Michiel C. Bekker

Project governance for global projects

This paper provides an update on the research towards the establishment of a project governance model for global, large capital, projects (LCPs). It provides an overview of the performance of LCPs, their characteristics and importance as well as developments towards improving their success rate by creating a governing environment within which projects are setup and managed for success. Although many smaller capital projects, such as some software developments, can also be classified as global, this study focuses on large capital engineering projects. In modern times nearly all of these projects involves multiple countries as shareholders, financiers, contractors and service providers and can be safely termed as truly global. The study is nearing the final stages and this paper reveals some of the most significant literature findings obtained during the research period. The discussions start with an explanation of the definition of an LCP and progress towards an overview of the performance of LCPs, with specific reference to cost and benefit realisation.

VALIDATING A PROJECT LIFE-CYCLE REVIEW FRAMEWORK FOR MINING PROJECTS AT EXXARO

Independent formal reviews against validated project frameworks aim to ensure that pre-specified phase deliverables are completed and validated before the next project phase begins. Through various internal initiatives, Exxaro established a project framework to develop and implement capital projects. However, to date, this framework has not been validated. The intent of this research was, through a case study approach, to validate the project framework for Exxaro (a holistic case). Semi-structured interviews were conducted with sixteen key role players across the organisation on four different projects (embedded cases). Results from the embedded cases were compared to identify common themes emerging from the research. Although the research identified areas for improvement for certain aspects of the framework, the common themes correspond with the main aspects of the proposed framework, thus validating the framework.

An evaluation of the adequacy of the most commonly used pro forma contracts within the South African mining construction industry

Since the year 2000 the South African mining industry has experienced enormous growth with the awarding of mining construction contracts amounting to billions of Rands. Despite the surge in the procurement of mining goods and services no common or uniform pro forma contract is used by the mining sector. Thus far various pro forma contracts are utilised by the different South African mining houses for the procurement and execution of construction projects of which the International Federation of Consulting Engineers (FIDIC), the General (GCC) and (NEC) are the most notable. The adequacies of these pro forma contracts have been questioned in the past but thus far no guideline or direction towards the most suitable pro forma contract has been suggested. The aim of the paper is to evaluate and make specific recommendations with regards to the adequacy of the most commonly used pro forma contracts within the South African mining construction industry. This research follows a comparative approach whereby the various contractual provisions contained in each pro forma contract are compared across the three pro forma contracts. Supporting the comparative study a survey was done among four of the major mining houses in South Africa. The primary purpose of the survey was to assess the adequacy of each pro forma contract as viewed and experienced by the various mining houses. This ultimately contributed towards the aim of the research project, namely to investigate the differences between the FIDIC, GCC and NEC pro forma contracts with regard to the provided contractual provisions and also the adequacy of the three pro forma contracts with regard to mining construction projects. The results concluded that all three pro forma contracts are, in general, suitable to the mining construction industry with specific contractual provisions better defined in some than in other. However, the non-adherence to specific contractual provisions could have a negative impact on the project outcomes and it remains the responsibility of senior management to ensure that sufficient internal capacity exist to manage the respective pro forma contracts.