MEGAPROJECTS ENERGY WG

BRAINSTORMING NOTES NATURAL LANGUAGE ANALYSIS AND CONDENSATION

L-F Pau, 2012-10-12

ABSTRACT:

*Taking the syntactically edited brainstorming notes from the Bratislava panel (Section 1) , triggered by an unfocussed question on Megaprojects in general, and further manual editing/ preparation / domain adaptation (Section 2) as input, the automated proprietary tool (based on References [1-3]) generates several results. They include in Section 3 and Section 4 the nominal group clustering tree with the assumed root structure. Section 5 gives the aggregated hypothesis rules organized by aggregation mechanism ([1-3]).

*The results, which are the hypothesis rules ranked by relevant note counts are given in Section 6. The note counts linked to specific hypothesis rules are given in Section 7 for quality control to avoid dominance of any specific brainstorming notes.

*The hypothesis rules are subject by two ratings (Section 8) from 6 independent Energy WG cases, by case authors and/or project management.

*In summary, the natural language analysis of 70 sentences produced by the unfocussed brainstorming panel, and subsequent rating of the derived hypothesis from 6 independent cases, produces the following general rules about Megaprojects:

Hypothesis rules validated with high note counts:

A: Good management and good outcome are correlated

C: Links and incentives must be created for success for the different categories of Users and Builders

Hypothesis rules validated with average or low note counts:

F: Policy AND Regulations are linked to execution AND outcome

G: The deployment context must be aligned with local benefits

H: Performance is improved by management

I: The same actors are found across Europe

J: Megaproject characteristics are linked to outcome

Three hypothesis rules are not validated.

*Subsequent refinement of these rules, or the generation of new rules, for example on priorities regarding the execution, or success, or other characteristics of Megaprojects, would require a more focused second brainstorming with one initial proposition / statement to which panelists would have to react in view of producing focused comments (to be analyzed in the same way). This is standard in sequential brainstorming analysis with refinements.

Text in this color means there is still some ambiguity requiring Note author clarification.

1. Brainstorming notes from Milan 16/7/2012

These notes are the result of syntactic editing by WG of the original brainstorming notes from Bratislava, as carried out in WG session in Milano. The Milan notes are reproduced “as is”.

This brainstorming was unfocussed, with no specific proposition to be reflected upon , except collecting general ideas on Megaprojects.

OLD Number

Hypothesis / idea Author

1 A strong regulation system is a Critical Success Factor for Megaprojects

Mauro

2 The same actors are involved as external stakeholders across Europe

Naomi

3 If the historical experience of megaprojects is good it is more likely that the project will be accptable to External Stakeholders

Naomi

4 If the unemployment in the area of the megaproject is higher than the nationa average it is more likely that the project will be accptable to External Stakeholders

Naomi

5 Environmental activists and regulators must be engaged ex-ante, not ex post

Pau

7 If the public trust licensing authorities, the public are less likely to oppose megaprojects.

Naomi

8 The successful completion of a megaproject requires the specific enactment of legislative or regulatory support

Naomi

9 If the project director is experienced, the implementation of the megaproject is more likely to be successful.

Naomi

10 The distribution of social class across the stakeholders affects stakeholder acceptability.

Naomi

11 If more is spent on the local community by the megaproject, the external stakeholders are more likely to accept the megaproject.

Naomi

12 If the local opposition is high the the Megaproject can be stopped Mauro13 If the emotional connection with the landscape is high than the

Social Acceptance is lower Nina

14 The more multicultural the megaproject is, the less it can succeed Mauro

15 State goverment policies and priorities are necessary for natural stakeholder execution and project performance

Pau

16 A strong polical committment is a Critical Success Factor Mauro

17 Conservativism in the local communities is a barrier for megaproject development

Koloman

18 The support of the central Parliament is a Critical Success Factor forthe project

Mauro

21 Projects run by a foreign company achieve low performance Giorgio22 Project culture impacts upon the success of the project. Naomi

Siemens is involved in all EU megaprojects23 Siemens is involved in all EU megaprojects Naomi2425 the affiliation of the project manager impacts on the project

performance 26 The presence of one dominant stakeholder is a Critical Success

FactorMauro

27 The experience of the stakeholders determine the success of the project

Pau

28 Megaprojects needs long term stability in usage and value to succeed

Pau

30 If at the project investor has a dominant position and the politicians are weak, then the project will be initiated ineffectively

Gerald

31 If the project owner has no formal authority on the resources, the project will fail

Gerald

33 Megaproject are most likley to succeed when the owner is from the private sector

Mauro

34 Modular projects benefit from accumulated learning and carry less risks

Pau

37 A resilient project management structure is Critical success Factor for Megaproject

Koloman

38 The usage of milestones makes a project more likely to succeed Pau39 Formal use of project management tools and techniques is a Critical

success FactorMauro

42 Using specific techiniques to estimate cost improves project performance

43 Usage of performance metrics is a Critical Success Factor Mauro45 The sponsor and owner of the project have to be different for the

project to succeed46 The contractual framework is important for megaproject success. Naomi

47 Contract type and concept maturity must fit Gerald48 Turn key contracts in megaprojects causes budget overruns, delays

and litigation.50 The quality ofthe feasibility study is important . Koloman51 The clear target of main SH is a C.S.F. Mauro53 The level of detail in a FEED is a Critical Success Factor

for the project.Mauro

55 The investment in external Communication is a Critical Success Factorfor the project.

Mauro

56 The more mature the industry sector, the more likely the project is to succeed.

57 A life cycle perspective is a critical success factor. Tomas

59 Project performance and environmental condition is related.63 The decision making style has influence on the project performance64 The longer the project life-cycle, the higher the risk of budget

overuns and delayGiorgio

65 Modular projects have better performance than "stand alone" projects.

Giorgio

66 Complexity is related to uncertainity.

67 The higher the level of innovation in the project , the less likely it is to succeed.

Mauro

68 The greater the ability and willingness to forecast technology changes, the more likely the project is to succeed.

Koloman

69 The use of proven tecnology is a critical success factor70 The internal organisational structure of the project impacts on

project performance.Nina

2. Editing for void lines and inconsistent word notations

2.1.-Void lines removed

2.2.-Notes without numbers got numbered

2.3.-Non sequential numbering of notes in 1. replaced by continuous sequence

2.4.-Syntax corrected (English); upper/lower cases uniformized

2.5.-Context Ambiguity resolved:

Project=Megaproject

Missing implicit subject: megaproject

More is spentMore funding is spent

Central Parliament Parlament

State government Government

To estimate cost to estimate megaproject cost

Usage of performance metricsUsage of megaproject performance metrics

…to succeed= success= successful

contractual framework: contractual megaproject framework

SH->stakeholder

Local opposition local community opposition

acceptability= acceptance

to stop= stop

barrier= NOT(acceptability)

oppose= NOT(acceptability)

organizational structure = management structure

budget overrun= cost overrun

using= usage of

private sector= private sector policy

to fail= failure= NOT(success)

to initiate= start

(mega)project director=(mega) project manager

2.6.-Punctuation separators added

2.7.-Specific Terminology added:

CN (Custom name):

CN1: Critical success factor = CSF

CN2: Megaproject

CN3: Stakeholders

CN4: “External stakeholders” (CN3 (-1))

CN5: National average

CN6: “Regulatory authorities”=” Licensing authorities”=Regulators

CN7: “Project director”

CN8: Siemens

CN9: FEED

CN10: “stand alone”

CN11: “social levels”

CN12: “emotional connection”

CN13: “government policy”

CN14: “contractual framework”=”contract type”

CN15: “Life cycle perspective”

2.8. -Brainstorming author semantic ambiguity override:

1) distribution of social class across the stakeholders the variance of social levels amongst stakeholders

2) clear target of main stakeholder having a main stakeholder with clear goals

NEW Numbers

Hypothesis / idea OLD numbers

1 A strong regulatory system is a CSF for megaprojects 12 The same actors are involved as external stakeholders across Europe 23 If the historical experience of megaprojects is good, it is more likely that

the megaproject will be acceptable to external stakeholders3

4 If the unemployment in the area of the megaproject is higher than the national average, it is more likely that the megaproject will be acceptable to external stakeholders

4

5 Environmental activists and regulators must be engaged ex-ante, not ex-post

5

6 If the public trusts regulators, the public is less likely to oppose megaprojects

7

7 The successful completion of a megaproject requires the specific enactment of legislative or regulatory support

8

8 If the project director is experienced, the implementation of the megaproject is more likely to be successful.

9

9 The distribution of social class (variance of social levels amongst) across the stakeholders affects stakeholder acceptability.

10

10 If more funding is spent on the local community by the megaproject, the external stakeholders are more likely to accept the megaproject

11

11 If the local community opposition is high, the megaproject can be stopped

12

12 If the emotional connection with the landscape is high, then the social acceptability is lower

13

13 The more multicultural the megaproject is, the less it can succeed 14

14 Government policies and priorities are necessary for natural stakeholder execution and megaproject performance

15

15 A strong political commitment of is a CSF 1616 Conservatism in the local communities is a barrier for megaproject

development17

17 The support of megaproject by Parliament is a CSF 1818 Megaprojects run by a foreign company achieve low performance 2119 Megaproject culture impacts upon the success of the megaproject 2220 Siemens is involved in all EU megaprojects 2321 The affiliation of the megaproject manager impacts on the megaproject

performance 25

22 The presence of one dominant stakeholder is a CSF 2623 The experience of the stakeholders determine the success of the

megaproject27

24 Megaprojects needs long term stability in usage and value to succeed 2825 If the megaproject investor has a dominant position and the politicians

are weak, then the megaproject will be initiated ineffectively 30

26 If the megaproject owner has no formal authority on the resources, the megaproject will fail

31

27 Megaprojects are most likely to succeed when the owner is from the private sector

33

28 Modular megaprojects benefit from accumulated learning and carry less risks

34

29 A resilient megaproject management structure is a CSF for a megaproject

37

30 The usage of milestones makes a megaproject more likely to succeed 3831 Formal use of project management tools and techniques is a CSF 3932 Using specific techniques to estimate megaproject cost improves

megaproject performance42

33 Usage of megaproject performance metrics is a CSF 4334 The sponsor and owner of the megaproject have to be different for the

megaproject success45

35 The contractual megaproject framework is important for megaproject success

46

36 Megaproject contract type and megaproject concept maturity must fit 4737 Turnkey contracts in megaprojects cause budget overruns, delays and

litigation.48

38 The quality of the megaproject feasibility study is important 5039 Having a main stakeholder with clear goals is a C.S.F. 5140 The level of detail in a FEED is a CSF for the megaproject 53

41 The investment in megaproject external communication is a CSFfor the megaproject

55

42 The more mature the industry sector, the more likely the megaproject success

43 A megaproject life cycle perspective is a CSF44 Megaproject performance and environmental condition are related45 The decision making style has influence on the megaproject

performance

46 The longer the megaproject life-cycle, the higher the risk of budget overruns and delay

47 Modular megaprojects have better performance than "stand alone" megaprojects

48 Complexity is related to uncertainty49 The higher the level of innovation in the megaproject , the less likely is

success50 The greater the ability and willingness to forecast technology changes,

the more likely the megaproject success51 The use of proven technology is a CSF52 The internal organizational structure of the megaproject impacts on

megaproject performance

3. Root nominal categories

ROOT-Activities-Attitudes-Economy-Management-Organization-Outcome-Policy-Megaproject characteristics-Regulations-Users and builders

4. Clustering of nominal categories

Note numbers Nominal root Nominal category (N(+1))

Nominal category(N(+2))

1 Regulatory system Regulations ROOT7 Regulatory support “”””””””””” ROOT2 Actors Users and builders ROOT2, 20 EU Actors Users and builders25 Politicians Actors Users and builders9,23 Stakeholders Actors Users and builders2,3,4, 10 External Stakeholders Stakeholders Actors14,22,39 Stakeholder Stakeholders Actors

1,6,18, 20,24 ,27,28, 47

Megaprojects Activities ROOT

2,3,7,10,13, 17 , 19, 25, 26, 29, 30, 32, 34,35,38, 45, 46, 49, 52

Megaproject Megaprojects Activities

36 Concept Megaproject Megaprojects

47 Modular Megaproject Megaprojects47 Stand-alone Megaproject Megaprojects4 Unemployment Economy ROOT9 Social levels Economy ROOT10 Funding Economy ROOT41 Investment Economy ROOT26 Resources Economy ROOT6 Public Users and builders ROOT18 Company Stakeholders Actors17 Parliament Stakeholders Actors26,27,34 Owner Stakeholders Actors25 Investor Stakeholders Actors34 Sponsor Stakeholders Actors7 Legislative support Parliament, Policy Actors, Policy10,11,16 Community Public Users and builders7 Completion Outcome ROOT37, 46 Delay Completion Outcome38 Quality Outcome ROOT44 Environmental

conditionOutcome ROOT

14, 21, 32 ,44, 45, 47, 52

Performance Outcome ROOT

33 Performance metric Performance Outcome1,15, 17,22,29 ,31,33, 39, 40,41,43, 51

CSF Outcome ROOT

32 Cost Outcome ROOT37, 46 Cost overrun Cost Outcome28,46 Risks Outcome ROOT37 Litigation Risks Outcome8, 13, 19,23,24, 27 ,30, 34 ,35 ,42, 50

Success Outcome ROOT

26, 49 Failure Success Outcome8,21 Project manager Company Stakeholders19 (Megaproject) Culture Company Stakeholders20 Siemens Company Stakeholders14 Government policy Policy ROOT27 Private sector policy Policy ROOT17 Support Policy, Management,

ExecutionROOT, ROOT, Activities

14 Priority Policy, Management, Execution

ROOT, ROOT, Activities

14 Execution Operations Activities24 Usage Operations Activities24 Value Operations Activities24 Stability Operations Activities38 Feasibility study Execution Activities40 FEED Execution Activities16 Barrier Execution Activities25 Start Execution Activities11 Stop Execution Activities16 Development Execution Activities7 Enactment Execution Activities8 Implementation Execution Activities30 Milestones Execution Activities31 (Project

management) toolsExecution Activities

31,32 (Project management) techniques

Execution Activities

43, 46 Life cycle Execution Activities15 Commitment Management ROOT28 Learning Management ROOT21 Affiliation Organization ROOT22 Presence Organization ROOT29, 52 (Management)

structureOrganization ROOT

25 Position Organization ROOT23 Experience Management ROOT50 Forecast Management ROOT3 Experience Management ROOT26 Authority Management ROOT45 Decision making

(style)Management ROOT

41 External communications

Management ROOT

39 Goals Management ROOT40 Detail Management,

Execution , Completion, Outcome

ROOT, Activities, Outcome, ROOT

32, 33 Usage Management ROOT35,36 Contract type Management ROOT37 Turnkey contract Contract type Management48 Complexity Megaproject

characteristicsROOT

48 Uncertainty Megaproject characteristics

ROOT

42 Industry sector (deployment)

Megaproject characteristics

ROOT

49 Innovation Megaproject characteristics

ROOT

50, 51 Technology Megaproject characteristics

ROOT

12 Landscape Deployment context Megaproject characteristics

Attitudes Deployment context Megaproject characteristics

9,12 Acceptability Attitudes Deployment context16 Conservatism Attitudes Deployment context12 Emotional connection Attitudes Deployment context

5. Aggregated hypothesis rules

5.1. Single word auxiliary (to be, to have) verb logical groupings

NOTE NUMBERS SEMANTIC AGGREGATES

ATTRIBUTE INSTANCES

NOTES

1,15, 17,22,29 ,31,33, 39, 40,41,43, 51

CSF are LIST-1 LIST-1-strong regulatory system-strong political commitment-support of Parliament-presence of a dominant stakeholder-resilient management structure-formal use of project management tools-formal use of project management techniques-usage of performance metrics-main stakeholder with clear goals-level of detail in FEED-investment in

Attributes can only be ranked from experimental data not reflected in text

external communication-life-cycle perspective-use of proven technology

5.2. Creation of attributed links

NOTE NUMBERS SEMANTIC AGGREGATES

ATTRIBUTE INSTANCES NOTES

5, 6 , 17, 26, 27, 34, 25, 7, 10, 11, 16

Links and incentives must be created for success for the different categories of Users and builders

-engage ex-ante not ex-post (timing of link);-trust (attribute of link) ;-support by Parliament (existence/strength of link) ;-owner formal authority on resources (node attribute);-owner from private sector (node attribute);-NOT (owner and sponsor linked)(existence / strength of link);-investor has a dominant position (node attribute);-NOT (politician weak)(node attribute);- enactment of legislative or regulatory support ( existence / strength of link);- more funding is spent on the local community( attribute of link);-NOT(local community opposition is high) (existence / strength of link);-NOT(Conservatism in the local communities) (node attribute);

14, 17, 1, 5, 7, 15, 25

Policy AND Regulations are linked to execution AND outcome

- government policies and priorities are necessary for natural stakeholder execution and performance- support of megaproject by Parliament- a strong regulatory system is a CSF - regulators must be engaged ex-ante, not ex-post- completion requires the specific enactment of legislative or regulatory support- strong political commitment is a CSF- NOT(If investor has a dominant position and the politicians are weak, then the megaproject will be initiated ineffectively)

5.3. Node properties

NOTE NUMBERS SEMANTIC AGGREGATES

ATTRIBUTE INSTANCES

NOTES

9, 12, 16, 7, 43, 3, 4, 6, 13, 24

Megaproject characteristics impacting acceptability are long term and attitudes

-variance of social levels;-emotional connection with the landscape;-conservatism in local communities;-enactment of legislative or regulatory support;-life-cycle perspective;-good past experience of megaprojects;- unemployment

in the geographical area is higher than the national average;-trust of regulators;-NOT(he more multicultural megaproject);- long term stability in usage and value;

4, 10, 24, 44, 12 The deployment context must be aligned with local benefits

-REDUCE (unemployment in the geographical area)- more funding is spent on the local community- long term stability in usage and value- environmental conditions- emotional connection with the landscape

2, 20 The same actors are found across Europe

-same actors across Europe-Siemens

5.4. Correlations

NOTE NUMBERS SEMANTIC AGGREGATES

ATTRIBUTE INSTANCES NOTES

3, 8, 14, 19, 23, 26, 28, 30, 32, 34, 36, 38, 44, 45, 50, 52,35

Good management and good outcome are correlated

-good historical experience of actors-good experience of project director- government policies and priorities-good (megaproject) culture-NOT(owner has no formal

authority on the resources)- modular (megaprojects )benefit from accumulated learning- usage of milestones- using specific techniques to estimate (megaproject) cost- the sponsor and owner have to be different- contract type and concept maturity must fit- good quality of the feasibility study-good environmental condition- decision making style- ability and willingness to forecast technology changes-good internal organizational structure

21, 52, 25, 13, 18, 26, 36, 37, 46, 49

Negative outcome is linked to organization

- affiliation of the megaproject manager- bad internal organizational structure- investor has a dominant position and the politicians are weak- the more multicultural (the megaproject)- run by a foreign company- If owner has no formal authority on the resources- contract type and megaproject concept maturity must fit- turnkey contracts cause budget overruns, delays and litigation- the longer the life-cycle, the higher the risk of budget overruns and delay- the higher the level of innovation , the less likely is success

42, 49 Megaproject characteristics are linked to outcome

- the more mature the industry sector, the more likely the success- the higher the level of innovation , the less likely

is success

5.5. Ranking of choices (better, worse)

NOTE NUMBERS SEMANTIC AGGREGATES

ATTRIBUTE INSTANCES

NOTES

47, 27 Performance is improved by management

- modular megaprojects have better performance than "stand alone" megaprojects- most likely to succeed when the owner is from the private sector (than from public sector)

5.6. Outliers

NOTE NUMBERS SEMANTIC AGGREGATES

ATTRIBUTE INSTANCES

NOTES

48 Complexity is related to uncertainty

There is no note linking nominal groups to any other in note set used

6. HYPOTHESIS RULES LINKED TO NOTE COUNTS

HYPOHESIS RULE NUMBER

HYPOTHESIS RULE NOTE COUNT RULE TYPE

A Good management and good outcome are

17 Correlations

correlatedB CSF are : LIST-1 12 Single word

auxiliary verb logical grouping

C Links and incentives must be created for success for the different categories of Users and Builders

11 Creation of attributed links

D Negative outcome is linked to organization

10 Correlations

E Megaproject characteristics impacting acceptability are long term and attitudes

10 Node properties

F Policy AND Regulations are linked to execution AND outcome

7 Creation of attributed links

G The deployment context must be aligned with local benefits

5 Node properties

H Performance is improved by management

2 Ranking of choices

I The same actors are found across Europe

2 Node properties

J Megaproject characteristics are linked to outcome

2 Correlations

Outlier 1 Outlier

7. NOTE COUNTS LINKED TO HYPOTHESIS RULES

Note (Rules):

1(2);2(1);3(2);4(2);5(2);6(2);7(3);8(1);9(1);10(2);11(1);12(2);13(2);14(2);15(2);16(2);17(3);18(1);19(1);20(1);21(1);22(1);23(1);24(2);25(3);26(3); 27(2);28(1); 29(1);30(1);31(1);32(1);33(1);34(2);35(1);36(2);37(1);38(1),39(1);40(1);41(1);42(1);43(2);44(2);45(1);46(1);47(1);47(1);48(1);49(2);50(1);51(1);52(2)

All notes are significant (except outlier)

No notes influence any aggregate rule more than 3 times

8. RATING OF HYPOTHESIS RULES FROM MEGAPROJECT ENERGY WG CASES

The hypothesis rules in Section 6 (except outlier) have been rated in two ways from independent cases, by case authors or project management.

- (in %) the estimated Probability for each rule to be TRUE in the context of each case;

- by YES/NO whether each rule is TRUE in the context of each case.

The weight of % rated hypothesis is the arithmetic average of numerical ratings received.

The weight of YES/NO rated hypothesis is the majority outcome of YES/NO ratings received.

The number of independent cases is: 6 (Flamanville, Moorburg, Lünen, Greater Gabard, Hinkley Point, Anholt)

HYPOHESIS RULE NUMBER

HYPOTHESIS RULE NOTE COUNT Average % weight

Majority Yes/No

A Good management and good outcome are correlated

17 70% YES

B CSF are : LIST-1 12 52% Break evenC Links and incentives

must be created for success for the different categories of Users and Builders

11 57% YES

D Negative outcome is linked to organization

10 42% NO

E Megaproject characteristics impacting acceptability are long term and attitudes

10 52% NO

F Policy AND Regulations are linked to execution AND outcome

7 88% YES

G The deployment context must be aligned with local benefits

5 52% YES

H Performance is improved by management

2 62% YES

I The same actors are found across Europe

2 61% YES

J Megaproject characteristics are linked to outcome

2 100% YES

Hypothesis rules validated with high relative note counts:

A: Good management and good outcome are correlated

C: Links and incentives must be created for success for the different categories of Users and Builders

Hypothesis rules validated with average or low relative note counts:

F: Policy AND Regulations are linked to execution AND outcome

G: The deployment context must be aligned with local benefits

H: Performance is improved by management

I: The same actors are found across Europe

J: Megaproject characteristics are linked to outcome

Three hypothesis rules are not validated.

Subsequent refinement of these rules, or the generation of new rules, for example on priorities regarding the execution, or success, or other characteristics of Megaprojects, would require a more focused second brainstorming with one initial proposition / statement to which panelists would have to react in view of producing focused comments (to be analyzed in the same way). This is standard in sequential brainstorming analysis with refinements.

REFERENCE

[1] L-F Pau, Inference of functional economic model relations from natural language analysis, in: L.F. Pau (Ed), Artificial intelligence in economics and management, North Holland, 1986, pp. 173-183

[2] L-F Pau, Inference of the structure of economic reasoning from natural language analysis, Proc. 4th IFAC/IFORS/IIASA/IEEE Conf. on "Modeling and control of national economies", June 17-19, 1983, Washington DC., in: T. Basar, L.F. Pau (Eds), Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1984, pp. 157 - 163; also: in: Int. J. decision support systems, Vol 1, no 4, 1985, p. 313-321

[3] L-F Pau, Inference of the structure of economic reasoning from natural language analysis: application to qualitative economic forecasting, Proc. Conf. Society for economic dynamics and control, 1981 meeting, Copenhagen, Denmark, 22-26 June 1981