Search Documents

By A. Moergeli, Philip Sander, John J. Reilly

"Estimating and managing the costs of complex infrastructure projects – in the planning/design and construction phases, for both owners and contractors – has been a challenge for decades. The more complex and technologically advanced the project, the greater the uncertainty, including potential risks that are important to owners and contractors, such as:• Cost risks to owners – meeting budget and schedule, maintaining public credibility.• Cost risks to contractors – profit, consequences of loss, impacts to reputation/future work.This concern has been addressed in various ways by the underground construction industry for some time (Reilly, 2001). In particular, while significant advances have been made in cost estimating for the planning and design phases (Reilly et al., 2004), that are important to agencies and political decision-makers, it is not apparent that these advances have been widely adopted for construction cost estimates. The reasons for this may relate to lowbid considerations – any method that tends to increase the contractor’s cost estimate, by including risk or likely costs, could lead to an erosion of the contractor’s competitive position – if others are not similarly required to include such costs.Different cost estimating methods produce different levels of information. Specifically, there is a large difference in the character and depth of information if a deterministic (quantities times price plus a contingency) and risk-based cost methods are used. It is this difference in character and depth of information that is the reason that risk-based cost estimating has potential value for owners and contractors. Figure 1 presents hypothetical cost results from deterministic and risk-based methods and illustrates some of these differences.In Fig. 1, the results for deterministic and risk-based cost estimates are given related to the potential profit or loss for a typical project. As is evident in this example, there is significant potential for costs to be realized that are higher than the proposal/bid value estimated using a deterministic approach, with a 15 percent probability of a loss. There is a 30 percent probability that the project will have a reduced profit. There is a 55 percent probability that the project will return a good profit. Using a risk-based approach, it is possible to better recognize this potential outcome in the bid phase and, as a consequence, develop a strategy to:"

Apr 1, 2016

"From April 22 to 28, the eyes of the tunneling and underground construction world will be on San Francisco, CA, as the world’s most influential underground construction industry leaders gather at the Moscone Center for the 2016 World Tunnel Congress.Recognized as the most important international annual meeting for the industry, the 2016 version comes to the United States for the first time in 20 years and will be hosted by the Underground Construction Association of SME (UCA of SME). The conference will be held in lieu of the UCA’s biennial North American Tunneling Conference and will bring the strengths and resources of the UCA of SME and the International Tunnelling and Underground Space Association (ITA). The result will be a conference with unmatched technical programming and a showcase of more than 200 exhibiting companies.A program committee led by Randy Essex of Mott MacDonald, Lonnie Jacobs of Frontier Kemper Constructors, Michael Mooney, of the Colorado School of Mines, Priscilla Nelson, of the Colorado School of Mines and Amanda Elioff of Parsons Brinkerhoff formed the program committee and worked for more than two years to build the program. The result is four technical sessions with five tracks in each session and 185 oral presentations.“One challenge was the sheer size of the group that would be assembled, perhaps 2,500 attendees or more, and the large number of abstracts we were likely to receive,” said Essex. “ We investigated extending the conference a fourth day, but that was not workable with the Moscone Center. We settled on having five concurrent technical tracks – something that has not been attempted in past NAT or RETC conferences to my knowledge. The next step was to develop suggested session titles that would span the breadth of subjects that would interest conference attendees as well as serve the conference theme.”"

Apr 1, 2016

By William Gleason

"Despite the difficult economic climate for the mining industry, more than 6,300 people joined SME for its 2016 Annual Conference & Expo in Phoenix, AZ, Feb. 21-24.Nearly every commodity has been bruised and battered during the past year, leading to one of the more difficult cycles for the industry in the past decade. Coal has taken some of the hardest hits and other commodities, such as copper and iron ore, have felt the sting of a slower growth in China and an oversupply on the market.The difficult conditions could not be ignored, but they did not deter SME from offering a forum for the industry to share knowledge, network with peers and learn about the best products and practices while visiting the sold-out exhibit hall (844 booths and 627 vendors) or while attending any of the 121 technical sessions that were offered.The current state of the industry was one of the overriding themes of the conference and during the challenging times there are often cutbacks as operations look to become leaner and more efficient, however, there is one area that cannot be cut – health and safety.The conference kicked off with a fascinating presentation from Colonel Mike Mullane, a former NASA astronaut who, in 1978, was selected as a Mission Specialist Astronaut in the first group of space shuttle astronauts. He completed three space missions and logged 356 hours in space aboard the shuttles Discovery and Atlantis before retiring from NASA and the U.S. Air Force in 1990.In his speech to a packed audience, he warned of the dangers of cutting corners to get the job done more quickly by guarding against the “normalization of deviance.”Normalization of deviance is a long-term phenomenon in which individuals or teams repeatedly accept a lower standard of performance until that lower standard becomes the norm. Usually, the acceptance of the lower standard occurs because the individual or team is under pressure (budget, schedule, etc.) and perceives it will be too difficult to adhere to the original higher standard. Their intention may be to revert back to the higher standard when this period of pressure passes. However, by getting away with the deviation from the higher standard, it is likely they will do the same thing when the same stressful circumstances arise again. Over time, the individual/team fails to see their actions as deviant."

Apr 1, 2016

By N Cusworth, W R. Mackenzie

"In 2007, the authors presented a framework for the conduct of resource project feasibility studies and provided guidance on minimum standards and best practice (Mackenzie and Cusworth, 2007).This paper will present the authors’ observations in relation to feasibility studies undertaken to support investments made during the unprecedented period of resource project capital investment since 2007. It will also provide comments on general trends in the mining industry’s approach to project assessment and update recommendations on best practice.CITATION:Mackenzie, W R and Cusworth, N, 2016. The use and abuse of feasibility studies – has anything changed?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 133–148 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P McCarthy

"This paper is based on 30 years of involvement in feasibility studies as a participant, study manager and the leader of a firm that provides study components and overall study management. The following topics are discussed:the purpose of feasibility studiesaligning the goals of the study team with those of the ownerthe difference between optimisation and designhow the types and levels of studies affect the organisation of the studythe relative merits of various management structures and contractual arrangementssetting scopes of work and tendering the work outthe selection of a study manager and the study management teamcommunications within the study team and externallythe project management trianglemanaging scope changes and maintaining flexibility to respond to study findingsprogress paymentsmanaging a study crisisinnovation, risk aversion and bankabilityreporting the resultsthe dangers and benefits of value engineering.CITATION:McCarthy, P, 2016. Making studies work – organisation, communication and management, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 20–30 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By A A. Roberts, R F. Dewhirst

"Extensive literature surveys, research in the project environment and personal experiences both within and consulting to project teams have revealed some consistent ‘people factors’ that contribute most to ultimate project success. Outside of purely technical and business case issues, there are a small number of leadership characteristics – probably only ten – that if correctly applied can positively leverage a team’s impact on project success.Of the top seven project success characteristics that were consistently highly rated in a recent study, five of them were around leadership. The authors have focused on this topic, noting that good leaders need to display the following traits:passionate commitment to deliveryconsistent modelling and reinforcement of correct values and behaviourfocus on managing relationships well and energising teams and individualscarefully clarifying project vision from front-end loading stages onwardseffective decision making.Not every project manager can and does practise these behaviours all of the time, but being aware of them and receiving training or facilitation in improving their application of these skills can equip project managers with the essential tools to markedly improve their own performance and that of their teams.This paper draws upon experiences in the field and provides lessons – both good and bad – to illustrate. As well as examining leadership traits, the way in which a leader can establish, organise, motivate his or her team and ultimately lead them to success is examined. The paper shares methodologies that have been successfully used to track status within a team and generate appropriate recovery plans where required.In particular, the paper will examine a case study based on an amalgamation of real project issues in some challenging situations using virtual teams (ie physically distant teams located in different centres) to illustrate the importance of strong and positive leadership in achieving success across geographies, time zones and languages.CITATION:Roberts, A A and Dewhirst, R F, 2016. Leadership in projects – a recipe for success, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 49–58 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By L A. Martinez Tipe, J McKibben, S Barry

"Metal prices are central to a mineral investment decision and have a profound impact on the financial performance of companies in the mining industry. At its most basic level, metal prices are influenced by the disequilibrium between international metal volume supply and demand. That is, the commodity price is a regulator that equates international metal supply and demand where inventories act as a buffer between the emergence of this disequilibrium and its dissolution through a price change.From this viewpoint, mining companies are required to forecast metal and bulk commodity prices when evaluating minerals projects through discounted cash flow (DCF) analysis. While supply-demand models are instructive, many companies use historical prices, spot prices, futures/forward pricing and consensus opinion (or a combination of all of these) to develop price forecasts.This paper discusses the definition, fundamentals and differences between futures/forward and consensus pricing and the appropriateness of each in a DCF model for mine project economic evaluation.Our results demonstrate that great care is required when using either futures/forward or consensus pricing and that the decision to use one rather than the other requires consideration of other important elements in the DCF model (ie the risk-adjusted discount rate).CITATION:Martinez Tipe, L A, McKibben, J and Barry, S, 2016. Metal prices and the differences between forward and consensus pricing – which one is better for use in a discounted cash flow model?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 149–158 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By B E. Hall, D B. Kahler

"'Optimisation' has become a catchcry among many mining companies looking to tell the market how mining businesses will be improved and shareholder value increased. Consequently, the term 'optimisation' has been adopted by many service providers as they look to assist mining companies in achieving their objectives. But the explosion of services and products being offered with the label 'optimisation' has created some confusion. Mining companies ask for help in 'optimising' and service providers offer their assistance because they have a product that has the word 'optimisation' in its title. This is of course an over-simplification, but not by much! The authors' discussions in recent years with both mining companies and service providers have uncovered a number of very different definitions of optimisation.This paper provides a framework for identifying the scope and approach of different mining optimisation products and services, particularly the distinction between optimisation of components of the operation and the business as a whole. The different types of business optimisation are discussed, highlighting the failings of the mining industry's typical approach of strategy selection (as opposed to strategy optimisation). Mining business optimisation is discussed as a wicked problem, with the implication of this on how strategy optimisation models should be used and what the objectives of a business optimisation study should be.Case studies are also included to illustrate how fully flexible strategy optimisation models have been applied to assist decision-makers understand the impacts of changes in one part of the operation on the whole mining and treatment process, from geological models to the sale of product to customers.CITATION:Kahler, D B and Hall, B E, 2016. Strategic decision-making in mining – business optimisation using flexible evaluation models, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 215–225 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P Mitchell, S Pushpan, G Ferres, K Bobbermien, L Hudson

"Falling commodity prices and a rising supply surplus have ushered in a period of restraint in capital project investment across the global mining and metals sector. Competition for capital project funding has seen fewer projects progress through investment gates and a stronger focus on projects that deliver gains in capital productivity and strategic outcomes.Over the course of the 2015 financial year, EY conducted a study of 108 projects in the global mining and metals sector (EY analysis; Larsson and Ericsson, 2014; SNL Financial, 2015). The projects studied were at various life cycle stages and related to the development of copper, iron ore, gold, coal, nickel and other commodities. Each individual project investment exceeded US$1 B, and the studied group represented a cumulative investment value of US$367 B.The research found that the majority of projects were delayed and/or over budget when measured against the initial estimates made during the early stages of the project life cycle. Of the surveyed projects, 69 per cent were identified as facing cost overruns with an average overrun of 62 per cent above the initial estimate and 50 per cent reported schedule delays, even after remedial acceleration initiatives.The analysis found that budget and schedule overruns could be attributed to five key causes:project management factorsstakeholder conflictsresource constraintsregulatory, and policy-related challengesunfavourable external environment.Improving project delivery performance starts with successful planning, followed by rigorous management during delivery. From global experience on large and complex capital programs, EY has observed a consistent theme of underinvestment and a lack of focus in three often-overlooked but critical areas:implementing effective governance and reporting frameworks with lead indicators that reliably flag emerging risks while they can still be mitigatedallocating adequate cost and time contingency to account for risks across the life cycleenhancing the value of contingency by aligning contingency plans with scenario plans.This paper explores the surprising findings of the study, proposes a root cause model and examines key considerations in applying these critical enabling techniques.CITATION:Hudson, L, Mitchell, P, Ferres, G, Bobbermien, K and Pushpan, S, 2016. Are your megaproject schedules and costs under – or out of – control?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 75–85 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P J. Fairfield

"This paper reflects on the author’s experiences in undertaking mining studies and reviewing mining projects and technical reports, particularly over the past five years, and the impact of recent changes in reporting standards and listing requirements pertaining to mining-related evaluation and valuation exercises. It also discusses contemporary changes in the expectations of the investment community and the implications for the role of the technical specialist in providing advice to such stakeholders.Not for the first time in history, the resources industry has experienced a significant downturn after a period of strong, sustained growth in line with the traditional view of the cyclical nature of commodity markets. The resource industry is currently faced with capital austerity in the wake of projects ‘failing’ (not delivering to expectations). In response, the industry has experienced changes in investment behaviour (slowing of investment) and an increasing regulatory burden as stakeholders seek a greater understanding of mining project risks.This paper discusses this response and uses case studies to highlight the key learnings (perhaps re-learnt) by the industry. It also discusses the challenges faced by technical specialists in communicating the results of technical and valuation studies to the investment community.As investors seek to take advantage of the current stage in the investment cycle, the key challenge of the technical specialist is to effectively communicate the uncertainty in technical assumptions, risks and opportunities that drive project value.CITATION:Fairfield, P J, 2016. Managing expectations – from buyer beware to buyer be aware, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 66–74 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By D J. Logan, J Jackson

"As of 1 December 2014, the 2012 edition of the JORC Code requires Ore Reserves to be defined by studies at the pre-feasibility or feasibility level. This paper examines how the pathway for most mining developments is determined in the Pre-Feasibility Study and how a trade-off must be made between the need to make the best decision, the constraints of limited time and resources, and the level of the project’s accuracy and uncertainty in terms of value. Issues considered include framing the scope of the study, planning for robust decision-making and ensuring effective communication between the diverse disciplines within the team.An inherent conflict exists between the immediate value added to a mining business from an increase in ore reserves resulting from a ‘quick’ Pre-Feasibility Study and the long-term value of pursuing a development strategy based on proper investigation and evaluation of the options. Recognition and resolution of this conflict is necessary if a project is to progress into future development stages, both in a timely manner and with the optimal development alternative and strategy.The challenge for project developers and those conducting the Pre-Feasibility Study is to understand what the key deliverables are (ie an Ore Reserve statement, option selection, business evaluation, forward work plan or risks) and how to follow good practice to ensure that these deliver value.CITATION:Logan, D J and Jackson, J, 2016. The pre-feasibility study – big choices, little time, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 122–132 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By A M. Ebbels

"Underground mine scheduling decision-making has been based on production requirements, equipment productivities and the mine planner’s instincts on the best scheduling strategy for the mine to optimise the net present value (NPV) of a project.In the last few years, innovative software has been developed to optimise underground schedules based on NPV. The schedule optimisation tool (SOT) allows the user to set up scenarios based on grade, metal content, capital and operating costs.This paper discusses the results of two case studies undertaken using the SOT software to optimise the NPV of the projects.In each case study, the SOT software has been applied in two ways:using the original mine planner’s scenario and determining whether the NPV could be improved by changing resource capacitieschanging the scheduling goals to determine whether a different mining strategy would have a better NPV outcome.The outcomes of the case studies demonstrate that the mine layout and design were contributing factors to the overall improvement of the NPV and that SOT has a more noticeable impact on the NPV of projects where less sequence constraints are required, such as geotechnical sequencing and access development.CITATION:Ebbels, A M, 2016. Optimising underground mining strategies, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 60–65 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By J Coombes

"In today’s challenging climate of reduced staffing, limited funding and uncertain markets, we are called on to operate more productively and ‘be more innovative’. As an industry, we are quick to identify our practice areas as a mark of our role in the machinery of the mine value chain. We proudly note our profession – ‘geologist’, ‘mining engineer’ or ‘accountant’ – and demarcate our responsibilities and even our physical space. We even subdivide our disciplines into sacred entities such as ‘logging geologist’, ‘resource geologist’ or ‘structural geologist’ to prevent any blurring as though somehow the confusion will cost valuable disciplinary ground. How can we function professionally to heed the call to be more productive and more innovative?The purpose of this paper is to underscore what is expected from project evaluation, examine the ways in which we work as an industry and explore alternatives used in other industries and environments.The paper begins with a summary of project evaluation expectations and the ways in which disciplines typically interconnect when conducting project evaluations. Next, the paper examines alternative work frameworks and making a distinction between multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary and transdisciplinary frameworks. In-practice examples of these frameworks in alternative industries and contexts provide evidence for application as well as an opportunity to examine their pros and cons.The paper closes with a call to re-examine working practices in the mining industry, with a view to enhancing productivity and heeding the call for greater innovation.CITATION:Coombes, J, 2016. Transcending the mining discipline divide – multidisciplinary, interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary?, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 2–10 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By R Knight

"In project evaluation there are two matters of keen interest to non-executive directors: the process by which an investment recommendation is reached, as well as the investment itself, as presented. It is sometimes mistakenly believed that Boards of directors are interested only in the result. That is not so. The process by which project evaluations are derived and socialised with the Board is as important as the result, sometimes more so.Setting aside the gloomy predictions of the doomsayers and looking through short-term volatility in supply and demand, the overall availability of mineral resources more often than not exceeds demand. There are in reality more development projects in prospect at any one time than are needed to meet the market. Only the fittest will prosper, although some others may survive.Optimism springs eternal in the mining industry and every project promoter, executive or entrepreneur has a convincing project development case. Some will create value for shareholders, but the historical evidence suggests that many will fail to meet the expectations set in their evaluation.Boards of directors make the final decision to invest, or not, in a new mine. Knowledge is power, and on that basis the balance of power favours management. Management has the facts (or in some cases, what passes for fact) and the passion to invest. The non-executives have the power of approval – yes or no – but before making a decision directors must demonstrate due diligence, the essential precursor to project approval.Management has a vital part to play in facilitating that due diligence process and in encouraging the independent thought processes of the Board. A closed approach by management fosters a negative, risk-averse attitude on the part of the Board. One that encourages an understanding of the rigour of the project evaluation process and the robustness of the result will allow directors to understand better the implications of their decision.CITATION:Knight, R, 2016. Project evaluation – a non-executive director’s perspective, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 11–19 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By L I. Rozman

"There have always been development projects that fall short of expectations. In the last decade, we have seen more than the usual number of mining and oil/gas development projects taking significantly longer to develop and costing materially more than expected. The recent resource-equity market slump proves that investors are now far more cautious about investing new capital in the mineral and petroleum resources sector.What have we learned since 2005? Why have projects missed their targets? Why do investors often feel misled?Valuation of a project and the estimation of value is a more complex process than the evaluation of the merits of project development. The merit of project development can be clear from a prefeasibility evaluation, but this is no reason to skip the rigour of a feasibility study. The valuation of any project that is developed with any added risk should be discounted for this added risk.The development of a project impacts on other stakeholders, and the indirect cost of these impacts can have material implications for the cost structure, time and ultimate valuation of the project for its financial backers. The development of new projects (and thereby supply) can also have an impact on commodity prices, and therefore an impact on returns for financial backers.This paper will provide commentary on the author’s experiences and observations as a project developer and operator for 25 years, before becoming a project financier a decade ago.CITATION:Rozman, L I, 2016. Project evaluation and valuation – an investor’s golden rule, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 31–36 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

"Recognising that the mining industry is wedded to the break-even cut-off grade rather than a cut-off grade that optimises value, the author examines some perils and pitfalls in the use of break-even grades that lead to what the author calls ‘negatively geared ore reserves’.Negatively geared ore reserves occur when a portion of the ore reserves actually has a negative value and is effectively being subsidised by the more profitable portion of the ore reserves. This situation is generally difficult to detect with the level of information available to the public investor. The ore reserves can still be quite profitable in total, but now possess a level of risk that may not be appreciated.The risk profile (financial risk) of a negatively geared ore reserve is far greater than for a non-negatively geared ore reserve. Like a negatively geared investment property in a falling property market (for readers familiar with the Australian tax minimisation investment strategy), when the price of a commodity falls, a company that possesses a negatively geared ore reserve loses value at a magnified rate relative to a company that has a neutral or positively geared ore reserve. In the extreme case of a major commodity price reduction, as happened with the gold price in mid-2013, the negatively geared ore reserve can easily become negative value in total, not just in part.The negatively geared ore reserve is sometimes intentional – for instance in order to increase published ore reserve tonnages and meet the CEO’s key performance indicators – but is also often unintentional, resulting from various errors in the break-even calculation. Common errors in calculating a break-even grade include using fixed metallurgical recoveries, not including allowances for ideal laboratory versus real plant results, ignoring available operational data and using modal rather than mean parameter values in cost and performance calculations.This paper examines a common value distribution profile in many ore reserves and the effect of common break-even grade errors on this profile.CITATION:Poniewierski, J, 2016. Negatively geared ore reserves – a major peril of the break-even cut-off grade, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 236–247 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By S G. Gemell

"The financial model is an integral component of any project evaluation based on mineral resources, ore reserves and (at least internally) exploration targets. Given the unity of purpose for preparing financial models for project evaluation purposes, the diversity of both format and content of the finalised models is surprising. Many models are prepared by staff or consultants who are comfortable with a particular format that may be used for other purposes, such as budget preparation or financial reporting. It is natural in these situations that the practitioner will take these models and adapt them to the purpose. The end result may or may not succeed in providing a clear, accurate and sufficiently detailed view of the project’s economic viability.When preparing a model, the practitioner should be cognisant of the interpretation and review, or audit, process. The auditor may be a consultant or employee of a bank, potential equity provider or of the project sponsor itself. Depending upon the scale of the project and the level of participation of the entity that the auditor represents, the financial model will be interrogated more or less rigorously. In any event, the end user will require the model to permit easy change of inputs and will wish to confirm that such change is appropriately and thoroughly transmitted throughout.Accordingly, there are some ‘dos and don’ts’ that can be readily applied in the creation of the financial model that will greatly assist the end user, not just in the change of inputs, but also in reviewing the model’s integrity. The less time and effort required by an auditor in this regard is reflected directly in the cost of the review process.CITATION:Gemell, S G, 2016. Financial modelling with the auditor in mind, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 172–180 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By D Hunter, N Cusworth, J Miller

"Recent project failures have called into question the use and relevance of benchmarking and independent reviews, forcing a rethink of traditional processes and procedures.With cost estimates and schedules dramatically varying from lows seen around the global financial crisis to peaks experienced in the recent mining boom, benchmarking has ranged between essential and misleading.Profound shifts are now underway in future project delivery strategies as the market moves away from cost-plus engineering, procurement and construction management. The current trends in project implementation are to utilise more lump-sum design and construct or fixed-price supply and construct contracts. This trend will remove transparency in detailed cost information by reducing the sources and clarity of cost data.Independent peer reviews (IPRs) of studies and investment recommendations performed over the last decade have both failed to prevent flawed or deficient projects from proceeding to approval and funding, and been successful in ensuring that owners did not proceed with doomed investments.In recent times, it has been recognised by some owners, contractors and engineers that traditional benchmarking checks or IPRs, or a combination of both, will not necessarily produce reliable assessments of study conclusions and of the forecasts of project outcomes. To be of value, the benchmarking process now also needs to recognise the highly volatile responses from the engineering and construction industry to the current and future markets for their services.Similarly, reviewers who draw upon benchmarks of past project experiences on an understanding of the things that shaped and influenced their outcomes need to be more aware of how a future dynamic market may impact the outcome of the projects and raise warning flags accordingly.With the commodity cycle currently approaching what is hoped is its bottom, ensuring that benchmarking and independent reviews evolve into reliable, transparent and worthwhile processes becomes even more important. This can only be achieved with more transparent and analytical benchmarking and business-orientated reviews that both recognise and calculate the impacts of dynamic markets on project implementation.CITATION:Cusworth, N, Hunter, D and Miller, J, 2016. The role of benchmarking and independent reviews, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 249–259 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By J A. Wells, K G. Thomas, R F. Dewhirst

"One of the contributing factors to the extreme cost escalation in the first decade of the 21st century was the increase in the amount and cost of engineering work that went into studies and projects. Various reasons for this were identified, including unsatisfactory productivity due to a shortage of experienced/qualified engineers, the increased complexity and infrastructure requirements of many projects due to location, metallurgy that is more challenging and increasing environmental and social requirements. These conditions often led to unsatisfactory project results in terms of cost and schedule blowouts and created a loss of confidence – both internally and externally – in the industry’s ability to complete projects on time and on budget.Technical fundamentals aside, the experience and effectiveness of project teams has had, and continues to have, a major impact on project cost, schedule and ramp-up to nameplate capacity and operating parameters. There are unfortunately too many examples of where project teams have not been as effective as they could or should have been, all to the ultimate detriment of the project.Using the authors’ extensive experience on both owner’s and engineer’s teams, this paper discusses some of the main reasons for suboptimal team, and hence project, performance and offers thoughts on how best to build and maintain project teams. The analysis and conclusions drawn are built around the Tuckman model of group development known as ‘forming-storming-norming-performing’, which was first proposed some 50 years ago. Given the importance of good teamwork to project success, understanding how project teams grow and become efficient and productive is an essential part of good project management that should receive more attention.CITATION:Dewhirst, R F, Thomas, K G and Wells, J A, 2016. Building and maintaining effective project teams, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 38–48 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016

By P B. Card

"The website www.economicevaluation.com.au, which had its origins at the Project Evaluation Conference 2009, provides a free way for industry professionals to teach themselves economic evaluation. At its core is a set of fast-moving modules and three worked examples.The website recognises that economic evaluation is a discipline with a hierarchy of three levels:decision-makingevaluating the project/businesshands-on modelling.There are a set of modules for each level that describe the concepts and activities in detail. These emphasise that the most important and rewarding work is the evaluation of Level 2. The economic model created in Level 3 is merely a working tool and should not become a sophisticated ‘trophy’ in Excel that only one or two people can comfortably use.Hands-on modelling contains three sets of practices designed to make any model rigorous and intuitive so that it can be easily understood and used by others in the project team. Even if the model develops into a long, detailed and complex workbook, it should remain easy to follow and be intuitive. The website advocates freedom to devise any architecture that best suits the project under study, but promotes rigour through the following practices:four cash streams and graphsthree architectures – concept, prefeasibility and feasibilitysix principles.The modules in the Level 2 evaluation use conversational language to describe in detail the broad range of activities needed to properly understand and characterise a project/business. It stresses that net present value is nothing more than the mathematical treatment of a whole set of opinions, is not an absolute truth and is only a fraction of the evaluation process. The modules describe in detail the range of economic metrics that should be computed and the full spectrum of equally important characterisations required to make the decision in Level 3.CITATION:Card, P B, 2016. Teach yourself economic evaluation, in Proceedings Project Evaluation 2016, pp 160–171 (The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy: Melbourne)."

Mar 8, 2016