Response to Questions 5-9

Question 5: How many PDRA have you attended at Eskom ? Response to question 5:

Figure 9: Project Participates and the Number of PDRA they Attended

In Figure 9, it is clear that 100% of the PDRI facilitators had the opportunity to attend most of the PDRAs, as they are the facilitators. Although it is to be noted that there are a few numbers of facilitators in ESKOM. This is a new skill that is acquired by the organisation. Initially when the PDRA where introduced, it was implemented by external contractors from 2012 to 2014. From 2015 to 2017 ESKOM used it internally becoming qualified facilitators. PMs (58%) attended between 10-20 PDRI assessments. This number corresponds with the PMs with experience of between seven to 12 years, indicated in Figure 9.

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 0<5 5<10 10<20 20< PDRI Facillitators Project Managers Engineers

45

Question 6: Was it clear what was required by the PDRI elements? Response to question 6

Figure 10: PDRAs Participates Response to the Clarity of the PDRI Elements

The PDRI facilitators felt that the requirements of the PDRI elements are easy to understand and indicated that they were adjusted to be understandable in ESKOM’s context. Some of the PMs agreed that the PDRI elements were easy to understand. Those PMs also admitted that the PDRI elements became easy through repetition; the more they attended the assessments, the more they became familiar with the requirements.

The other PMs indicated that some of the PDRI element requirements were not easy to understand. They depended on the facilitator to explain the element requirements. During the interviews some PMs felt that "some of the PDRI elements are subjective". They say the evidence required to fulfil the element is various. They can score variously on various PDRAs, without using the same evidence.

Few PMs and engineers interviewed felt that the PDRI elements requirements were unclear, but the facilitator assisted clarifying them. Those who attended 1-2 PDRI, observed this. 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Yes Not all clear No

PDRI Facillitators Project Managers Engineers

46 Question 7: What affected the score of the PDRI? Response to question 7

Figure 11: The Themes that Arise in Response of Question 7

Preparedness of the team: 64% of the candidates interviewed, indicated that the

preparedness of the team influenced the score of the PDRI. The more the project team are understands the requirements of the project, the more the score improved. Instances where there was a change in the project team, it weakened the team as the new members required time to gain knowledge on the project and this reflected negatively in the PDRI score. The candidates responded also indicated that the quality of engineering deliverables has a considerable influence on the score. The contents of the engineering document must address the elements to improve the score.

The facilitator: 41% of the candidates responded that the facilitator had a huge

influence in assisting them to understand the requirements of the PDRI. According to the candidates, the scoring of the PDRI can be subjective according to the facilitator’s view, scoring variously for the same project on the same phase whilst producing same evident, the only variable being the facilitator. Respondents also believe that the technical experience of the facilitator influenced the quality of the facilitation. When the facilitator has experience, or understanding of the topic, the

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Preparedness of the team The facilitator Experience of the team

Engineers Project Managers PDRI Facillitators

47

score becomes more reflective of the true quality of the project scope definition readiness.

Experience of the team: When the team knows what is required to be presented as

a body of evidence, this implies more experience in attending the PDRAs – improving the performance of the project because the candidates knew what needed to be presented and the format it should be presented in.

Question 8: How was your experience being involved in a PDRA?

Response to question 8

The candidates replied to this question by reflecting on the benefits and difficulties of using PDRI.

Benefits:

 It emphasises what needs to be completed for a well-defined project scope.  It provides an accurate reflection of the readiness of the project to proceed to the

next phase.

 It assists focussing on the effort on issues that need to be completed.

 It assists if it is completed earlier in the project. When less effort is put into the concept design, it might lead to poor basic design.

 PDRI provides a structured way to define project maturity.  It is a good monitoring instrument for project deliverables.  It assists identifying unforeseen risks for PMs.

 It is good for record keeping and to create documents with the decision and reasons.

 It provides foreign investors the confidence to invest in the projects that experienced the PDRA.

Difficulties

 PDRI must be guided by the ESKOM process; there are minor misalignments.  It can be manipulated to receive bare minimum through the system.

 At times its purpose is not understood, because the designs are not developed in line with the PDRI.

48

 Initially it was difficult when facilitated by external facilitators who did not understand ESKOM processes.

Question 9: Do you think the PDRI is a necessary instrument for Front End Planning (FEP)?

All candidates interviewed candidates agreed, that the PDRI is a necessary instrument for FEP. They recommended the use of it in a project.

5.3 Conclusion

From the interviews conducted it is indicated that the PDRI instrument is a useful and effective instrument for FEP of the project. It assists with developing the scope, ensuring that it is well defined. It also assists in risk identification and can be resolved early, indicating mitigation strategies put in place when it is not possible to resolve risks.

Over 50 % of the respondents indicated that they depend on the facilitator to assist with the explanation of the requirements; some indicated that the interpretation of the elements is not standard, depending on the facilitator. The PDRAs needs to be standardised, to become less subjective; more training should be provided to the participates on in the PDRA.

The technical experience and project management experience placed a positive part on the score. More technical experience improves the quality of designs. The PM can assist the team to be better prepared for the PDRA.

49