Managing Dynamic Project Assumptions Prior to Freezing of Scope: Niger Delta Case Studies

Abstract A key objective of the shaping process in project maturation is to ensure that once the scope is defined, there will be minimal or no further changes as we get into the execution stage. As part of the shaping process, which is typically from the time the project is conceived to the freezing of the scope, changes can occur when the underlying assumptions change. Two key export gas projects in focus, recently went through the shaping process. The projects were matured via a gated process, which involved passing key project milestone decision gates through an internal Decision Review Board (DRB). In the maturation process, a Feasibility gate precede another gate that indicates the freezing of the scope (otherwise known as FEL2, front end loading 2). A fourth decision gate (FEL3) signals support for the final investment decision (FID) which precedes the execution stage. During the shaping process, both projects passed the feasibility gate with an identified concept that could potentially be progressed to the scope freeze gate. Post the feasibility studies, some technical assumptions changed and challenged the feasibility of the projects. One of the projects recovered with a redefined scope that was still in line with the original frame, while the other struggled. This paper examines in detail the changes in the technical assumptions that challenged the already proven feasibility of these projects. The objective is to see if these challenges could have been anticipated (via better risk assessments, better framing of the projects and better anticipation of external stakeholders’ perspectives) and addressed earlier to avoid such outcomes where projects initially assessed as feasible turn out to be otherwise before the scope freeze decision gate.