MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2028367390 · doi:10.2118/00-05-ge

Lessons Learned-How to Do It Successfully

2000· article· en· W2028367390 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lorne Kelly

Notice bibliographique

RevueJournal of Canadian Petroleum Technology · 2000
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineEngineering
ThématiqueOffshore Engineering and Technologies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésProject teamProcess (computing)Set (abstract data type)Project managementClass (philosophy)Project planningKey (lock)EngineeringEngineering managementProcess managementComputer scienceSystems engineering

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Much has been learned during the successful completion of the first major natural gas project in the Atlantic region. How to capture the lessons learned from the project holds many lessons in itself. Background A Lessons Learned Report was published to document the key lessons from a world class natural gas project; the first of its kind for Atlantic Canada. Because the project itself was very successful, capturing information on how the project team met and overcame the many challenges the project faced will be of benefit to those who undertake future projects of this size and complexity. Much can be learned from studying the lessons learned process (how the data was gathered, categorized, interpreted, prioritized, and summarized). This article describes the lessons learned process and what we have learned from it. It does not focus on what specific lessons were learned from the first major natural gas project in the Atlantic region. Rather, it deals with how the project team went about gathering the lessons and how the team members successfully set out the nuggets of what was learned for those who will manage and participate in future projects of a similar size and complexity. The Lessons Learned Process Objective and Approach A lessons learned team was formed to capture the key lessons learned during all phases of the project (front end planning and approvals, engineering design, construction, and commissioning), so that these lessons could be carried forward to guide others who will manage and participate in other similar East Coast developments or major capital projects. Task Team The lessons learned task team was comprised of representatives from the various organizational functions of the project. The team was supported by experienced facilitation and technical documentation consultants. Terms of Reference The terms of reference set out some boundary conditions or limitations. The terms specified that:The task team was to take direction from a steering.The task team was only assigned part-time and the members were not to be significantly diverted from their primary duties on the project.Part-time facilitation and documentation support was to be made available.The data was to be gathered before most of the project staff was demobilized.Data was not to be limited to only that from senior management, but was to include a representative sample of on-site supervisors.Data gathering was to include some individual and some group interviews with key project staff.A representative sample of contractors, suppliers, and regulators were also to be interviewed. Data Gathering Data was gathered by the task team through over ninety interviews with individuals and groups from all aspects of the project. Interviewees were asked to identify three to five things that they believed contributed most significantly to the project's success, and three to five things that they thought might have been done better. All interviewees were guaranteed anonymity and interview results were maintained in a confidential database. Interviewees were given the opportunity to validate their input by reviewing and approving or correcting the interview summary sent to them later.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,000
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Sans objet · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,839
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,843

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,000
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,011
Tête enseignante GPT0,220
Écart entre enseignants0,208 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSans objet
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations1
Publié2000
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJournal of Canadian Petroleum TechnologyMême sujetOffshore Engineering and TechnologiesTravaux en français237 207