| AD642 Assignment 2 Draft - Issue/Solution/Pros and Cons Idea Collector |
| Enter your information in the pastel-colored cells as appropriate |
| List your issues here - SEE IMPORTANT NOTE BELOW - these should be Project Management Issues (Sullivan, 2019). |
| Issue 1: Poor project management. |
| Issue 2: Lack of key personnel. |
| Issue 3: Lack of communication to internal and external stakeholders. |
| Issue 4: Inability of the system functionality to shut off the lines remotely. |
| List your Solutions to the above issues | Pros (positive aspects) of this Solution | Cons (negative aspects) of this Solution |
| Solution(s)for Issue 1 (Vetter et al.., 2019) |
| The leader of field engineering would have reviewed the step by step construction process | The potential risks could have been identified earlier. | It would be costly and would require hughly skilled personnel to do the review. |
| Use of continous improvement and analysis technique. | The technique ensure total concetration on the goal which is to transport gas safely to their customers and aid in waste reduction. | Although the technique is cost effective, it can lead to project failure if contigencies are not analyzed propoerly. |
| Track project's progress | Doing this will help the project manager to realize whether the project is on schedule and if it is as per the plan. | Continous review of the project is expensive and time consuming. |
| The project managershould adapt a proactive approach in his or her management approach. | The use of a proactive approach ensures that a skilled project manager is put inplace to be able to hnadle customers and avoid failing of the project in future. | If the approach is not propoerly adapted by the project manager it an lead to poor communication and inappropriate work planning. |
| Use of correct methododlogy such as the critical path method. | Use of correct methododlogy which is determined by the project's requirement helps in achieving the project's goal within a certain period of time thus avoiding failure of the project in future. | The critical path method and other methdologies are complicated and require experts. |
| Revising the enginnering plan and the process of constructability | This would have ensured that the plan includes accurate readings of the actual pressure in the pipelines and sensors in place to monitor changes in pressure and the rate of hyrade formartion. | The process would mean delaying the project untill the review process of the plan is done. |
| Ensure that the leader of the project and all other managers involved are qualified in gas distribution process. | Minor mistakes or those caused by human error could have been avoided and identification of weak spots that need improvement done prior the explosion or the accident. | Customers of this gas would be charged a lot of money to cater for the salaries of these qualified personnels. |
| Solution(s)for Issue 2 (Rice & Alfano, 2021). |
| Employ qualified personel with experience in the same foeld of low pressure gas distribution system | this will ensure that all the regulators, sensors, and other devices are in place and those that are worn out are identified and replaced to avoid failure of the system from working. | The distribution system will incur a high cost in hiring key personnel. |
| Use of contigent workers | This includes hirng freelancers, contractors, consultants in gas distribution issues which will help in bridging the gaps in a faster and effective manner. | It is expensive to mainatin contigent workers in the company as most of them are highly qualified an demand high salaries. |
| Adaptability which means applying current workforce in a different manner. | At times a company has skilled workers yet they do not realize because they do not pay attention to their skills. | The processof evaluting each skill that an employeehas is time consuming. |
| Partner with nearby educational facilities whether local or national. | Such partnership will ensure adequate supply of skilled potential workers to the company and aid in job placement for the next generation. | I t can lead to shift of focus thus failure to achieve their goal of transporting gas to customers in a safe and efficient manner. |
| Training current employees on how to deal with disasters or emergencies instead of them panicking. | Customers would receive an early notification that the gas has be to closed due to some issues that have to be solved when the system is not running or when there is no gas being transported. | The company will have to include an additional emergecy and disaster department which means high costs. |
| Qualified personnel should first go through a period of probation. | It is easy to monitor and evaluate the expertise of an individual during this period as they will work hard so that they are employed permanently by the gas distribution comapany. | The gas would have to be absent untill, the company gets qualified personnel to handle the distribution. |
| Solution(s)for Issue 3 (Rice & Alfano, 2021). |
| Ensure there is teamwork among all employees and the mangement staff. | Each employee would be placed in a department which they are qualified and work with experts in other respective departments within the gas distribution system to prevent any gap. | Time would have to be spent in labor division and specialization during hiring to ensure each employee fits the description. |
| Customers and other external stakeholders should receive an earlier notice in case there is any problem with gas distribution. | Stakeholders would take early precautions and resort to other alternatives to ensure none of their normal activities has stopped less they end up incoveniencing other people. | Customers would incur another cost to ensure they have a back up plan in place incase of emergencies. |
| Seek feedback proactively. | Employees and customers should be given achanve to air their opinions on the company's progress when it comes to gas distribution process to avoid voluntary turnover and loss of loya customers. | To get suchfeedback, it would require the company to conduct an internal and external survey which is expensive and time consuming. At times surveys do not give the correct feedback that the company expects. |
| Establish baseline communication standards. | With a baseline for communication standards the company is able to communicate both internally and externally. This helps in building a firm foundation on which future communication will be based on. | This will require training employees on how to handle different customers and the training programs can be so expensive. |
| There should be a chain of command | Authority and power to come from one person to ensure there is centralized power in that there is no contradictions on who to listen or take instructions from. | This would bring a gap between junior employees and senior staffs who are responsible and accountable for all activities. |
| An external meeting held with customers so that they updated on how the distribution process is fairing on and future plans that the company has. | Customers will gain more trust on the company and would even help the company acquire new customers. | The company would incur much cost to hold meetings with their customers since all operations would stop for that day. |
| An iternal meeting should be held with employees to identify weak spots that need improvement. | Threats would be turned to opportunities as employees share their views on a certain matter for purpose of improvements that would lead to suceess in future and prevent future explosions. | The company would have to add another extra department in charge of internal and external audit. |
| Solution(s)for Issue 4 (Pretyman, Greaves & Millerick, 2021). |
| Employ individuals with technical expertise | These experts will install emergency shut down valves on the transmission lines responsible for coneveying gas to customers' gate or on the inlet of all distribution lines. | The process of installing these valves is expensive and acquiring the valves is also expensive. |
| The system functionality should be updated. | Updating the system prevents it from breaking down unexpectedly thus failing to send warnings at theright time to avoid explosions or other emergencies that may cause destructions. | Acquiring an updated system is expensive and requires experts to operate. |
| Cut down the bloat. | If a gadget has been replaced, the old one should be removed completely to ensure there is free storage space and that the piping system is not congested with old devices that are not in use. | Removing some devices such the iron cast which had been replaced with polythene cast can be tiresome as it would mean dismantling the entire iping system which can cause inconveniences to customers. Since the transportation of gas has to be stopped for such maintenance practices to take place. |
| Install a system that does not depend on command or instructions from an expert but the syteme should be programmed with commands. | Such a system can work effectively since there is no human intereferance. | Systems that are programmed with commnads are costly to acquire and maintain. |
| Embrace the use of control pressure devices instead of regulators. | The system will automatically shutdown and the distribution of gases stopped incase of an emergency which is likely to cause an explosion. | The control systems depends on instructions or ommand from the person in charge. |
| Monitor system delay in conveying information. | Information about increased pressure in the pipelines which led to the explosion would have been delivered to the monitor centre immediately pressure of the gas started to increase before the explosion. | This would mean the company will have to employ some expertise personnel to work 24hrs. |
| NOTE: Be sure that the issues you identify are MANAGERIAL issues, in fact Project Management issues, and not specific engineering or technical issues. |
| For example, don't identify "use of older operating system" as an issue. DIG DEEPER! Ask this question of yourself: WHY was the operating system not updated? |
| If you have drafted an Executive Summary, you can copy and paste it below… |
| The Columbia Gas of Massachusetts was a tragic event that was a result of mismanagement of the engineering department. The gas explosion was caused by mixing of gas under high pressure and gas under low pressure. The explosion led to a lot of destructions on the economy and on the society. One person died and many people were left with injuries. The death of the individual was caused by a chimney which fell on his car. Research has shown that across the United States, there are about two hundred and eighty six explosions related to gas per year. According to past history between 1998 and 2017 before the explosion in Columbia almost fifteen people had lost their lives to gas explosions in the United States. The piping system had failed which led to an explosion and fires in Lawrence and Merrick village and several other regions. Poor project management, lack of key personnel, failure to communicate to internal and externals stakeholders, and inability of the system to shut the lines automatically are not the issue that can be attributed to the cause of explosion. The explosion was caused by a series of connected mistakes contributed to by the failure of the Lead Field Engineer and the National Transportation Safety Board. Although, the main issues mentioned above can be said to be the major cause of the explosion. These issues are mainly on supervision issues, inadequate knowhow to use the gadgets due to lack of skilled personnel. The Lead Field engineer who was given the responsibility of repairing the piping line had inadequate knowledge about the regulator sensor line. The Engineer did not know that when repairing or doing some form of maintenance on a gas distribution system, it is essential to stop the transportation for efficient and effective working. The engineer was just following instructions without considering the possible consequences. The monitor system that was being used in the gas distribution company also failed to convey information about an increase in pressure on time and only conveyed after the explosion. The pipe sensor that was discarded by the Engineer still continued to measure gas pressure and the readings were higher and inaccurate. In conclusion, NiSource has to revise the plan developed by the engineering department and review constructability process across all subsidiaries. It will also be vital that they review all records and documents of the natural gas distribution system whether under low or high pressure. Management of change process should be applied to identify threats and weaknesses that could result in common failure leading to a similar explosion. The gas distribution company should establish and implement control measures and procedures during gas main modifications to prevent risks. Sens, Edward Markey, and Elizabeth in their statement, required that NiSource to implement the above mentioned recommendations immediately. It is clear that Columbia gas had failed to keep track of any projects done on their gas distribution system and they did not give safety a priority. Since the explosion which occurred on 13th September 2018. The gas distribution company through NiSource has identified and moved on with new strategies and techniques to improve the safety of the system and its reliability to safeguard against over pressurization which could lead to explosion. Other gas distribution systems should take the Columbia gas explosion as an example and learn from their mistakes to avoid future explosions. Gas explosion can cause worse situations than those caused by Columbia explosion. Therefore, gas distribution companies should ensure they put in place clear project plan including mission and vision. They should also employ key technical personnel who are competent and have all the necessary knowledge required for the entire piping system until the gas reaches its customers. To avoid such explosions in future, the government can send evaluation officers who are highly skilled and trained on gas distribution system. Doing this can help identify potential risk factors (Willey, 2021). |
| References |
| Pretyman, D., Greaves, T., & Millerick, A. (2021). The role of natural gas utilities and pipeline operators in a decarbonized economy. Climate and Energy, 38(1), 1-10. |
| Rice, C., & Alfano, T. (2021, May). Regulator Station Risk Model Supported by a Parametric Study Cloud Application. In PSIG Annual Meeting. OnePetro. |
| Sullivan, C. (2019). Keeping the oil and gas pipelines operating as assets: Safety isues can make them liabilities. Journal of Business and Accounting, 12(1), 79-86. |
| Vetter, C. P., Kuebel, L. A., Natarajan, D., & Mentzer, R. A. (2019). Review of failure trends in the US natural gas pipeline industry: An in-depth analysis of transmission and | distribution system incidents. Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, 60, | 317-333. |
| Willey, R. J. (2021). Insights to the Columbia Gas Explosions Lawrence and North Andover, MA September 13, 2018. Process Safety Progress, e12195. |
LINGAER
1638413542524_1638413540019_1638413538641_Assignment2DraftWorksheet.xlsx
