sign in sign up
<<
Home , Docklands Light Railway, London Overground, Tottenham Court Road, Train operating company, Transport for London

Civil Engineering Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers http://dx.doi.org/10.1680/jcien.17.00016 Paper 1700016 programme organisation and Received 07/03/2017 Accepted 25/05/2017 management for delivering ’s Elizabeth line Keywords: codes of practice and standards/project management Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

ICE Publishing: All rights reserved

Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line

1 Simon Wright BSc, CEng, FICE, OBE 3 Patrick ten Have Programme Director, Crossrail Limited, UK Consultant 2 Richard Palczynski BEng, CEng, FICE, FAPM Programme Controls Director, Crossrail Limited, UK

1 2 3

The Crossrail Act for an east–west railway across London was given royal assent in 2008 and construction started on what will become the new Elizabeth line in 2009. This paper looks at how Crossrail Limited, the client delivery organisation, was assembled, how it evolved and what programme and project management practices it deployed. Its objectives were to deliver the project sponsors’ requirements and maintain industry-leading performance for health and safety, environmental and sustainability performance as well as cost and schedule management on one of the UK’s most eagerly awaited and most complex pieces of infrastructure.

1. Introduction was set up to be accountable to its sponsors, (TfL) and the (DfT), for £14.8 billion of The Crossrail project to deliver London’s new Elizabeth line (as construction work through one of the world’s busiest cities. outlined in Figure 1) is nearing completion. By the time the new This paper describes how the organisation tackled programme line is operating to all destinations in December 2019, over 55 000 organisation and management, resolving the complexity of a very people will have played their part in its delivery. large-scale project to keep the project on time and within the Crossrail Limited, the publicly owned delivery organisation, agreed funding envelope.

Existing station Traction power bulk supply point New station A Eleanor Street shaft Yard stabling sidings Shaft B Pudding Mill Lane Park shaft Pudding Mill Manor Seven Kings Surface line HV power bulk supply point Lane portal Shenfield Farringdon Park A Griffith House Forest Portal (tunnel B Limmo Peninsula depot Gate Brentwood entrance and exit) C Royal Harold Wood Stabling siding location Control centres West Oak Bond Maryland Gidea Park Depot Westbourne Park turnback Ealing Broadway portal Street Stratford Hayes and Ilford Harlington Thames Valley Taplow Burnham A Custom West B Goodmayes signalling centre Slough Iver Drayton A House Acton B Didcot Langley Southall main Twyford line C Reading Royal Borough of Windsor and Heathrow Plumstead portal Maidenhead Westbourne Park Plumstead stabling sidings Liverpool Limmo Street Green Peninsula Court Road shaft shaft Fisher Street shaft portal Canary 0 km 10 Wharf Victoria Dock portal

Figure 1. Scope of the project

1 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

2. Delivery vehicle powers to acquire land, and to construct and maintain the railway. Crossrail Limited was formed as the nominated undertaker to put Crossrail Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of TfL, was in place an organisation capable of discharging the obligations and established in 2008 by its joint sponsors as the successor to the undertakings as set out within the Act. All of this was to be carried previous jointly owned development company Cross out such that the project remained within its £14.8 billion funding Links. It was set up as a special-purpose company specifically to envelope and the railway opened on time. design and deliver the Crossrail project, that is an end-to-end railway In developing a delivery strategy, it was recognised that the transport system capable of operating services between Reading client organisation would need to be augmented with sufficiently and Heathrow in the west and Shenfield and Abbey Wood in the experienced staff to deal with the scale and complexity throughout east. On phased completion, the new Elizabeth line railway will the 10 year project lifecycle. This need existed at both a programme be handed over to TfL’s subsidiaries, Rail for London and London management and project management level and resulted in Crossrail Underground, in five stages and run as part of the TfL . Limited awarding two delivery partner contracts in early 2009. Crossrail Limited’s mandate or mission from its sponsors was The first partner contract was awarded to Transcend, a joint ‘to deliver a world-class railway that fast-tracks the progress of venture between Aecom, CH2M Hill and the Nichols Group, with London’. This all-encompassing statement was further developed the specific purpose of acting as the programme partner helping and adopted as the organisation’s vision, ‘moving London forward’. Crossrail Limited fulfil its obligations to deliver safely the overall The vision underpinned the values and these have aligned the programme to time, to the desired standard and within budget, objectives of the multi-layered client organisation and its supply as well as supplementing the core Crossrail Limited team with chain. technical capability. The Crossrail values are The second partner contract was awarded to Bechtel, the project delivery partner, supported by its nominated sub-suppliers Halcrow ■■ Safety – we put safety first. and Systra. Under this contract the project delivery partner ■■ Inspiration – it’s in our power to change things for the better. provided the capability to drive delivery of the central section ■■ Respect – we treat people as we’d like to be treated. between Westbourne Park and Stratford/Plumstead. ■■ Collaboration – we’re stronger together. For the first 2 years of their appointments, both partners worked ■■ Integrity – we keep our promises. with the client to set up the project including its management systems and controls functions. Mobilising the large workforce in These values, captured in a booklet that all joiners received, the time needed for these tasks was a major challenge. became central to the company’s culture and contributed to the Furthermore, the project had several other partners in both creation of the high-performing team, which was essential to the public and private sectors. Although not under the direct running an enterprise of the magnitude and complexity of Crossrail. management control of Crossrail Limited, they were responsible The received royal assent in July 2008, through contract agreement for delivery of significant parts of the giving the UK government’s Secretary of State for Transport project, as set out in Figure 2.

Crossrail project – overall delivery responsibility for design, construction, testing, handover, trial running and completion On-network works Central section works On-network works – design, construction, testing, Central section works – design, construction, testing, handover, trial running and completion and handover, trial running and completion

Other Asset Shafts, enabling and Other Other protection and and Stations preparatory systems stations interface works portals works

On-network On-network On-network Works Utilities New shafts, Paddington Route control west east south east adjacent to diversions tunnels and station centre Rolling portals station stock infrastructure Network Rail Communications infrastructure Connaught station and control Works adjacent modifications tunnel systems to London refurbishment Tottenham Woolwich Underground Docklands Light Depot Court Road Traction station Railway, Pudding infrastructure Shaft and station power Mill Lane station tunnel fit outs, Works adjacent and track railway and Farringdon Delivery responsibilities to Docklands re-alignment systems station Crossrail Limited Light Railway infrastructure Docklands Light Project delivery partner Whitechapel Railway, Victoria station Network Rail Dock station and track Liverpool Street Berkeley Homes re-alignment station Other Custom House station

Figure 2. Scope by delivery responsibility

2 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

Although some of the scope was delivered by third parties, contractually Crossrail Limited remained accountable to its Secretary of State Sponsor Agreement Transport for Transport for London sponsors for the overall delivery of the whole railway and Project Development Agreement accountable for overall systems integration. This latter role was a decision taken early on and had very wide-ranging consequences. Shareholder Crossrail Agreement The alternative, to hire a private contractor to take accountability Limited for overall railway integration, was not believed to deliver value for money – if indeed a company could be found to take it on at all. Crossrail project

By becoming the railway integrator, Crossrail Limited also became Central operating Delivery responsible for planning the overall testing and commissioning work section partners and for finally assembling the safety case to be submitted to the London Programme Office for Rail and Road, the statutory rail regulator. Underground partner

Network Project Over-site Rail delivery development 3. Sponsors’ requirements partner agreements Docklands The project has two sponsors, namely the UK’s DfT and London’s Light

agreements Railway

transport authority, TfL. The relationship between these entities Industry partner and Crossrail Limited is governed by agreements which define Canary Wharf Design Contractors Rolling stock/ the overarching requirements and the role each party fulfils in the Group consultants depot/lifts, delivery of the railway transport system, as illustrated in Figure 3. Framework Delivery , Berkeley agreements contracts automatic These agreements are crucial in aligning all parties’ objectives and Homes fare providing the necessary protections to sponsors and the delivery collection organisation alike along with the definition of the high-level end-to- Procurement end scope. contracts The sponsors’ agreement governs the relationship between TfL and DfT as joint sponsors regulating the composition of the Figure 3. Contractual relationships Crossrail Limited board and setting out the project’s core obligations. At the very top of the requirements hierarchy sits the Sponsors’ Requirements, which includes the UK government’s objectives in creating the project. These are formally bound into the primary of review points whereby the project leadership team must contractual arrangement between Crossrail Limited and the sponsors, demonstrate particular aspects of its maturity and capability for namely the Project Development Agreement. The sponsors set out 11 delivering the requirements. high-level objectives for the Crossrail project as follows. The agreement drove the development of Crossrail Limited’s organisation, assurance, governance and management capability 1. Ensure planning, construction, commissioning and in good time before works commenced. This foundation included implementation of the service is consistent with the UK Crossrail Limited’s assurance process to verify for its management, government’s overall approach to provision of major transport the operators and its sponsors that it was delivering to the infrastructure, as well as the London mayor’s plans for requirements, a task not made easy by the duration, scale and development of London’s infrastructure. complexity of the project. 2. Support the UK transport secretary’s plans for public transport The challenge was addressed by ensuring that the requirements, provision. and the assurance obligations, were scoped and procured within 3. Provide value for money at every stage. both the design and works contracts. Figure 4 sets out how the 4. Have robust cost-control mechanisms throughout. flow of assurance requirements is transferred into the supply chain 5. Achieve a service capacity of 24 per hour using 200 m contracts. trains. 6. Optimise whole-life cost over 50 years. 3.1 Assurance 7. Establish and implement quality assurance, environmental In addition to the industry standard ‘three lines of defence’, the assurance, safety and security regimes during design, project is further assured through a fourth and fifth line of defence construction, commissioning and service operation. from its sponsors through representation and external scrutinising 8. Ensure design complies with all applicable laws and applicable authorities, as illustrated in Figure 5. standards. The assurance process is the collective mechanism which 9. Deliver world-class levels of performance and reliability. integrates the Crossrail Limited organisation, its governance 10. Deliver pro-active and consistent communications and framework and the management and control systems which form relations with stakeholders, the media and local communities. the backbone of the project’s controls functions around time, cost, 11. Achieve all outputs for a minimum of 50 years. risk, quality and reporting, as outlined in Figure 6. To drive the high level of performance sought by sponsors, a The agreement also prescribed how the sponsors engaged the performance assurance framework was developed to measure company to deliver the project along with mandating a series performance improvement, drive collaboration and share

3 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

Joint Crossrail Crossrail Act UK construction sponsors agreements 2008 industry

Project Development Undertakings and Environmental Best Agreement Assurances Minimum Requirements practice

Sponsor’s Construction Part breakdown Requirements Code Part 3 – Planning, environmental and traffic consents Part 4 – Undertakings and assurances Part 5 – Utilities Employer’s requirements, obligations and responsibilities Part 6 – Setting out Part 7 – Contractor’s design of permanent works Part 8 – Incident management Part 9 – Community relations Crossrail delivery and procurement strategy Part 10 – Network Rail interface Part 11 – interface Part 12 – interface Design contract Works contract Part 13 – Assurance, records and certification conditions conditions Part 14 – Management and administration Part 15 – Responsible procurement Part 16 – Security Works information Works information Part 17 – Facilities and services part A part A Part 18 – Traffic management Part 19 – Health and safety management Part 20 – Quality management Part 21 – Environmental management Works information Employer’s design Works information Part 22 – Equipment temporary works design implementation part B output part B Part 23 – Labour relations Part 24 – Inclusivity Part 25 – Land use planning part 26 – logistics management Works information Part 27 – Not used part C Part 28 – Testing and commissioning process

Figure 4. Project requirements flow

knowledge. The framework covered six key delivery functions which Level 5: were embedded in the construction contract works information External External assurance audit On behalf of stakeholders and government e.g. National Audit Office ■■ commercial ■■ Level 4: health and safety Transport for London Joint sponsors team KPMG Independent ■■ quality (including technical compliance) internal audit project representative financial audit audit ■■ environment Level 3: ■■ community relations Crossrail Crossrail Limited assurance process ■■ social sustainability. Limited assurance Established in 2013, the performance assurance framework has Level 2: supported a 54% increase in performance improvement across Compliance Programme delivery board the supply chain, with several contractors demonstrating the audit ability to go beyond the minimum contracted standard and deliver Crossrail Limited programme assurance functions either ‘value added’ or ‘world class’ performance. This method of measuring contractors’ overall performance improvement through the life of a project, on a balanced-scorecard basis, helped to drive Crossrail Limited project delivery terms and tier 1 contractors the behaviours that Crossrail Limited wished to encourage. Level 1: Accurate and timely information is the lifeblood of large projects Crossrail Crossrail management system and provides the management team with the knowledge as to management All processes and procedures for progressive assurance what corrective actions are needed. Without this the leadership system are unable to make informed decisions. Essential to the efficient running of this process are the digital systems and tools and how Figure 5. Levels of assurance they were integrated.

4 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

Project sponsors Infrastructure Regulators manager

Crossrail Limited Independent audits • Transport for London Robust reporting • Project representative • KPMG (financial audits) • LRQA (management Health and safety systems) • National Audit Office

Assured delivery Assured quality Assured controls Internal audit • Technical and specialist • Crossrail management • Risk • Compliance and functions system • Change contract audits • Surface operations • ISO 9001 • Cost • Crossrail internal audits departments • Supervisor • Programme • Monitoring quality • Performance Assurance evidence

Assurance requirements Delivery

Tier 1 contractors Industry partners

Tier 2 contractors and suppliers

Figure 6. Assurance process

Figure 7 outlines the integrated digital platform developed for Microsoft Powerpoint Crossrail Limited. With a minimum amount of customisation, Crossrail Limited reporting the centrally held ‘data warehouse’ is the key to a successful reporting cycle which runs on a 4 week rolling periodic basis, and Data warehouse facilitates the production of all assurance data reports, including any ad hoc requirements out of the normal business-as-usual SAP Prism G2 Rivo Primavera Bentley eB process. It allowed the conversion of a huge quantity of data into Accounting Cost Health and safety Planning Administration useful, succinct and timely management reports. The sponsors set up a small ‘joint sponsors team’ to represent Microsoft Excel their interests and be the day-to-day point of contact with Crossrail Contractor’s dashboards Limited. Representing both DfT and TfL, the joint sponsors team meet with various representatives from the project on a regular Figure 7. Data systems and tools basis, where any issues arising or areas of further information required are aired and discussed. Underpinning the joint sponsors team, but working independently from the Crossrail project team, are the project representatives. Appointed by the joint sponsors team, the project representatives 4. Programme organisation team, consisting of approximately 10 people, are tasked with acting as assurance ‘eyes and ears’ of the joint sponsors 4.1 People and organisation capability team. They have a broad remit, are co-located in Crossrail’s offices, Like other large-scale, long-term projects, the Crossrail Limited can attend almost any meeting and ultimately form a completely organisation has had to adapt to changes in the micro- and macro- independent assessment of performance across the project. Project economic and political environment. Between royal assent in 2008 representatives prepare a comprehensive report to sponsors on a and handover to the operators in 2018 the project will have seen in 4 weekly cycle. three different London Mayors and three Prime Ministers. As with the sponsors, while project representatives are there Large programmes inevitably need to adapt as they go through to maintain the integrity of Crossrail Limited’s reported position, the various phases of work and, for Crossrail Limited, this process the relationship is, and always has been intended to be, open, is controlled by way of an annual business planning cycle, where transparent and collaborative. the size and shape of the organisation are reviewed, challenged and

5 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

Crossrail Limited Chief executive officer

Corporate Support Programme Operations

Finance Programme Operations director director director

Specialist Delivery Programme Health and Transition controls Central section and strategy safety Commercial Stations Rail for London Civils fit-out Systems Surface Finance Technical Operations Talent and resources London Rail for Land and Underground London property Information Strategic Network Rail Rolling stock and technology projects Tier 1 contractors and supply chain External and supply chain depot services, affairs and Crossrail Legal services operating company

Figure 8. High-level organisation structure

reset for future years. Although fundamental to the smooth running see all three entities coming together as one, adopting an approach of the project, the business planning work has not always been of ‘best person for the role’ as depicted in Figure 10. convenient and often a significant challenge when being worked in A hallmark of the restructuring was the flexibility of the structure, parallel to the day-to-day delivery. which enabled the leadership teams to maintain accountability and However, the robustness of the process has always yielded the control of assurance and governance frameworks. most efficient organisation – one focused on both the current and future phases of the project and able to demonstrate key staff 4.2 Governance were properly deployed and managed. The matrix management On any project, the primary requirement must be the ability to organisation structure adopted provided a good balance between make clear decisions in an effective and timely manner. The term accountability for time and money, but also was flexible enough to ‘governance’ does not fully reflect the challenges and difficulties ensure delivery of the project progressed with the least amount of associated with how, on a project of this scale, decisions at each bureaucracy (see Figure 8). level of the organisation get made. Being a project of sizeable scale, the matrix organisation needed But for over 7 years since the Crossrail Limited board first to ensure that its identity remained foremost a delivery focused sat, Crossrail Limited has been running an established and project supported by its corporate and functional teams, and not the other way around. Over the course of 10 years, the project’s Completion Testing and leadership teams will have had to navigate their way through five Org 4 commissioning, such restructuring changes. Each change was introduced to suit a Delivery Integrated Restructure and handover partners team to sectors to operator significant shift in the phase of the project, as seen in Figure 9. Org 1 Org 2 Org 3 Org 5 With the award of both the programme partner and project delivery partner contracts in 2009, each organisation brought 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20

immediate tangible benefits. Examples include tools and processes Network Rail surface works commission operations Test and

including design management, performance measurements Trial Enabling Civils and tunnelling Railway systems techniques, contract management, programme controls, cost works Station, shaft and management and reporting. But the real and most significant portal fit-out benefit was access to competent people with relevant major project Rolling stock and depot experience to supplement the recruitment that Crossrail Limited Crossrail staff themselves were carrying out. This organisation supported the needs of the project for a period of 2 years, that is design, procurement and implementing Development Design Civils Fit-out Completion Trial operations and and and and completions programme controls systems, following which it was decided that procurement systems handover a more integrated structure was needed to drive common goals and behaviour to focus on the future phases. Supported by a new Figure 9. Evolution of the organisation organisation strategy, this new integrated management team would

6 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

4.2.1 Corporate governance Pre-funding approval Post-funding delivery organisation organisation The Crossrail Limited board is accountable for the overall direction and management of the organisation to ensure the project Enable (Crossrail/programme is delivered in accordance with its statutory and contractual partner) obligations and in line with the UK Corporate Governance Code. Enable Manage and manage It remains the ultimate decision-making authority for driving (Programme Crossrail the project forward by delegating this responsibility through the delivery partner) integrated team executive structure to the appropriate level, and also sets the agenda for the rest of the organisation’s operational and functional teams. Do the work Do the work Tier 1 contractors Tier 1 contractors 4.2.2 Operational governance Operational governance operates across the three levels below Figure 10. Transition to a single integrated organisation corporate governance, beginning with programme, then sector (formerly area) and then finally at project level. The framework aligns well with the organisation’s accountability and responsibility matrices and uses a scheme of authorities which defines delegated comprehensive governance structure that is understandable, levels of financial, contractual and payment limits for accountable reliable, accountable and, when necessary, flexible to deal with the individuals. technical and commercial issues. Crossrail needed to implement As with the organisational structure, the project leadership a governance structure that both respected the scale of the team has from time to time challenged its own governance model organisation needed to deliver the project, and could evolve over and tested its limits to determine if it remains fit for purpose. the years to adapt to the changing circumstances. At several times throughout the history of Crossrail Limited, Figure 11 illustrates the programme governance map, and outlines significant changes have been made to strategic meetings including two very important differences embedded within the governance applicability, format, attendance, frequency or a combination of model – corporate governance and operational governance. all four. This has proved to be an effective means of applying a

Corporate Board governance Executive committee Operations and systems expert panel

Commercial and Sustainability Property Risk sub-committee change sub-committee sub-committee sub-committee Industry partners Railway systems Operational Programme Programme Railway integration and operations governance controls (central) delivery board Programme authority Operations programme board director director

Directorate Central section Surface Technical Operations controls delivery directorate directorate directorate directorate

Area Chief engineers Civils Stations Systemwide Network Rail Rolling stock contingency on-network group, and depots, works, safety, MTR Project Project Project Project Heathrow assurance, operations, controls managers managers managers Airport Limited technical business, and information, Network Rail Tier 1 principal Contractors Contractors Contractors Heathrow integration, on-network contractors Express quality, stations signalling and improvement Infrastructure managers

control, programme, Limited) testing and information commissioning systems Rail for London, and (London Underground, Docklands Light Railway, Programme directorate

Railway systems and operations Programme delivery board Railway integration authority programme board Delivery on track? Safe, time, Handover of end-to-end railway Crossrail operations post-opening budget, world-class and effective on track? Safe, performs, operable, with our industry partners on track? maintainable and world-class Schedule integration

Figure 11. Governance map

7 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

stringent approach to keeping things simple and ensuring project In 2015 the programme made a fundamental switch in the work- and programme management remains as efficient as possible. breakdown structure to focus on disciplines (sectors) instead of geographical ‘areas’. The switch happened in conjunction with 4.3 Programme controls an organisational change to ensure continuous alignment between Effective controls are the enabler of effective project and the organisational breakdown structure and the work-breakdown programme management. The term ‘controls’ often means structure. Making this switch recognised the fundamental shift different things to different organisations, but for Crossrail in the physical works on site, with much of the heavy civil Limited, it includes cost management, schedule management, engineering (tunnels, excavation, sprayed concrete etc.) completed risk management, the performance management baseline, change and the mechanical and electrical fit-out now stretching across the control, performance analysis and finally reporting. entire route end to end. Having established the work-breakdown structure and the 4.3.1 Defining the work-breakdown structure contracting strategy for the way in which the works were to be One of the first priorities for Crossrail Limited, before any delivered, the cost-breakdown structure and delivery organisational contracts could be procured, was to build and implement a structure were designed to support the delivery of the work- coherent work-breakdown structure that would form the backbone breakdown structure. Figure 13 describes the current sector-based of how the programme would be packaged and delivered. alignment between the work-breakdown structure, cost-breakdown The work-breakdown structure was created by Crossrail Limited structure and organisation-breakdown structure and, through the and applied across the entire programme, forming a fundamental pyramid hierarchy, the scale of breakdown between the various component of the contractual works information document and layers. the structure of its delivery teams. It was envisaged that all parties responsible for works delivery would use the work-breakdown 4.3.2 Staying on time structure consistently across their respective work scopes and data The Crossrail project has always had a master programme or sets. schedule, as illustrated in Figure 14. Initially entitled the master It was recognised early on that some simple, practical control schedule, it is the single guiding document that forms the considerations would drive the team to the adoption of a high-level backbone of every time-related review carried out on the project, geographical split between works in the west, centre and east of and any failure to meet compliance with dates held in the schedule the central operating section. Figure 12 illustrates how splitting is immediately flagged as a critical issue. As the project moved the programme into three geographical areas meant that each area towards completion and handover, the master control schedule could oversee works of a similar scale. For example, each section was renamed appropriately as the master operations and handover would have a minimum of two tunnel boring machines (Ada and schedule. Phyllis in the west, Elizabeth, Victoria, Ellie and Jessica in the Maintaining a schedule commensurate with such a large-scale central section and finally Mary and Sophia in the east) and a and high-profile project requires strict adherence to planning reasonable split of the new stations to be built, with four stations in standards. One obvious departure from the typical rule book is the west, three in the central section and two in the east. that, unlike most projects, Crossrail Limited does not resource

West zone Central zone East zone

N To Shenfield Stratford

Pudding Mill Lane

Paddington Bond StreetTottenham Court RoadFarringdon Liverpool Street Whitechapel To Reading Completed Completed Stepney GreenJESSICA (D1) and Heathrow 27/01/14 10/05/15 caverns ELLIE Completed 13/02/14 Canary Wharf Limmo PeninsulaVictoriaCustom Docktunnelling House site North Woolwich ADA Completed Completed ELLIE Connaught tunnel 07/10/13 Completed (D2) 26/05/15 13/06/14 ELIZABETH PHYLLIS Royal Oak JESSICA Completed 22/05/14 Drive Y Completed (D2) Drive X VICTORIA 05/08/14 Drive Z Completed Completed 18/10/14 Woolwich To Abbey 29/01/14 MARY Wood Drive G SOPHIA Drive H

0 km 2 Plumstead

Figure 12. Geographical split of tunnelling and stations contracts

8 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

Crossrail (work breakdown structure) Programme

Civils Stations Systemwide Etc. Sectors

Contracts Control Running Signalling Paddington Etc. Etc. Projects accounts tunnels etc. etc.

Staff £ £ £ £

Preliminaries £ £ £ £ C405 Project Labour £ £ £ £ (cost breakdown C435 structure) Sub-contractors £ £ £ £ C502 etc. Materials £ £ £ £

Crossrail Etc. £ £ £ £ Client hierarchy sponsors Delivery Support Crossrail Land and programme property Civils Stations Systemwide Sectors Information technology 35 projects Technical Central section Surface etc. Programme controls Approx. 50 main tier 1 contractors Programme directorate Finance Control accounts

Work packages Chief executive officer (organisation–breakdown structure)

Figure 13. Work-, cost- and organisation-breakdown structures

load the activity schedules. The management of resources across Bill the work-breakdown structure is owned and maintained by the cost-control function, which has the advantage of allowing Funding Land and property the planning disciplines to focus purely on planning activities. acquisition Consisting of approximately 5000 activities, the master operations Civil engineering design and handover schedule forms the level 1 integrated schedule, as Tunnels and station outlined in Figure 15. procurement Managed in parallel to the maintenance of master operations and handover schedule is a bi-annual schedule quantitative risk Enabling works assessment to derive the percentage confidence of meeting the Central section works key commissioning stage dates. This information forms one of tunnelling and stations several key performance indicators that are used by the sponsors Systems Systems design and Crossrail Limited management to monitor progress against procurement and installation objectives. Rolling stock and depot – specify, procure, build (Crossrail Limited) 4.3.3 Staying on budget The initial control baseline estimated the price of the works Testing/ commissioning nearer to £18 billion. The costs associated with the project have since been steadily refined through each of the major phases. By the Trial operations time the physical works commenced in 2009, the anticipated final and staged cost for the project had reduced to £15.9 billion. opening After the initial pricing, the project was procured immediately 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 following the start of the global financial crisis, and certainly contractors’ prices fell sharply as they competed aggressively Figure 14. High-level schedule to secure long-term major construction packages. The Crossrail

9 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

To bring everything together, Crossrail established a ‘single Level 0: ~100 Strategic plan source of the truth’, by developing a comprehensive cost- activities breakdown structure in the cost management system that paired with the work-breakdown structure in the planning tools. As with Level 1: Master operational ~5000 the management of governance and the organisation itself, a handover schedule activities 6-monthly review has always ensured that the systems remain fit for purpose and that they do provide transparency and legacy data Level 2: Integrated Integrated Integrated as and when needed. ~30 000 project project project activities schedule schedule schedule 4.3.5 Collaboration through NEC3 contracts As with most UK major construction projects, the decision to Level 3: use the Institution of Civil Engineers’ NEC3 suite of contracts was ~300 000 Contractor Contractor Contractor activities schedule schedule schedule a logical choice. Crossrail Limited elected to employ the NEC3 Engineering and Construction Contract Option C, which is a target-price contract with a pain/gain mechanism, and developed Figure 15. Master operations and handover schedule and its procurement strategy accordingly. This form was also widely approach to integrated planning used by the UK Olympic Delivery Authority for procuring venues and infrastructure for the London 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. Limited team, however, maintained a realistic approach to It was critically important for Crossrail Limited, as a client, estimating. By working closely with the sponsors, cost estimates to embark on an open, fair and collaborative approach with were rigorously held and, by taking a quantitative risk-based all its contractors, building consistency into the delivery by approach, were fully understood, including where the major standardising the contract works information and setting uncertainties lay in the pricing. consistent expectations across all construction sites. Like a lot of As a result, a robust cost range or ‘funding envelope’ within clients, Crossrail Limited started with the standard Engineering which to work was established. This distinct difference in set-up – a and Construction Contract and then elected to make certain pragmatic approach from the sponsors to recognise that uncertainty changes through the introduction of Z clauses, for example to exists – allowed Crossrail Limited to be released from the burden introduce value engineering and tighten up language around of working to a single fixed figure. In adopting this more modern indemnities. approach, Crossrail Limited was able to maximise opportunities The volume of contracts required developing a bespoke suite for decision making rather than being constrained by a number and of contract administration tools and databases, which have helped was able to openly acknowledge that realistic fluctuations are to be to control and efficiently record the massive volume of formal expected. correspondence over the years. This system will help the project In 2010, following the appointment of the new coalition avoid a lengthy contract close-out process and achieve its goal government, a national comprehensive spending review was of having all contracts commercially closed by the time the undertaken, which challenged all public-funded infrastructure operators open the railway. projects to make savings. Crossrail was not exempt. ‘BS 11000 1:2010 Collaborative business relationships. In response, the delivery team undertook a full optioneering A framework specification’ (BSI, 2010) (now BS ISO study and by November 2010 was able to hand back over £1 billion 44001:2017) did not exist in 2009 so collaboration on the in forecast costs due principally to a revision of the tunnelling Crossrail project was built on the premise of shared opportunity strategy. This meant that the completed railway services would and shared accountability through a target-cost-driven contracting now commence through the central section in December 2018 model. This is how the relationships were established and is how rather than 2017, followed by a phased introduction of services they are managed today. across the rest of the route but the scope of the project was not Crossrail Limited has chosen to adopt many of the principles reduced. embedded within BS 11000 and considerable effort is made at The re-scheduling allowed the funding envelope needed to all levels to manage each relationship and to maintain open lines deliver Crossrail Limited to be revised to £14.8 billion from of communication, encourage sharing and best practice across £15.9 billion and was a fully inclusive cost, allowing for both relationship boundaries and to encourage the use of lessons contingency and expected inflation. This figure has remained learned on new contracts as they have emerged over time. unchanged since 2010. 4.3.6 Managing the risk 4.3.4 Cost management As a fundamental part of its assurance to sponsors risk, With a spend rate of approximately £24 million per week, it management has been at the forefront of the approach to has been essential that Crossrail Limited take an extremely robust delivering the project. During the development phase, much time approach to cost management and change control. To enable this to was spent identifying the strategic risks to which the programme happen, a series of short but very precise procedures were created would be exposed. Many of the concerns raised during the and, from day 1, embedded in the contract works information. In a bill phase were translated into commitments, obligations and single stroke, Crossrail established consistency across the project requirements, and accordingly formed a significant portion of the and its supply chain. strategic risk base.

10 Civil Engineering Crossrail programme organisation and management for delivering London’s Elizabeth line  Wright, Palczynski and ten Have

The accurate cost estimation of any major infrastructure project As set out within the governance arrangements, the programme is fundamental to the justification of the business case and the delivery board is the single most important vehicle for performance assembly of adequate funding. An estimate must be established management and intervention. Spread across 2 days chaired by the very early in the project lifecycle when many uncertainties still programme director, the forum is a controlled review of each major exist. Rather than building a cost model based on employing the contract on the project. UK government’s traditional optimism-bias approach, the Crossrail It affords the leadership team the opportunity to scrutinise the Limited team instead moved to take a quantitative risk-based status of each part of the project, all of which provides valuable approach, choosing to build complete models and strive to fully insight and feedback for the executive committee and board reports understand where the uncertainties lay and what the associated and subsequent meetings. The reviews are structured around a risks were. single-page standardised project dashboard. The more innovative approach to managing the cost associated with uncertainty allowed the sponsors to remain fully engaged in the process as well as facilitating some of the technical decision 5. Conclusion making necessary at the time. It is this inclusion with the sponsors that many on the project feel was a major consideration Crossrail Limited’s approach to project and programme in the project successfully defending the cost and programme management has sought to set the bar for major infrastructure schedule. As the sponsors were actively engaged in the process, delivery, not just in the UK but globally. Its success to date is they consequently fully understood what was required by the largely down to getting the basics right from the start. That meant programme team to deliver the works successfully. This emphasis on risk management remained fundamental to the ■■ having a plan that is clear and based on a well-documented set approach as the programme moved from the development phase of customer requirements into the delivery phase. The Crossrail Limited team instilled a risk ■■ employing the right number of the right people for the job management culture so that as more and more multi-disciplinary ■■ keeping things simple and flexible designers came on board, risk management was embedded into ■■ identifying and managing the risk by always ‘looking around their thinking from the start; designers were focused on designing the corner’ out risks and uncertainty as opposed to inadvertently building ■■ making the key dates unmoveable deadlines to be met. them in. As the delivery phase moved from design into construction, the The development of effective project controls with regular emphasis on risk management shifted focus. Having implemented 4-weekly management reports containing accurate information the strategy, policies, tools and reporting, the next requirement was allowed a focus on the key issues and challenges. An effective to drive risk management down into the supply chain. governance structure, which was kept under regular review, also led For instance, in the area of technical risk management, the to efficient and timely decision making which kept the programme adoption of one key document – The Joint Code of Practice for moving forward. Risk Management of Tunnel Works in the UK produced by the As a special-purpose client organisation, the adoption of a Association of British Insurers and the British Tunnelling Society partnering approach to organisational delivery certainly proved (ABI and BTS, 2003) – made risk management a fundamental tenet effective in allowing the Crossrail Limited board and leadership of working practices on all tunnelling and underground contracts, team to maintain their focus on stakeholder management and and has remained so throughout the works. project delivery. Crossrail Limited is continuing to forecast delivery within the 4.3.7 Reporting funding envelope and to open the railway in stages on time. This Essential to Crossrail Limited is the reporting cycle around has been achieved thus far because of the effort, commitment and which it operates. Based on 13 rolling 4-week periods per year, professionalism of the thousands of men and women who have Figure 16 depicts the 6 weeks it takes to move performance worked on the project. management data from their origin with the contractor all the way through to the Crossrail Limited board and the sponsors. References

ABI and BTS (Association of British Insurers and the British Tunnelling Society) Week 3 Executive Week 4 (2003) The Joint Code of Practice for Risk Management of Tunnel Works committee Board review in the UK. BTS, London, UK. review Sponsors review BSI (2010) BS 11000-1:2010 Collaborative business relationships. Week 3 Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 A framework specification. BSI, London, UK. Week 4 Week 4 Contractors Programme Programme Executive Projects Board review data preparation controls data delivery board committee Crossrail Act 2008. Chapter 18. Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, London, UK. reporting Sponsors review and reporting preparation Board report review preparation

Week 3 How can you contribute? Week 4 Contractors Projects data preparation reporting If you would like to comment on this paper, please email up to 200 words and reporting to the editor at [email protected]. If you would like to write a paper of 2000 to 3500 words about your own experience in this or any related area of civil engineering, the editor will be Figure 16. Reporting cycle happy to provide any help or advice you need.

11