13. Incentive and Awareness Mechanisms

One effective tactic is to instill a constant sense of urgency by quantifying the cost of delay. Teams often underestimate how expensive each lost day is. For instance, researchers found that for a major infrastructure project (on the scale of the Channel Tunnel), every day of delay cost about $1 million . Oil and gas facilities can have similarly high daily opportunity costs (lost production revenue, extended overhead, financing interest, etc.). Publishing a “cost-of-delay counter” – e.g. a dashboard showing “Each day we slip = $X in lost value” – focuses everyone’s minds on time. Project owners have noted that when teams viscerally see the price of delays, they respond with faster decision-making and problem-solving.

‍

Some companies also employ visual trackers (digital boards, countdown clocks) showing days remaining to first oil/gas or buffer consumption (in critical chain terms). These urgency cues spur teams to proactively clear obstacles. For example, Shell’s project managers have credited efficiency dashboards and aggressive schedule tracking for helping the massive Appomattox deepwater platform in the Gulf of Mexico come online “ahead of schedule” (and 40% under the original cost estimate) by 2019 . Shell achieved this by optimizing development plans, standardizing designs, and drilling efficiently – all under a mantra of delivering early if possible  . In other words, they treated time as money and baked that mindset into execution.

‍

Another urgency tool is implementing strict change-control or freeze dates to prevent scope creep from eroding buffers. The Unocal North Pailin gas project in Thailand (a PMI Project of the Year finalist) is an example where rigor and urgency paid off. Despite an economic crisis mid-project, the team used disciplined planning and procurement strategies to maintain momentum. The result: first gas was achieved 37 days ahead of schedule (and 12% under budget) . The project leads attributed this to “exceptional team effort” and real-time responsiveness – essentially a culture of urgency – to hit aggressive targets despite setbacks .

‍

Critically, these tools work not by making people “panic” but by keeping objectives and consequences transparent. When every team member from the foreman to the CEO knows, for example, that “a one-week slip in piping installation will cost $5 million in lost revenue”, it creates shared motivation to avoid that slip or find creative workarounds. It turns abstract schedule slips into concrete business impacts. As McKinsey notes, digital project dashboards and control towers now allow such real-time visibility, raising red flags when slippage threatens key milestones so leaders can intervene fast  . In sum, making the cost of delay explicit – through counters, dashboards, or simply robust schedule communication – builds a sense of daily urgency that can shave small percentages off the total duration.

‍

‍

Flow-Aligned Incentives: Rewarding Throughput, Bottleneck Busting, and On-Time Delivery

‍

Traditional contracts often misalign incentives – e.g. paying contractors for work volume or low bid cost, not for finishing early. To accelerate execution, many megaprojects are reforming incentive models to align all parties with flow and timely completion. This can take the form of bonus pools for hitting schedule targets, shared pain/gain arrangements, or internal team rewards for clearing critical bottlenecks and protecting schedule buffers.

‍

Industry research strongly supports this approach. The Construction Industry Institute (CII) and Independent Project Analysis (IPA) have long noted that aligned incentives tie contractor motives to owner goals, improving outcomes  . In fact, a McKinsey study found that collaborative contracting models (where owner and contractor share risks/rewards) led to 15–18% improvements in cost and schedule performance on average . The key is that everyone has “skin in the game” to deliver on time – when the project wins, all win.

‍

Notably, Independent Project Analysis (IPA) has observed that incentive programs must be designed thoughtfully. In a study of government capital projects, IPA found that contract incentives (e.g. bonuses for certain productivity metrics or timely completion) did correlate with better cost and schedule results – but they work best alongside other best practices (robust planning, scope control, etc.) . The lesson is that incentives can’t salvage a poorly planned project, but when layered on a sound execution plan, they enhance focus on what really matters: finishing on time or early. Many owners now use a balanced scorecard for contractor rewards – combining safety, quality, and schedule targets – to ensure speed isn’t pursued at the expense of other goals . When schedule is a key part of that reward mix, contractors have a clear business case to allocate their best resources and innovative methods to drive timely completion.

‍

‍

Measurable Outcomes and Industry Benchmarks

‍

Real-world data and case studies affirm that urgency tools and aligned incentives yield measurable schedule improvements:

• Faster Project Completion: According to McKinsey, companies embracing “integrated project delivery” or collaborative contracts (with shared incentives) have cut schedules by double digits, versus traditional approaches . Even on a smaller scale, simply enforcing daily goals with rewards has flipped delayed projects to ahead-of-schedule completion (as in Kaibni’s example where a 45-day delay became a 20-day gain).

‍

• Schedule Adherence: Projects that cultivate a culture of urgency and accountability tend to meet or beat their baseline schedules more consistently. For example, Shell’s Appomattox project – a multibillion-dollar deepwater platform – started up months early in 2019. Shell attributed this to “efficiency improvements during execution” and a relentless drive to eliminate waste, enabled by strong leadership focus on schedule . Similarly, Chevron, BP and other operators have reported improved schedule adherence on recent projects by using visual planning tools and agile techniques that keep teams focused on the critical path (sometimes borrowing from lean construction and even agile software practices).

‍

• Time Savings of 1–3% (or more): In quantitative terms, a 1–3% schedule reduction has been achieved on megaprojects through targeted interventions. The table below highlights a few examples. Notably, several cases exceeded the 3% savings mark – illustrating that with robust urgency/incentive measures, much larger gains are possible. However, even the smaller 1–3% gains are valuable: on a 4-year project ($5B+ investment), a 2% time savings (~3 weeks) could mean tens of millions in earlier revenue or avoided cost. Industry benchmarking by IPA supports that “soft” factors – team alignment, motivation, communication – often distinguish projects that finish on-time or better from those that slip badly, even when technical scope is similar. In other words, fostering the right behaviors can reliably claw back a few percent of schedule that would otherwise be lost to Parkinson’s Law, slow decisions, and misaligned priorities.

‍

Project / ProgramDuration / SizeInterventionSchedule SavingsNorth Pailin Gas Platform (Unocal) – ThailandOffshore processing platform~3-year execution (1999–2002)US$125M project• Strong PM rigor and visible urgency (goal to set industry benchmark)• Rigid change control and stakeholder alignment despite economic crisis37 days early (ahead of schedule by ~5%) .Shell “Appomattox” Deepwater FPS – Gulf of MexicoSemi-submersible production hub~4 years (FID 2015 to first oil 2019)Large deepwater megaproject• Efficiency-focused execution: standardized design, parallel workstreams• Continuous efficiency tracking and cost-of-delay awareness from leadershipAhead of schedule (exact months not stated) – achieved first oil months early; also 40% under budget  .ExxonMobil Kizomba B FPSO – Angola*“Design one, build multiple” initiative*Multi-phase program of 4 similar FPSOsEach ~2–3 years fabrication• Repeatable design (standardization) – incentivized reuse vs. re-design• Modular fabrication on multiple continents to expedite delivery5 months early on Kizomba B vs. plan (approx. 10–15% faster) . All four sister units set record cycle times.Baker Hughes 61-Well Abandonment Alliance – (Operator undisclosed)Brownfield well decommissioning~1 year campaign (61 well P&A scope)Multi-contractor alliance• Alliance contract with shared KPIs• Incentive: Bonus for ahead-of-schedule completion; Malus for delays, applied to all partners collectively .~25% schedule gain – 76 wells completed in time allotted for 61  (team delivered more work in the same time frame). In terms of time, roughly equivalent to finishing ~3 months early on a 12-month plan.Large Oil & Gas Construction (Anon.) – Middle EastOnshore facility (refinery/LNG)Multi-year megaproject; 10,000+ workers, >50 subcontractors .• Workforce incentive program: trimmed 20% low-productivity labor (cost savings ~$5.6k/day) and used 70% of savings as daily cash bonuses for crews meeting targets .• Emphasized team morale and competition to beat the schedule.Finished 20 days earlyafter being 45 days behind . (Net swing of 65 days, ~7% of a 2-year schedule). Demonstrated how micro-incentives can rapidly recover lost time.

‍

‍

Conclusion

Feasible, not Fantasy: The evidence from industry giants (Shell, ExxonMobil, BP/Unocal, etc.), consulting benchmarks, and project case studies all support the realistic potential of 1–3% schedule savings via urgency and incentive mechanisms. In practice, many projects have realized even larger time gains by doubling down on these principles. The key takeaway is that time management on megaprojects is as much a human/organizational challenge as a technical one. By making schedule delay costs transparent (creating a constant sense of urgency) and by aligning everyone’s motivations toward “flow” (i.e. keeping work moving smoothly toward commissioning), project teams become more agile and focused on the end goal.

‍

Crucially, these approaches do not necessarily require new technology or massive spending – they are about leadership, culture, and smart contract structures. As one World Economic Forum report on capital projects noted, effective stakeholder alignment and incentive-sharing is vital to improving megaproject delivery . When the entire team knows that success means hitting the date (and that they will be rewarded for doing so), the psychology on the ground shifts from “avoidable delays” to “every day counts.”

‍

In sum, introducing a visible cost-of-delay ticker or a commissioning countdown clock won’t magically eliminate all delays, and offering bonuses won’t instantly make contractors faster – but these measures have proven to nudge behavior in the right direction. They chip away at the inefficiencies and inertia that plague large projects. Real-world results show 1–3% schedule improvement is a realistic, even conservative expectation when such urgency tools and flow-aligned incentives are implemented in earnest. In the high-stakes world of oil and gas megaprojects, that improvement can translate into substantial economic value and a stronger track record of on-time delivery.

‍

‍

Sources:

• McKinsey (2023), “Increasing transparency in megaproject execution,” – notes pervasive delays and the need for rapid issue response .
• Flyvbjerg et al. (2004), research on megaproject delays – quantifies ~$1 million/day cost of delay on large infrastructure .
• Eurolab Commissioning Services – emphasizes using the schedule to communicate delay impacts and drive on-time commissioning .
• PM Network (2004), “High-Octane Ideas” – case study of Unocal’s North Pailin platform delivered 37 days early via strong execution practices .
• Offshore Magazine (2019), Shell press release on Appomattox – achieved first oil ahead of schedule through efficiency and 40% cost reduction .
• McKinsey Global Institute (2017), “Reinventing Construction” – ExxonMobil’s standardized design (Kizomba) cut schedule by 5 months, proving value of time-centric strategy .
• World Oil (2025), Guillaume Fauchille (Baker Hughes) – alliance case where schedule incentives enabled 25% more work in same duration (76 vs 61 wells) .
• PMI PM Network (2016), R. Kaibni, “The Big Time” – describes using daily crew incentives to recover delays and finish 20 days early on a large project .
• IPA (2017) Government study – underscores that well-designed contracting incentives (e.g. for welds completed or drawings issued on time) can improve project schedule performance when combined with best practices .
• McKinsey (n.d.), “Seize the Decade: Pre-construction Excellence,” – notes collaborative contracts with aligned incentives improved schedule/cost by ~15–18% on average .

‍