So how can we avoid similar problems in future projects and achieve better results?

The signs are there – we just do not recognise them

Big surprises are usually surprises to some and quite expected by others. Many will have seen the problems coming. For some observers it is no surprise that things get complicated in major projects.

Some well-educated technicians could see in advance that constructing a nuclear plant like this would not be an easy task. Ambitious and approved by politicians at the time of purchase – yes, but in terms of engineering it is a truly remarkable and difficult project.

Furthermore, some of us who know about cultural differences between France and Finland were a bit uneasy about this project. Would the two consortia of companies understand each other well enough when the inevitable problems arise?

Check your project management against intercultural concepts

A good starting point to analyse cross-cultural risks (and opportunities!) is a mix of classic project management and assessment of culture.

In a project you manage typically

1. specification and content
2. schedule, progress
3. costs, budget, money
4. people, HR
5. information and stakeholders.

A minimal approach would be to run a discussion on each of these items with the project management from a cultural perspective. This typically involves an external intercultural consultant but can also be done by internal expertise: veterans of multi-cultural projects among the senior personnel who have insight, objectivity and sensitivity based on experience.

The role of HR in managing intercultural risks

The HR function has a role to play here. They may be the advocates for the importance of common working styles within their organisations. Through training and coaching programmes and increasingly through culture analytics, HR may offer understanding about the cross cultural differences and risks on organizational, team and key-individual levels. HR can also map the intercultural skills and needs of people using competency assessment tools.

Large organisations require tools for building intercultural sensitivity

Thousands of people are involved in a mega project. Some experience more international contacts and others less. But almost everyone will be in an intercultural situation where safety and operational performance can be impacted. When today everyone who has a smartphone has access to online training programmes, there are no logistical barriers to reaching all project participants with intercultural learning resources. Some innovative organization offer round-the-clock access to tools which help individual to deal with intercultural challenges.

Room for improvement

Project management in Europe is generally at a good level. Technical problems, budget overruns and delays are, however significant when they hit.

Cross cultural knowledge and expertise in project management is an area where many organisations can improve. Intercultural competence can save money and achieve faster successful project completion.

Taking active, explicit steps to build a culturally stress-tested project plan key people and involving larger numbers of project participants to build their cultural awareness minimises risks, makes for smoother operation and saves time and money.

Risk management for cultural difference in the workplace in a nutshell

1. Recognise the risk – there is a wealth of case studies, models and benchmarks for this
2. Measure the scale of the challenge – use cultural assessment and cultural profiling
3. Understand and act – to mitigate the negative effects of cultural difference and build high-performing multi-cultural teams

This mega project has been going for over a decade and has made huge losses for the French company AREVA through delays in construction and starting electricity generation – by 2016 many years behind the original schedule.

Business goals and profession may unify us, but culture gives us diverse ways of working

There are significant differences in belief and behaviour between Latin countries in Europe on the one hand (take Italy, France and Portugal as example) and Nordics such as Swedes and Finns on the other. Northern and Southern Europe are different, when we look at population level. This is also true in international joint ventures, acquisitions and mergers – even when there are strong uniting factors such as common industry, engineering culture and business goals.

I wonder if these cultural factors have a role in the project. Have they contributed to the delays, misunderstandings and problem solving?

Different cultures, different approach to specifications

One insider view is that the specifications were not good enough: nobody knew what they were getting into.

In my experience, this is actually quite common in big infrastructure projects. The specifications have a tendency of changing during the implementation. In normal circumstances, people would meet, discuss and resolve the problems from a technical or business perspective. This is how bridges and airfields are built. The changes are managed and the project moves on.

Did the Finns and the French really recognise and manage the cultural gaps they both know exist? Were cultural issues a part of the risk management of this nuclear plant project?

Stress-testing your project plan against cultural differences

We are told that the plant is airplane crash-proof and tsunami proof (no tsunamis recently in the Baltic Sea, but better safe than sorry). I suggest that the project plan was not properly stress-tested against known cultural differences.

If AREVA and the buyer TVO had executed even some pro-active cultural competency training would we in fact be much better off with the project, costs and the production of electricity?

Whether we deal in megaprojects or everyday work of teams and organisations, we need to ask: has our project itself been bomb-proofed against cross-cultural misunderstandings?

_{Photo credit Teollisuuden Voima Oy.}