Application of Project Management Frameworks to Enhance Delivery Efficiency in High-Risk Oil and Gas Projects (Published)
: The oil and gas (O&G) industry remains one of the most capital-intensive and risk-laden sectors globally, where the execution of large-scale offshore development projects is frequently challenged by cost overruns, schedule delays, and safety incidents. Despite the sector’s technological maturity, persistent inefficiencies in project delivery underscore the critical importance of structured project management frameworks. This research investigates how the application of structured project management methodologies—specifically the Association for Project Management (APM) Body of Knowledge and Shell’s Project Delivery Framework (SPDF)—enhances cost, schedule, and safety performance in high-risk, high-ambition (HA/HI) oil and gas projects. The study focuses on the mechanisms through which standardized governance, leadership practices, and contractor engagement strategies interact to improve delivery efficiency and mitigate systemic risks inherent to offshore capital projects. The research problem addressed is the persistent performance gap between planned and actual project outcomes in the O&G sector, despite the widespread adoption of project management systems. Industry data from the Independent Project Analysis (IPA) Group (2023) indicates that over 60% of megaprojects in the oil and gas industry exceed their original cost and schedule estimates by more than 30%, with safety performance frequently deteriorating under schedule pressure. This paper posits that structured frameworks, when effectively institutionalized, provide a measurable advantage by fostering integrated decision-making, disciplined risk management, and enhanced stakeholder alignment. However, the success of these frameworks is highly contingent upon their contextual application—particularly leadership behavior, contractor collaboration models, and the psychological safety of engineering teams.The study employed a mixed-method approach combining qualitative and quantitative analyses. A multi-case study design was developed based on six offshore projects executed between 2015 and 2023 in deepwater environments of the North Sea, Gulf of Mexico, and Southeast Asia. These projects, ranging from USD 2.5 to 10 billion in total installed cost, were selected to represent both successful and underperforming examples of framework implementation. Primary data were collected through semi-structured interviews with 38 senior project professionals, including project managers, engineering leads, and contractor representatives, supplemented by archival data from post-project reviews and key performance indicators (KPIs). Quantitative data were normalized across three performance dimensions—cost variance, schedule adherence, and safety incident rate (measured as Total Recordable Incident Frequency, TRIF)—to enable cross-project comparison. Qualitative thematic analysis focused on leadership style, stakeholder engagement practices, and psychological safety culture, triangulated with quantitative outcomes.The results demonstrate that structured frameworks exert a significant positive impact on project delivery efficiency when rigorously implemented and supported by leadership alignment. Projects with full SPDF compliance achieved an average 13.4% reduction in cost variance, 11.8% improvement in schedule adherence, and 24% lower TRIF rates compared to those with partial or ad hoc framework application. Similarly, projects adopting APM-aligned methodologies reported enhanced governance visibility and improved decision-making cycles, particularly during front-end engineering design (FEED) and execution readiness phases. A strong correlation (r = 0.72, p < 0.01) was identified between early-stage framework adherence and overall project performance, underscoring the strategic importance of front-end loading (FEL) discipline. Moreover, projects that integrated Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) within structured governance realized an average 7.6% savings in procurement costs and achieved contractor productivity improvements of up to 15% during peak construction.From an organizational perspective, the study highlights that frameworks like SPDF function as both a control system and an enabler of adaptive behavior. The most successful HA/HI projects embedded governance checkpoints not merely as compliance mechanisms but as learning opportunities for integrated teams. Leadership played a pivotal moderating role: transformational and situational leadership styles, when coupled with clear procedural structure, enhanced team cohesion, psychological safety, and proactive risk reporting. In contrast, directive leadership styles operating within rigid governance environments tended to suppress bottom-up feedback, leading to “silent failures” in early risk detection. Interview evidence revealed that in projects where leaders intentionally cultivated psychological safety—by normalizing error reporting and encouraging dissenting technical views—engineering teams identified latent design flaws up to three months earlier, preventing potential cost impacts exceeding USD 45 million in one documented case.The paper also critically evaluates the role of contractor performance within these frameworks. Integrated alliance and incentivization models, structured under APM and SPDF principles, were found to improve contractual alignment and reduce adversarial behaviors. Value Engineering (VE) workshops, conducted within these governance environments, yielded quantifiable benefits averaging 3–5% total installed cost reduction without compromising safety or operability. Furthermore, the inclusion of contractors in early project definition stages enhanced constructability input, leading to measurable gains in schedule predictability. However, the study cautions that without appropriate relational governance and mutual trust, the formal adoption of frameworks may become a bureaucratic exercise devoid of real performance benefit.The research also contributes to the theoretical understanding of how structured frameworks mediate the relationship between organizational behavior and technical performance. Drawing on the Project Governance Theory (Müller, 2017) and Socio-Technical Systems Theory (Trist & Emery, 1951), the findings support the premise that high-performance project organizations are characterized by a dynamic equilibrium between formal controls and adaptive team processes. Frameworks provide the scaffolding for disciplined execution, but the human system—comprising leadership, culture, and stakeholder engagement—ultimately determines outcome quality. In the most effective cases, governance frameworks were customized to local project contexts, blending prescriptive process control with flexibility to accommodate emergent risks, such as subsea integrity issues or supply chain disruptions.The practical implications of the study are multifold. For practitioners, the evidence reinforces that adherence to structured project management frameworks yields tangible returns in cost efficiency, schedule reliability, and safety resilience, provided the frameworks are integrated with cultural and behavioral enablers. Organizations should prioritize leadership development programs aligned with framework governance, emphasizing psychological safety, ethical decision-making, and collaborative accountability. For policymakers and regulators, the results underscore the need to promote framework-based governance in joint venture and public-private partnership (PPP) models, particularly for frontier offshore developments where systemic risk exposure is highest. For academia, the study extends existing literature by empirically linking project management framework maturity to multidimensional performance outcomes, thereby bridging the gap between theoretical constructs and operational realities in the O&G sector.In conclusion, the application of structured project management frameworks—when supported by transformational leadership, collaborative contracting strategies, and psychologically safe team environments—significantly enhances delivery efficiency in high-risk, high-ambition oil and gas projects. Frameworks like APM and SPDF serve as more than procedural blueprints; they are organizational architectures that harmonize technical rigor with human adaptability. The findings affirm that project delivery success in the contemporary O&G environment depends not only on what frameworks are used, but how they are enacted—through disciplined governance, empowered teams, and a learning-oriented culture. The study advocates a paradigm shift from compliance-based framework application toward value-based, behaviorally informed governance, where the structured discipline of project management coexists with the agility required to thrive amid uncertainty. The paper concludes that the integration of these principles represents the most effective path toward sustainable performance excellence in complex offshore project delivery.
Keywords: cost and schedule performance, offshore project delivery, oil and gas megaprojects, project management frameworks