DSpace Collection:https://hdl.handle.net/2440/10952024-03-19T14:00:01Z2024-03-19T14:00:01ZImproving outcomes for oil and gas projects through better use of Front End Loading and decision analysisNewman, D.Begg, S.Welsh, M.https://hdl.handle.net/2440/1376022023-11-16T21:18:47Z2018-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Improving outcomes for oil and gas projects through better use of Front End Loading and decision analysis
Author: Newman, D.; Begg, S.; Welsh, M.
Abstract: Outcomes for oil and gas projects often fall short of the expectations predicted at project sanction. Appropriate use of Front End Loading (FEL) and Decision Analysis (DA) to achieve high Decision Quality (DQ) should increase the likelihood of achieving better outcomes. However, despite being successful methodologies, research has shown that they are not always applied. The focus of this paper is on how to encourage people to make better use of FEL and DA. Previous results from this research program have shown two key reasons why FEL and DA are not used more: an over-reliance on ‘experience’ and judgment for decision-making, rather than the use of structured processes; and projects being ‘schedule-driven’, i.e. meeting target dates being the primary objective. This paper focuses on insights from a survey conducted both to answer questions raised by this previous research and test the likely uptake of methods designed to encourage more effective use of FEL and DA/DQ. It shows that there is strong agreement that good FEL leads to better project outcomes, and that the FEL benchmark score is a good indicator of readiness for project sanction. However, perhaps competing with the desire to complete FEL, is the view (of around 2/3 of respondents) that it is important to drive the schedule in order to prevent ‘overworking’ – continued activity that adds little value. All respondents agreed that it is essential: that the decision maker clarifies the frame, scope and criteria for the decision; and to have regular discussions between the decision maker and the project team to bring alignment. However, responses indicated that these only occur in practice around half of the time. Similarly, formal assessments of DQ are made in less than half of key project decisions. Several novel solutions are proposed for increasing the likelihood of better project outcomes by improving the uptake and use of FEL and DA/DQ. These include: just-in-time training on FEL and DA/DQ; basing performance incentives on achieving high DQ and good FEL; and, developing a simple pragmatic assessment of FEL that can be used in-house. These suggestions were all supported by a majority of survey respondents.2018-01-01T00:00:00ZSimplified front end loading: A route to better project outcomesNewman, D.Begg, S.Welsh, M.https://hdl.handle.net/2440/1376012023-11-20T10:18:16Z2020-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Simplified front end loading: A route to better project outcomes
Author: Newman, D.; Begg, S.; Welsh, M.
Abstract: This paper aims to encourage Front End Loading (FEL) to be used more effectively to increase the likelihood of delivering better project outcomes. It introduces a simple and pragmatic approach to assessing FEL which can be carried out in-house. Previous research has shown that, despite FEL being highly regarded, companies regularly sanction projects with insufficient levels of FEL. This has frequently resulted in projects not achieving the outcomes promised at the Final Investment Decision (FID) in terms of cost, time and production attained. This paper reviews reasons why FEL may not be used very effectively at present and proposes a solution to change this. An alternative method of assessing FEL has been developed which: is decision-based; can be carried out internally; and provides clarity on the factors that drive good FEL. In addition to assessing the status of activities carried out in the phase, the decision-based approach emphasises value-creation by considering key factors that could influence an increase or decrease in Decision Quality and thus the value created by the final outcome. The benchmarking and the decision-based approaches to FEL are very different. FEL benchmarking is external, objective, more bottom up; whereas the decision-based approach is internal, subjective and more top down. The benchmarking approach is more detailed, with a large number of individual activities assessed, and the progress on these aggregated to provide an overall benchmarking score. The decisionbased approach is more of a big picture view. FEL benchmarking is well proven and its use is advocated. The decision-based FEL approach is unproven, but it has benefits that are not available from benchmarking and avoids some of the disadvantages. It encourages consideration to be given to activities that may result in value being created or destroyed; e.g. ensuring there are sufficient and appropriate alternatives during the Select phase, and that the benefits of flexibility are taken into account. A further advantage of the decision-based approach is that working through the FEL tools as a project team leads to a better joint understanding of the project and improves team integration. The two approaches consider FEL from different perspectives and have different benefits. They complement each other, and so the combination of the two approaches is more powerful than either on its own. It is suggested that the two approaches are worked in conjunction with each other to gain the benefits of both methods, provide a better understanding of FEL, and have a stronger basis for decision-making. A new way of assessing FEL has been developed which uses a decision-based approach aimed at increasing the value of project outcomes. Separate tools are provided for the Concept Select and FID phases.2020-01-01T00:00:00ZBias in Science and Communication: a field guideWelsh, M.B.https://hdl.handle.net/2440/1373262023-01-30T00:32:17Z2018-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Bias in Science and Communication: a field guide
Author: Welsh, M.B.2018-01-01T00:00:00ZIndividual differences, expertise, and outcome bias in medical decision makingLiaw, A.Welsh, M.B.Copp, H.Breyer, B.https://hdl.handle.net/2440/1372002023-02-07T01:42:24Z2019-01-01T00:00:00ZTitle: Individual differences, expertise, and outcome bias in medical decision making
Author: Liaw, A.; Welsh, M.B.; Copp, H.; Breyer, B.
Editor: Goel, A.K.; Seifert, C.M.; Freska, C.
Abstract: Outcome bias describes the tendency of people to alter their rating of a decision’s quality according to whether the outcome is good or bad – despite equivalencies in available information and decision processes – which has the potential to undermine learning about causal structures and diagnostic information in many fields, including medicine. Herein, a sample of 181 doctors and medical students is shown to display outcome bias in medical and non-medical scenarios – with their susceptibility correlating across the domains, r = 0.38. Analyses showed that rational and intuitive decision styles and a medical risk tolerance measure offered little predictive power. Instead, the strongest drivers of bias susceptibility were the Age and professional Level of participants, with more senior personnel showing less outcome bias. We argue that this could reflect improved learning across a doctor’s career or result from increasing confidence making them less likely to change their initial judgement of decision quality.2019-01-01T00:00:00Z