Retrospective question about project management (HS1)

[RailAleFan]

Hi everyone,

Some time ago I was watching a mini-documentary on HS1 (10 minute segment on BBC news or something like that, can't quite remember!) but something stuck with me -

It mentioned that it was the first major national infrastructure project to use a new method of project management and sub-contractor relationship management that was hailed as a great success in getting so many different parties to work efficiently together towards the common goal of a successful delivery.

I have been trying to find out if there are any details available online about this and how it works (presumably it is / will be in use on Crossrail / HS2) but I'm drawing a blank. If my memory serves correctly, it's something to do with managing "blame", and somehow incentivising (rather than penalising!) sub-contractors to work together on resolutions instead of everybody blaming somebody else and ending up with more lawyers working on the project than builders.

Just curious as to whether it contains methods and policies that can be scaled down (I work in software development but have to manage projects with multiple parties and the blame game is one of the biggest bugbears)

Anybody know of any resources related to this at all?

Thanks!

 

[thebigcheese]

It wasn't the Construction Design and Management regulations by any chance?

 

[edwin_m]

I think this may refer to Collaborative Working, for which there is a new standard BS11000. I don't know about HS2 but Network Rail are very keen on it and there is some stuff on their website.

Construction Design and Management is a set of regulations that are mandatory across a wide range of construction projects and primarily intended to improve workforce health and safety.

 

[Tio Terry]

HS1 was project managed by mostly Bechtel staff. The system they used is also being used on the Central Section of Crossrail. It's share the gain/share the pain system. If the part of the project comes in under budget the residue is shared between the Project Managers (Bechtel) and the Contractor. If it runs over budget the extra cost is shared between the PM and the Contractor.

It relies very heavily on getting the correct specification for the works package, anything wrong with that - and there was quite a lot wrong with them! - and you ended up with a dispute. Of course, some things change during a long project and changes have to be made to the specifications. That would normally constitute a Claim by the Contractor. With the Bechtel model it's called a Compensation Event. The Contractor cannot refuse to undertake the work (to keep the project on timescale) but has then to submit a claim for extra payment. That's where it all goes wrong. For every claim Bechtel automatically refused them asking for more information - timesheets, material invoices etc. - and even when provided with these continued to prevaricate and refuse to pay up. With a lot of smaller claims the Contractors simply gave up, the time being expended was greater than the claim (which I think is what Bechtel relied on in the first place) but even with that a lot of bigger claims ended up with Lawyers and Arbitration. It certainly is not a good model to be using in my experience.

 

[RailAleFan]

Wow - thanks for the super-fast replies guys; apologies if a wee bit OT for my FP. BS11000 looks like what the documentary was referring to - the BSi page I've just been reading cites Network Rail as a case study. Their project management appears to be outstanding from an outsiders point of view; I travel through Birmingham and Reading frequently and it never ceases to amaze me how such huge projects are completed whilst keeping the stations more or less operating a full capacity.

Cheers!

 

[BantamMenace]

As a prospective PM at network rail after I graduate next summer does anyone know what kind of projects graduate PMs get let loose on? Is it a case of shadowing other PMs on larger projects in the early days?

 

[Ships]

As a prospective PM at network rail after I graduate next summer does anyone know what kind of projects graduate PMs get let loose on? Is it a case of shadowing other PMs on larger projects in the early days?

I've never understood the pm grad scheme as they only seem to have 1 or 2 grads a year.

 

[rf_ioliver]

Hi everyone,

Some time ago I was watching a mini-documentary on HS1 (10 minute segment on BBC news or something like that, can't quite remember!) but something stuck with me -...

See your PMs, I might be able to help,

t.

Ian

 

[ommerson]

An interesting comparison is what happens in the IT industry, where 'waterfall' project management approaches (also sometimes called 'stage and gate') are highly discredited. The main reason for this is that requirements changes generally occur late and require the phases of the project to be revisited (using the 'waterfall' metaphor, this is climbing back up the waterfall). I piece of research in the 90's called the Standish report found this to be the most significant cause of project failure (e.g. delivering late or over budget, or failing to deliver at all).

Whilst similarities between construction and IT projects pretty much end at having a deliverable that is 'constructed', one factor that a lot of government IT projects have in common with civil engineering projects is having the government, and by extension politicians, as a client; politicians, who are prone to meddle, whilst having never management anything complex in their life before.

Look to the Universal Credit system as a particularly screwed up example. This was ironically the first attempt at NOT using a waterfall approach. However, neither the contractors or the politicians (or press) were able to cope with iterative project approach.

Arguably, one of the most credible project decisions of Crossrail was to appoint an independent, and professional project management consultancy (rather than politicians or civil servants) to act as the client.

 

[brianthegiant]

In theory, cost over runs are what 'systems engineering' & six sigma claim to fix. The fundamental idea is to exhaustively test the design and its relationship with all stakeholders before actually building, since changes at the design stage are relatively cheap compared with changes made once construction has started. defence companies like BAe are keen on it, look how their projects come in on time and on budget.

 

[RailAleFan]

In theory, cost over runs are what 'systems engineering' & six sigma claim to fix. The fundamental idea is to exhaustively test the design and its relationship with all stakeholders before actually building, since changes at the design stage are relatively cheap compared with changes made once construction has started. defence companies like BAe are keen on it, look how their projects come in on time and on budget.

Consciously aware of going a little OT for this forum but it's an interesting point none-the-less, a company I used to work for was in the early stages of adopting "six sigma" before I left but I found it fascinating.

Big manufacturing operations use its principles to refine a production process to such an extent that it is simply not worth testing the finished product because the chances of a defect are so low.

Bear that in mind next time you buy a brand new TV!

 

[Grumpy]

In theory, cost over runs are what 'systems engineering' & six sigma claim to fix. The fundamental idea is to exhaustively test the design and its relationship with all stakeholders before actually building, since changes at the design stage are relatively cheap compared with changes made once construction has started. defence companies like BAe are keen on it, look how their projects come in on time and on budget.

The old adage-do your thinking before you do your spending

 

[pablo]

Tio Terry comes nearest to it. Look up NEC3 Option C. Supposedly no need for claims, etc. Being used on Crossrail and LUL. And, yes, B were bar stewards.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NEC_Engineering_and_Construction_Contract
http://www.neccontract.com/about/index.asp