1 uncertainty and stakeholder management – a study of two railway projects hans petter krane, phd...
TRANSCRIPT
1
Uncertainty and stakeholder management – a study of two railway projects
Hans Petter Krane,PhD student, NTNU
EURAM, Liverpool 14.05.2009
2
Outline of the presentation
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
3
What did we look at?
• How the Management of Stakeholders and Risks is Combined in two fairly ”media exposed” projects
• How risks to the functionality delivered by the projects are handled
• And how both internal and external stakeholders are handled
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
4
What did we believe?
• Projects are not giving priority to functionality delivered
• Focus mostly on external stakeholders
• Focus mostly on threats
• Large projects have most resources; will do it best
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
5
What did we find?
• Large project focused on costs & time – small project on ”getting it right”
• Both projects studied were mostly focussed on neighbours
• Main focus for both projects: Threats
– And the implications of this ? ……
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
6
The setting
• Look at projects with ”high profile” towards society
• -That have much interaction with their environment
• -And may easily be critisised
• Important risks/uncertainties will be stakeholder-related
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
7
Further issues in focus
• Governmental QA-regime
• Stakeholder and power relations
• The relation:
Line organisation Project
Approval of projects
for further develpment
For projects > 500MNOK
(60 M€), public sector
QA-1 QA-2
Choice of concept
Design (basis for
cost frame)
Detailed design etc.
QA of specified sets of project documentation
· Basic: Review project benefits / purpose
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
8
Research questions
• In the paper formulated as: – Explore how risk management worked in the projects
– Study influence from internal and external stakeholders
• But here also deeper into:
– How were risks to ”functionality delivered” handled?
– How did power relations around the projects work?
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
9
The cases• Large project:
– New double track line
– Commuter area near capital
– 450 Mill €
– Primo 2001 – Aug. 2005• Small project:
– Station upgrade
– Commuter area near capital
– 3 Mill €
– Autumn 2006 – summer 2007
• Qualitative research, Interview based– 24 persons (sum both projects)
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
10
Some findings, with comments
• Here we have just gone deeper into a few
(– The rest you must read yourself!)
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
11
• Safety requirements => Major alterations to plans
• Strong restrictions to establishment of new stations in curves
• Several changes in approach / possible outcome as time passed
• Expressing different perceived power among stakeholders
Example 1:
”The Curve” (in the small project)
New safety requirements
Objections to new plans
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
12
Example 2:
”The Neighbourhood” (in both projects)
• Handling of neighbours defined as crucial (possibly stopping project, giving bad esteem)
• Hence: A well prepared strategy, projects organised to keep up good relations
• Stable situation over long period
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
13
Example 3:
”The Reductions” (in the large project)
• “Reduction list” prepared if cost overruns • I.e. prepared for reductions in functionality/ benefits• When used: Internal disputes in railway authority
regarding use and effects• Seemingly internally stronger tensions regarding
• communication
• stakeholder relations
• power relations
than externally
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
14
Some comments
• ”The Curve” – Strong safety authority (SJT)
– Multi phase development of relations
• ”The Neighbourhood”– Stable situation – taken care of - all OK!
• ”The Reductions”– Unclear area– Tensions, unsettled
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
15
Possible conclusions
• Neighbours – well managed, stable relations• Safety authority (SJT) – unclear power relations• Line organisation Project – unclear, strong
interests • For risk management
as a whole:
X
Cost,
delivery
Functionality/Benefits
Positive
Opportunities
Negative
Risk
Ris
k po
larit
y
Risk area
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
16
Summing up:
• This was a fairly loose collection of observations, but most important lessons are:
• Found dynamic, new, unexpected relations
– if not taken serious, may present major challenges to project success
• Challenging interest differences found
Line organisation Project organisation
– Problems if not recognised
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
17
Questions, discussion
• Introduction
• Background
• Main results, discussion
• Conclusions
• Questions, discussion
