Brussels, 13 November 2012
COST Action TU1003
MEGAPROJECTS
3rd Transport Working Group Meeting
Minutes
12 November 2012 (15:00 – 20:00)
13 November 2012 (09:00 – 13:00)
Venue:
Cost Office
Local host:
AGENDA
1. List of Participants
2. Welcome to participants
3. Case studies new developments (new case studies)
4. Emerging common themes (with discussion)
5. Main conclusions about the emerging common themes
6. Propositions and hypothesis definition about the transportation cases
7. Next steps and developments, parallel activities
8. Closing
TERMS OF REFERENCE
0. List of Participants
Country / Official MC delegate / Present / Apology / AbsentPortugal / Abreu e Silva, João / X
Spain / Alfalla-Luque, Rafaela / X
Poland / Lukasiewicz, Agnieszka / x
Spain / Medina-López, Carmen / x
Czech Republic / Korytarova, Jana / X
Czech Republic / Hromadka, Vit / x
Kroatia / Radujkovic, Mladen / x
Greece / Roumboutsos, Athena / X
Germany / Spang, Konrad / X
Norway / Langeland, Anders / x
Sweden / Westerlund, Håkan / X
UK / Antony Francis / x
1. Welcome to participants
Dr. João de Abreu e Silva welcomed all participants.
2. Adoption of agenda
The agenda was adopted unanimously by the members.
3. Case studies new developments (new case studies)
Three new case studies, briefly advanced in the last action meeting in Bratislava were presented in more detail. These were
Big City Road Circuit Brno, presented by Jana Korytarova;
KYSTSTAMVEGEN” The coastal highway in West Norway: FERRY – FREE E39 between Kristiansand and Trondheim, presented by Anders Langeland
The Motorway network in Croatia, presented by Mladen, Radujkovic
4. Emerging common themes (with discussion)
The main objective of this discussion which prolonged itself during the two days of the meeting was to devise a method to identify emerging common themes.
To pursue this task a framework devised by the Energy Workgroup was used as an initial basis, as well as the preliminary discussions held (about this subject) in Bratislava. These were:
• Cost and time overruns (how much and why?);
• The influence of Scope maturity on cost and time overflow;
• The influence and role of stakeholders in the project approval by society in general, project scope and configuration. And how and they be managed, particularly the external stakeholders;
• The role of changes in the legal and political environment, technological environment and economic environment during the project conception/planning and design phases on its changes (including cost overrun and changes in configuration and scope);
• How the project objectives are defined, hierarchized, and how are they related with the project scope;
• Risks and uncertainty (and risk management) associated with cost and time overruns, demand forecasts and social and economic impacts;
• Economic efficiency of the project and economic and social impacts of the project on the society;
• Do megaprojects deliver the objectives initially envisaged in terms of wider economic benefits?
From the framework devised by the energy workgroup several common themes have emerged
• External stakeholders (eg: environmental associations, public acceptance, local communities, communication budget)
• Internal stakeholders (eg: project culture, EPC companies, government control)
• Legal Project Environment (eg: regulation and insertion in a long term plan)
• Economic Project Environment (long term stability)
• Political Project Environment (political support by different government bodies – local, regional, national)
• Project Management (eg: decomposition in subprojects, PM tools)
• Technology (eg: Technological innovation, modular)
• Not Classified (eg: Physical and environmental extreme conditions, EU finnancial support
Also two contributions by Athena and Konrad were also considered. These were:
Athena’s contribution was related with the case studies framework and fuzzy qualitative analysis (the tables and schemes in her contribution are presented here):
Konrad´s contribution:
• Megaprojects perform very badly in terms of adherence to delivery schedule and budget (large time and cost overruns).
• 1.1 Is this really typical for MP? à quantitative evaluation of our projects (definition of the basis for comparison, taking changes into account)
• 1.2 What are the reasons? à evaluation of our projects
• 1.3 How much will (ever) remain not influenciable and how much we can reduce by which changes? à evaluation of our projects
• Stakeholder management strongly influences MP performance (often in the sense of more time and higher costs).
• 2.1 What are the reasons? à evaluation of our projects
• 2.2 How we can reduce this influence (in the sense of lengthening the projects and making them more expensive) or give the stakeholder process more structure or take the consequences of the stakeholders influence more into account in the early planning phases (taking it as time and cost risks). à suggestions based on the overall of 2.1
• The business cases /the scopes of MP often have not enough maturity, when the projects start (“what is the starting point?”). –A number/amount of changes, quant. Evaluation of our projects
• 3.1 How we can increase the maturity (perhaps introducing maturity gates?). à singular and then overall suggestions
• 3.2 How we can reduce the number of changes during the project life or at least structure it in a strong way (change request process, change conferences …)? à see 3.1
• 3.3: Who decides about changes? à Evaluation of Projects
• MP have usually many (large) risks, which occur often as a surprise! à perhaps quantifying evaluation of our Projects
• 4.1 Is there enough and the right risk management (how we do it? When we start? Who is responsible?) à Description of RM (theory/reality?)
• 4.2 Do we need strong regulations for the risk management process and for the resulting cost and time buffers? à Suggestions, singular, then overall
• MP need a severe project controlling. à evaluation of Projects à state
• 5.1 Which instruments are appropriate? à suggestions, singular then overall
5.2 Which appropriate decision rules do we need? à see 5.1
5. Main conclusions about the emerging common themes
It was decided to develop a framework similar to the one developed by the Energy Workgroup. This approach resulted in the framework presented in the next section.
6. Propositions and hypothesis definition about the transportation cases
The propositions defined (in a preliminary version) to be tested in the transportation case studies, considered a series of statements to be verified either using a binary or ordered scales.
These statements were grouped in the following themes:
· External stakeholders;
· Internal Stakeholders;
· Political Project Environment;
· Legal Project Environment;
· Economic Project Environment;
· Project Management;
· Technology;
· Project Impacts;
· Regional/national strategy (coherence);
· Not classified.
7. Next steps and developments, parallel activities
§ For each case study fill the answers to the identified statements, until the next whole action meeting;
§ Arrange for a workgroup meeting, before the whole action meeting, to discuss the results (even if preliminary) obtained for each case study.
8. Closing
The WG Leader thanked all members for their participation and contribution in the meeting.
9