming sunlight into energy. This project will install 1100 hectares of solar panels which are needed to produce 1 billion KWh per year (Huesemann, 2006). The energy from these systems will need to be housed after it is captured so that it can be used as needed by the company. The budget for this project is £500,000 to £1 million.
Feasibility
As a whole, the cost to build a facility per kWh of energy from its needed solar panels is 12.7 US cents (Huesemann, 2006). This means that, in general, the planned budget figures of £500,000 to £1 million will be well within reason for this project. The costing structure will include the following.
Budget Item Cost
Machinery
Solar panels 250,232
Control system 10,081
Battery charge and discharge control system 4140
Electric supply stabilization system 4140
System checking and control system 2530
Sine wave converter 10,817
Solar power converter 10,357
Materials
Cable 18,400
Braces 49,450
Junction boxes 1840
Manpower
Design 86,000
Engineering 124,000
Installation 200,000
Specialists 86,000
TOTAL 857,987


The work breakdown structure will be as follows.

Gantt Chart
Dec Jan Feb March April May June/July Aug/Sept
Research and choose design
Obtain engineering blueprints
Gather and analyze policy and regulation data
Create work plan
Create safety and risk management protocols
Hire installation and specialist team
Vet work plan with new team leaders
Begin internal and external training
Begin work
Work in progress
Finish project

Network Diagram
I DON”T HAVE THIS SOFTWARE. Sorry, this requirement was not provided to me before I accepted this project.
Milestones
• Design and engineering documentation creation
• Policy and communication development and creation of documentation
• Safety and risk management protocol development
• Human resource plan implementation
• Training implementation
• Project implementation
• Project completion
Critical Path Analysis
Time management will be a constant issue for this project. Trani and Lanticina (2003) introduce the idea that time management is actually a key component on construction sites. As they note, planning ahead with a multiple-level Gantt chart for all functions on a worksite “contains a forecast of the construction process, obtained by formulating “plausible” work site organizations, based on technical knowledge, to be reviewed, together with the contractor, when the construction contract is executed” (Trani and Lanticina, 2003, p. 23). Planning these plausible functions in chronological order allows the work site team to ensure that everyone has enough time to do the work, which decreases stress and mistakes made on the job. It also increases coordination between different functions on the job. As Toole (2002) notes, however, a “survey of design engineers, general contractors, and subcontractors indicates there is not uniform agreement on the site safety responsibilities that should be assumed by each of these groups” (p. 203). This means that, in general, there is a lack of knowledge as to who should bear the responsibility for these safety programs despite the fact that the literature suggests multiple levels of care on construction sites. Toole (2002) writes that the reason behind this confusion stems from the fact that, on a worldwide basis, detailed expectations about safety roles are not written in project contracts or governmental standards.
Wang et al. (2002) note that there are particular demographic challenges involved in site safety, which may be managed properly within a project management framework. Their study found that the average worker who was injured on the job was either older than average, or much less experienced (Wang et al., 2002). In addition, they found that individuals who were on the job only a matter of a less than seven days were much more likely to be injured or cause an accident (Wang et al., 2002). Wong et al. (2005) also found that more accidents happen on Mondays and during times of good weather. It is clear therefore that in order for employees to be effective on the site, they must be given support early on in the process, rather than as a response to challenges experienced, and provided with extra safety precautions under certain working conditions (Wong et al., 2005). Aksom and Hadikusumo (2007) note, as well that there were often gaps in the construction industry when it comes to large scale projects such as the one in question, in particular due to the fact that many workers are recruited internationally, and as a result, communication challenges were frequent and were the cause of accidents.
Lee et al. (2009) also studied the implementation of technological responses to challenges. They found that, for example, an electronic monitoring and response system will decrease the potential for accidents and increase the efficiency of management on construction sites (Lee et al., 2009). This is made possible by the development of “mobile sensing device for detecting the worker's approach, transmitter sets and repeaters for sending the detected information to a receiver, and exclusive software for interpreting this information” (Lee et al., 2009, p. 258). In future, software such as this may help to support workers in situations where a high fall is possible.
Communication Plan
1) Front End Analysis
a) List past team communications for construction projects (guides, project documents, other forms of communication)
b) List training communications for new project implementation (one on one training, focus groups, seminars, incentives)
c) Decide which of these will be useful for present project, if any
2) Analysis of Document/Performance Objectives Specification
a) Decide which employees will be targeted, and define their learning level (how many, level of education, culture)
b) Decide what learning objectives are needed (how we want to disseminate the project information, and how much training all levels of employees will need)
c) Decide what the goals of each communication will be (safety, risk management, construction, environmental protection, etc.)
d) Get employee input through focus groups if time permits
e) Summarize analysis findings
3) Instructional Method Selection
a) Decide which and how many tools to use based on potential impact and utility, both from past communications plans and present through brainstorming and analysis
b) Create critical path for training and communications development
4) Design and Revision
a) Create documents, Intranet, external resource, and training program framework
b) Test materials with focus groups if time permits
c) Evaluate effectiveness and re-design if necessary
5) Dissemination and Implementation
a) Disseminate materials as per design process
b) Implement training program as per design process
6) Monitoring and Maintenance
a) Track communications and training processes
b) Work with individual managers to monitor issues in training or compliance with protocols


References
Aksom, T., & Hadikusumo, B.H.W, (2007). Gap analysis approach for construction
safety program improvement. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 12, 77-97.
Giddings, B. Hopwood, B. & O’Brien, G. (2002), Environment, economy and society:
fitting together into sustainable development. Sustainable Development, 10, 187–196.
Gronn, P. (2003). Leadership: who needs it? School Leadership & Management, 23,
267–290.
Hislop, R. (1999). Construction Site Safety: A Guide For Managing Contractors. New
York: CRC Press.
Huesemann, M. (2006). Can advances in sciences and technology prevent global
warming? Mitigation and Adaptation Strategies for Global Change, 11, 539–577.
Jannadi, M. and Assaf, S. (1998). Safety assessment in the built environment of Saudi
Arabia. Safety Science, Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 15-24.
Kaplan, R. S. (2009). Risk management and the strategy execution system. Balanced Scorecard Report, 11(6), 3-8.
Lee, U., Kim, J., Cho, H. & Kang, K. (2009). Development of a mobile safety
monitoring system for construction sites. Automation in Construction, 18, 258-264.
Li, M. (2004). Workers’ Participation in Management and Firm Performance: Evidence
from Large and Medium-Sized Chinese Industrial Enterprises. Review of Radical Political Economics, 36, 358-380.
Rheingold, H. (2008). Using Participatory Media and Public Voice to Encourage Civic Engagement. In W. Lance Bennett, ed., Civic Life Online: Learning How Digital Media Can Engage Youth, The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Series on Digital Media and Learning. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 97–118.
Riege, A. & Lindsay, N. (2006). Knowledge management in the public sector: stakeholder partnerships in the public policy development. Journal of Knowledge Management, 10, 24-39.
Rowlinson, S., Koh, T. & Tuuli, M. (2010). Stakeholder Management in the Hong
Kong Construction Industry. In Construction Stakeholder Management, E. Chinyio, ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Toole, T.M. (2002). Construction Site Safety Roles. Journal of Construction Engineering
and Management, 128, 203-211.
Trani, M. & Lanticina, M. (2003). Safety Oriented Time Scheduling on the
Construction Site. CIB W99 International Symposium Construction Project Management Systems: The Challenge of Integration, São Paulo, Brazil.
Wang, Y., Zhang, Y., Poon, S., & Huang, H. (2002). A study of construction site
accident statistics. Proceedings of Triennial Conference CIB W099, Hong Kong, 223-227.
Weinstein, M., Gambatese, J. & Hecker, S. (2005). Can Design Improve Construction
Safety? Assessing the Impact of a Collaborative Safety-in-Design Process. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 131, 1125-1134.