MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2222392587 · doi:10.2118/175458-ms

Mission Command Project Management

2015· article· en· W2222392587 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Richardson

Bibliographic record

VenueSPE Offshore Europe Conference and Exhibition · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicOutsourcing and Supply Chain Management
Canadian institutionsApache (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCommand and controlProject managementDelegationDecentralizationEngineeringManagementEconomicsPolitical scienceLawTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reviews existing project management delivery performance in the North Sea oil and gas industry and explores a successful alternative approach through Mission Command Project Management. Poor project delivery has in recent years been a hallmark of the North Sea oil and gas industry. Studies show that the downward trend of project performance continues. Newspaper headlines signalling project delays and cost over-runs back up the statistics. This failure to deliver projects in a timely and cost effective manner has had, and continues to have, a direct impact on investment and the opportunity to maximise reserves on the United Kingdom Continental Shelf (UKCS). Unless a new approach is employed then the continued trend towards; more centralised control, process driven systems and bureaucratic delivery models, in tandem with substandard project implementation will be a major contributor to the premature demise of the basin. In the mid-80's the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO) was forced to re-think its strategy and adopted Mission Command as an approach. Its successful implementation revolutionised NATO's performance and this philosophy is now embedded in its modern warfare fighting competence. Mission Command has leadership and empowerment at its core and not the management of processes to drive projects to completion. The key principles of Mission Command are: Unity of effort (across the organisation). Decentralisation (formal delegation/empowerment). Trust (mutual, deep and enduring). Timely and effective decision-making. Freedom (and speed) of action. Employment of initiative. Mission Command is now gaining traction in the civilian project management community in concert with other concepts such as lean and agile project management, where its application has seen significant benefits. One North Sea Operator has now been employing Mission Command on all its projects over the last 4 years to great effect; out stripping its peers in terms of; safety, cost, schedule and quality of delivery. Mission Command Project Management is transformational in the art of project delivery and if more widely implemented could bring a renaissance to the North Sea. This paper highlights the failings of the present project management methodology, outlines the Mission Command approach and details its successful implementation by a North Sea Operator, thereby allowing others to employ this most efficient and effect delivery model.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0070.003
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0950.027

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSPE Offshore Europe Conference and ExhibitionSame topicOutsourcing and Supply Chain ManagementFrench-language works237,207