Perhaps the most important phase of any project is planning. If the planning is performed usingthecontent of the course. In your critical review please ensure you include the following:

1. Acriticalreviewofhowtheprojectplanningprocesswascarriedoutorexecutedinthecase study
2. A presentation of some new ideas and solutions to improve the planning process by developingacompleteprojectplanthatyoubelievewouldworkbetter,applyingthemany skills learned in the course.In your critical analysis, please ensure you cover the following areas:

SpecificAreastoCoverin Your Project Plan	DetailsRequired
- DefinitionofRequirements	[Identifydetailrequirementofkeystakeholders]
- StatementofWork	[AScopeStatement,reflectingstakeholders'needs]
- WorkBreakdownStructure	[IdentifyingMajorMilestonesandsomelevelof activity decomposition]
- Specifications	[IdentifyingSMARTobjectivesandcleardeliverables]
- Timing/Scheduleofactivities	[Activitydeadlinesandoverallprojectschedule, stating task dependencies and the persons responsibleforthevarioustasks]
- Budget	[Atleastatop-level/ball-parkfigureofprojectcosts]

PARTFIVE:APPENDICES

AppendixI.CaseStudy#1

TransferringHarborCranes:DeliveringaBoldIdeaThrough MeticulousPreparations and Quick Responsiveness

By:AlexanderLaufer,ZviZiklikandJefferyRussell (2012)

In 1996, following a comprehensive program to streamline the Israeli ports, four large harbor cranesweredesignatedforrelocation:twocranes(weighing400tonseach)fromHaifaPortto Hakishon Port and two cranes (weighing 250 tons each) from Hakishon to Haifa. All of the cranes were about 40 meters high. The client, the Ports Authority, issued a public tender for the overland transfer of these giant cranes. The tender requirements were based on the vast knowledge accumulated by the Ports Authority and by local Israeli contractors as well as on their past experience in overland transfers.

The relocation activity was described in detail in the tender. The first stage was to involve disassemblingeachcraneintoapproximately70transportablepartsthatwouldbetransported overland on giant trucks, while taking into account the limitations of the existing roads and bridges along the way. Before beginning the land transportation project, meticulous coordination was required between the contractor and the Israel National Roads Company (reinforcement of bridges and construction of bypasses), the Police department (coordination of traffic and parking), the Electric Corporation (disconnection of power lines), the Ports Authoritymanagement(timing,preventionofinterferencewithongoingactivity,stagingareas, and so on), other relevant authorities, and so forth.

After thearrival ofthecrane parts at their destination,the reassemblyofeachcrane wasto begin, including reconditioning/replacing all of the parts that could no longer be used after theirdisassembly.AthoroughinspectionofthecranesandtheircomponentsbytheBelgian crane manufacturer, as well as inspections by the safety and licensing agencies, would be required for approval of the cranes' return to service. Only after these inspections were completed would the cranes receive licensing and authorization to operate again.

Six companies specializing in the execution of similar works acquired the tender documents. The client estimated the time period for the relocation of each crane to be about threemonths, or about one year for the entire operation. Based on data from previous projects, the client expected the relocation cost of each crane to range between $3.5 and $4 million and, therefore,reservedabudgetofapproximately$16millionfortherelocationofthefourcranes. The expectations of the client regarding price were based on the cost of past projects andwere known to all of the leading and experienced crane relocation companies.

One of the six companies participating in the tender was Mifram, a private family-owned company. Since its establishment in 1962, the firm had developed expertise ranging over a broad industrial spectrum, including the design, manufacture, and transportation of heavy equipmentandtheconstructionofuniquestructuresandindustrialplants.Inaddition,Mifram had an impressive track record of developing and producing new and innovative industrial products.

OferKlein,theCEOofMifram,appointedathinktanktoidentifypossiblealternativestothe usual method of relocation. As he explains:

"This was going to be a competition in a world of equals. All of the other competitors were familiarwiththeoverlandmethodoftransferandcapableofdoingitefficiently,sothe differences in prices between the bids were expected to be small and the profitability minimal, if at all. I understood immediately that if we wanted to win and also make a

profitfromthislargetender,thenwehadtofindasolutionthatwasdifferentfromthecon- ventional solution. To have an advantage in the competition, we had to change the

game."

Ofer'sbrotherandvicepresidentofproduction,AmosKlein,wasappointedasheadofthe think tank. He describes his innovative idea:

"On a visit I made several years ago to the oil fields in the North Sea, I saw large barges towing a huge drillingrigin theopen sea. I proposed tothe teamthatwetrytoadopta similar method in our case as well. The team began to examine this original and challenging idea, which, to the best of my knowledge, had not yet been tried elsewhere in the world for these kinds of tall cranes that have a very high center of gravity and a very narrow base and can be destabilized rather easily. The idea was to transfer the crane from the quay directly onto agiant barge (roll-in), transport it by sea using a special tugboat totow thebarge,andunloadthecranebytransferringitfromthebargetothequay(roll-out) on the tracks that are alreadyinstalled at the destination port. The team began investigating thefeasibilityoftheproposed solution.Afteraweekofinquirieswithseveralexternalexperts, the team reached theconclusion that the solution seemed feasible. Mifram's management

gavethe'go-ahead' to investinfurtherexaminationofthisuniquesolution."

Amosreflectsonthefinancialriskinvolved:

"I estimated the cost of preparing such an offer at approximately $300,000, which would go down the drain if we failed to win the tender. I preferred to wait until I was convinced that theproposedmethodwasindeedfeasible.Wedecidedtorisk$50,000 in preliminary tests, as a kind of go/no-go test."

ThedecisionwasalsomadetobringYitzhak,amarineengineer,onboard.Amosunderscores the importance of this decision:

"At this early stage, it seemed critical to cope with marine- related issues, such as the wavepatternintheeasternbasinoftheMediterraneanandits effectonthebarge'sstability, the intensityanddirectionoftheoceancurrents,knowledgeofthecivilandmilitaryactivity in theIsraeliports,andsoon.Wecametotheconclusionthatamarineengineerwhowas

familiarwiththesubjectshouldbeaddedtotheteamimmediatelytohelppreparethe

tender."

Oferfurtherelaboratesontheprocess:

"WiththehelpofYitzhak,welocatedseveralcompaniesthatspecializeinthetransportationof oil drilling equipment in the North Sea. We sent each of those companies a letter of intent, in which we requested full cooperation in the preparation of the tender, without yet revealing any details about the specific tender. Several European companies expressed interest in the matter and asked for additional technical details before giving their final consent, but we did not yet have those technical de- tails.

"In parallel, we focused on identifying experts in the relevant areas, such as a meteorologist, maritimeinsuranceandlegalexperts,amarinestructuraldesigner,and

so forth. Thesecon-sultants wereaskedto performinitial reviewsofthe proposed idea and givetheirfeedback.Onlyafterafortnightofintensiveexaminations,duringwhichitbecame clear thatthechancesof successfullyexecuting this innovative ideaweregood, didwe decide to move on to the next stage, namely, to prepare a proposal."

Yitzhak,whowasinchargeofcoordinatingtheactivitiesofallthedesignersandconsultants, outlines the planned approach:

"The main challenge when dealing with a loaded barge in the open seas is to prevent the cargo,especiallythatwithirregulardimensions,fromrollingwiththewaves.Thebarge is equipped with a special computer-controlled gyro system, which acti- vates 12 pumps that pump seawater into the various tanks on the barge in order to balance it. Using an

appropriate algorithm and based on previous rolling patterns, the computer, which is programmedinadvanceaccordingtothevariousscenarios,cansuccessfullypredictthe intensity and direction of the next roll and balance the barge in time accordingly."

In addition, the tugboat's cable system must create a continuous and uniform pull, with maximum neutralization of various forces that result from the independent and separate motionontheseaoftheconnectedtugboatandbarge.AfterapproachingseveralEuro-pean companies, the appropriate equipment was located in an Italian company specializing in towing marine vessels and large-scale marine projects. The costs for the tugboat and the barge, capableof carryinga loadof some3,000 tons,wereestimated at$150,000 a day, with workdays counted from the day of the vessels' departure from the Italian port until their return. Most importantly, any backup capacity of alternative equipment that might be required in case of malfunction was typically difficult to obtain in the existing market.

Finally,aspecialcartwouldbeneededtotransportthecranefromitslocationonthetrackon one quay onto the barge and from the barge to the quay at the destination port. The initial calculations done by the designers revealed that the quay was not built to withstand heavy

localloadssuchasthatexpectedtobecreatedbythecrane'sweightuponbeingtransferredto the quay over the wheels of the cart. Hence, a multi-wheeled cart was required to minimize the local load on each wheel. This kind of a cart was located in Germany. It had 1,200 wheels, each of which was computer-controlled so as to inflate or deflate in order to maintain leveling ofthecart.Thecostofthecartwasapproximately$30,000aday,withworkdayscountedfrom the day of the ship's departure from the German port until its return.

ArepresentativeoftheItaliancontractor,whowasresponsibleforsupplyingthebargeandthe tugboat, also joined the team. His experience in the marine transportation of irregular cargo contributed significantly to pricing of the proposal and identification of the project's potential risks.

Despite all these preparations, the client was not even aware of the possibility that transfer couldbedoneanyotherwaythanbyland,aswascustomary.Thus,noaccommodationswere made for this option as part of the tender documents. All of the technical and contractual documents were designed to deal only with the overland solution. As Ofer explains:

"We had executed many projects for this client, and we were well aware of his sensitivitytochangesinthetenderconditions.Wewereconcernedthatproposingasolution so different from the tender conditionsmight lead to our immediate disqualification, so we decided to seek legal advice on the contractual aspects of our unusual proposal. We were

advised that theclientwouldfinditdifficulttoobjecttoourinnovativesolution,assuming that proper technical support and attractive cost estimates were provided."

Because the proposed solution was so innovative, the success of the bid depended on total compartmentalizationofitspreparationprocessandonmeticulouslysafeguardingagainstany leakage of information about the proposed method. Any premature disclosure of information could have been devastating for Mifram, because the client might have rejected the method out of hand. Therefore, each of the participants in the proposal preparation process was required to sign a confidentiality agreement, which included severe sanctions against anyone who might breach it.

Likewise, Mifram took all possible steps to prevent leaks of information about the plan to the competitioninordertowardoffattemptsbyanyothercompaniestoadoptthesameidea.As Ofer emphasizes:

"It was very important for us to know whether or not the competitors had uncovered our intentions.We invested great efforts in trying to identify anyapproachesmadeby the competitors to large contractors and suppliers in Israel and abroad. Since many of our competitors also resort to 'business intelligence' for large contracts, we went one step further. We established an additional team, separate from the other team, which pre-

paredaproposalforthelandtransportationoption,andinacontrolledmannerwereleased

informationabouttheworkofthis team."

One last decision remained prior to submitting the proposal: the tender price. This decision turned out to be the most difficult one. The "conventional" price of the overland solution was about $4 mil- lion per crane, whereas the estimated cost of the marine alternative was only about$1millionper crane.Ofer deliberatedbetweenhis natural desiretomaximize his profits and to quote a price closer to the "conventional" $4 million, and his fear of putting himself at increased risk vis-a-vis the client, who might, if the price difference was too small, prefer the provenandsafesolutionoverthenever-before-triedproposal.Thefearofafuturelawsuitdue to excessive profits was also a significant consideration.

Ofershareshisfinalconsiderations:

"Irealizedthatwewerenotlikeatypicalcontractorsubmit-tingabidtoaclient;rather, we were like an entrepreneur. We identified an opportunity, we developed a new idea to address it, we were confident that we knew how to convert our idea into successful results, and now we were trying to sell our idea and our confidence to an investor. Since this 'investor' is a public entity and thus its primary concern is to minimize risks, the price shouldbevery attractive, so that the public entity would not have a choice but to

'invest' in our idea. I felt thatdevelopingthenewideawascrucialtooursuccessbut selling it would probably be our most challenging hurdle.

"So, finally I decided to give the sum of $2 million as the tender price for the relocation of each crane. This price guaranteed a fair profit, covered all our risks, and was very attractive to the client. We also added an accompanying letter to our proposal in which we providedreassurance that despite the low bid price, we would meet all of the tender conditions, including safety, as well as a commitment to shorten the relocation time for each crane from threemonthstoonlyonemonth.Itwas,undoubtedly,amostattractive proposal for both client and bidder."

Uponopeningthebids,theTendersCommitteesawthatfiveofthesixproposalsindeedwere within the estimated range, and that Mifram's surprising bid was approximately fifty percent lower. Amos recalls:

"Several days later, Ofer and I were summoned by the Tenders Committee. The Chairman of theCommitteeinformedusthatafteranin-depthexamination,ithadbeen concluded that the method we were proposing wasunreasonable. The Committee decided to reject it out of hand, exercisingits contractualright notto prefer theleast expensive bid in this case."

ButMiframhadalreadyanticipatedthisreaction,asOferdescribes:

"We were prepared for such a scenario, and we were not ready to give up. Following the TendersCommittee'snotification,wemetandbrainstormedwiththecompany'slegal

advisors. It was clear to us that the client, as a public entity, was not entitled to so hastily rejectanofferthatwassignificantlycheaperthanalltheothercontenders.The PortsAuthoritywouldhavetoexplaintotheHighCourtofJusticetheirrejectionofabidthat met all of the tender conditions and that was submitted by a proven contractor."

At this critical point in time, Mifram decided to concentrate its efforts on the legal arguments vis-a-vis the Ports Authority management rather than on the engineering/technical arguments vis-a-vis the Tenders Committee. This approach proved to be successful. The Authority's legal advisorrecommendedtotheTendersCommitteemembersthatatthisstage,theyrefrainfrom rejecting the bid out of hand, and instead request additional clarifications regarding the proposal. The Tenders Committee notified Mifram that after reconsidering all of the

arguments,ithaddecidedtograntthebidderahearingbeforetheclient'sseniorlegaland

technicalteaminordertopresentitwiththeproposedsolution.

The entire technicalconsultingteam that hadhelpedprepare theproposalwas summoned for thehearing,andtheItalianmarinecon-tractorwasflowninfortheoccasion.Asexpected,the Ports Authority's professionals opened the meeting by expressing their grave concern about potential damage to the cranes, which according to the manufacturer's definition were not suited to be tossed around by the waves. Ofer responded by way of example:

"I understood the point that seemed critical to the client and chose to respond immediately.I got up andplaced thefullcupof coffee I had inmy hand on thetray andthen I carefully lifted thetray.Thedrinkinthecupdidnotmove.Iexplainedtotheclientthat this was exactly the essence of the action we would be taking: The cranes would appear to be on solid ground allthe time. This tangible demonstration 'broke the ice,' and from this point onward, our proposal was not treated as fanciful and illogical again."

At the end of the hearing, the Ports Authority's chief engineer concluded that if the crane manufacturerwaswillingto takethe risk uponitself andapprovethemarine transfer, then he, the client, would remove his objections. Indeed, in the absence of the maritime risk, the proposedmethodseemedpreferableinallotherrespects.Theclient,therefore,agreedto give Miframaone-weekextensionduringwhichitwasrequiredtosubmitadditionaltechnicaldata, including certificates from the crane manufacturer and other drawings and calculations guaranteeing that all risks to the cranes and quays had been taken into account and that the transfer of the cranes by sea would not affect their performance or void the manufacturer's warranty.

InYitzhak'sestimation,thesetermswerequitereasonable:"Theclient'srequirementsseemed

logicaltome.I,too,wouldhavedonethesame,especiallyinlightofthefactthat this

adventuresomeideahadneverbeentriedbefore."Buttherewasmuchto bedoneinthatone- week grace period granted by the client.

Oferwasalsosympathetictotheclient'sconcerns:

"Iunderstoodthattheclientwaswillingtolistento usandthatitwasnowuptoonlyus

to landthejob.Itwasimportanttoustomakeitcleartothecranemanufacturerthatour

primary task was to guarantee the crane's perfect stability throughout the entire process, as ifitwereonsolidgroundratherthanonthesea.Ithadtobeascertainedthat the crane would not actually be affected by any change during its marine transfer, specifically that the extent of jolting would be in accordance with the Belgian

manufacturer's guidelines and would not in any case exceed the permitted limit for land activity. We planned to conform to all of the manufacturer's requirements, including reinforcing and securing the crane on the barge during the sea voyage, and to build in safety factors that were three times higher than thecalculatedrequirementsfor overland transport."

A series of meetings in Belgium with the crane manufacturer's technical and administrative team was scheduled in order to obtain approval for the proposed plan. The meetings lasted twodaysandendedsuccessfully,withthecranemanufacturerconvincedaboutthesafetyof the marine transfer. They agreed to send the client a letter specifying that in light of the material presented, there was no appar- ent reason to prevent the marine transfer of the cranes and confirming that the warranties on the cranes would not be void following such a move.

As an entrepreneur aiming to improve his chances of "selling his idea," Ofer decided at this stage not to limit his attention to the engineering issues. He chose to mount a parallel campaign with the Haifa and HaKishon port managements, for whom the shutdown of the cranes' operation would have had a critical impact on operations. The possibility of considerablyshorteningthedurationofcranedown-timeandconcentratingtheworkduring the holiday season, when the workload in the ports would be significantly reduced, was an attractive prospect for the port managers. After hearing the persuasive arguments, they relayed their impressions and recommendations to the Tenders Committee accordingly.

Alloftherequireddocuments,includingtheletterfromtheBelgianmanufacturer, were

presentedtothePortsAuthority'schiefengineer,whowasentrustedwiththetaskofmaking

thefinaldecisiononwhetherornottoapprovethemethod.Ofer recalls:

"BeforeweenteredthemeetingwiththeCommittee,thechiefengineersummonedme to a one-on-one meeting. He indicated to me that this was his last project before retiring from the PortsAuthorityandthatfailureoftheprojectwouldcastalongshadowoverhis entire career:'I believe in the method you are proposing, and I expect your personal commitment to its success. I ask that you do not disappoint me.' The engineer's sincere words moved me, and I madeacommitmenttohimtomakeeveryefforttoensurethat the project succeeds."

It should be stressed that although Ofer and Amos might have been taking a real risk, they werealsogoingtobenefitdirectly,whereasthechiefengineerwasapublicservantwhodid not stand to gain any direct benefits from taking such risks. Beyond his personal concerns

about putting his career on the line, the chief engineer's willingness to support the plan was praiseworthyforanotherreasonaswell.Atthattime,thePortsAuthoritywasabouttoissuea large tender for the supply of new cranes, and the Belgian manufacturer, who was coveting

that tender, would have probably complied with any request made by the Authority's engineer.Inalllikelihood,eventheslightesthintonthepartofthechiefengineerwouldhave sufficed for the Belgian manufacturer to reject Mifram's request out of hand.

The Ports Authority's chief engineer proceeded to inform the Tenders Committee that after reviewing all of the documents he had received, he was now ready to approve the transfer methodsuggestedbyMifram.Aboutamonthlater,theTendersCommitteeissuedanapproval of Mifram as the winning contractor.

TheRiskReductionPhase

Uponreceivingtheofficialnotificationaboutbeingawardedthejob,Amostooktheroleof project manager:

"While it was not clear when the actual transportation would start and we assumed we had about two monthsfor detailed preparations, itwasvery clear, all along, that thisproject had only two possible outcomes: a complete success or a complete failure. Partial success would be a disaster for the client and for us. Accordingly, the overall objective of allour preparatory activitieswasalsoveryclear:Reduceriskandeliminateittothegreatest extent possible.

"Although the specific task at hand was completely outside my area of expertise, I had already acquired rich experience in leading 'out-of-the-box' projects. This experience guided me inselecting the execution strategymeticulous preparations coupled with enhanced redundanciesandwasalsoveryhandyinquicklyidentifyingtherightexperts, a fewofthem fromabroad,aswell asin adopting an appropriate decision-making process. In some cases, Irelied almost blindly on the input of the experts, but in most cases, either because of the subject or the expert, I decided to seek a second opinion.

"Forsomeaspects,wefollowedthetypicaldesignengineeringpatternsofinformation collection, analysis, and design. For other, more complicated aspects, the design was preceded by brainstorming meetings, where extreme scenarios were examined. We examined evenvery extremescenarios, such as the capsizingof thecraneonthe quay

during the overland transfer, which might damage anchored ships and shut down the quay for an extended period of time. For other aspects, where knowledge was completely missing, we started by testing our models in sophisticated labs. For example, the Faculty of Aeronautics attheTechnion,theIsraelInstituteofTechnology, wascom-missionedtotesta computer model of the crane/barge system in a wind tunnel on a dynamic platform in order to calculate the forces expected to acton the crane during the sea voyage, with the swaying of the waves, and to determine the required harnessing."

There were many other issues that had to be addressed by Amos and his team in order to minimize risk. For example, a powerful magnetic surface was mounted on the front of the overlandvehicle,whichwasequippedwithadrivesystemthatincludedabout1,200wheelsto minimize the load on the quay. The magnet was designed to prevent punctured wheels by collecting all of the sharp metal objects, such as nails and screws, scattered along the route.

Anothersafetyissuewaspreventingthebargefromswayingdangerouslyduetothetrans-fer of the crane from the quay to the barge and back. A steel bridge was designed and

manufactured to connect the quay to the center of the barge to stabilize it and keep the crane'sloaduniformlydistributedoverthebargesurfacewhenloadingorunloadingit.Finally, the thickness of the tension cables had to be two and a half times that required by the calculations in order to satisfy Lloyd's, the maritime insurance company, whose job it was to approve the harnessing of the crane to the barge before each departure from port.

In order to provide immediate solutions for any mishap related to the critical issue of harnessingthecranetothebargeduringtheseavoyage,Amosdecidedtotripletheamountof designated equip- ment (such as welding apparatuses, generators, cranes, cables, and so on). Indeed, for all critical systems, including the number of wheels (1,200) and the capacity of the barge (3,000 tons), the safety requirements embraced were much higher than those dictated bythedirectcalculations.Extremelyrigoroustestswerealsoconducted,asAmosillustrated:"I decided to invite an expert in ship building and asked him to examine the tugboat and the barge very thoroughly, as if I was about to purchase this equipment." Moreover, work crews were rein- forced, and an additional backup crew was added to each shift.

While still refining the "hardware" side of the mission, Amos started focusing on the people side of it as well. A project manager was specially appointed to take care of all the administrative issues on site, including hot meals, lavatories and showers on the barge, transportation, fueling, and daily changes of work clothes. Amos even decided to purchasenewtoolsandclothinglabeledwiththenameoftheprojectsoastoenhancetheidentification of the workers with the project.

The projectworkforceincluded 190workers,comprised of120Miframemployees, 40 foreign workers (tugboat and barge operational crews), and 30 employees of local subcontractors (heavy equipment operators, welders, and maintenance crews). Strong emphasis was placed onselectingtherightpeopleforkeypositions,suchasforemen,teamleaders,andequipment operators. In more than a few cases, the best available people in the market were hired at a premium cost.

Specialattentionwasgiventothedevelopmentofanaccelerated,butcomprehensive,training program for the different trades. Accurate, reduced-size models of the crane, the barge, and the cart, including electrical motors, were built to train the workers and drill them on the loadingandunloadingprocesses,withanemphasisonsafety. Anextremely detailed plan, with about 300 specific activities, was prepared for each sea voyage. Important procedures were not only described in words, but were also drawn on large sheets of paper in order to ensure that all concerned wouldunderstandthem andadhere to them. Various safety checklistswere also prepared and played a central part in the training sessions, later being distributed to all key functionaries.

WhileAmoswasleadingthepreparatoryactivities,hisbrother,Ofer,haddevelopedbetterties

withthePortsAuthority'schiefengineer.AsOferexplained:

"Fromthemomentwereceivedthenoticetoproceed,Itookituponmyselftogainand maintain the trust of the chief engineer. Therefore, all relevant information that was available to us was forwarded freely and transparently to the chief engineer. I felt that

this went a long way toward strengthening the trust between the two of us. I really don't believe thatthefirstsur-priseweencounteredinthisprojecthadanythingtodowith the trust thathad developed, but at the same time it definitely did not hurt."

That first surprise was an out-of-the-blue request from the Ports Authority to deliver two very large cranesthis time from Haifa to Ashdod. Both cranes weighed 1,100 tons each and stood about 85 meters high. Only a few minor changes were necessary to accommodate these two additionalcranes.Themostsignificantchangewastopreparealternativemooringplacesalong the way, because the distance betweenHaifa and Ashdod is about 130 kilometers, as opposed to the 7-kilometer distance between Haifa and Hakishon. This change would have only a marginal cost and time impact, and the formalcontractual agreementwiththe Ports Authority was arranged quicklya big boon for Mifram.

TheConstantVigilancePhase

The first sea voyage with one of the big cranes went flawlessly according to plan until the tugboat and the barge were about to enter the port of Ashdod. Without any advance warning tothecaptain,thetugboatwasnotallowedtoentertheport,anditwasleftwaitingattheend of the line. Because the barge must be constantly on the move to minimize oscillations, this delay was risky. Following a series of urgent phone calls to the Ashdod Port management, which took about thirty minutes, the tugboat was finally given permission to enter the port.

ItturnedoutthattheveryrecentadditionofthetwocranesfromHaifatoAshdodinthescope of the work had not been coordinated with the workers in Ashdod. A couple of hours later,

representatives of the Ashdod Port's union and management were meeting to discuss the long-termdevelopmentplansfortheport.Inthewakeoftheincidentthathadjustoccurred, they also made one short-term decision: to allow the tugboat to enter the port without any delay the next time it arrives.

BythetimethecranewasunloadedsafelyandplacedinitsnewlocationinAshdod,everybody was extremely pleased, both on the side of the client and the contractor. That is, except for Ofer:

"The full success of the first relocation actually worried me a lot. I was afraid of the 'driver withonearmhangingoutthewindow'syndrome.Over-complacencyonthe

part of the work- ers might impair their alertness and readiness to cope with mis- haps. I collected all of the workersandcommendedthemonajobwelldone,whilereiteratingand warning about the high risk inherent in each relocation: 'Each delivery is a new task that depends to a great extent on factors over which we have limited control, and so we must not delude ourselvesthat the success of one relocation necessarily means success of the next.'"

Oneofthebrothers,AmosorOfer,wasconstantlywiththework-forcethroughouttheentire operation. They were closely involved in this 24/7 operation and worked on it in shifts, including weekends and holidays, staying together with the workers and even eating with them. As Ofer underscored:

"This was our norm for all the special projects we carried out, and our people expected it.Webelievedthatthiswaywecanlearnquicklyaboutchangesandreactinatimelymanner, and notlessimportantly,wecannaturallyinfecttheentirework-forcewithourpassionand

energy.Wepromisedlargebonusestotheworkers,butwebelievedthattherolemodel approach is a more effective motivator. Our work philosophy was that the workers

should stayfocusedontheirtask,religiouslyadheringtotheirprocedures,whilethey wereexpected to 'raise a flag' if they observed a change in their surroundings. It was the

responsibilityofthevariousmanagerstoreactquickly,toadjusttheprocedures,orto

improviseanewsolution."

Inadditiontothisprocessofidentifyingchanges,eachstepinthetransferofeverycranewas continuously documented and photo- graphed from different angles (land, sea, and air) in order to identify any possible mishap in advance, to implement lessons from each voyage to the next, and to minimize risks. All of the execution stages, the processes implemented, and the work and equipment invested were documented in a detailed logbook in order to draw immediate lessons from one relocation to the next.

Prior to each sea voyage, all vessels and designated equipment were meticulously inspected according to an inspection guidelines document ("Readiness for Towing"), prepared by the marine engineer in collaboration with the captain of the tugboat. This included, among other things,athoroughinspectionofharnessingandconnectionsbetweenthecraneandthebarge, the qualifications of the professional crew, and the validity of the licenses and certificates for all of the auxiliary equipment.

All planning aside, Ofer was realistic about expecting the unexpected: "Although we were quiteconfidentthatwehadpreparedourselvesmeticulouslyinthebestwaypossibleforthis uniqueandriskyoperation,wewerestillsurethatwewouldencountersurprises.So,wehad to be constantly vigilant."

Andtherewas,indeed,nolackofsurprises.Amosshares oneoftheemergenciestheyhadto cope with:

"On the morning before Yom Kippur, the holiest and most solemn day of the year forthe Jews, the barge was in Haifa Port with the second crane destined for Ashdod Port on it. Itwas obvioustomethatwewouldnotmakeitintimeto unloadthecranebeforeYomKippur and return to port in time. Due to the shortage of mooring place at Haifa Port, we were instructed to sail the barge to the shallow waters of Hakishon Port and let it wait there until the end of the holiday, with the crane on it."

Waiting in HaKishon Port for 48 hours would require "sinking" the loaded barge until close to the sea bed in order to increase its stability. After all of the arrangements were completed, however,themarineengineerrecalledapastincidentinwhichaloadedtankerhadcapsizedin Hakishon Port under similar circumstances due to "suction forces" that the muddy soil of the port had exerted on the bottom of the ship.

Ofer and Amos realized that they could not afford to take any chances and must change the previous decision. They went ahead and requested approval, after all, to moor in the Haifa Port for 48 hours. This change in plans on the eve of the holiday, when all of the approving entitieswere alreadyoff duty,was practically impossible. The portmaster refused to approve therequest.Therewasindeedaproblem,becausethedesignatedquaywascompletelyfullof passenger ships that were anchored in Israel for the duration of the holiday.

Inthefinalhour,arrangementsweremadeformooringoftheloadedbargeintheHaifaPort, conditional upon Mifram's agreement to bear the cost of moving and coordinating the mooring of several ships on the quay. Only Ofer's personal involvement and intensive action vis-a-visthepersonresponsibleforthemooringsintheportyieldedthislast-minutesolution.

Followingtheholiday,thevoyagetoAshdodcontinued,thoughmanysmalldisturbanceswere encountered along the way. Despite their constant attention to meteorological conditions,

with reroutingof the tugboat as deemed necessary, on this specifictrip they hadto cope with changesevenaftertheyhadlefttheportinHaifa.Theyhadnotone,buttwofalsestartswhen they were warned that the sea was expected to be squally. First, the tugboat captain decided to returnandgobacktoHaifa, where they hadtowait forthe seato quiet down,even though it delayed the trip by two days. During their second attempt, they were warned again of a squally sea,and this time the captain decided to moor in the alternative harborage in Hadera, which was prepared in advance for such an event. Amos recalls: "Due to the high waves, the barge couldnotmaintainits stability, theheadof thecrane wasmakinglargecircles inthe air, and everything was noisy and squeaky. I have to admit it was quite scary. During those moments, prior to entering the harbor, we felt very thankful for the extra harnessing we had installed."

Besidesthesquallyconditionsatsea,thebargewasgettingjostledaroundevenwhilemoored in the port. Small military vessels that were accustomed to exiting and entering the ports at high speed cre- ated waves in their wake that jostled the barge, particularly during the critical periodswhen thecranewas being loadedonto the barge until its finalharnessing. Again, Ofer was proactive in meeting with the Navy commanders and was able to coordinate the movement of military vessels by day and night so that they would pass by the barge in a slow and controlled manner.

However, they had to cope with major mishaps as well. During the second transfer, a severe malfunction occurred that compromised human life and threatened to shut down the entire project. One night, while attaching the crane's harnessing cables to the barge, a foreign shiphittheharnessingcablethatconnectedthebargetothequayanddisconnectedit.Thiscaused the barge to roll heavily, to the extent that it was feared that it would crash against the quay andcausethecranetocollapseontoadjacentvessels.Theeventwas apparentlycausedbythe failure of the port management to inform the captain of the foreign ship that the crane was being loaded onto the barge.

Analternativeharnessingcablehadtobetransferredimmediatelyfromthebargetothequay and attached to the mooring installation on the shore. The tugboat captain and a Mifram portable crane operator saved the day by using the portable crane, which by chance was on the quaywith its arm openand ready to loadequipment onto the barge,tosecure theendof the cable and pull it to the quay. Their resourcefulness not only saved the operation, but also prevented a major disaster.

Adebriefingwasperformedshortlyafterthecompletionofeachrelocationoperation,withthe lessonsusedimmediatelyasabasisforanalysisandplanningofthenexttransport.Thelessons from the laceration of the cable by the foreign ship were implemented in the sub- sequent loading by using observers and enhanced lighting to secure the entire loading area. The method of securing the barge to the quay was also changed to prevent damage to the cables by any random ship.

Finally,closercoordinationwiththeportauthoritieswasalsoexecutedpriortoeachtransport. Amos did not mince words on this point: "Up until that event, we had been very nice to the client and to the Haifa Port management. When we understood the severity of the event and its implications, as well as the magnitude of the client's neglect, we immediately said, 'No More Mr. Nice Guy.'"

Notalloftheproblemswereweather-orcoordination-related.Somewerefinanciallydriven,

suchaswhentheItaliancontractor'srepresentativeapproachedOferanddemandedadvance

cashpaymentpriortothetransport.Thiswascontrarytotheagreement,whichstipulatedthat payment would be made after each relocation via bank transfer to the Italians' bank account. Ofer was stunned by their request: "The Italians' demand astonished me. We had already completed two successful marine transfers and had paid the Italians what they were due without any problem. Even if I had wanted to pay, I could not have done it at that moment becauseallthebanksareclosedatnight,anditwasimpossibletoraisetherequiredamountof money in cash."

TheItaliansdecidedtostagea"strike"anddeliberatelysloweddowntheexecutionprocess,

giving"worksafety"asthereason.Thistime,transportingthecraneusingtheoverlandvehicle took about 5 hours instead of only 45 minutes, as in previous cases. Only after harsh talks between Ofer and the tugboat captain did the latter agree to instruct the crew to return to normal work pace.

Butthestandoffwasnotover yet:

"After this relocation was completed, the tugboat captain hap- hazardly informed me that he had received orders from the mother company in Italy 'to drop everything and set sail that same night' for Africa, where his urgent presence was required in order to extricate a ship, anofferthatapparentlypresentedanexcellentbusinessopportunityfor the Italians."

The captainwas instructedby his employerto explainthe terminationofwork with Mifram by saying that towing of the barge was dangerous and that according to maritime law, he could not be forced to take the risk. The captain seemed embarrassed in light of the special relationship that had developed between himself and Ofer, but he felt obliged to obey the instructions of his superiors in the company. The captain suggested that Ofer speak directly with the CEO of the Italian company and inform him that he intended to involve the Italian embassyinIsraelandtheHaifaPortmanagementinordertopreventthetugboatfromleaving the country.

OferaskedtheHaifaPortauthoritiesnottoapprovethetugboat'sexitfromtheport.Atthe same time, he instructed his workers to take possession of all the tugboat's and barge's loading and mooring equipment, without which the tugboat could not execute its task in Africa.

Thethreatsandactionstakenwereeffective,andeventuallyadifferenttugboatwassentfrom Italy to Africa to execute the other mission.

The crane relocation project was successfully completed. The entire project took only about four weeks and was cause for celebration by all parties. The client saved about 50percent of his budget (direct cost) and additional sums due to the shorter shutdown time of the cranes andthequays.Thecontractormadeahigherprofitthanhehadoriginallyplannedbecauseof the significant expansionofthe work at a relatively low marginal cost. Last, but not least, the workers received high premiums for their outstanding performance.

Both Ofer and Amos agree that their rich experiences with "out- of-the-box" projects, their company'sflatorganizationalstructure,thequalityofthepeopletheyrecruitedanddeveloped throughout the years, and the norm of working closely with their staff in the field contributed to the success of the project. Regarding the flat organizational structure, they pointed out that when the heads of the organization are also the heads of the project, their ability to make decisions and quickly implementthem is enhanced. Even more importantly, it enables them to

tailor their decisions to the context, for example, to hire a consultant and, if needed, to pay him twice the going rate. Amos adds to this list boldness and systematic planning, while Ofer addsbuildingtrustandleadership,inparticularleadingtheclient.Finally,bothAmosandOfer agree that the most crucialweapon they brought to a dynamicenvironment was the fact that they complemented each other and created a dynamic harmony.