2001 Futura International User Group Meeting
Bergen, 18/19 October 2001

Introduction

The 2001 Futura International User Group Meeting was held in Bergen, Norway’s second city. Attended by a total of 26 delegates including Professor Steen Lichtenberg, the Meeting took place at the Golden Tulip Bergen Airport Hotel. The Conference Dinner on the Thursday evening was at the Fløyen restaurant, which is accessed from the centre of Bergen by a steep funicular railway. The weather was kind to us, and we had a splendid night time view over the city, from an elevation of about 300 metres’

The User Meeting began with an introductory address by Peter Adlington, Managing Director of Futura International. He noted that the past year has been a particularly significant one:

Futura International has recently signed an agreement with Aon Risk Consulting for the provision of software and services based on the Futura approach the new software tool, Futura Nova, was launched in the summer. Delegates were each given a CD which contained a short 15 minute demonstration movie about the tool and the Lichtenberg Method the Futura International web site has been completely updated

Review of the Futura Nova Software Tool

The afternoon of Thursday 18 October began with a short review of users’ initial experiences with Futura Nova. There was strong agreement that it is a considerable improvement over the previous tool (Futura v3.0). Installation is very easy and reliable, the user interface is greatly improved, and the tool is robust and reliable. The current version is a stand-alone tool, but an Oracle version is also being developed. Users were advised to make more use of the comprehensive on-screen help, and they were also reminded that a PDF file of the Installation and Quick Start Guide is included in the ..\Documentation sub-directory of Futura Nova.

It was agreed that users who wish to report software-related issues should initially contact with their local Futura representative.

Key Note Address: Our Environment and its Protection: Project Uncertainties Seen from the “Green Side”

Kurt Oddekalv - keynote speaker

Kurt Oddekalv is Norway’s original ‘green warrior’. After starting virtually on his own in 1993, he now heads up an influential organisation which is staffed by qualified scientists and environmentalists. Norges miljøvern-forbund has helped to persuade many Norwegian companies change their attitude to the environment.

In 1993, about 70% of the organisation’s time was spent protesting and checking-up on companies and incidents. The remaining 30% was spent on teaching/educating about environmental issues. Today these proportions have been reversed – a real success story. The organisation now runs a conference centre, and it also has a diverse range of activities, including a materials recycling business. In addition, it is about to complete an office block in Bergen which is made of second-hand materials – the first of its kind in Norway.

Kurt Oddekalv covered a wide range of issues during a hard-hitting, humorous and provocative talk. He said that we have learned a lot about the environment in the past few years – but now is the time to act. Kurt has very little time for ‘environmental idealists’ who can sometimes push environmental aspects so strongly that otherwise worthwhile projects get cancelled on economic grounds. Instead, he promotes a more pragmatic approach, in which environmentalists are ‘realistic idealists’.

Case Study: Use of the Successive Principle in Changing World

Peter Klemsdal, Managing Director, Umoe Mandal

Umoe Mandal is a Norwegian defence contractor which manufactures GRP vessels for mine-hunting and naval patrols. Peter Klemsdal explained that the Successive Principle has been used for schedule and cost risk analyses since 1994. He was therefore able to give a most interesting ‘long view’ of the benefits of the Method and how accurate the quantitative predictions have been compared to the actual results.

Peter Klemsdal discussed two cost analyses and one schedule analysis using the Successive Principle which had been made in 1994/95. The 50/50 (mean) results from the cost analyses were 2% above the actual out-turn cost, and the schedule analysis result was 5% longer than the actual time taken. He was very satisfied with this accuracy, especially since the projects were of such long duration (> 5 years). Significant effort had been devoted to managing the key risks and uncertainties that were highlighted during the analyses.

Peter believed that the inclusion of Overall Influences into the quantitative models is probably the most important feature of the Method (i.e., aspects such as technological change, supplier performance, customer influences and the quality of project management). Bottom-up estimating in the normal way is relatively easy, but, he said, unfortunately two-thirds of the uncertainty sometimes comes from Overall Influences, which are not in the estimating manual. In a changing world where there are rapid technology shifts (especially in IT hardware and software) and rapid organisational change (e.g., globalisation, rationalisation), projects are more susceptible to Overall Influences. The Successive Principle is a proven tool to help our understanding of these factors.

In summing up, Peter Klemsdal suggested that risk evaluation strategies could include joint risk evaluation by the contractor and the purchaser, common cost/contingency sharing, and more flexible pricing formats (e.g., a combination of fixed-price and reimbursable elements).

Case Study: Uncertainty in Designing a Large Hospital Project

Tom Haugstad, C F Møllers Tegnestue (Architects)

Tom Haugstad works on project control for the New Central Hospital for Akershus Fylkeskommune near Oslo (Nytt Sentralsykehus I Akershus, or ‘Nye SiA’ for short). Nye SiA will be constructed on land adjacent to an existing hospital. It is due to be opened in Fall 2008. The project implementation group is unusual since it has been assembled by the customer, and not through a self-selecting alliance.

Tom described recent cost and schedule analyses that were made using the Successive Principle. He commented that was ‘quite scary’ how accurate the predictions had proved to be, especially the significance of political and client influences. The cost analysis had suggested that reduction in the overall concept would be required, and this has subsequently happened. The schedule analysis indicated that the current timescales were too short, and these have now been extended to close to the mean date that was predicted by the Uncertainty Analysis.

Like Peter Klemsdal before him, Tom felt that considerable benefit could have been gained by involving the client in the two day Uncertainty Analysis workshop. This would have helped to ensure that all parties develop a common understanding of the risks and pitfalls that the project faces, and it would then also be possible to develop a common risk management strategy.

Collaboration with Aon Risk Consulting

The Friday morning agenda for the User Meeting (19 October 2001) began with a short talk by John Moore from Aon Risk Consulting (London). John outlined the work of the worldwide Aon Group, and he explained how the recent agreement with Futura International for software and consultancy services fitted in. He also outlined the recent UK emphasis on ‘corporate governance’, whereby company directors are being held directly responsible for managing the risks in their companies (business/market risks, physical risks and human/organisational risks).

Software Demonstration: Artemis Portfolio Director

Pekka Pajuoja brought greetings from Futura International’s parent company, Proha plc. He outlined recent progress within Proha, especially the consolidation of Artemis Management Solutions into a single global entity. As Manager of new product development for international products, Pekka has recently been heavily involved in the development of a new management tool called Portfolio Director, and he gave a short demonstration of its capabilities.

Portfolio Director is a Web-based, enterprise-level software solution which is designed to improve executives’ ability to focus on strategically-relevant initiatives throughout the enterprise by providing a process that helps make well-reasoned management decisions. The software should foster more efficient collaboration among executives and department leaders, and allow companies to examine programs in terms of potential return on investment, allocation of resources and impact on other projects. With this strategic analysis, executives should be better able to identify resource-heavy programs, modify on-going projects, and maintain a more consistent focus on programs that support corporate objectives.

Small Group Workshops

The rest of the Friday agenda was devoted to small group workshops on the following topics:

• how to develop the Planning Reference scenario for an Uncertainty Analysis using Futura
• how to use the Method for planning/ranking a portfolio of products why do we find it so difficult to really face up to highly damaging future possibilities and begin to make sufficient preparation? For example, why did many foresee the current recession in various industrial sectors (e.g., telecomms), but did so little about it? In the light of the terrorist attacks on 11 September 2001, how can we better handle significant ‘either-or’ or force majeure events when carrying out Uncertainty Analyses using the Lichtenberg Method?

Feedback from Participants

Futura conference participants 2001

Feedback from those attending indicated a high level of satisfaction with the conference itself and with the hotel facilities. Once again, the chance to share ideas and experiences in a small group environment was particularly valued.

You are very welcome to join us next year!

Popularity: 85% [?]