Thirty years after its completion, the Alaskan pipeline was in the news once again when, in early 2006, a leak caused environmental concerns. This led to a study which concluded that small parts of the line needed maintenance and maybe replacement. A look back at the colossal project would reveal useful lessons of project management.

The pipeline project is considered one of the most challenging undertakings in history. In the late sixties, when vast amounts of oil were found in the northern parts of Alaska, the idea of building a pipeline was initiated. While companies with oil exploration rights in Alaska welcomed the news, everyone involved knew that digging for oil was one thing, but transporting it out of the arid wilderness and the extreme conditions of Alaska was another story altogether. The Arctic Ocean is frozen most of the year, which prevents transportation by ship, and there are no roads within a-six-hundred-kilometre radius of the oil wells.

For oil to be transported into the US, it had to be transported first from the north of Alaska at the Arctic Ocean to the south at the port of Valdez, thirteen hundred kilometres away.  The only feasible option for transport was through a pipeline. Unlike most oil pipelines which are buried underground, this one had to be built above ground over most of its course because of the permafrost soil of Alaska. Permafrost means that the ground is always frozen, but if thawed it becomes mud that cannot support the weight of the pipeline, in addition to the fact that it shifts constantly and is prone to earthquakes.  The rugged terrain to be crossed included several mountain ranges with steep slopes as well as several rivers.  In addition, the temperature can easily get to minus fifty degrees Celsius in winter, which poses great threat to the workers and their equipment. 

Despite many adverse environmental and political conditions, the pipeline was actually built.  The pipes were over a meter in diameter and were divided into six construction sections along the stretch of the pipeline.  Five different contractors worked on these sections, employing over 20,000 people. The construction took only three years to complete. However, it cost $8 billion, which is ten times higher than the original optimistic cost estimate. Nonetheless, it was a miracle that the scope of work was actually achieved.  When oil started pumping into the pipeline, it took thirty eight days for it to make the 1,300-kilometre-long journey to the port of Valdez. 

Despite all these adverse conditions surrounding the project, one of the most favourable conditions that went a long way in achieving the goals of the project was the project manager.

 According to a Public Broadcasting Service (PBS) documentary on the Alaskan Pipeline, Frank Moolin, the project manager, was a big part of the project success.  He had great project management experience on mega-projects, along with great people skills that helped him to  overcome all problems facing the project. Reading about how he managed the work, one can deduce that Moolin used integration, communication skills, expert and referent power to drive the project towards success. 

Being a good integrator is a skill essential for successful project managers. Integration means bringing the whole project and its team to act as one cohesive unit, instead of acting in vacuum isolated from other stakeholders and team members. To succeed, a project manager can use many techniques.  One of them is to plan, resolve problems and review project status in a team setting so the workers can get the feeling of a team working together to achieve a goal. 

Moolin was armed first and foremost with a sense of mission and great referent power.  Referent power is having a personality that can influence others to do as one desires, not out of fear, but out of respect.  A project manager with referent power gets team members to do their work diligently because they do not want to disappoint the project manager.  Coupled with his expert power, being a known successful project manager made his team respectful and willing to go the extra mile, so to speak, for their leader. 

He also made it a point to visit different parts of the project during construction to stay in touch with the crews and follow up on progress.  He was able to motivate team members by reminding them of the project mission and its value.  He helped stakeholders to see the big picture to realise how their individual project components fit together in the big picture of an integrated project.  This required strong communication skills and planning to ensure that these messages were conveyed in a timely and effective manner.

Tuesday, February 20, 2007