Context
The client’s project was in the development stage prior to the Final Investment Decision (FID). The client requested an assessment of the project’s maturity to identify unresolved issues and the risk of not fulfilling the project’s objectives.
Methodology
FELcilitate proposed a project maturity assessment in the style of the PDRI. FELcilitate developed its own method on the idea of the Project Definition Rating Index of the Construction Industry Institute (CII): it measures how completely the scope of a major project is defined before FID. 70 elements are rated and condensed into an overall score between 70 and 1,000; as a reference for FID readiness, a score below 200 is used.
The assessment combined independent self-assessment with facilitated discussion. Unbiased individual ratings make differences in perception across the team visible; the subsequent facilitated discussion resolves these differences in a targeted, fact-based way.
Two assessment perspectives
The assessment was performed from two independent perspectives: the FELcilitate view, based on the data-room analysis, and the client’s project team.
Individual assessment
FELcilitate provided its template with all 70 elements, including description, checklist and rating guidance per element.
Independent self-assessment
Both parties rated each element independently (1 to 5 or n.a., with comments) and returned their ratings.
Consolidation and score calculation
FELcilitate consolidated both returns, calculated the scores and identified the elements requiring discussion in preparation for the deep-dive workshop.
Deep-dive workshop
The flagged elements were discussed jointly along the three sections and then finally rated by FELcilitate.
Recommendations and report
From the consolidated assessment and the documented comments, the critical scope areas were identified and prioritised measures derived.
Outcome
The assessment delivered an unbiased status of the project definition in three dimensions: Basis of Project Decision (the business case), Basis of Design (the technical maturity) and Execution Approach (the execution strategy and plan).
| # | Section / category | Max | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| I | Project Decision | 500 | 90 |
| II | Project Design | 420 | 120 |
| III | Project Execution | 80 | 45 |
| ∑ | Total | 1,000 | 255 |
| Defined (= 1 − score / max) | approx. 75 % |
Low-scoring elements were ranked critically and each received a recommendation based on experience, industry standards and best practice. The recommendations were segregated into “FID” and “Execution” to give the client’s team a priority of actions. Typical focus areas: the definition of project objectives, the finalisation of an appropriate execution schedule, a binding cost assessment in line with AACE estimating principles, and an overall quantitative risk assessment.
Completing the measures, in particular the critical recommendations before FID, froze the baselines prior to execution. It gave the project owner and manager insight into the undefined elements and a factual basis to initiate and plan the critical first 100 days of the project.
