Presentation to STOA Workshop Assessing the Health and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
presentation to stoa workshop assessing the health and
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Presentation to STOA Workshop Assessing the Health and - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Sep 29, 2022 164 likes •566 views

NETLIPSE (NETwork of Large Infrastructure ProjectS in Europe) Presentation to STOA Workshop Assessing the Health and Deliverability of Projects Stuart Baker, Deputy Director, Major Network Upgrades Department for Transport, UK Brussels, 26

slide-1
SLIDE 1

NETLIPSE (NETwork of Large Infrastructure ProjectS in Europe) Presentation to STOA Workshop Assessing the Health and Deliverability

  • f Projects

Stuart Baker, Deputy Director, Major Network Upgrades Department for Transport, UK Brussels, 26 September 2013

slide-2
SLIDE 2
  • 1. NETLIPSE Development:

How did we get here? (1)

  • 1. NETLIPSE “1” (2006-2008):
  • Creation knowledge network
  • Research of 15 projects (consortium 8 organisations)
  • EC 6th Framework Programme financing (100%)
  • 2. NETLIPSE “2” (2008-2010):
  • Development of the knowledge network
  • Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool (IPAT)

development and calibration

  • 49% TEN-T EA funding; 51% RWS, DfT, BAV, AT

Osborne

slide-3
SLIDE 3
  • 3. NETLIPSE “3” (2011-12):
  • Maintain knowledge network
  • Financing: RWS, DfT, STA, Interporto Regionale

Della Puglia, AT Osborne

  • 4. NETLIPSE 2013+:
  • Maintain knowledge network
  • Financial and in kind support: RWS, DfT, STA,

ARUP, Sea Milan Airports, Next Generation Infrastructures, Danish Road Directorate, AT Osborne

  • Use the Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool
  • … you?
  • 1. NETLIPSE Development:

How did we get here? (2)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Projects (road, rail, water): 1. Betuweroute 2. Ring road Bratislava 3. Gotthard Base Tunnel 4. HSL-South 5. Lezíria Bridge 6. Lisbon – Porto HS Line 7. Lötschberg Base Tunnel 8. Maaswerken 9. Motorway A2 10. Motorway A4 11. Motorway E18 12. Nuremberg - Ingolstadt HST 13. Øresund bridge 14. Unterinntalbahn 15. West Coast Main Line

2008

  • 1. How we got here (3):

NETLIPSE research 2006-2008

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Betuwe- Route West Coast Main Line Case Study Report Format: Contents: 1. Preface 2. Project Facts & Figures 3. Stakeholder network 4. Project History 5. Historical Analyses 6. Best practises and lessons learnt (8 themes) 7. Summary and Conclusions Appendix: Checklists

1 Objectives and Scope 2 Stakeholders 3 Finance 4 Organisation and Management 5 Risks (Threats & Opportunities) 6 Contracting 7 Legal Consents 8 Knowledge & Technology

Themes:

  • 1. How we got here (4):

15 projects researched with reports

slide-6
SLIDE 6
  • 2. Infrastructure Project Assessment Tool

(IPAT) Objective:

  • The IPAT assesses the quality of the management and

processes of the whole wider project including the plan to reach the objectives and to implement the outputs (not just the physical construction) Predictive value:

  • The IPAT highlights weaknesses and strengths in

management and the realism of the project delivery plan for the whole project and specifically for the next project phase Saves Money:

  • If a project is not ready or not ready to move to next

stage, get it right before spending money!

slide-7
SLIDE 7
  • 2. Relevance and Accuracy

Relevance:

  • To projects and a series of projects forming a programme
  • To corridors
  • To any infrastructure project
  • To small, large and huge projects

Accuracy:

  • Built on the detailed knowledge from NETLIPSE 1
  • Calibrated by pilot studies
slide-8
SLIDE 8
  • 2. Purpose of the IPAT
  • The core purpose of the IPAT is to assess the

fitness of the project organisation and processes: this will inform the delivery plan and help determine the timing of funding

  • The IPAT does not help to decide on the feasibility
  • f a project or programme, neither on the need for

funding but does confirm sound business case work is done and whether a project is ready to proceed and be funded or not

  • An IPAT assessment can indicate early warning

signals of a project running over schedule and/or budget

slide-9
SLIDE 9
  • 2. The IPAT: relevant throughout the

lifecycle of a project

slide-10
SLIDE 10
  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-11
SLIDE 11

T1 Political Context

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-12
SLIDE 12

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-13
SLIDE 13

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-14
SLIDE 14

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-15
SLIDE 15

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-16
SLIDE 16

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management T6 Finance

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-17
SLIDE 17

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management T6 Finance T7 Legal procedures

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-18
SLIDE 18

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management T6 Finance T7 Legal procedures T8 Technology

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-19
SLIDE 19

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management T6 Finance T7 Legal procedures T8 Technology T9 Knowledge

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-20
SLIDE 20

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management T6 Finance T7 Legal procedures T8 Technology T9 Knowledge T10 Organisation & Management

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-21
SLIDE 21

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management T6 Finance T7 Legal procedures T8 Technology T9 Knowledge T10 Organisation & Management T11 Contracting

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-22
SLIDE 22

T1 Political Context T2 Objectives, Purpose and Business Case T3 Functional Specifications T4 Interfaces T5 Stakeholder Management T6 Finance T7 Legal procedures T8 Technology T9 Knowledge T10 Organisation & Management T11 Contracting T12 Risks

  • 2. IPAT – Model and Themes
slide-23
SLIDE 23
  • 3. The IPAT-Assessment Process

NETLIPSE

  • rganisation

Assessor Team Client/Project Delivery Organisation Organise contact & contract Select project(s) Select Assessor team Prepare the Site Visit Compile Background document Conduct interviews Analyse and score Write Assessment Report Discuss Assessment Report Quality Assurance Feedback Quality Assurance Final Assessment Report Select interviewees

slide-24
SLIDE 24
  • 3. IPAT Assessment Proces

Questionnaire – scoring

  • Scored on the level of sub-themes (27) with

specific areas to probe and seek evidence Methodology:

  • Individual assessors must score each of the

sub-themes to reach a score on that level.

  • These are then moderated across the group,

discussed and a consensus at sub-theme level achieved

  • > Thus a strong reliance on the expert

judgment and training of the assessors

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Example Question with

  • pen questions on a sub-theme
  • To what extent is stakeholder identification and

assessment being carried out by the Project Delivery Organisation and does it provide sufficient information to be ready to enter the next project phase?

  • Guidance Note: consider the following aspects:
  • stakeholder (including media) identification;
  • stakeholder categorisation;
  • regular updating of stakeholder database;
  • understanding of prioritisation of stakeholders;
  • identification of stakeholder relationships and networks;
  • monitoring of changes in the stakeholder network(s).
slide-26
SLIDE 26
  • 3. IPAT Assessment Proces

Scoring – Four Point forces thinking

Score Qualification This reflects 1 Very negative contribution to a successful project

  • rganisation

An immediate need to review and improve 2 Negative contribution to a successful project

  • rganisation

An urgent request to improve (weakness) 3 Positive contribution to a successful project

  • rganisation

Generally good with areas for improvement 4 Very positive contribution to a successful project

  • rganisation

Very good and incorporating best practice

slide-27
SLIDE 27
  • 3. IPAT Assessment Proces

Levels of importance

  • These are different at different times within a project’s

lifecycle

  • The assessment of the importance by stage depended

very much on the experience of the team with the 15 NETLIPSE 1 Pilots

  • The methodology:
  • 1. Determine the levels of importance by dividing 100

points over the 12 themes per phase

  • 2. Divide the points attributed to a theme over the

subthemes within that theme

slide-28
SLIDE 28
  • 4. Interpreting the results:
  • a. Graph of Total Score on all Themes

Gotthard Base Tunnel

0,0% 10,0% 20,0% 30,0% 40,0% 50,0% 60,0% 70,0% 80,0% 90,0% 100,0% Project phase Total weighted percentage score M1 M2 M3 M4

slide-29
SLIDE 29
  • 4. Interpreting the results:
  • b. Columns by Theme

Score per theme

0,5 1 1,5 2 2,5 3 3,5 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Theme Score

  • Shows strong and weak areas at that stage in the project
slide-30
SLIDE 30
  • 4. Interpreting the results:
  • c. Score matrix

Project assessment FB

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 0,0 0,5 1,0 1,5 2,0 2,5 3,0 3,5 4,0 4,5 5,0

Weight Score

slide-31
SLIDE 31
  • 4. Interpreting the results:
  • d. Weighted Spider Diagram

8% 10% 7% 9% 7% 10% 5% 9% 6% 10% 8% 11% 2 2,8 3 2,4 4 3,7 4 3,8 2,5 3,5 3 3 Political context Objectives, purpose and BC Functional specifications Interfaces Stakeholders Finances Legal procedures Technology Knowledge

  • n and Management

Contracting Risks

Weight Score

slide-32
SLIDE 32
  • 5. Qualifications of IPAT Assessors
  • Qualifications of lead assessors:
  • At least 10 years of practical experience and

responsibility within major infrastructure projects

  • Good working knowledge of English
  • Independent from the project to be assessed
  • Successfully passed the IPAT Assessors Training
  • Other assessors:
  • Significant practical experience and responsibility within

infrastructure projects

  • Good working knowledge of English
  • Independent from the project to be assessed
  • Successfully passed the IPAT Assessors Training
slide-33
SLIDE 33
  • 6. Composition of an Assessment team
  • Set Criteria:
  • 1 lead assessor and 2-3 other qualified assessors;
  • At least 1 of the assessors should have local knowledge and

experience;

  • At least 1 of the assessors needs good working knowledge
  • f the native language;
  • A maximum of 1 assessor is involved in an IPAT

assessment for the first time.

  • Practical:
  • 1 of the team members is Secretary, takes care of
  • rganising the site visit and is the contact person for the

PDO and the NETLIPSE organisation;

  • The assessors team is put together by the management
  • rganisation (NETLIPSE) by selecting people from a

shortlist of assessors and a pool of lead assessors, taking into account specific skills and experience.

slide-34
SLIDE 34
  • 7. IPAT Assessors Course
  • 2-day course (morning, afternoon, evening and next

morning)

  • Syllabus for the training programme completed
slide-35
SLIDE 35
  • 8. IPAT Pilot projects
  • Pilot assessment projects completed:
  • West Coast Main Line (as failed under Railtrack)
  • West Coast Main (as assessed in NETLIPSE 1)
  • Gotthard Base Tunnel (four different stages)
  • Fehmarn Baelt
  • Koper-Ljubljane

It was important that these were at different stages to understand the calibration of the IPAT. It was also helpful to select a project which had failed.

  • IPAT Assessment arranged November 2013:
  • Slovak D3 New Road Svrčinovec – Skalité
slide-36
SLIDE 36
  • 9. Use and Value of IPAT – 1

Sustaining High Quality

  • The quality of the IPAT-assessment results relies on the
  • penness and depth of information to be provided by the

Project Delivery Organisation, the Client and, to some extent, by the Stakeholders

  • The quality of the IPAT tool going forward relies on:

1. The skill of the assessors in probing interviewees; 2. The level of expertise and experience of the assessors; 3. The approval of (draft) assessment reports by NETLIPSE Scientific and Quality Board to sustain common scoring and quality of IPAT use.

slide-37
SLIDE 37

1. Ex ante:

  • to check there is clarity on purpose and scope and to

assess and validate the likely duration and cost of a new project or programme; This would help the EC to judge if a proposed project should be financed (if it fits other set criteria)

  • to compare projects at a selection process (in the event
  • f inadequate total funding one could support those

most likely to succeed.

2. Monitoring:

  • to monitor the progress of financed projects and

predict timing of grant spend and delivery;

  • as part of a special project investigation by the

EC or governments in the event of problems.

  • 9. Use and Value of IPAT - 2

Assessment of Deliverability

slide-38
SLIDE 38

3. To improve projects in execution:

  • to compare and benchmark the performance of the

project organisation and processes against the performance of other LIPs;

  • sharing best practise through the wide experience of the

assessors – pointers to improve projects or project areas.

4. Ex post:

  • to evaluate projects to learn as project organisation;
  • to evaluate projects to learn as the Commission.
  • 9. Use and Value of IPAT - 3

For Project Improvement

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Questions?

  • For further information on NETLIPSE, visit

www.netlipse.eu

  • Or pick up a NETLIPSE or IPAT

brochure

  • Or join us at our next Network Meeting:

November 18-19th 2013 in Bratislava

Hosted by the Slovak Republic Ministry of Transport, Construction and Regional Development