A project health check for coal mining companies : case of Douglas Middelburg optimisation project
Loading...
Authors
De Wet, G.F.
Issue Date
2007-11-30
Type
Research Report
Language
en
Keywords
Health check , Coal mining companies , Douglas , Middelburg
Alternative Title
Abstract
The purpose of the study is to develop a project health check model to evaluate
the status of projects within the coal mining industry. The model will be based on
the Buttrick (2000) project health check model as described in his book “The
Interactive Project Workout”.
The model assesses the current “health” or status of a project. It looks at the full
project environment and uses a set of question results in an assessment of the
overall risk associated with the project. The model evaluates seven key project
success factors which include:
1. Project Plan 5. Expertise
2. Resources 6. Clear Specification
3. Ownership 7. Top Level Support
4. Justifiable Case
The model fulfils two roles:
• As a checklist, and
• As a tool to indicate where a project manager’s efforts should be directed.
This study will give an overview of the coal mining industry and the way projects
are being evaluated and prioritised. The Buttrick (2000) project health check
model will be assessed and adapted to evaluate projects within the coal mining
industry. The “new / adapted” model will be applied to the Douglas / Middelburg
Optimisation (DMO) to evaluate the health status of the project which is currently
at the end of definition (feasibility) stage within BHP Billiton Energy Coal South
Africa.
The results obtained from the new health check model showed that the DMO
project was in a healthy state with a project health check score of 47.33. It could
4
thus be concluded that the DMO project is ready to move in to the execution
phase of the BHP Billiton capital investment process.
The results obtained from the project team member participants were split into
management perception and team members’ perception. The overall health of
the DMO project between the two parties gave similar results with the team
members score of 43.76 being slightly lower than the management health score
of 45.42. The only major difference was observed on the “Communication”
project evaluation criteria where the management perspective on the
communication effectiveness was higher than that of the project team members.
Description
Citation
Publisher
University of South Africa