An APM webinar promoted by the North West Branch Cumbria Chapter on 23 February 2022. Speaker: Karl Sanderson A root cause of project failure can be poor up-front shaping. Facilitated Opportunity Framing at project inception, repeated through front-end-loading, mitigates the risk of later project recycle, ensures that the project is decision rather than task driven, and provides the right tools for optioneering. Framing is being rolled out across HM Government’s Major Projects Portfolio, and agencies such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are taking the process even further by applying it more widely to their estates. Topics covered included: 1. What is opportunity framing and how can it help make project outcomes more predictable; 2. Framing as a tool for achieving stakeholder alignment; 3. How framing fits into stage-gated project maturation – what it adds that is commonly missing; 4. The origins of framing, practitioners, and its current roll-out across the public sector; 5. Other uses of framing outside of projects including; policy formulation; strategic decisions; strategic procurements; https://www.apm.org.uk/news/opportunity-framing-webinar/ https://youtu.be/4-WrVzHjzPA

1. Opportunity Framing
Karl Sanderson
Head of Cross-Industry Learning

2. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Karl Sanderson, Head of Cross-Industry Learning
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
Background in steering complex projects in the
energy sector. Used Opportunity Framing widely to
shape mega-projects in a variety of contexts and
across a variety of operators, including Chevron, AP
Moller Maersk, Total & the Nuclear Decommissioning
Authority.
Prior to joining the energy sector in 2005, Karl honed
his project management skills across a wide cross-
section of industries, on initiatives as diverse as IT
systems deployments, business outsourcing &
consultancy, & has co-founded a number of high-
tech start-ups.

3. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Premise of this Webinar:
A root cause of project failure can be poor up-front shaping
Facilitated Opportunity Framing at project inception, repeated through front-end-loading, mitigates the
risk of later project recycle, ensures that the project is decision rather than task driven, and provides the right
tools for optioneering. Framing is being rolled out across HM Government’s Major Projects Portfolio,
and agencies such as the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority are taking the process even further by applying
it more widely to the NDA estate.
Topics covered:
• What is opportunity framing and how can it help make project outcomes more predictable
• Framing as a tool for achieving stakeholder alignment
• How framing fits into stage-gated project maturation – what it adds that is commonly missing
• The origins of framing, practitioners, and its current roll-out across the public sector
• Wider uses of framing outside of projects including; policy formulation; strategic decisions; strategic
procurements

4. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Improving the Predictability of Project Outcomes
Addressing Root Causes of Project Failure
Optimism bias,
political bias &
strategic
misrepresentation
Under-
estimation
e.g. inadequate tools;
norms; reference
class forecasts;
probabilistic analysis /
threat identification;
benchmarking
Basic Data &
Scope Creep
e.g. late change
requests,
inaccurate
inventory /
Geotech.
Exogenous
Threats
e.g. political
priorities;
regulatory
change; protest
groups
Contracting
Strategy
e.g. abandoned
fixed / target
prices;
misaligned
incentives)
Execution
Strategy
e.g.
inappropriate
critical path,
wrong phasing,
minimal work-
fronts
Project
Management
e.g. immaturity
at gates, missed
deliverables,
unstaffed
positions
Poor Shaping
Optioneering
e.g. lack of
exploration of full
option space, lack of
aligned option
screening Decision
Quality
e.g. lack of
underpinning
from decision
support
packages
Scope
e.g. unclear
boundaries
leading to late
changes, failed
dependencies
Risks
Poor
understanding
of threats and
particularly
opportunities
Decision
Hierarchy
Project
Execution Plan
task-driven
rather than
decision-driven
Misalign-
ment
e.g. within the
project team,
across wide
stakeholder
group
Source: Sanderson et al. ‘Improving
the Predictability of Project
Outcomes’, DEM 2021, Sep 2021

5. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Size of the Prize
Source: UK IPA Annual Report on Major Projects
2019-20, Figure 5 Summary by Delivery Confidence
Assessment – project number and Whole Life Cost
• Improved predictability of Cost,
Schedule & Scope
• Some other-industry analogous
projects over-run by up to 40%
• Average nuclear project over-
runs average 3x cost and 2x
schedule*
• More green Delivery
Confidence Assessments
Source: Edward W. Merrow,
Industrial Megaprojects:
Concepts, Strategies, and
Practices for Success, Wiley
& Sons, Inc., April 2011
Some outcomes were as predicted
Some outcomes were adverse
*source Budzier et al, Quantitative Cost
& Schedule Risk Analysis of nuclear
Waste Storage, December 2018, also
K. SANDERSON, “UK NDA Application
of Reference Class Forecasting in
Optimism Bias Adjustment”, September
2019, IAEA Workshop on Cost
Estimation and Cost Analysis of Nuclear
Projects and Programmes, Idaho Falls
USA)

6. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Civil Nuclear Cost & Schedule Outcomes
The
Good
The Bad &
The Ugly
Good
• Narrowing uncertainties,
mitigating risk and banking
opportunities over time
• Each range of estimates
within the range of previous
Bad
• Base estimate not plotting on
the S-curve (i.e. <P0)
• Narrow range of estimates
Ugly
• Repeated narrow ranges
• No range overlaps with previous
• Re-baselining during execution
Source: K.
SANDERSON,
‘Cross-Industry
Decommissioning
Cost & Schedule
Webinar, September
2019,
www.totaldecom.com

7. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
VALUE
Identify
& Assess
Opportunity
Select
Alternative
Execute Operate
Define
Poor Project
Definition
Good
Project
Definition
Poor Project
Execution
Good
Project
Execution
PID SOC OBC FBC
Initial
Framing
Updated
Frame
Updated
Frame
# Options
under
consideration
L
o
n
g
L
i
s
t
S
h
o
r
t
L
i
s
t
S
i
n
g
l
e
C
o
n
c
e
p
t Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 1,
Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022
Relationship to Value Adding and Optioneering during FEL

8. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Industry View - Oil & Gas
Commonality in Project Maturation Processes
Concept Selection
Stage 1 –
Development/
Business Planning
Stage 3 - Define
Optimization/FEED/
Execution Planning
Stage 4 - Execute
Det. Design, Procurement, Constr.,
Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling
Stage 5 - Operate
Stage 2 - Select
Evaluate & Select
Dev & Business Planning
PIR
FID (Full
Funding)
Evaluation Concept Definition Execution
Prodn &
Close -out
G G G Hand-
over
SU
DSP DSP DSP DSP
PHASE 1
IDENTIFY & ASSESS
OPPORTUNITIES
PHASE 2
GENERATE & SELECT
ALTERNATIVES
PHASE 4
EXECUTE
PHASE 5
OPERATE &
EVALUATE
Decision Decision Decision
Opportunity
Framing
Document
Recommend
Alternatives
Funding
Request
IDENTIFY &
ASSESS
SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
Project
Initiation
Feasibility
Study
Concept
Selection
Basis for Design
Project Specification
Design, Construct,
Commission
Acceptance Test,
Operate
VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 3 VAR 4 VAR 5
DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4
Pre-SU Audit
Appraisal Concept Selection
CTR STP
Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Full
Funding
CP2 (Pre-Construction)
CP1 (FEED)
EMCAPS
PfD
VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 5
ODR 0 ODR 1 ODR 2
Pre-Project
Study
Prelim.
Study
Concept
Study
FDP/
PEP
ITT
Project
Sanction
Appraisal Works ~FEED / Basic Engineering
Signed
Contracts
PRE -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
APPRAISAL & CONCEPTUAL
ACCESS &
APPRAISE
SELECT
DSP DSP
Front End Loading
Concept
Selection
Stage 1 –
Development/
Business Planning
Stage 3 - Define
Optimization/FEED/
Execution Planning
Stage 4 - Execute
Det. Design, Procurement, Constr.,
Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling
Stage 5 - Operate
Stage 2 - Select
Evaluate & Select
Dev & Business Planning
Stage 1 –
Development/
Business Planning
Stage 3 - Define
Optimization/FEED/
Execution Planning
Stage 3 - Define
Optimization/FEED/
Execution Planning
Stage 4 - Execute
Det. Design, Procurement, Constr.,
Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling
Stage 4 - Execute
Det. Design, Procurement, Constr.,
Install., Systems, Completion, Drilling
Stage 5 - Operate
Stage 2 - Select
Evaluate & Select
Dev & Business Planning
Stage 2 - Select
Evaluate & Select
Dev & Business Planning
PIR
FID (Full
Funding)
Evaluation Concept Definition Execution
Prodn &
Close -out
G1 G2 G3 Hand-
over
SU
DSP
DSP DSP DSP
Project
Sanction
FEL0
IDENTIFY
FEL1
APPRAISE & SELECT
FEL2
OPTIMIZE
EXECUTE OPERATE
AFF AFE
IDENTIFY &
ASSESS
SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
Project
Initiation
Feasibility
Study
Concept
Selection
Basis for Design
Project Specification
Design, Construct,
Commission
Acceptance Test,
Operate
VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 3 VAR 4 VAR 5
DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4
Pre-SU Audit
IDENTIFY &
ASSESS
SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
IDENTIFY &
ASSESS
SELECT DEFINE EXECUTE OPERATE
Project
Initiation
Feasibility
Study
Concept
Selection
Basis for Design
Project Specification
Design, Construct,
Commission
Acceptance Test,
Operate
VAR 1 VAR 2 VAR 3 VAR 4 VAR 5
DG1 DG2 DG3 DG4
Pre-SU Audit
Appraisal Concept Selection
CTR STP
Gate 1 Gate 2 Gate 3 Full
Funding
CP2 (Pre-Construction)
CP1 (FEED)
EMCAPS
PfD
START AR1 CO
ODR 0 ODR 1 ODR 2
Pre-Project
Study
Prelim.
Study
Concept
Study
FDP/
PEP
ITT
Project
Sanction
Appraisal Works ~FEED / Basic Engineering
Signed
Contracts
PRE -PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
APPRAISAL & CONCEPTUAL
Front End Loading
Final
Investment
Decision
AFD
FEL3
DEFINE
Concept Selection
Evaluation G G Concept Definition Execution Prod & Close-out
AR 3
FDP/
PEP
ITT Signed
Contracts
FDP/
PEP
ITT Signed
Contracts
DSP AR 2
Concept
Study
G
PID SOC OBC FBC
Proprietary approaches:
• Big Pharmaceuticals
• Big Oil & Gas
• Large Consultancies
(e.g. EY)
• Boutique Consultancies
(e.g. Decision
Frameworks)
• Engineering (e.g. KBR)

9. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
UK Government View
Business
justification
Delivery strategy Investment
decision
Readiness for
service
Operations review and
benefits realisation
Gates
Stages
Assurance
reviews
Strategic outline
case
Outline business
case
Full business
case
PID SOC OBC FBC
Source: UK Infrastructure & Projects Authority, Opportunity Framing Facilitator Guide, March 2021
• Being formulated by the
UK Infrastructure &
Projects Authority (IPA)
• Being piloted, but not
yet issued for use
• Proprietary, for HMG
use only
• Being applied to
Government Major
Projects Portfolio
(GMPP)

10. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
IPA Opportunity Framing Method
Source: UK Infrastructure & Projects Authority, Opportunity Framing Facilitator Guide, March 2021
• Workshop setting key to achieving Stakeholder Alignment
• May be repeated for different Stakeholder Groups
• Succinct, written output, edited collectively

11. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Elements of a Frame
Day 1 Day 2
Where are we now? How do we get there?
Policy Requirements & Business Context Strategic versus Tactical Decisions; Options
or Strategy Table
Scope & Dependencies Decision Logic & Sequencing
Givens & Constraints Stakeholders
Value Drivers, Measures, Criteria + Critical
Success Factors
Governance
Where do we want to be? Risks (Threats & Opportunities)
Opportunity Statement Ambiguities
Vision of Success Uncertainties
Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Table I, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022

12. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Stability of Frame Elements between Stages
Generally Stable between Stages Different Between Stages
Policy Requirements & Business
Context
Givens & Constraints (increments at each
Gate with prior Stage’s decisions
Opportunity Statement +
Vision of Success
Strategic Decisions (completely different
set for each stage)
Value Drivers, Measures, Criteria +
Critical Success Factors
Decision Logic & Sequencing and interim
assurance points
Scope & Dependencies Scope - elements left on the fence will be
resolved as in or out
Governance (maturation philosophy) +
Stakeholders
Stakeholders (SRO, PM and Resources
will evolve)
Risks (Threats & Opportunities, though they get mitigated & banked)
Uncertainties (though they narrow)
Ambiguities (get resolved)
Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, based on Table II, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022

13. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Framing Pilots across the NDA Estate
Variety of;
• Business Units
• Initiative types
• Stages of maturity
• OF Processes
• Formats
2021
Business
Unit
Opportunity Type Stage
OF
Process
Format
Jan
Corporate
Centre
Framing Project Initiative Inception
Generic
O&G
Virtual
Feb Commercial
Outsourced
Decommissioning
Capital Project Recycle
IPA / EY /
Generic
O&G
prototype
Virtual
Jun
Corporate
Centre
Group Synergy
Identification
Logical
Programme
Inception IPA F2F
Jul Sellafield New Build Store Capital Project OBC/FBC
IPA / NDA
Adapted
Virtual
Jul Sellafield New Build Vault Capital Project OBC/FBC
IPA / NDA
Adapted
Virtual
Oct
BEIS / NDA
Strategy
Redacted
Policy /
Strategy
Recycle
IPA / NDA
Adapted
F2F
Furthermore;
• 5 IPA Pilots across various HMG departments & GMPP project types
• NDA Pilots; Sellafield Programme (Major Hazard); Corporate Energy Strategy; Dounreay; Magnox

14. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
UK Government vs NDA Emphasis
IPA NDA
Focussed on projects at inception Programmes / Projects already in flight –
focus on SOC and OBC as well as initiation
Focus on Policy alignment NDA mission and nuclear policies mostly
clear – focus on value added and
optioneering
Roadmap and IAAP part of frame Treat Roadmap & IAAP as separate
deliverables, focus on options / strategy
table and decision logic for next stage
GMPP only Wider scope of applicability, perhaps 40
initiatives per year
Facilitation by SQEPed IPA Facilitation by SQEPed IPA, NDA and third
parties
Prep plus 2-3 day workshop Prep plus 2-day workshop plus frame
check(s)
Mural Draft Output PowerPoint final output
Both
• Leverage same IPA user
guide & toolset
• Share pool of SQEPed
facilitators to encourage
cross-industry learning
NDA specific:
• ‘Cover Sheet’ for IPA
Guides
• Training (albeit with
integrated accreditation)

15. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Strategic Decision Selection & Rationale
Periodicity Maximum utility of Framing is at inception, and then again around SOC. There is less, but still enough value from framing at
OBC to include a third framing event, but usually not beyond into execution.
Relation to Gate Framing immediately before a Gate can be useful to support the Project Execution Plan (PEP) as a project deliverable,
however this exposes the Frame to recycle after the gate, once sanction conditions are imposed, or the decision makers have
gone against the project’s recommendation. To most efficiently utilise senior Stakeholder time and attention, it is
recommended to hold Framing immediately following the gate, even at risk of modest revision to the PEP. The option remains
to undertake Framing during the hiatus while a series of sanction bodies considers the business case.
Mandatory The IPA will make Framing mandatory for Government Major Projects Portfolio, including those at the NDA. NDA Senior
Persons Accountable (Decision Executives) will be invited, optionally, to consider Framing of their other initiatives.
Facilitation Self-facilitation by Project Teams is not to be considered. A competent pool of SQEPed facilitators, ideally fungible across the
public sector, thereby sharing good practices and disseminating cross-industry learning, is deemed best Value for Money.
Internal Function
Ownership
Notwithstanding that ownership could change at a later date, the NDA expertise currently happens to reside in Risk &
Assurance, though Framing is NOT being positioned as an assurance tool. Other organisations tend to offer Framing as part
of the Project Maturation Methodological Toolset.
External Function
Ownership
Further to review of cross-industry bodies potentially interest in Framing, the IPA’s contemporaneous initiative to roll-out
Framing had the most obvious synergies. The opportunity remains for a wider industry institution to formulate Opportunity
Framing as a national or international standard.
Scope of Frame Rather than insist on all elements of the Frame at each event, a core set of elements is recommended, the rest optional. The
precise nature of the core sub-set has been refined over the series of Pilots and remains under continuous improvement.
Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Table III, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022
Strategies
Periodicity Relation to Gate Mandatory Facilitation Internal
Function
Ownership
External
Function
Ownership
Scope of
Frame
Targeted Facilitation Early Stages Only Preceeds Gate Optional Project Team Operations None Pick and mix
subset
Enhanced Assurance Front-End / Shaping
Stages Only (up to and
including FBC)
Draft Frame before
Gate, finalized
thereafter
Yes (for specified
initiatives)
Subsidiary service R&A Assurance Infrastructure &
Projects
Authority
Defined core
elements + pick
and mix
Robust Assurance All Stages (including
Execution and Close-
Out)
Immediately Follows
Gate
Corporate Centre
Service for Estate
(insourced)
R&A Sanction APM or similar Full tool-set
Behaviour Change Outsourced by
Corporate Centre
R&A Other
Cross-governmental /
industry initiative /
application of generic
industry tool
Competent pool of
SQEPs
Other Corporate
Centre
Not to be considered
as an option
Recommendation
NDA Strategy Rational
Individual Decisions

16. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Example Options & Strategy Table
- NDA Strategic Decisions for Framing
Strategies
Periodicity Relation to Gate Mandatory Facilitation Internal
Function
Ownership
External
Function
Ownership
Scope of
Frame
Targeted Facilitation Early Stages Only Preceeds Gate Optional Project Team Operations None Pick and mix
subset
Enhanced Assurance Front-End / Shaping
Stages Only (up to and
including FBC)
Draft Frame before
Gate, finalized
thereafter
Yes (for specified
initiatives)
Subsidiary service R&A Assurance Infrastructure &
Projects
Authority
Defined core
elements + pick
and mix
Robust Assurance All Stages (including
Execution and Close-
Out)
Immediately Follows
Gate
Corporate Centre
Service for Estate
(insourced)
R&A Sanction APM or similar Full tool-set
Behaviour Change Outsourced by
Corporate Centre
R&A Other
Cross-governmental /
industry initiative /
application of generic
industry tool
Competent pool of
SQEPs
Other Corporate
Centre
Not to be considered
as an option
Recommendation
Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 2, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022

17. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
NDA Strategy Rational
Alternative Strategies versus pre-agreed Value Drivers
Targeted
Facilitation
Enhanced
Assurance
Robust
Assurance
Behaviour
Change
Cross-
Governmental
Decision Quality R O G G G
Stakeholder
Alignment
G O R R G
Delivery
Confidence
Assessment
R O G G G
Project Maturity O G G G G
Scalability of the
framing process
G O R R O
Cost of
optioneering
G O R R G
Schedule for
optioneering
G O R R G
R
O
G Good support for Value Driver
Reasonable support for Value Driver
Lower support for Value Driver
Strategies
Periodicity Relation to Gate Mandatory Facilitation Internal
Function
Ownership
External
Function
Ownership
Scope of
Frame
Targeted Facilitation Early Stages Only Preceeds Gate Optional Project Team Operations None Pick and mix
subset
Enhanced Assurance Front-End / Shaping
Stages Only (up to and
including FBC)
Draft Frame before
Gate, finalized
thereafter
Yes (for specified
initiatives)
Subsidiary service R&A Assurance Infrastructure &
Projects
Authority
Defined core
elements + pick
and mix
Robust Assurance All Stages (including
Execution and Close-
Out)
Immediately Follows
Gate
Corporate Centre
Service for Estate
(insourced)
R&A Sanction APM or similar Full tool-set
Behaviour Change Outsourced by
Corporate Centre
R&A Other
Cross-governmental /
industry initiative /
application of generic
industry tool
Competent pool of
SQEPs
Other Corporate
Centre
Not to be considered
as an option
Recommendation

18. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
• Accessibility in unfavourable weather
• Synergies with other assets
• Rig selection
• Rigless work
1 month
Design,
Maintenance &
Operating
Philosophy
Rig Strategy
XMAS Tree
Location
Lifetime
Philosophy
Satellite
Abandonment
Strategy
Abandonment
Strategy
Power Supply
Location
Well
Suspension
Strategy
Well
Abandonment
Strategy
Level of
Provisioning
External Entity
Negotiation
Strategy
Produced
Water Strategy
Execution
Phasing of New
Facilities
Facilities
Capacity
Corporate
Strategy
Satellite
Operating
Philosophy
CoP Date for
existing
Facilities
Wave Study
Exploration
Future
Developments
Commercial
Legal &
Political
Constraints
Select Single
Concept in
addition to
Reference Case
Select Single
Concept
• Remove Ambiguities
• Narrowing of uncertainties
• Stakeholder Analysis
• Communications Plan
5 months
• Data Collection
• Subsidence related integrity study
• Identify resource wells
• Compliance requirements
3 months
Basin Strategy
• Stakeholder Engagement
• Negotiation Mandate
• Stakeholder Engagement Plan
1 month
• Negotiations
6-12 months
• Study how long we want
• Study what is possible
1 month
• Gather Industry Lessons Learned
• Define reference operations
• Define targets / metrics
• Technology / technique studies
4 months
• Evaluate injection
• Identify other candidate fields
• Study purification technologies
1 month
• Iterate production profiles
from existing asset
• Iterate future
developments for all assets
& third parties
4 months
• Iterate future developments
for all assets & third parties
• Identify cost discontinuities
2 months
• Technical feasibility study
4 months
• Screening
2 months
• Industry lessons learned
• Legal / environmental studies
• Contractor screening
4 months
• Data collection
• Inaccessibility window
• Compliance requirements
• Monitoring alternatives
• Equipment reliability
8 months
• Commercial structure
• Idea of terms
• Equipment List
• Electric or gas turbine compressors
6 months
• Pre-FEED update
3 months
• Balance of
Later Decisions
~6 months
Focus Decision
External
Dependency
Key:
• Major inputs / tasks
Potential critical paths
A
A
Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 3 aspect
enlargement, Paper 22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022
Example Decision Logic – Select Stage

19. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Government
Relations
Firm Decision
Basis
Sanction Gate
Shut-in date
for Rebuild
Upsides
Accommodation
Sizing
Gas Carve
Outs
Gas Delivery
Point
Gas
Nomination
Regime
Fiscal Levers
Single Lift
Accommodation
Rigs
Investment
Proposals
Gas Quality
Future Riser
Execution
Sequence
Accommodation
Location during
HUC
Reference
Case
Tender
Timing of By-
pass
Satellite
Project
Satellite
Volumes
Assured
Volumes
FID
Focus Decision
External
Dependency
Key:
Decision Point /
Off-ramp
Example Decision Logic - Define Stage
Source: K. SANDERSON, ‘Opportunity Framing’, Fig. 3, Paper
22235b, 2021, Waste Management Symposia 2022
Select
Stage for
comparison
Note how
consideration of re-
use / repurpose
alongside
decommissioning
adds complexity

20. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Relationship of Framing to Assurance
- Example Concept Select Stage
Good Framing => Clear Integrated Assurance &
Approvals Plan => Effective Assurance =>
Robust Business Case => Quality Decision
Making
Stage
Boundary
Stage
Boundary
SOC OBC
Framing
draft final
Framing
draft final
Peer Reviews
(2nd line)
Approvals
Assurance (1st line)
Discipline Assurance
(2nd line)
Value Improving
Practices
Peer Assists
IAAP
e.g. cost, schedule, RCF, QRA,
Benchmarking
e.g. Design To Capacity.
Constructability etc.
e.g. Lessons Learned,
Process Engineering,
Risk Management,
Rotating Equipment etc.
e.g. SPER, PDRI
Commercial
(ECA), Legal
e.g. IPA or NDA
Integrated Gate
Review, Decision
Quality Tools
e.g. Subsidiary Board,
NDA Sanction
Committee, PIC, TAP,
MPRG
Framing at SOBC ensures that short-listed
concept alternatives are agreed in advance
among stakeholders, have suitable screening
criteria established for selecting between them,
and that the decisions needed to narrow to a
single alternative are clear and sequenced …
… so that at OBC, the recommended single
alternative can be robustly assured against
the pre-agreed criteria for selection, and any
gaps in decision making during the stage
easily identified, ensuring high decision
quality during approvals
… properly sequenced
decisions can be
incrementally assured
during the Stage …

21. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
NDA Scope of Implementation
In Scope
Out of Scope
Subsidiary Initiatives
Major Capital Project and Programmes
(requiring Central Sanction)
Strategic Decisions
Organizational
Functions
Small to Medium
Capital Projects
Corporate Restructuring
Plant Turnarounds
Operations & Maintenance
Initiatives
Beacon Projects
Undecided
Major or Strategic Procurements requiring
assurance
Framing Proof of Concept
Source: NDA Frame for Framing v0.9, with resolution of Undecided
* ONLY mandatory for GMPP Projects
GMPP*
IPA
NDA

22. OFFICIAL
OFFICIAL
Addressing Root Causes of Project Failure
Up-front contribution from Opportunity Framing
Poor Shaping
• Optioneering
Clear decisions, alternatives within decisions,
strategies
• Decision Hierarchy
Clear Givens & Decision Logic / Sequence
• Scope
Clear in & out, clear dependencies and actions re
items ‘on-the-fence’
• Risks
Wide Stakeholder brainstorming
• Misalignment
Project Team & Stakeholders aligned through
framing process and frame check(s)
• Decision Quality
Framing a pre-requisite for high DQ. Value Drivers
underpin formal screening of preferred alternatives
Biases
• Under-estimation
Clearer range of uncertainties
• Basic Data & Scope Creep
Clear scope
• Exogenous Threats
Wider stakeholder views
• Contracting Strategy
Alternatives explored and appropriate
option screened
• Execution Strategy
• Alternatives explored and appropriate
option screened
• Project Management
Clarity through Roadmap as to
maturity expected at Gates

23. karl.sanderson@nda.gov.uk
Head of Cross-Industry Learning