a-team katy roelich robert hickey ehsan rad rami sariola
TRANSCRIPT
A-Team
Katy RoelichRobert Hickey
Ehsan RadRami Sariola
Introduction to process
• Support to correlation• Estimate effects• Impact identification• Explanatory factors?• Causality framework• Lessons
Why?
What?
Support to correlation Case 2.1 - Andasol Solar Power Plant Case 2.2 - Anholt Offshore Wind Farm
Case 2.3 - Flamanville 3 Nuclear Power Plant
Duration 2 years 6 years 5 yearsTotal delay delayed 1,5 years on time Delayed 4 years
Percent delay 75 % n/a 80 %planning delayed Yes No No
construction delayed No No YesTime impact value 5+3 n/a 5+2
Aggregate Time 8 n/a 7planned budget 0,6 bn 1,32 bn 3,3 bnactual budget no data 1,32 bn 6 bnOverbudget No No overbudget
Percent over budget 0 % 0 % 82 %Cost Impact value 0+5 0+5 5+2
Aggregate 5 5 7Quality 1 2 4
There is the presence of one major stakeholder
Correlated with a delay in construction and
overbudget
The project has more than one major stakeholder
The project has more than one major stakeholder
The project has one major stakeholder
The project has national public acceptability (no protest at national
level)
Correlated to going overbudget
Government support is required for approval, which is dependent on the
views of voters. Objection because land and water taken
for project Andosol farmers reduced resistance when they
were compensated
Lots of jobs were forseen Climate partnerships were promoted with local stakeholders
Anholt got external validation of environmental impacts to evaluate ex-
ante
Local residents:They receive a lot of money and incentives to accept the
project. Public: inquiry complains all “department” that are overlapped by
the circle area centered on the nuclear sit and having radios equal to five
kilometres. Environmentalists :Disagree
CriteriaRating
5 4 3 2 1
Cost
The effect if the �COST
targets are not met Descriptive
No additional fundsavailable and
projectwill not proceed
No additional fundsavailable and scope
reduced
Request for additionalfunds would be lengthy
and embarrassing
Some scope for
additional funds
Additional funds
available
Percentage of Overbudget >%25 %20-%25 %15-%20 %10-%15 <%10
Time
The effect if the �TIME
targets are not met Descriptive
Cannot be accommodated
under any circumstances
Severe disruption toclients business
Delays undesirable butcould be managed
Alternativearrangement
savailable
Completion datenot
important
Percentage of Overschedule >%25 %20-%25 %15-%20 %10-%15 <%10
QualityThe effect if the
QUALITYtargets are not met
Client's business ceases
altogetherClient's business
severely disruptedClient's business
moderately aected�Tolerable
effect�on client'sbusiness
No noticeable
effecton client's business
Scoring range (2-4) (5-7) (7-10)
Criteria Impact Low Medium High
Criteria and Impact identification based on (Baccarini & Archer,2001) and (Merrow,2010)
Impact identification
SuccessRisksFactors
Stakeholders
National plan
Support
Political
Financial
Decissions
Time
Quality
Cost
Planning
SuccessRisksFactors
Stakeholders
National plan
Support
Political
Financial
Decissions
Time
Quality
Cost
Construction
SuccessRisksFactors
Stakeholders
National plan
Support
Political
Financial
Decissions
Time
Quality
Cost
Planning
Financial
SuccessRisksFactors
Stakeholders
National plan
Support
Political
Financial
Decissions
Time
Quality
Cost
Planning
Financial
Time
What can we do better
• Stakeholders– More than one major stakeholder is either brilliant
or disaster– One major stakeholder leads to overbudget
• Support– understand factors affecting support better– Get external validation of key impacts– Design benefits into project– Incorporate contribution
What can we do better (2)
• National plans– Strategies, regulations and incentives are
important– Anticipate/integrate into planning and financing
Thank you!