A tale of two projects: Contrasting approaches to quality and safety in two major capital projects

I want to tell you about two major energy projects that have many things in common, but also have significant differences.

Both energy projects are in the front end engineering design (FEED) phase with billions in total installed cost. They also involve joint ventures and contracting strategies based on a fixed price. They face challenging cost hurdles and tight timelines through FEED and execution. Moreover, they both have a global supply chain, global engineering, procurement, and construction (EPC) contractors, fabrication yards, and licensors. Finally, they have world-class standards and requirements for project safety and the environment. However, the way these two capital projects approach safety and quality is vastly different.

Project A is already in a schedule-driven mode, with people complaining about organizational silos and no time for coordinated execution efforts. The project team prioritizes schedule over safety and quality, and the reality of day-to-day execution is that “Zero Injuries” is only a slogan. Tensions in the project management team are regularly on display, including public disagreements, long email strings without resolution, and distracted managers disrupting important meetings by taking mobile phone calls.

In contrast, Project B takes the time to gather execution contractors, licensors, and line managers to align on what’s most important to the joint venture and the project and what would be a win-win for all. The leaders began with a commitment to extraordinary safety performance that calls for beyond-business-as-usual leadership, contracting, engineering, and more. The energy project team identifies the largest hazards and risks and inspires cross-company and cross-discipline teams to eliminate them. Addressing safety proactively drives project planning and future performance, rather than weighing it down with burdensome requirements.

A forward-looking approach to quality comes to the fore in Project B. Instead of “inspected later,” early engagement of licensors, fabrication yards, and subcontractors in the design is underway. Company general managers share their respective lessons learned, requirements, and ideas for preventing delays, errors, design flaws, and construction accidents. As supply chain and construction risk go down, so does total cost.

Project B also engages off-project “functional” managers in discussions of safety and risk. The discussion begins on a personal note: “What does safety mean to me, as a father, brother, son, mother, daughter, or sister?” This relevance then infuses their conversations as professionals overseeing policy, requirements, long-term resource planning, and budgeting.

Major capital projects these days are more complicated and global in scale and need to be even more competitive. Project B addresses these challenges head-on by inspiring proactive, committed leadership. By calling for owner-licensor and contractor integration, seeking innovation, and putting safety, quality, innovation, productivity, and the environment at the forefront of their quest for business success, Project B is setting a new standard for safety and quality in major capital projects.

At JMJ, we are pleased to be leading “Start Strong” efforts with project teams on four continents currently, supporting projects in Pre-FEED, FEED, and in EPC (construction). These projects are setting benchmarks in their companies not only for safety but also on time completion and reliable start-up. Contact us to learn more.

This article was first published in April 2023 and last updated in March, 2025.