– Lessons from a Unique Antarctic Project –
Antarctica is home to 66 research stations from various countries, 37 of which are permanent. At the PMI PMXPO 2024 conference, an insightful presentation was given about the reconstruction of the Brazilian station, which had previously burned down, between 2016 and 2020. How was it accomplished, and what generalizable project lessons can be drawn from this unique reconstruction under extreme conditions?
Projects, by definition, are about creating unique, non-routine things (services, products, processes). But when can we say that this uniqueness becomes extreme? Let’s look at the challenges of this Antarctic project:
Work could only be done on-site during the summer. The construction site had to be vacated by March 15, ensuring that the work done wouldn’t be destroyed by winter and could continue the following summer. This required modular planning, preparing parts at the Chinese site, and practicing assembly there. This provided an opportunity to estimate and schedule work phases.
Scheduling was further complicated by the unpredictability of transporting materials from the ship to the island, affected by sea conditions. This impacted not only the transfer of modules but also the ship’s role as a temporary storage, whose inaccessibility occasionally caused critical delays.
Workers were housed in living containers, limiting the number of workers present at any time. Thus, it was impossible to involve additional workforce during a work period. Managing tensions from close quarters and the need for isolation was essential to maintain work intensity and motivation.
The Project Triangle
Considering the project triangle, the dimensions were far from being set in iron. Quality requirements (safety of people, long-term functioning station) were non-negotiable, while the other elements required continuous monitoring and re-planning. Adaptation was needed for goals and scope, renegotiation for costs, and constant attention and new schedules for timelines.
Risk Analysis
A thorough and extensive risk analysis was conducted, addressing various risk factors: technical (e.g., differing standards), external (e.g., weather unpredictability), legal-financial (e.g., contract modifications due to changes), human (e.g., cultural differences), material (e.g., missing parts), logistical (e.g., dependency on naval logistics), health (e.g., accidents, illnesses), and communication (e.g., differences between military and corporate styles).
Successful Completion and Project Management Lessons
The project was successfully completed, and the research station is operational. Key lessons:
Preparing alternative plans to respond to unexpected events is worthwhile.
This exceptional project illustrates that project management, as a method, can be used under extreme conditions – conditions that are knowledge-intensive, continuously evolving, high-risk, and full of unknowns. Relying solely on rule-based and standard-based planning doesn’t necessarily lead to success in such conditions. A project manager’s role is complex, requiring much judgment and maturity, dependent on the situation and context.
Project management, by definition, aims at innovation and discovery within an organization, in contrast to the repetitive, maintenance-oriented, exploitative role that is essential for the maintenance and efficiency of organizational operations. However, as project management becomes more widespread and integrated into organizational relationships, it tends to become institutionalized worldwide. This leads to the rationalization, or even over-rationalization, of project management. The logic behind rationalization is that following best practices, procedures, rules, and principles leads to success. This stems from the expectation of success, and the fact that success is usually measured based on a few criteria. Despite the immense growth in project knowledge, the success rate of projects, according to the Standish Group Chaos reports, has not improved for years because strict success metrics do not account for deviations due to adaptations to circumstances. Based on those criteria, the project for building the Antarctic station would not be considered successful, even though the clients and implementers deemed it successful.
In our rapidly changing world, economic and social events, changes within organizations, and strategic modifications bring unforeseen complications, and a project’s life is full of unexpected events. The traditional strict approach can no longer handle these frequent changes, requiring a more flexible methodology. (An example of this is the spread of the agile approach.)
Project Management Models considering extremity
Verganti proposes two management models for projects: traditional and flexible. The traditional model relies on standards and learned methods, being plan-centric. Project managers handle uncertainties during the project and try to mitigate problems’ costs and delays. The flexible model is action-centric, supporting the novel resolution of continuous uncertainties.
Interaction of Plan and Action-Based Approaches
The two models should not be viewed as mutually exclusive; rather, it is essential to develop the use of both approaches. This dual capability is known as planned flexibility:
Throughout a project’s lifecycle, there is a constant interaction between the plan and action-based approaches. Initially, operational modes are used, but during implementation, new circumstances trigger a shift to exploration modes, emphasizing renewal and adaptation.
A well-known study on organizational learning examined exploitation (efficiency, implementation) versus exploration (research, risk-taking, innovation). Aubry and Lièvre extend this dual capability (ambidexterity) concept from organizational context to project management, illustrating with two Arctic projects.
Conclusion
A project executed in extreme conditions sharpens the message that project managers need dual capabilities. Alongside deep knowledge (e.g., certification), they must adapt this knowledge to situations. Project management’s novelty factor requires the ability to see beyond rules, expectations, and “good enough” execution.
Imre Szalay
Sources
"*" indicates required fields
"*" indicates required fields
"*" indicates required fields