Group D"From Nobel prize to PM"

and back

Agenda

• Goal• Process• Analysis• Results• Focus on stakeholders• Weaknesses and improvements• Conclusions

Goal(s)

• Understand why megaprojects behave like they do– Better understand the impacts of statistical

relevant variable– Assess if their impact is positive or negative– Influence of internal and external stakeholders– Verify with the literature

• What can we do to make them perform better

Process - AS

Preparation

• Selection of low p-value variables• Included as output benefit for local community (Turner's Input)• Focus on Energy (8 projects, but well understood)

MethodologySet-up

• Refinement of some variables• Enhanced definition for FOAK vs. New Platform• Local Resident power- Inform; consult, advice, co-produce, decide• Judgments from Yes/No to 1 to 5

Methodology Analys

is

• Correlations (excel)• Graph Plot• Understanding from the literature

Focused Database

Flamanville 3

Olkiluoto3 Hinkley MochGreater Gabbard

AndasolAdriatic

LNG

Anholt Offshor

eKraftwerk

Project Phase Construction Construction Pre-ConstrConstructio

n Construction In OperationIn

OperationConstructio

nPlanned Completion date 2012 2009 N/A 2012 Q1 2011 2004/2006 2004 2013

Actual Completion date 2016 2014 N/A 2014 Q4 2012 2007/2009 2009Planned Budget 3.300 3000 N/A 1.800 2 1 1.32bn

Actial Budget 6.000 5300 N/A 2.775

EPC has provision of

losses for EUR400M ?

(fixed price but s/con suffered losses) ?

FL3 OL3 Hin Moch GG AND AD LNG AN OF KRAFTEstimated benefits in the medium term for the communità 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2OVERBUDGT 1 1 1 1 0 0 0DELAY during the construction phase 1 1 1 1 0 0 0

Delay during the planning phase 0 0 1 1 1

Number of years - construction 10 10 12 3 4 4 2Project has a foreign governance 1 4 3 4 1 4 4 2There is a presence of one major stakeholder 5 4 4 3 5 2 3 3

2.2 Green Peace or other international environmental activists have been involved in the project 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1Local Resident power- Inform; consoult, advice, co-produce, decide 4 5 4 1 4 2 1Client and Owner are different 1 1 1 1 5 4 3 5Project has a well developed FEED 4 2 4 4 4 4 4Tough physical or environmental conditions 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 4Financial Support from the European Union 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1

EXTRA The project is nuclear 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1FOAK 4 5 3 2 1 4 4 1Change of platform (paradaigm) 2 2 1 2 1 4 3 1

Absolutly no Rather no In between Rather yes Absolutly yes1 2 3 4 5

2.1 Stakeholde

RESPONSE (DEPENDANT) VARIABLE is PROJECT PERFORMANCE

Refined databaseBE

N_L

OC O

VER

DELA

Y_PL

AN

Year

_con

s

Fore

ign_

gov

One

_bih

Gre

enPe

ace_

in

Loc_

res_

pow

Cli_

Ow

n_di

f

good

_FEE

D

Toug

h_co

nds

Fina

ncia

l_EU

Nuk

e

FOAK

Chan

ge_p

lat

FL3 3 1 0 10 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 1 5 4 2

OL3 3 1 0 10 4 4 1 5 1 2 2 1 5 5 2

Hin 2 1 3 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 5 3 1

Moch 2 1 12 4 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 5 2 2

GG 2 1 3 1 5 5 1 5 4 1 1 1 1 1

AND 2 0 1 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 1 5 1 4 4

AD LNG 1 0 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 3

AN OF 2 0 2 2 3 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 10,57 -0,31 0,50 -0,10 0,59 -0,44 -0,55 -0,33 -0,26 0,63 0,29 -0,210,71 -0,30 0,75 0,24 0,22 -0,57 -0,32 -0,62 -0,60 0,75 0,00 -0,46-1,00 0,49 -0,72 0,41 -0,58 0,65 0,61 0,10 0,53 -0,67 -0,65 0,32

0,24 0,23 -0,44 0,53 -0,96 -0,35 -0,49 -0,33 0,97 0,40 0,02

One example:participation ladder Model

1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 51

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

Local community: involvment vs. benefits

Involvment of Local Community

Bene

fit fo

r Loc

al c

omm

unity

Focus on stakeholders

• Hinkley Internal• Different Owner, different Client• Good FEED- to what extend• Performance/Impact with time?• Implication with Decommissioning?• external• Local community support• Green peace –major influence

Stakeholder Impact

• FL3• Internal• Owner and Client the same (EDF)• FEED depends on them- many issues for redesign and

management• FOAK/ New Platform- many issues /standards and

regulations/New reactors• External• Some Distraction- what impact on time/quality/cost?• Green peace-major influence?

Focus on stakeholders

• Moch• Different Owner, different Client• Does the fact that nuclear an important

factor?• Green peace-major influence• Does the purpose of the megaproject include

inherent political risks to varying degrees?

Weaknesses of our approachand how to overcome them!

• Few data– No true statistical relationships Increase the sample size– We found patterns

• Assessment from 1 to 5 is subjective– Use Fuzzy logic approach trough discussion about each variable

• Not fully understanding of some relationships– Look more at the literature– Deep the case study

• Data analysis with excel– Get and use a decent statistical software (SPSS!)

• Better focus on Turner model (outputs, goals…)– We'll do next time!

Conclusions

• Cross case analysis takes time!

• Look at the variable behaviour to make Megaprojects perform better– Involve the community (giving power) to increase

their benefits

Megaprojects always fail, over-budget, late and

benefits!

They will be no more!!!!