bp oil spill equipment failure

performance of fusion: four mistakes that sank BP

Although the oil spill in the history of the result of many factors that they can all be summed up in a big problem for BP, the lack of enforcement. This is exactly what happened … and other companies can learn from their failures BP. by Rick Lepsinger

By Rick Lepsinger

The spill is a tragedy that "never have take place. "This is the sentiment expressed by BP, Tony Hayward, CEO during the recent congressional hearing on oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Clearly, no one disagreed with him, including the departure of Americans to face the terrible consequences. And Hayward is right: tragedy should not really happened and he has done is a failure of execution.

For any company, the impossibility of doing things is a serious matter. If you can not run well, will not be a great success even if you have an excellent strategy, great products and talented employees, and as we have seen in this case, you could potentially cause significant problems for others too.

It is clear that recent BP has a huge gap in the implementation. And if the company focused on recognition and fill the gap, it would have avoided this catastrophe without precedent.

In my book, based on research, bridging the performance difference: How chefs and their companies achieve results (Jossey-Bass / A Wiley imprint, in June 2010, ISBN: 978-0-4705313-0-3, $ 45.00), which focus on what I call "Five Bridges", a set of characteristics and skills that will be shelved performance possible. It is a structure to support the implementation, the alignment between the leader's behavior and values of society, coordination across and cooperation, employee participation in decision-making, and the ability to manage change.

These are bridges which recognize companies that are still able to do things that are not.

The oil spill is a complex event and tragic, but the cause goes back to the absence of BP to build these bridges and bridge the critical gap in implementation. Unfortunately for us all, this failure has damaged more than just bad for public relations firm. Causes and lessons of the execution was not BP serve as a case study that today's businesses and future presidents or employers ignore at their peril.

Then highlight key failures that contributed to the BP oil spill and how to put more emphasis on the application could have avoided a disaster total.

There were many players in a complex relationship. Several companies and government agencies were involved in the operation of drilling rigs in deep water horizon. BP owns the property, Transocean has the platform, and Halliburton provides services to platforms oil. In addition, the Minerals Management Service regulates offshore drilling and agrees with the supervision of the Agency for Environmental Protection, which examines the potential of offshore drilling damage to wildlife and the environment. And finally, the Coast Guard inspects vessels airworthiness and licensing of members Crew-platform work.

Businesses and government agencies that participated in the events that led the crisis does not seem to work well together. The Labyrinth relations created by the multiplication of actors are cumbersome and complex. Result was a clear lack of accountability and poor decisions. For example, it appears that the crew of the platform is not clear whether managers or BP were responsible Transocean after the explosion, and this confusion has led to inaction at critical moments after the explosion of drilling equipment.

In addition, the fragmented nature of government oversight has contributed to bad decisions taken well before the explosions. For example, BP has sought and obtained an exemption from environmental review, permission to test the mechanism of prevention in reducing the burst pressure and permission to delay the mandatory testing of anti rash. Each of these decisions was made by a different, which does not seem to know what others had done.

A bridge which I discuss in my book is an organizational structure that supports the execution. BP owns the property, the organization that contracted with other service companies and has the primary interface with government agencies. They should have taken the initiative to put this structure in place. A good structure increases the liability responsibility, coordination and communication. It also ensures that decisions are taken closer to the action as possible. BP must have worked with other companies and government agencies related to the launch pad of an operational structure to clarify the responsibilities, authority level, and expectations from all participants.

BP is based on greed and speed of the negation of the company declared values. Despite claims advertising and public put BP demonstrated a commitment to safety and protection of the environment, many decisions that have led to The blast appeared to have been motivated by two main criteria to save money and save time.

Addition to the exemptions BP requested (and obtained) associated with testing and equipment, which does not seem to have followed policies and procedures of the company and cut back on materials. Internal documents show that BP engineers obtained the permission of the directors of the company using equipment which deviates from the clean design of the company and security policies that BP officials chose a type of box with an increased risk of collapse, BP and missed a test of cement around the pipe.

These actions show a significant difference between the behavior of managers and BP values expressed in writing and company policies. The managers were apparently so concerned to delay and to be on budget decisions and actions are more aligned with policies and procedures. With hindsight, we see how this disconnection has led to the disaster.

BP should have been more important in adapting the behavior of their leaders with the established values of society and those responsible for this behavior. When leaders say one thing and to another, business is still suffering.

The right hand does not seem to know what the left hand was done. 'S Federal The researchers were surprised by the apparent lack of cooperation and coordination between different companies and government agencies involved in disaster Going deep water. And the lack of coordination was not limited to the day of the explosion.

A network of government agencies granted exceptions to the rules, and nobody seemed to realize that others also allows the company to engage in activities risky, which when combined makes the catastrophe more likely. In addition, the interests of the three companies operating in deep waters the horizon is not aligned, a condition which is certainly not encourage cooperation. For example, progress has slowed after the explosion, where lack of coordination and arguments about who was in charge led to delays and disagreements over how to cap the well and who would cost.

The complexity of the situation and the critical, time sensitive, the actions needed an increased level of cooperation and coordination. It is a perfect example of how lack of cooperation and coordination can be worse.

Ensure that decisions and actions are coordinated across organizational boundaries requires more than faith and words alone. Takes common goals, clear communication, and factors clear roles, "it seems BP and his brothers were in the platform oil supply short.

Good people are not empowered to take action. The absence of an efficient structure and clear accountability has created another problem for BP: the company was unable to obtain comments from those with knowledge and experience to make better decisions about how deal with spills. Moreover, BP does not allow people to use their common sense and take appropriate action.

Few hours before the explosion, the crew was discussing the best way to kill the well and move the platform to the next site. A mechanic testified Transocean he heard one man company "Telling workers platform" how it will "and that the platform while the workers have the plan was too risky, reluctantly agrees.

Moreover, just after the explosion and that the workers were fighting for the security, worker was shouted by the captain (who worked for the owner Transocean Drilling) for pressing the distress button, without authorization, and when a another worker asked if he had to call the bank for help, said he had not because he did not permission to do so.

For a business to run successfully, the right people must be involved with the right decisions. Clearly This is even more critical when so much is at stake

Identifying the causes and relatives away from implementation is essential for any business. Do not see the effects on the same scale as BP does, but if there are guarantees in place and maintained five bridges, you'll have a difficult time achieving your business objectives. Remember that your performance is not an event for a single point, is a continuous process. But its capacity to function well and is always the fabric of success, I think of a better place to focus their time and energy.

# #

theory on why the elite don’t care about the oil spill