Case Study Kroon Chemische Febriek

Name: Lê Vi                                                           Project Management Course

ID: BABAIU13054                                                      Tuesday afternoon class

CASE STUDY

Kroon Chemische Febriek

1. Consider the work of the contractor Groote Site Service. Describe the contents of its contract work. Was there any scope creep to a POL contract completed 15 months ago? Describe any change to the scope of work and the initial timetable of the contractor. What are the causes of this change? (4 pts)

• The work of the contractor Groote Site Service was about doing the physical works conducting Planned Off – Lines (POLs) of KCF. Further more, De Groote had to train KCF personnel in how to use and maintain new equipment and provide them certification. Because the work requirement, some parts of the chemical plant need to be shut down and refreshed for cleaning and upgrading alternatively.

• Contents of its contract work:

The original contract set the timeline of the shutting down three mixing vessels on 22 September. However, the finished day was actually on 14 October – it took 44 days (rather than 22 days as planned). The contract changed the schedule and materials with a higher price than the original fixed price deal. There were also some conflicts inside the systems, but KCF did not take their mainly responsible for those problems. The insisted that they did not have any faults; they just followed the contract and solved the problems. De Groote thought that they had a right to sue KCF, but he was patient about not opening working field and delaying the business because of his long time relationship with KCF.

• Scope creep to POL contract:

KCF’s employees were trained for the job. This took more time and made the cost increased. Also, for extra work and purchasing some materials, KCF insisted to not give the money for extra cost that they did not expect. And also KCF did not give more detailed information about job that effected de Groote’s work.

• Change to the scope of work and initial timetable of the contractor:

• Timetable: It delayed outside de Groote’s control. As they reported, there was more corrosion in several of the steam pipes than their original inspection. However, as the contract is signed, all 3-mixing vessel need to be done simultaneously. The number of engineers increased from 20 to almost 50 people.
• De Groote’s staff: Without certifying, KCF insisted de Groote on updating to the training cost because POL and KCF need to be work interdependently. The cost was also considerably higher than the original fixed cost.
• Work process: Releasing the mixing vessel late. It took de Groote more time and even more money on the extra things (trained employees, new equipment, cost of materials…)

• Causes of these changes: KCF asked to install new air quality monitor and the working process delayed out of de Groote’s control. The schedule was not appropriate for the work and the change in certified employees between KCF and de Groote also led to these problems.

1. What are the consequences of this scope change, if any, and how well did all the project stakeholders resolve them? (3 pts)

• Consequences of this scope change:

• De Groote had to accept the changes in their working plan because of the relationship with KCF. De Groote even offered to send some of its staff until the vessels available. It made many chances for KCF to make sure that they were in good condition to complete their task as soon as possible.
• The purchasing procedures were also changed from a centralized model to decentralized one. They did not work in a traditional way after the plan changing. The original contract would be agreed with the central purchasing team, but now any extra scope of work would be agreed with the on-site technical team.
• At first, KCF did not consider carefully and allocate their staff to wrong mission. After that, they had to change their plan with higher price and more materials that had a lot of affects on de Groote.

• Peter Rikkers and de Groote insisted on keep taking costs from the KCF without breaking the relationship with KCF. They did not apply for legal action and imposition not to ruin their relation. They could renewal their agreement or they could make legal action to reach better solution. Also, they could make special contract for this case.

De Groote also agreed to let their employees be trained with the KCF program, although the cost increased for that reason.

1.  What factors that were outside Peter Rikkers’ control interfered with his efforts to work with KCF?

• De Groote had to train KCF’s employees, because KCF wanted to use the employees who were trained by their program and provided by their certification. Because de Groote and KCF staff had to work together so that KCF could certify the de Groote training programme. This included KCF insisting in making several changes to the training courses. De Groote just wanted to maintain their relation, so he was patient about not opening working field and delaying the business.

• Actually, KCF was not honest to De Groote and then infringed the oral agreement. KCF’s working process somehow were not truly right. They required many extra things such as time, employees, and other requirement for their job but they did not finish their work on time. As a result, de Groote should make a better offers that KCF does not want to miss the opportunity.