Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 22

SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE

January July 2001

The following comments emerged as common themes from 20 Feedback Questionnaires received:

Overall program was Good - 20 responses (+ 14 votes of OK and 2 for Excellent)

Program length was Just Right 26 responses (+ 4 votes for Too Short and 8 for Too
Long)

Amount of Information Covered was Just Right 26 responses (+ 2 votes for Not
enough and 5 for Too Much) There was some duplication here as one respondent broke
down his questionnaire responses by the 4 different presenters that covered 1 module.

Most Beneficial Parts of the Sessions:


Communication / Interpersonal Skills / Self Evaluation / Listening / Team Building /
Motivation /
Group Exercises / Interactive Discussions
Well-rounded overview of how a project comes to be.
Project Checklist beneficial for understanding what information is needed and when.
Project Definition 5 Cornerstones of a Project concrete, detailed discussion.
Module 3 Activity System & Engineering Monitoring (Convero) sessions had useful
details and generated much discussion.
Valuable to learn about existing systems and in-house tools.
HAZOPs most staff have not been exposes to this but more clients are requesting it.
Schedules most interactive
Contracts exercise to stimulate involvement
Review & exposure to Project Controls and forms
The quiz was a good summary and review
Learning about RDV, Engineering Tools, PMP (This was not on a written questionnaire but
it came up in class discussion. Susan to prepare a handout for Rick Huen to give to new
employees in orientation.)
Veronica is excellent and always interesting.
Meeting people in different departments.
Project Administration and Planning were particularly relevant to me right now.

Least Beneficial Parts of the Sessions


Motivation / Organization Exercises not realistic enough & wont stay with you long
enough to use everyday
No Saturday sessions, please
Project-planning session too specific to AMEC environment, need broader application.
Not enough time spent on Activity System & Engineering Monitoring (examples too
simplistic would like real-world examples).
Its sometimes difficult to understand how to apply what weve just been taught.
DCVP not a workable system (Module 8)
Capital Cost Control doesnt work for instrumentation (Guy Foyle)
Purchasing not enough coverage of an Area Leads responsibilities here).
RDV and the PMP
The first couple of sessions were too unfocussed.
Lack of examples to reinforce topics too much detail on certain topics.
Handouts should be more inter-related.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Reasons for not being able to Implement What Youve Learned:


Personal limitations, e.g., poor memory, old habits, inexperience, time bandits
Inadequate project budgets / schedules
Project Definition only covers ideal situation, not realistic
I wont be involved in many of these areas of a project
The type of work Ill be involved in precludes use of most of this info.
Depends on project size. Not always applicable to SMALLER projects.
Feel as though I do have time to follow the PMP when Im pressed for time.

Support Required
Clear direction from management and capable sub-ordinates
Easily available tools & mentoring
Training in communication & organizational skills
Senior management support for continued commitment to this (and future) group of
participants
Name of mentoring contact for problems, PMP orientation, etc.
Samples of completed documents, e.g., Purchase Requisitions & Scopes of Work.
A review or Q&A session in a couple of months.
A place to find samples of Best Practice for all tasks (not just blank forms).

Parts of the Program that were Difficult to Understand:


Wieckes section on Authority / Responsibility
Convero
Acronyms and terms/phrases were unfamiliar. How about a glossary?

Presentation Methods 22 votes for Good (+2 for Poor, 10 for OK and 1 for Excellent)

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Suggestions for Improvement in Presentation Methods:


At the beginning of the course, start a Fictional Project and, after learning the
contents of each module, apply the information to the fictional project through
group exercises, discussion, role-playing, etc.
Role playing during Interpersonal / Communication module
Regular follow-up get-togethers after course is finished, to reinforce messages and
discuss situations and problems
Dont try to cover too much information in each session
Group questions should be followed by a formal answer approved for general usage
Invite more audience participation, Q&A, exercises, etc, less straight lecturing.
Dont allow one participate to monopolize discussions that are only particular to
their own discipline
More coverage and focus on smaller projects
More Convero information (e.g., sample reports)
More information and exercises on the details of planning (ESP, PTP)
Tried to cover too much, too quickly. Progress Monitoring & Activity Numbering System
should be a separate module.
Too much duplication of handouts. More structure required.
Document Management session (Module 9) should include section on Revision
Numbering and discussion of Issue Numbers versus Revision Numbers.

More overheads

Make the course cover a shorter time-frame (6 months is too long).

The amount of handouts were overwhelming more than 500 pages. A compact
handbook of less than 100 pages would be more useful (including references to
relevant forms and other documents).

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Other Comments:
Well-planned and executed
Good variation between overheads and whiteboards
Mix of styles between presenters was balanced and effective
Interactive Q&A is better than just straight lecturing.
Duplication of overheads / handouts, etc.
More details needed re: Area Leads responsibilities / authority with regard to some
sessions (e.g., producing Capital Cost & Engineering Estimates).
AMEC must develop a consistent set of design guideline documents before their
application can be realistically taught (Module 8).
Experienced Area Leads should not be included in the course we already know the
material (Module 9).
Group exercises are very valuable Need them for EVERY session.
Course is geared towards LARGE projects, but most of our current work is on SMALL
projects.
Enjoyed the final session. Diversity of presentation methods made it interesting.
Some coverage on applying this information to Studies.
The amount of material covered was just right but the course was spread over too long a
time frame. Cant remember the earlier material covered.
Encourage more student interaction and participation.
Experienced Area Leads should not be in this course theyre already familiar with
subject matter.
Id like to see a shorter, more focused, hands on version of the course.
Too much detail in the amount of material covered. Keep it leaner, more general and offer
support after the course is over.
The course is worth it. Keep it up and allow it to mature.
Have examples of things gone wrong on projects and how they were fixed.
Have some viewpoints from the clients side.
Show what the client expects from us.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 2 Front End Planning


(Len)

1. Overall Program OK 1
Good 2
2. Program Length Just right 3
3. Amount of Info. Just right 3
4. Most Beneficial Parts Well-rounded overview of how a project comes to be.
Project Checklist will be beneficial for understanding what information is needed and when.
Project Definition 5 Cornerstones of a project Very concrete, detailed discussion by Len.
5. Least Beneficial Parts The planning of a project session was geared towards AMECs approach of doing the job
from pre-feasibility to commissioning. This is not usually the case with most other firms.
Lets make sure we are taught well-rounded principles and not so specialized approaches.
6. Percentage Usable See below
7. If not 100%, why? Unsure Project Definition is for ideal situation which does not occur in the real world.
What do you do about lack of info/detail in the Project Definition?
8. Support required Name of mentoring contact for problems.
9. Difficult to Understand No x 3
10. Presentation Methods OK 1
Good 2
11. Suggestions to Improve Len should invite more audience participation
Presentation Add examples of projects? Is this in later modules?
12. Other comments Good variation between the use of overheads and whiteboards.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 3 Project Implementation


(Bryan / Gord / Andrew / Jennifer)

1. Overall Program OK 4 (1 OK each specified for Gord and Bryan and


Good 5 1 Good each specified for Andrew and Jennifer)
2. Program Length Too short 1 Progress Monitoring
Just right 5 Just right for all presenters except Bryan
Too long 2 2 votes for Bryan as too long
3. Amount of Info. Not enough 1 (not enough of Andrews Activity Coding & Monitoring)
Just right 5 Just right for all presenters except Bryan
Too much 3 2 votes for Bryan as too much general info.
4. Most Beneficial Parts Material presented by Andrew and Jennifer had lots of useful detail and generated much
discussion.
Very interesting overall
All
The review of existing systems and in-house tools
Jennifers session Intro to Convero heard lots about it but have no experience with the
system so I was pleased to get a brief intro.
Gord Checklists.
5. Least Beneficial Parts Bryans information was already very familiar.
Would like to spend more time on Activity Coding and Monitoring.
Progress Monitoring Examples were too simplistic. Since we can all do the math, I think we
should look at the real system.
None
6. Percentage Usable See below
7. If not 100%, why? Lots
75% - I probably will not be involved in Project Front-End Planning systems.
100% x 2
8. Support required N/A
9. Difficult to Understand No x 8
1 x Convero

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 3 Project Implementation


(Bryan / Gord / Andrew / Jennifer)

10. Presentation Methods Poor 1


OK 1
Good 7
11. Suggestions to Improve At some points in the seminar, one person seemed to dominate the discussions based on his
Presentation background field instead of looking at the overall picture. Can the presenters steer around
this problem somehow?
More coverage and focus on smaller projects.
Sample (Convero) reports would be of interest.
(Bryans session) More information and details on planning, especially ESP, PTP. Maybe a
practical exercise on PTP, or something similar.
Tried to cover too much, too quickly. Progress monitoring and numbering systems should be
a separate module.
12. Other comments Interactive question & answer (give & take) is better than straight lecturing
Overall, the mix of styles between the presenters was balanced and effective
(Jennifers session) handouts were duplicated
(All presenters sessions) handout were repetitive we have received duplicate copies
(small slide and full-size slide) of a lot of material

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 4 Scoping the Project


(Gord / Grig / Bryan)

1. Overall Program OK 1
2. Program Length Just right 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 1
4. Most Beneficial Parts
5. Least Beneficial Parts
6. Percentage Usable 100%
7. If not 100%, why?
8. Support required
9. Difficult to Understand No
10. Presentation Methods OK 1
11. Suggestions to Improve Course should be set up as a fictional project. Should then have exercises to produce scope
Presentation documents PIC list, scope of services, etc.
12. Other comments Need more details on Area Leads responsibilities / authority when producing Capital Cost and
Engineering Estimates. Wrong assumptions and poor information could get AMEC in a lot of
trouble.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 5 Change Management


(Len)

1. Overall Program Good 2


2. Program Length Just right 2
3. Amount of Info. Just right 2
4. Most Beneficial Parts Group activity of filling out form. It identified areas where I did not fully understand some
practices.
5. Least Beneficial Parts N/A
6. Percentage Usable 100% x 2
7. If not 100%, why?
8. Support required
9. Difficult to Understand No
10. Presentation Methods Good 2
11. Suggestions to Improve Do the group exercise earlier.
Presentation Course should be set up as a fictional project. A scope change should be made and it should
be documented as an exercise.
12. Other comments

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 6 Project Management (PMP)


(Gord)

1. Overall Program OK 1
2. Program Length Just right 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 1
4. Most Beneficial Parts
5. Least Beneficial Parts
6. Percentage Usable
7. If not 100%, why? 100%
8. Support required
9. Difficult to Understand
10. Presentation Methods Good 1
11. Suggestions to Improve
Presentation
12. Other comments Fine as is.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 7 Project Administration (PMP)


(Gord)

1. Overall Program OK 1
2. Program Length Just right 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 1
4. Most Beneficial Parts Handouts are good.
5. Least Beneficial Parts Its sometimes difficult to understand how to apply some of the tools weve just been taught.
6. Percentage Usable
7. If not 100%, why?
8. Support required
9. Difficult to Understand
10. Presentation Methods
11. Suggestions to Improve I think for the entire Leaders Course, it would have been beneficial if we started a fictional
Presentation project and, after learning about each module, apply the contents of the module to our
fictional project.
12. Other comments

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 8 Design Control


(Alex and John)

1. Overall Program OK 1
2. Program Length Just right 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 1
4. Most Beneficial Parts HAZOPS Its a subject that most have not been exposed to but more and more clients are
using.
5. Least Beneficial Parts DCVP Attempted to describe a system that is unworkable and presenters have not actually
used. The company does not have a consistent approach to producing and using design
criteria.
6. Percentage Usable
7. If not 100%, why? 100%
8. Support required
9. Difficult to Understand
10. Presentation Methods Poor 1
11. Suggestions to Improve The course should be based on a fictional project and design criteria and checking should be
Presentation produced and executed for the project. Presenters should be more current.
12. Other comments The company must develop a consistent set of design procedures, work instructions and
checklists before their application can be reasonably taught.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 9 Document Management


(Susan / Gord)

1. Overall Program Good 1


2. Program Length Just right 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 1
4. Most Beneficial Parts
5. Least Beneficial Parts Program was not overly beneficial to me (Guy Foyle) as I have done all the tasks presented
many times.
6. Percentage Usable 100%
7. If not 100%, why?
8. Support required
9. Difficult to Understand
10. Presentation Methods Good 1
11. Suggestions to Improve Include section on Revision Numbering (i.e. what is sequence P0, P1, 0, 1, etc. and when to
Presentation change to numbers).
Review issue numbers versus revision numbers (many people have trouble with this).
12. Other comments Group exercise was good. The rest of the course should be done in a similar fashion.
Whole course should be set up as a fictional project
Students should perform all tasks You learn by doing.
Course is geared to LARGE projects, but most of our work is now done on SMALL projects.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 10 Planning & Cost Management


(Bryan / Andrew)

1. Overall Program OK 1
2. Program Length Just right 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 1
4. Most Beneficial Parts Schedules Most interactive
5. Least Beneficial Parts Capital Cost Control the system does not work for Instrumentation, therefore it is not
beneficial to describe the system.
6. Percentage Usable 100%
7. If not 100%, why?
8. Support required
9. Difficult to Understand
10. Presentation Methods OK 1
11. Suggestions to Improve The course should be set up as a fictional project. Should produce a Schedule, Drawing List,
Presentation Budgets, etc. for the project.
12. Other comments

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 11 Contracts and Purchasing


(Bryan / Rob Kerr / John Mancini)

1. Overall Program OK 1
2. Program Length Just right 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 1
4. Most Beneficial Parts Contracts Exercise to stimulate/force involvement
5. Least Beneficial Parts Purchasing this section focused too much on what the Purchasing Department does and
not enough on what the Area Leads responsibilities are.
6. Percentage Usable 100%
7. If not 100%, why?
8. Support required Samples of actual Purchase Requisitions and Scopes of Work would be useful.
9. Difficult to Understand
10. Presentation Methods OK 1
11. Suggestions to Improve The course should be set up as a fictional project. A purchase requisition and a contract scope
Presentation should be produced as an exercise.
12. Other comments

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for Module 12 Continuous Improvement and Course Summary
(Gord / Veronica)

1. Overall Program Good 3


2. Program Length Just right 2
Too long 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 3
4. Most Beneficial Parts All
Review and exposure to Project Controls and Forms
The Quiz was a good review and summary. Well done. I would have forced the group to
participate more
Veronica was excellent and interesting to listen to, as always.
5. Least Beneficial Parts RDV and the PMP
6. Percentage Usable 80% x 1
100% x 2
7. If not 100%, why?
8. Support required Easy access
A list of contacts to help with the specific portions covered.
9. Difficult to Understand
10. Presentation Methods OK 1
Good 2
11. Suggestions to Improve More use of and LCD Projector
Presentation Make the course cover a shorter time-frame.
12. Other comments I enjoyed the last session. The diversity of presentation methods made it interesting.
More focus on smaller projects.
A session, or some coverage, on applying this to Studies.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for the Course - OVERALL

1. Overall Program OK 2
Good 4
2. Program Length Too short 1
Just right 4
Too long 1
3. Amount of Info. Just right 4
Too much 2
4. Most Beneficial Parts The practical exercises where we had a chance to put into practice the information we were
learning.
Module 1 had the most useful information. Engineers tend to be weak in inter-personal skills.
Communication and attitude have a large impact on the success of a project. We can all
improve in these areas.
The hands on stuff.
Learning what / where resources are available.
Meeting people in different departments
Group exercises are good but keep to 1 per lesson.
Project Admin and Project Planning because I am just starting to work in these areas on
projects.
5. Least Beneficial Parts Module 8 The companies systems are weak, and inconsistently implemented in this area
and this must be corrected before the material can be properly presented. Everyone has a
different idea of what should be in the design criteria, procedures vary from having not detail
to having so much detail that they are a strait jacket, some disciplines have no check lists,
etc.
The first couple of sessions were too unfocussed.
Lack of examples to reinforce topics. Presenters went into too much detail on certain topics.
The handouts should somehow relate back to each other for reference.
I found Planning a Project and Project Scoping a bit confusing because AMEC performs this
work a bit differently than most other firms I have worked for.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for the Course - OVERALL

6. Percentage Usable See below.


7. If not 100%, why? Most Type of projects / work I will get involved in may prevent me using some of this info.
100%
Not sure Depends on whether or not Im working on a big project. As a Process Engineer, I
do a lot of front-end jobs so some of this stuff is not applicable.
Not sure Feeling like I do not have enough time to follow the PMP when I am pressed for
time.
50% - In many cases I do not have the involvement in projects to implement the material,
such as front-end planning, etc.
8. Support required A review session or Q&A session in a couple of months.
A place to find samples of best practice for all tasks (not just blank forms). The samples
could be drawings, specs, drawing lists, scopes of work, design criteria, estimates, etc.
Contact people for specific support in understanding the PMP document Orientation.
9. Difficult to Understand I missed a few of the courses in the middle so some of the acronyms and terms/phrases
went over my head. How about a glossary of terms/phrases?
10. Presentation Methods OK 4
Good 2

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for the Course - OVERALL

11. Suggestions to Improve A little too much focus on overheads, which were exactly the same as handouts
Presentation More involvement of the students in exercises, speaking out.
Group discussions about various topics / issues were very interesting.
From an environmental perspective, try to reduce amount of paper handouts (I think we got
at least 3 copies of the Generic PMP).
The program should be set up as a fictional project and most of the modules should have
exercises that simulate the tasks that an Area Lead must execute on a real project. It is
always easier to do something the second time. The course should be the first time. The
students should also have completed sample documents to take away as reference.
The idea of a fictional project is good !
How about a glossary of terms/phrases?
I liked the fact that people working in the different service departments made the
presentations.
I would suggest starting a fictional project and showing how each module can be applied to
the project from the very beginning to the end.
The amount of handouts were overwhelming more than 500 pages. A compact handbook
of less than 100 pages would be more useful (including references to relevant forms and
other documents).

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc
SUMMARY OF QUESTIONNAIRE RESPONSES FROM LEAD COURSE
January July 2001

Questionnaire Topic Responses for the Course - OVERALL

12. Other comments The program length was just right, but over too long a time period. Suggest shortening to a
3-4 month period, rather than 6 months. Its difficult to remember the stuff covered in the
beginning.
Biggest comment would be to have and encourage more student interaction and participation
(but I do realize that we were a particularly mellow bunch).
The course was of limited value to me because I have done most of the tasks many times
before. I do not see any value in putting people that have already been Area Leads or
Discipline Leads on more than 1 major project through this course.
I missed most of the second half of the course due to travel. I guess that most of the hands
on stuff was in those sessions. I would like to see a more focused, shorter, hands on
version of the course.
Regarding the amount of information covered, there was too much detail. Stay global and
give more examples. Keep it lean and mean and then offer support after the course is over.
The course is worth it. Keep it and allow it to mature.
Have examples of things gone wrong on projects and how they were fixed.
Have some viewpoints from the clients side.
Show what the client expects from us.

/conversion/tmp/scratch/369547197.doc