Execution and Control

The execution and control phase demonstrated the various challenges of complex projects.

The collaboration with the shipyard and the shipowner is patterned by interdependencies and technological complexity and the interactions of teams in all three countries. It also demonstrated the effects from the improvement areas from the sales phase. Therefore, various practices were recommended.

To start, a kick off meeting with the local team and the European engineers and project manager was suggested to further minimize late changes and to clarify technical

specifications not addressed during the sales phase. To ensure technical precision, experts from across business lines as well as feedback from previous projects should be included, as complex projects build on interdependencies and interrelatedness. Additionally, the shipyard as well as the customer should be included in these meetings to align expectations and demands and start from a trust base. Moreover, including the representative sales person could help expanding the relationship to the operations project team. This way, governance gaps can be filled during future challenges. Technical capabilities as well as soft skills and relationship-oriented competences are in focus to build trust, a shared micro culture and communication. Stretching over all phases, Wärtsilä was described as taking in a Backseat position, rather than being the driver as one might expect form a market leader. This concern was raised in several ways, always leading back to being unable to guide the direction, following the pressure of the customer.

To achieve cooperative norms, alignment of process structures is suggested. Hereby the complex structures of Asian shipyards have been mentioned. However, also the complex structures of Wärtsilä were stressed. Wärtsilä’s internal complex set up increases the time spend on solving internal issues, further reducing the time available. Wärtsilä was often describes as operating in silos, each line focusing on its own budget and annual goals.

Information sharing is challenging as information has to pass many filters, taking time and altering the request. Using different and methods of working and even technical standards, the customer is effectively dealing with more than one Wärtsilä. Before being able to aligning processes with externals, Wärtsilä thus must first align its internal processes. Also, while the local sales team is encouraged to bridge and support in this matter, communication showed to be weak. Challenges in the processes were late communication from Wärtsilä’s side and quality concerns within documentation. All crucial elements to improve cooperation.

Successful operations also demand for frequent visits of the project team. While these visits are mostly needed towards the beginning and the end of the phase, they also add to the relationship building and send signals of being important to the client. This is especially important in gas unexperienced shipyards. With reasons for alliance failure being lack of

mutual trust, commitment and cultural sensitivity, signal sending is important. This can also be traced back to working as one team, and managing the project together and creating a feeling of team belonging and achievement.

To successfully manage projects a local presence was however stated as crucial. The demand for a local site manager brought various benefits such as reducing cultural and language barriers, eliminate unnecessary travel by managing communication, as well as being local eyes and ears to follow up on the progress. While the interviewees whether a site manager is always needed, it was clear that for complex or prototype projects a site manager is unavoidable. Adding to this is the importance and demand of improved communication. Site mangers were clearly demanded to have technical skills but also project management skills.

As some even recommended a local project manager, coordination capabilities seem of high importance. The more the execution and control phase transitions into commissioning, the less managerial and the more technical skills were requested. Communication skills remain important throughout the phase. Highly important is Experience. An experienced European project manager from FGGS with the managerial, technical and interpersonal skills to manage the operations with the support of a site manager is key. Site manager also represent the permanent element that manager a project throughout its creation and thus inherits valuable knowledge that is transferred over the phase. Given the need of a site manager in all three countries, the possibility to take advantage of a more experienced site manager, such as Korea, for less experienced shipyards such as Japan. While these site mangers were not requested to be limited to FGSS, knowledge of Gas technology is fundamental. Building up local organisations focusing on project management currently does not seem necessary. This might however change as demand increases. To start, training of local site managers and local engineers could be targeted. Overall, improvement of processes rather than more personal is needed in this phase. By investing in few well-chosen local capabilities, and taking advantage of clusters, this could be achieved.

Unavoidable seems the creation of an independent integration team that manages the communication between system components and eventually its integration. The integration

was stated to be a core element of Wärtsilä’s value and sales package, that was however often undertaken by the customer. Being technically challenging, the need for an integration team has been highlighted throughout the interviews. This was criticised also by the commissioning team as the consequences are often resulting in costly challenges for a team that is already too small and further takes a long time to be enhanced.