Project Gate Self-Assurance Review Framework for Major Alaskan Oil and Gas Projects

• Main Author: Bertus, Anca
• Format: Report
• Language: English
• Published: University of Alaska Anchorage 2015
• Subjects: assurance review process; assurance review framework; funding gates approval; gate reviews; project go/no-go decision; Anchorage; Arctic; Alaska
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/11122/6523

Presented to the Faculty of the University of Alaska Anchorage In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE The work done for this project is for an independent academic endeavor only. The document contains obscured identity references in order to maintain confidentiality of the information and its sources Major Alaska oil and gas capital projects can fail or have poor outcomes, including significant cost and schedule overruns if the projects are not ready to proceed into subsequent project stages. A comprehensive project gate assurance review ensures their readiness for the next project gate. Internal Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) should be leveraged in the review process to determine whether all design, construction, commissioning, and operational issues have been formally and properly addressed by the project team. A new project gate Self-Assurance Review Framework (SARF) applicable to major Alaskan oil and gas companies to improve project delivery is proposed in this product-related paper. Given the current economic climate, there is a merit in using internal project gate self-assurance, which is premised to be more time and cost efficient. This can be accomplished by using an Alaskan local internal assurance review team rather than a corporate external travel team of reviewers. The assurance protocol is a “cold eyes” review with SMEs at the main approval gates to ensure the project team has considered all aspects of project readiness. This is to assure the project will be successfully and safely executed on budget, on schedule, and within scope. While external consultants are available to conduct such reviews, this process is designed as an internal local assurance review process in order to generate a beneficial improvement cycle employing internal local SMEs who are accustomed and familiar with the execution of Arctic projects. They are familiar with prior project successes and failures. There are both cost and quality efficiencies to be realized with this approach by ...