The Human Dimensions of the Britannia Development
Authors: Thompson R.A. , Hall J.N. 
Published: October 2008

A decision was taken to significantly under-run the sanctioned tight budget. Such a bold step required a different approach involving the whole organisation. Change on such a scale was a daunting challenge. Over 2000 people were involved in Britannia, organised in numerous groups and many different companies. A comprehensive communications and education exercise was set in motion. Everyone was enrolled into achieving the common goal. Barriers were removed and improved working relationships developed between all the different companies. People were given the authority, the inter-personal skills and tools to work in a new improved way. Finally, achievements were recognised and celebrated throughout the development.

The development results were benchmarked and externally audited. A 20% saving was achieved against the tough budget that equated to a top decile industry performance.

The techniques employed on Britannia are equally applicable to any organisation not just capital projects.

Introduction

Britannia is a large gas-condensate field located in the central area of the UK North Sea. The details of the reservoir, chosen development option and description of the main elements of the offshore facilities can be found in another OTC paper No.11013, (Ref. 1) presented at this 1999 OTC conference.

Britannia was born in an era of tightening margins. North Sea costs had to be reduced. Operators were becoming increasingly conscious this could only be achieved through adopting a different approach. Britannia was not exempt from this.

A very cost effective development concept was devised. The approved budget that went with the concept showed savings of 17% against earlier estimates. Independent benchmarking auditors said the budget would be tough to achieve with only a 20% probability of success.

Conventionally, the strategy would have been to plan to achieve the budget, put in rigorous controls, and place contracts for fixed amounts. Then the operator's personnel would check everything produced by the contractors.

The Problem

These traditional approaches showed a trend of manhour and schedule overruns resulting in increasing costs.

The reason for the poor performance was not difficult to see. The industry had a history of adversity and poor working relationships. Traditional contracting practices could create a situation where the operator and the contractor had different objectives. Further more most contractor companies saw little advantage in developing closer working relationships on a project with other contractors, as in most instances they would be direct competitors for the next job. Often the operator became go-between, trying to reconcile views. In such an environment even small changes in work methods were difficult to promote. A step change looked impossible. How then to break out of this mould and attain high levels of performance?

Somehow everyone had to be made aware of the needs, be involved in achieving them, and become aligned to the methods to be used. With upwards of 2000 people, enrolling everyone was a considerable task. Changing how everyone worked (with a major shift in work practices and behaviours) was an even harder task. A comprehensive program was gradually developed to bring these changes about.