Time & Cost Overruns in the Edinburgh and Scientific modelling Prince Boateng

1
MEGAPROJECT Whole Action Workshop, MC & Joint
Working Group Meetings, - IFB, Liverpool
Time & Cost Overruns in the Edinburgh
Tram Network (ETN) Project: Causes
and Scientific modelling
Prince Boateng
Dr Z. Chen
Prof. S.O. Ogunlana
11th July 2014
Contents




Overview of the new ETN project
Causes of time and cost overruns
Scientific modelling
Summary
Overview
 2001 – Feasibility studies of the Tram system
 30 options drawn up
 May 2002 – Formation of Transport Initiatives
Edinburgh (Tie) plc by the City of Edinburgh Council
(CEC)
o Tasked to deliver major transport projects for CEC, its
owner.
Main Problems
 Expanding population
 Vehicular congestion
o 160, 000 vehicles enter city
every day
o 180, 000 by 2016 - CEC
forecast
 Frequent road repairs
Consultation & Response
 24th March-18th May 2003
o 125, 000 leaflets distributed
o Several public meetings & Exhibitions
o Sectors consulted: Transport, Business, Environment,
Tourism, Conservative/Heritage, Disability groups,
Utilities, etc.
 Over 3,000 responses (83.6% in support of the
new tram network)
 January 2004 - Proposal submitted to the Scottish
Parliament to reintroduce tram in Edinburgh
Objectives ETN Project
• Support the local economy by improving
accessibility
• Promote sustainability and reduce
environmental damage caused by traffic
• Reduce traffic congestion
• Make the transport system safer and more
secure
• Promote social benefits.
Contractual Framework
 Development Partnering and Operating
Franchise Agreement (DPOFA)
 System Design Services (SDS)
 Multi Utilities Diversion Framework
Agreement (MUDFA)
 Infrastructure provider and maintenance
(Infraco) and
 Vehicle supply and maintenance (Tramco)
System Design Services (SDS)
 2005 – Appointment of design consultants
 Originally, 3 lines were proposed
Phase 1a (final route)
Phase 1a (never built)
Phase 1b (proposed)
Other future proposals
R
Railway Station
B
Bus Interchange
Saltire
Square
West Pilton
Airport
Phase 2
B
Caroline
Park
Lower
Granton
Granton
Ocean
Terminal
Newhaven
Port of Leith
Bernard Street
Crewe Toll
Phase 3
Foot of the Walk B
Telford Road
Newbridge North
Edinburgh Airport B
Balfour Street
Craigleith
McDonald Road
Newbridge South
Gogarburn
Ratho
Station
Ingliston
West
Ravelston
Picardy Place
B Ingliston
Park & Ride
Roseburn
Gyle Centre
Edinburgh
Park Central
Edinburgh Park Bankhead
R B Station
Murrayfield
Stadium
Saughton
Balgreen
York Place
Shandwick Place
West EndPrinces Street
Princes
Haymarket
Street
R
St Andrew Square
B
for Edinburgh Waverley
R
B
Proposed Route of the Edinburgh Trams - Source: The City of Edinburgh Council, 2013.
 Phase 1a = 18.5km, is being developed (Case study)
 Phase 1b = 5.5 km, to be developed later.
Political Treat
 March 2006 – Tram Bill passed & granted Royal
Assent
 2007- Scottish National Party (SNP) was elected
o Pledged to cancel project to same money
o Voted by Parliament to continue project
o SNP agreed, but will not give extra public money
Construction
 Spring 2007 – Beginning of
Multi-Utility Diversions Works
(MUDFA)
One of the many bodies
discovered during utility diversion
work on Constitution Street
Construction (cont’d)
 October 2007 - Vehicle supply and maintenance
contract (Tramco) awarded to Spanish company
CAF
o £ 40 million
o 27 vehicles
o 250 capacity
Construction (cont’d)
 May 2008 – Turnkey Infrastructure Construction
contract (INFRACO) awarded to Bilfinger
Berger & Siemens (BBS) Consortium
o Initial estimated costs £498 million
TEST VERSION
ONLY
Project Time Performance
(Planned infrastructure construction programme)
Year
Quarter number
2007
2
3
2008
4
1
2
3
2009
4
1
2
3
2011
2010
4
1
2
3
4
Newhaven to Foot of Leith Walk
Foot of Leith to St. Andrew
Square
St. Andrew Square to
Haymarket
Haymarket to Edinburgh Park
Station
Edinburgh Park station to
Airport
Legend:
Utilities
Road and Tramworks
Overhead line equipment
Source: Audit Scotland
TEST VERSION
ONLY
Project Time Performance (cont’d)
(Delivery against key milestones)
Year 2006
Quarter number 3 4
Business Case
Design and Traffic
Regulation order
Utilities
Tram construction
(Tramco)
Infrastructure
construction (Infraco)
Legend:
Plan
Actual
2007
1
2
3
2008
4
1
2
3
2009
4
1
2
3
2010
4
1
2
3
2011
4
1 2
3 4
2014
1 2 3
Project Cost Performance
TEST VERSION
ONLY
Spend to the end of December 2010
300
Budget as at May 2008
Expenditure to end December 2010
250
£million
200
£67m
150
£49m
100
Note:
 2008 - Initial cost was £498
 December 2009 – Cost revised to £545 mil
 December 2010 – Cost passed £545 mil
 Final Cost unknown
£33m
£27m
£85m
£81m
50
0
Infrastructure
construction
Tram
construction
Utilities
diversion
Design
Project
management
Land and
compensation
Contingency
Causes of Time & Cost Overruns
 Social risks
Demand
side
o Dispute
CEC, TS, TEL,
Lothian Buses, TIE,
MPs, Ministers
Internal
o Legal actions
o Multi-level decision
making bodies
o Stakeholders’
pressure
Supply
side
Private
External
Public
BBS, CAF, Trandev,
T&T, Parson, Alfred
McAlpine
Edinburgh residents, Scotland
residents, UK residents, cycling
groups, Business owners,
media, other private transport
operators
HSE, Lothian fire service,
Edinburgh Council, National
Government, Metropolitan
police authority, media
Causes of Time & Cost Overruns(cont’d)
 Technical risks
o Utility diversion/ground
condition problems
Wartime tunnels under Haymarket
o Construction disruption
Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)
 Economic risks
o
o
o
o
Economic downturn
Delays of all types
Changes in project governing body
Quality deficiency/rework
Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)
 Environmental risks
o 2009/2010 & 2010/2011 – Freezing
temperature halted construction
Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)
 Political risks
o Lack of political support
o Political indecision
o Contractual disputes
2009- BBS demand additional £50-£80 mil before
beginning work on Princes Street.
 Tie refused
2010- BBS announced 30 months delay to 2014
o 2011- Tie released from managing project
o 2011 - Cost revised from £545 to £776 mil
o 2012- T&T appointed to manage project
Changes and Disputes to date.
816 notice of
Claims
251 – Still
hanging
677 continued
with
139 withdrawn
426 Estimates
submitted
Cost of disputes to date
£ 23.8 m
198 settled
20 settled thru’
FDRP
7 resolved thru’
negotiation
£
3.7m
228 not settled
178 settled thru’
IDRP
2 resolved thru’
external mediation
£
3.5m
£
12.6
m
11 resolved thru’
adjudication
£
4.0m
Hierarchy of Identified Risk Areas in ETN Project
Level 1
Level 2
Level 3
STEEP Risks in Megaproject Construction
Social
Technical
Economic
Environmental
Political
Social grievances
Ambiguity of project scope/
Scope change
Change in government
funding policy
Environmental issues from
works (Pollution)
Change in government funding
policy
Multi -level decision
making bodies
Ground conditions on given
project sites
Taxation changes
Political opposition
Disputes
Inadequate project complexity
analysis
Change in government
Unfavourable climate
conditions (Snow, rain,
wind etc.)
Legal Actions
Unforeseen modification to
project
Wage inflation
Lack of political support
Stakeholder's pressure
Inaccurate project cost
estimate
Local inflation change
Political indecision
Treats to person & asset
security
Failure to meet specified
standards
Foreign exchange rate
Project termination
Social Issues
Technical difficulties in
utilities diversions
Material price changes
Delay in obtaining consent/
Approval
Engineering and design change
Economic recession
Legislative/regulatory changes
Supply chain breakdown
Energy price changes
Protectionism
Project time overruns
Catastrophic environmental
effects
Project cost overruns
Project technical difficulties
Delay in obtaining temporary
Traffic Regulation Orders
(TROs)
Inadequate site investigation
Project delays of all forms
Based on desktop
search, ETNP source
documents and
Interviews.
Government discontinuity

SDANP
 Analytical Network Process (ANP) model for
prioritising risk factors
 System Dynamics (SD) for simulating risks
overtime
24/67
Database
Risks identification and categorization
Data source
·
·
·
Literature on STEEP
ANP route
List of
potential risks
Data from source
documents of past
similar projects
Case studies
SD route
Initial model development
Conduct prioritization survey based on
experts’ decisions
·
·
·
·
Perform Mean Scores of importance
MV 
1 n



n  i 1 E i ( C ,T ,Q ) 
Reference modes
Model boundary chart
Feedback structure
Casual flow diagram
Develop and structure the ANP model
Model verification
·
Expert opinion
Conduct pairwise Comparison
PRw 
1
R
...
R
R
...
R
....
...
1
...
1
12
21
R
...
R
ji
 1
R
R
ij
...
n1
1n
ij
1n
·
Model development
Develop formulae for flow diagrams
·
·
Model Testing
Dimensional consistency
Structure consistency
Normalized criteria
n
R w 
j 1
ij
j
n
 w
i 1
i
max
w
i
Test not
passed
 1
Perform Risk Priority Index (RPI)
Calculation
Test passed
Model simulation
RPIi  J W (RCi) * Rij
List of Top n
“priority risks”
Model validation
Testing of model structure &
behaviour
SDANP Framework
Test passed
Test not
passed
Software application
Policy analysis, design and
improvement and implementation
25/67
Parameters
Values
Number of questionnaires distributed
300
Number of responses received
145
Number of invalid responses
Number of valid responses
5
140
Percentage of responses received
48.30
Percentage of valid responses
46.60
Number of Interviewees
20
Weighted Quantitative Score (WQS)
(Respondent’s Mean Scores of Importance - RMSI)
Project Objectives (Po)
Project
objectives (Po)
C:
Cost
T:
Time
Cost
Time
Quality
4.9
Rounded MVs
5
4.8
Q: Quality
5
5.0
5
STEEP Risks Impact on (Po)
Risk Cluster (PR)
PR1:Social risks
PR2:Technical risks
PR3:Economic risks
PR4:Environmental risks
PR5:Political risks
Cost
Time
Quality
4.2
4.7
4.7
4.1
4.5
3.6
4.7
4.6
4.1
4.0
2.4
4.6
4.4
4.0
3.4
Rounded MVs
Cost
Time
Quality
4
4
2
5
5
5
5
5
4
4
4
4
5
4
3
Modelling in ANP for Risk Prioritization
Goal
Potential Risks Prioritization
Goal: Risk Prioritization
List of high risks
Criterion
Options
PR1: Social risks
Time
Cost
PR2:Technical Risks
PR3: Economic risks
Quality
PR4: Environmental
risks
PR5: Political risks
Criterion: Potential Consequences on:
Cost
Time
Quality
Goal
Technical Risks Prioritization
Time
Criterion
Cost
Quality
Option: Potential Risks (PR)
Options
PR1:Social risks
TV1
TV2
TV3
TV4
TV5
TV6
TV7
TV8
TV9
TV10
TV11
TV12
PR2:Technical risks
TV1,TV2,TV3,TV4,TV5,
TV6,TV7,TV8,TV9,
TV10,TV11,TV12,
SV1,Sv2, Sv3, Sv4
Sv5, Sv6, Sv7
Goal
PR5:Political risks
PR3:Economic risks
PV1,PV2,PV3,PV4,
PV5,PV6,PV7,PV8,
PV9,PV10,
EV1,EV2,EV3,EV4,EV5,
EV6,EV7,EV8,EV9,
EV10,EV11,EV12,
PR4:Environmental
risks
Criterion
Options
Environmental Risks Prioritization
Time
Cost
ENV1
Quality
ENV2
ENV1, ENV2
Inner
dependencies
ANP Network Models for STEEP Risks Prioritization
Comparison Matrices
Project objective
Cost
λmax = 5.00
CI = 0.00
RI = 1.11
CR = 0.00
Time
λmax = 5.00
CI = 0.00
RI = 1.11
CR = 0.00
Quality
λmax = 5.08
CI = 0.02
RI = 1.11
CR = 0.02
4
Potential
Risks (PR)
PR1
5
PR2
2
1
1
2
1
0.25
0.25
2
5
PR3
2
1
1
2
1
0.25
0.25
1
4
PR4
1
1/2
1/2
1
1/2
0.13
0.13
5
5
PR5
2
1
1
2
1
0.25
0.25
3
1.01
1.01
MVR
PR1
PR2
PR3
PR4
PR5
TPV
Priorities R
1
1/2
1/2
1
1/2
0.13
0.13
4
4
PR1
1
1/2
1/2
1
1
0.14
0.14
3
5
PR2
2
1
1
2
2
0.29
0.29
2
5
PR3
2
1
1
2
2
0.29
0.29
1
4
PR4
1
1/2
1/2
1
1
0.14
0.14
5
4
PR5
1
1/2
1/2
1
1
0.14
0.14
4
1.00
0.11
4
3
PR1
1
1/3
1/2
1/2
1
1.00
0.11
5
PR2
3
1
2
2
3
0.37
0.37
1
4
PR3
2
1/2
1
1
2
0.21
0.21
2
4
PR4
2
1/2
1
1
2
0.21
0.21
3
3
PR5
1
1/3
1/2
1/2
1
0.11
0.11
5
1.01
1.01
Legend: λmax = maximum eigenvalue, CI = Consistency Index, RI = Random Index, CR = Consistency ratio, TPV = Total priority value,
NPV = Normal priority value, IPV = Ideal priority value R = Ranking
Results of Final Mode ANP Decision Making Priorities
Potential Risks (PR)
Priorities for Potential Risks
Final Priorities
Local risk priority index
Global risks priority index
Synthesized
(RPIL)
(RPIG)
results
Cost
Time
Quality
Cost
Time
Quality
TRPI
IRPI
R
(0.33)
(0.33)
(0.33)
PR1:Social
0.13
0.14
0.11
0.04
0.05
0.04
0.13
0.43
5
PR2:Technical
0.25
0.29
0.37
0.08
0.10
0.12
0.30
1.00
1
PR3: Economic
0.25
0.29
0.21
0.08
0.10
0.07
0.25
0.83
2
PR4: Environmental
0.13
0.14
0.21
0.04
0.05
0.07
0.16
0.53
4
PR5:Political
0.25
0.14
0.11
0.08
0.05
0.04
0.17
0.56
3
1.01
1.00
1.01
Total
1.00
1.01
TRPI - Total risk priority index
IRPV - Ideal risk priority indexes
R - Ranking
Regulatory everionment
bodies (local, national &
Europe wide)
<Risks of project
time overrun>
Environmental issues
from works
+
Environmental
uncertaintities
+
<Inadequate site
investigation>
Supply chain
breakdown.
Engineering & design
+
+
+
changes/problems
+
+
Technical
certainties
Technical
uncertainties
-
+
Project complexity
<Risks of project
time overrun>
+
Unforseen modification
to project
+
Project scope
+
Work to do
+
+
+
<Economic
risks.>
+
+
Cost estimation
problems
Modification to project
design/specification
+
<Technical
uncertainties>
Causal Loop Diagram
for STEEP Risks in ETN
Project
<Social issues>
+
+
+
+
Need to relocate
Pedistran &
bicycle safety
+
De-escalation to
grievances
+
+
+
+
+
+
Time to obtain
consent & approvals
+
Cost of delays
+
+
+
Project technical
Catastrophic
+
<Project
difficulties
environmental effects termination>
Traffic regulation
<Mult level decision
+
orders (TROs)
Ground conditions
making bodies
+
+
+ problem at a given site
+
involvement>
<Government
+
+
Escalation to project time overrun
<Supply chain
discontinuity>
+
+
+
breakdown.>
+
+
Project delays of
+
+
+
+
<Environmental
+
+
all
forms
Technical difficulties in
uncertaintities>
<Error
+
utility diversions
+
generation>
<Disputes>
<Legal
Material price
+
Inadequate site
<Technical
actions>
+
investigation
+
uncertainties>
Political
<Project quality
+
<Social
Wage inflation
+
certainties
<Government
deficiency>
<Risks of project uncertainties>
+
<Social
funding policy>
Economic
time overrun>
acceptability>
+
Material
recession
+
+
price hike
+
+
Political
+
Economic
Political risks
uncertaintities Economic
Economic risks.
+
uncertainties
+
certainties
Energy
+
+
+
price
+
<Material
+
+
+
+
price>
<Social
+
Taxation
acceptability>
Political
+
Project
+
New legislations &
indecision
termination
regulations
Political interferrrance
Political debates on
+
in the project
+
+
+
the project
+
Time to divert
underground utilities
-
Protectionism
Political
support
+
+
Political
harmony
+
Social
acceptability
+
-
Government
discontinuity
Political opposition
to the project
-
Government
funding policy
-
<Political
support>
+
+
Choice of travel
mode
Land & property
values
Linkage between
residence & job
Accessibility difficulties to
families, friends &community
resources
<New legislations &
regulations>
<Time to divert
underground utilities>
Cost of delay in
utilities diversions
Social issues
+
+
+
<Rework>
+
Escalation to
grievances
Social grievances
<Government
funding policy>
+
-
+
+
Cost of
rework
+
+
Escalation to project
cost overrun
-
+
+ <Risks of project
time overrun>
+ +
+
Cost of legal &
dispute resolution
+
++
Pressure to modify
project scope
+
Disputes
Risks of project
cost overrun.
Project quality
deficiency
+
+
+
+
Social
uncertainties
<Political
risks>
<Error
generation>
+
Risks of project
time overrun
+
Rework
Threat to
personal&asset security
+
Social risks
<Social
grievances>
+
Mult level decision
making bodies
involvement
+
<Legal
actions>
-
+
Worksite coordination
problems
+
+
Social
certainties
Legal actions
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
<Threat to
personal&asset
security>
+
+
Error generation
Ambiguity of
project scope
+
+
+
+
<Political
risks>
+
+
+
<Social
risks>
Technical
risks
+
<Technical
risks>
<Risks of project
cost overrun.>
<Risks of project
time overrun>
Environmental
risks
+
+
-
Environmental
certainties
-
+
Unfavourable
climatic conditions
+
-
+
Environmental
+ regulation enforcement
Foreign
exchange
+
Local inflation
SD models for STEEP risks in ETN project
Environ. Factors
SOCIAL
SUBSYSTEM
 Effects of Project
 Air emission
TECHNICAL
SUBSYSTEM
POLICAL
SUBSYSTEM
MegaDS
 Habitat destruction
 Waste generation
 Pollution (air/ water)
 Comfort disturbances
 Health & safety
ENVIRON.
SUBSYSTEM
ECONOMIC
SUBSYSTEM
Design
Model structure
 Effects on Project
 Critical weather conditions
(snow, rain, wind etc..)
 Temperature
 Landslide, etc.
Model Boundary
Risk Code
PR4
ENV3
ENV4
ENV5
ENV6
ENV7
ENV8
ENV9
ENV10
ENV11
ENV12
ENV13
ENV14
ENV15
ENV16
ENV17
ENV18
ENV1:
ENV2
Risk Type
Type I: Endogenous Risk Variables
Environmental risks
Cost of legal action
Disputes
Environmental regulation enforcement
Environmental certainties
Environmental uncertainties
Error generation
Escalation to project cost overrun
Escalation to project time overrun
Legal action
Multi decision making bodies involvement
Project quality deficiency
Risks of project cost overrun
Risks of project time overrun
Social issues
Social grievances
Worksite coordination problems
Type II: Exogenous Risk Variables
Environmental issues from works
Unfavourable climate conditions
System Dynamics: Dynamic Hypothesis (CLD)
+
{Pollution (Air, water,
soil & noise)}
Worksite coordination
problems
Environmental issues
from works
+
R8
+
+
R4
+
+
Environmental
uncertainties
R1
Environmental
risks
Project quality
deficiency
<Legal
actions>
+
+
Environmental
certainties
Unfavourable
climatic conditions
-Snowfall;
R2
-
+
-Heavy rainfall;
Escalation to project
cost overrun
+
R3
R7
+
Cost of legal
action
+
Risks of project
time overrun
<Environmental issues
from works>
R5
Escalation to project
time overrun
+
+
Disputes
-Drought;
-Dust & Wind storms;
+
+
Legal
actions
+
+
-Hurricane;
-Thunder and Lightning;
-Earthquake;
Social
grievances
.
..
Environmental
regulation
enforcement
Social
issues
+
Legend:
+
A casual relationship
+ (-) signs at the arrowheads indicate that the effect is
` related to the cause.
positively (negatively)
R denotes reinforcing loop
Risks of project
cost overrun
+
+
+
-Heat waves;
R6
R9
-Flood;
-Temperature
Information
flow, e.g.
Error
generation
how
environmental
uncertainties
affect
+
+
project time
-
+
Multilevel decision
making bodies
involvement
+
SD: Stock & Flow Model Diagram
<Project quality
deficiency>
Escalation to project
cost overrun
Flow, here an
inflow
Project quality
deficiency
<Error
generation>
Worksite coordination
problems
Cost of legal
action
Error
generation
Risks of project
Escalation to project
time overrun
time overrun
Legal action
’Constants’ (Values
based on ANP’s RPI)
<Environmental
uncertainties>
Disputes
Multilevel decision
making bodies
involvement
Social grievances
Information links,
expressing
dependencies
<Risks of project
time overrun>
Risks of project
cost overrun
<Risks of project
cost overrun>
<Environmental
risks>
Environmental
regulation
enforcement
Auxiliary variables
Legend
Social issues
A causal relationship
.
Environmental issues
from works
Environmental
risks
Environmental
uncertainties
0.20
0.79
Unfavourable
climatic conditions
Environmental risks cluster
priority index from ANP
Environmental
certainties
;
`
Flow
Accumulation of
risks
Represents ANP
Priority Index
Stock, cumulated Valve
by of flow
..
inflows and de- Source or Sink
cumulated by
outflows
Environmental risks
0.2
1
Dmnl
12
1
2
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
0.15
2
0.1
Max. PR4 impact
level @ year
2010 = 18.7%
0.05
0
2008
2009
Initial RPI for
PR4 = 16%
1
1
2
Max. PR4 @
0% ENV2
impact level
in year
2009.25 =
17%
18.7% (max)
Dynamic pattern (Actual)
1
1
2
2
1
2
1
9.9% (min)
2
1
2
1
Dynamic pattern @
ENV2 = 0% impact level
2010
2011
2012
Time (Year)
Environmental risks : Current (Actual)
1
1
Environmental risks : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level
1
1
1
2
2
2013
1
2
1
2
2014
1
2
1
2
Min risk impact
level for PR4 =
0.07 (7%)
2015
1
2
1
2
2
a: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for environmental risks
Project completion
time - 10/2013
Risks of project time overrun
0.6
0.45
1
Behaviour pattern for ENV15
based on 20% of ENV1 and 0% of
ENV2 impact levels
1
1
1
2
1
2
Dmnl
1
0.3
Level of
ENV15 in
2008 = 0%
1
1
1 2
2
2
2
1
0.15
Actual dynamic
pattern for Risks
of project time
overrun
2
2
12
2009
2010
2011
2012
Time (Year)
Risks of project time overrun : Current (Actual)
1
1
Risks of project time overrun : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level
Max. ENV15 @ 20%
ENV1 and 0% ENV2
impact level = 41%
2
2
1 2
0 12
2008
2
1
1
1
1
2
Max. ENV15 @ 20%
ENV1 and 79%
impact level =
55.4%
2013
1
2
1
2
2014
1
2
1
2
2015
1
2
1
2
2
b: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for risks of project time overrun
48% (max)
Risks of project cost overrun
0.4
Max. ENV14 @ 20%
ENV1 and 79%
impact level = 35%
1
Actual dynamic behaviour pattern
0.3
Dmnl
2
1
0.2
0.1
0
12
2008
2
1
Behaviour pattern for 0% impact level
2
1
Level of
ENV14 in
2008 = 0%
1 2 12
1 2
2009
1
1 2
12
2010
12
12
12
2
1 2
23% (max)
2011
2012
Time (Year)
Risks of project cost overrun : Current (Actual)
1
1
Risks of project cost overrun : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level
Max. ENV14 @ 20%
ENV1 and 79%
impact level = 28%
2
1
1
2
2013
1
2
1
2
2014
1
2
1
2
2015
1
2
1
2
2
c: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for risks of project cost overrun
Project quality deficiency
0.2
Behaviour pattern for ENV13
based on 20% of ENV1 and 0%
of ENV2 impact levels
Dmnl
0.15
0.05
0
12
2008
Level of
ENV13 in
2008 = 0%
1
1
1
2010
12
1
12
2
Project quality deficiency : Current (Actual)
1
1
Project quality deficiency : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2
1
1
2
2013
1
2
2
2
2011
2012
Time (Year)
1
2
2
2
Max. ENV13 @
20% ENV1 and
79% impact level
= 11.37%
2
1
1
1 2 1 2
12 1 2 1 2
2009
1
Actual dynamic
pattern for Risks
of project time
overrun
0.1
7.29% (max)
2014
1
2
Max. ENV13 @
20% ENV1 and 0%
2015 ENV2 impact level
= 8.28%
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
d: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for project quality deficiency
Social risks
0.6
DSBP @ 0% of SV7
1
1
0.3
1
3
12 3
45
0
2
2
4
1 3
5
2
5
4
4
4
5
3
2
1
5 2
1 2
3
5
5
4
3
3
2
45
4
1
2
3
3
-0.3
DSBP @ 25% of SV7
-0.6
2008
Social risks
Social risks
Social risks
Social risks
Social risks
2009
DSBP @ 50% of SV7
DSBP @ 75% of SV7
2010
2011
2012
Time (Year)
2013
2014
2015
: Current (Actual)
1
1
1
1
1
1
: Current scenario 3
2
2
2
2
2
2
: Current scenario 2
3
3
3
3
3
3
: Current scenario 1 4
4
4
4
4
4
4
: Current (Risk free scenario)
5
5
5
5
5
5
DSBP = Dynamic simulation behaviour pattern
b: Dynamic simulation scenario graphs for social risks
Economic risks
0.4
0.3
12
Dmnl
Dmnl
DSBP @ 100% of SV7
1
0.2
1
2
1 2
1
12
2
1
2
Max. PR3 impact level @
year 2010.13 = 33.03%
1
2
1
Dynamic
pattern
(Actual)
2 1
2
0.1
1
2
1
2010.13
2
0
2008
Initial RPI for
PR3 =25%
impact level.
2 1
Dynamic
pattern (0%
impact level)
1
2
1
2
2009
2010
2011
2012
Time (Year)
Economic risks : Current (Actual) 1
1
1
1
Economic risks : Base run@ 0% (Exogenous) risk impact level
1
1
2
2013
1
2
1
2
2014
1
2
1
2
2
2015
1
2
1
Min risk impact
level for PR3 =
1.72%
1
2
2
b: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for economic risks
Dynamic Confidence Bounds Sensitivity Graph for Political Risks
 Simulation interval continues to grow larger overtime
 50% chance that the level of political risks will be between 15% and 55%
 75% and the 95% confidence bounds suggest that the level of political
risks could range from 10% to 65% and 5% to 80% respectively.
Behaviour Mode (Actual)
50%
75%
95%
100%
"Political risks."
1
0.75
0.5
0.25
0
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Time (Year)
2013
2014
2015
Original Project Information (OPI)
Cost (£ Million)
Year of Completion
Planned Project Budget (PPB)
545
Revised Project Budget (RPB)
776
Project Cost Variation (PCV)
231
Original Planned Date (OPD)
2011 (3 Years)
Expected New Date (END)
2014 (6 Years)
Completion Date Variation (CDV)
3 Years (30 month)
SDANP Simulation Project Information (SPI)
Risks
Validated Project Information
Level of Risk Impact on Project Performance –LRIPP (%)
Cost (C)
Time (T)
Quality (Q)
(SPIC)
(SPIT)
(SPIQ)
Social
12.00
6.00
1.00
Technical
1.24
0.43
Economic
22.36
Environmental
Cost (£ million)
Time (year)
{(SPIC) x (PPB)}
{(SPIT) x (OPD)}
19.00
65.400
0.180
0.15
1.82
6.758
0.013
30.74
8.88
61.98
121.862
0.922
11.43
29.3
3.35
44.08
62.294
0.879
Political
2.56
5.14
1.95
9.65
13.952
Total Impact
49.59
71.61
15.33
136.53
270.266
0.154
2.148
(approx. 26 m)
Source: Field Work 2013
Total Impact
(OPI X SPI)
Average cost
escalation (%)
Accuracy (%)
SDANPAccuracy
model level
Statistical
research *
= 83%
49.59
44.70
85.47
N/A
Work schedule
Production-dep. Risks
clear site
High Risk Period
rough grade
drill well
water tank foundation
excavate for sewer
excavate for electrical manholes
install well pump
erect water tank
install sewer and backfill
install manhole
Time-dep. Risks
43/67
 Well defined research methodology
 A study into STEEP risks impacts on ETN
project at the construction phase
 A SDANP model for planning against the
impact of STEEP on ETN project
 More case studies for accurate prediction
44/67

SBE Heriot-Watt University

EU COST Action TU1003 MEGAPROJECTS

Edinburgh Trams
45/67
Thank You