Feature PRACTICE
Creating an effective alliance
When London Waterloo station decided to boost peak-time capacity, five organisations had to learn how to work effectively together
BY MARYNA LOSIEVA
ondon Waterloo is currently Britain’s busiest Only a fully station and links the country’s most used railways. The Wessex Capacity Programme (WCP) collaborative is aimed to deliver a 30% boost in peak-time approach between capacity to and from Waterloo station. A number the client Lof works are being or have been carried out to achieve this, including rebuilding the former Waterloo International organisation, Terminal (WIT) and bringing Platforms 20-24 back into designers and use with modern facilities, new track and signalling, and a layout that meets the needs of thousands of passengers. contractors would Platforms 1-4 were extended to allow longer carriage trains allow the project (10 carriages as opposed to 8) further increasing capacity. This had to be accommodated by works to Platforms to be delivered 1-8 and associated track and signalling alterations. The successfully intention behind creating two additional staircases (entrances to London Underground) on Platforms 1-4 is to relieve congestion on the platforms during peak times. Vauxhall Station will also be upgraded as part of the works. This £602 million investment programme, involving 380 people daily and over 1000 people during peak construction, will be delivered by December 2018. The Waterloo Capacity Alliance (WCA) is a body that was procured in January 2015 by the client, Network Rail. The Alliance is made up of the client, designer
28 Enterprise Risk Reprinted courtesy of Enterprise Risk magazine and the Institute of Risk Management Image credit: Hatchapong Palurtchaivong / Shutterstock.com
consultants (Mott MacDonald to deliver the programme: keep provided to maintain minimum and AECOM), building contractor the station operational and station operational requirements. (Skanska) and track and rail systems/ minimise disruption to services. Consequently, the old WIT platforms signalling contractor (Colas Rail). As the station could not be fully were demolished and reconstructed closed during construction, the (5 in total) to be operational before Why deliver as an alliance? only way to deliver the required the start of the Platform 1-10 main works was by partial closures of the possession. If WIT was not ready The works required to be undertaken railway track, known as possessions. before the main possession, then were very technically challenging The most significant possession, it would have had to have been and complex on a fast-track estimated to be a 24-day long one cancelled, which would have schedule. The programme includes (main possession), had to be booked 2 resulted in significant reputational multiple interfaces for overlapping years in advance. This was a closure impact on the client and Alliance design and construction phases of Platforms 1-10 to enable Platforms participants and extended the between numerous interlinked 1-4 to be extended and modifications programme by a full 12 months. disciplines such as civils, railway on Platforms 5-10. Major negotiations In addition, smaller possessions track, Mechanical, Electrical and with the train company operators were also required to carry out Public Health (MEP), railway systems and other stakeholders were required track renewals, civils enabling and power upgrades. There are and involved an extensive advertising works and signalling upgrades. also many stakeholders involved, campaign to make passengers aware To deliver the required work within eg train operators, passengers of the disruption. Closing 10 out of two years (up to August 2017) was and Network Rail maintenance the station’s 19 platforms was not described by WCA Commercial lead teams, whose requirements need acceptable as it would cause more Tim Ryall as being double that of a to be satisfied. There were two than half reduction to services, typical railway project over the same key stakeholder requirements hence extra platforms had to be time frame. Therefore, to manage all
Spring 2018 29 Reprinted courtesy of Enterprise Risk magazine and the Institute of Risk Management Five different HIGH-LEVEL REPRESENTATION OF RISKS companies with possibly differing
cultures and External Programme approaches to risk risks management do not participate Wider Network Rail collaboratively Programme risks and transparently straight away even though it is a contractual requirement Internal Alliance risks
the above constraints and risks, only a collaboratively and transparently risks being managed proactively and fully collaborative approach between straight away even though it is a not assuming or relying on other the client organisation, designers contractual requirement! To build parties to manage project risks and contractors would allow the a genuine alliance environment, an which are outside of their contract (in project to be delivered successfully. understanding of each of their risk normal contractual arrangements). cultures “by their natural standing The reality is that it does not matter Alliance way of working in the construction industry” is how many risks you transfer to vital. Traditionally contractors were other parties; they are still project All the Alliance partners signed a perceived to be very clandestine, risks and, if we want the project to contract “Integrated Programme trying to transfer as many risks succeed, everyone needs to take Alliance Agreement” (IPAA) which as possible to the client or be paid responsibility for mitigating them. outlined key behaviours expected handsomely to take on the liability. In from each individual within contrast, consultancies usually worked Dedicated risk the Alliance. It asserted that all as part of the client team and aimed management team participants win or all participants to minimise the client’s expenditure lose, based on achieved project as these were the services they had To build a strong alliance takes a long outcomes. Risks and responsibilities been employed for. Designers were time, continuous education and lots are shared and managed collectively deemed to be risk averse and to of effort by everyone in the team. by the Alliance participants, quite often design a very expensive Having a dedicated risk management rather than allocated to individual but safe and proven solution. On the team who will be working closely companies. A shared spirit of co- other hand, contractors were prone to alongside the other project team operation and openness is a must. taking a more cost-effective approach members, firstly educating and Communication is to be open, to delivering a project but without then embedding alliance principles transparent and honest to enable compromising safety. These attitudes (all risks are shared), is crucial. informed decision making. In have become outdated but are still By adhering to Alliance risk addition, the agreement highlighted prevalent within some organisations. values, the WCA risk team was able that the members are to act at all Working as an alliance means to identify and assess effectively not times in a manner that is consistent forgetting about your parent company only the Alliance risks but also the with a “Best for Project” approach. attitude towards risk and to start client risks which could affect the However, you do not get five acting as one entity with a “Best for programme of works. Consequently, different companies with possibly Project” approach which ultimately, if the WCA risk team was given the differing cultures and approaches followed, will bring the best reward for responsibility of managing the client to risk management to participate everyone. This is due to all identified risks associated with the project
30 Enterprise Risk Reprinted courtesy of Enterprise Risk magazine and the Institute of Risk Management as well. This gave the project team the detailed design outcome. Late an effective way of escalating risks access requirement for Platform which are outside of their control 10 was approved. Key members but still needed to be managed. from throughout the rail industry Regular risks reviews/workshops (Network Rail, train operators, were held where the project team station management and others) would highlight a risk which was came together to mitigate the risk of outside of their control to deal with cancellation of the main possession. and discuss this with the client to find There was also the risk or the best solution to mitigate the risk. re-prioritisation for key plant, Key risks were managed eg KIROW cranes and tampers. collaboratively by the client and Nationally there is a limited number the Alliance members. Firstly, of certain plant’s availability there were access-related risks which is based on how critical the (cancellation or not approving project is. The required plant was required access). The majority of secured for all planned works. rail-related jobs are dependent on Several other key risks were the possibility of track line closures also faced. These included the in order to deliver scheduled works. risk of working with existing old Interdisciplinary This is usually considered to be infrastructure, which could introduce collaboration is a key risk for rail projects. WCA substantial additional scope. WCA essential to an had requested an extension of the work scope had interfaces with very 24-day main possession working old buffer stops (which potentially effective alliance area quite late due to results from needed to be replaced), Victorian
CURRENT RISK MANAGEMENT SET-UP VERSUS TRADITIONAL RISK MANAGEMENT SET-UP
Client Risks
Client Risk team Client Risks
Alliance Risk Alliance Risk team team
Alliance Alliance Alliance Alliance Alliance Alliance Alliance Alliance risks for risks for ... risks for risks for risks for risks for ... risks for risks for Project 1 Project 2 Project N-1 Project N Project 1 Project 2 Project N-1 Project N
(Note: Highlights that the process is much leaner and reduces additional layers of communication)
Spring 2018 31 Reprinted courtesy of Enterprise Risk magazine and the Institute of Risk Management arches (which may not be able to take management. For example, better- management and therefore breed an the weights of trains and a KIROW quality and more realistic plans are environment where the members of crane and could potentially require provided through interrogation of the alliance take ownership for the strengthening) and old bridges. There the logic and suitability of the plans management of risks. Instead of only was also the interface risk with by the risk team, and quantitative reporting on the top five risks, WCA Network Rail maintenance during schedule risk assessment (QSRA) is risk dashboards present a full detailed the whole project life cycle (eg design carried out earlier, not waiting until picture to the project team about their issues which could lead to additional the plan is fully developed. Ensuring project. They also report on current cost and programme delays). Finally, realistic and robust cost estimates, risk exposure versus target price there were risks related to external setting the right level of target price risk exposure and previous period stakeholder interfaces and managing and having a deeper understanding risk exposure. Cost deliverability is their requirements especially of the cost position helps the team indicated by this metric. Cost risk during the main possession (ie to decide whether to take on risk uncertainty over time outlines when station operations, train operating liabilities within the contract with to expect risk uncertainty to reduce. companies, crowd management “open eyes”. Also, there is more They show categorisation of the risks with London Underground, British effective change management as risk by common causes, either by work Transport Police). These risks were drawdown is managed proactively breakdown structure or action owner. all managed through collaboration. and monitored by risk managers. If it They also list the top five current Having one dedicated risk is not carried out in a timely manner, four-week period risks and the top management team dealing with this may affect cost deliverability five schedule risks, and provide a both the Alliance’s and the of the project as management may summary of the changes during the client risks sitting outside the not be fully aware of potential cost four-week period and key information. WCA remit ensures that all risks pressures. Finally, contract reviews Elena Stebbings, the project are managed appropriately by highlight inconsistencies which could manager of the works associated with eliminating the threat that when lead to disputes if not addressed. the main possession, stated that risk transferring a risk it may not be Risk management should not be dashboards have given her “a space to mitigated by the receiving party. a stand-alone discipline but interact be heard” and the ability to “inject a and embed itself into the project sense of urgency” for both the senior Integrating risk management team among the other functions management and the project team. and be actively involved with the After successfully delivering Interdisciplinary collaboration decision-making process at all levels. the main possession, a detailed is also essential to an effective and comprehensive lessons-learnt alliance. Instilling alliance principles Risk dashboards and culture exercise was undertaken (see Top 5 throughout the project team’s lessons for a partner-based project). This disciplines (eg planning, cost control Effective risk dashboards bring a lot of enabled all staff involved within and change) ensures pro-active risk value to the project team and senior the delivery of the main possession to reflect on the successes and potential improvements to be made and how alliancing behaviours helped to achieve the December TOP 5 LESSONS FOR A PARTNER-BASED PROJECT 2017 milestone. This has identified the power of collaboration and 1. Assess the risk cultures of each company before creating everyone working for one aim. an alliance outlining potential difficulties which may slow down becoming an effective alliance Maryna Losieva, WCA risk lead. Senior risk manager 2. Co-location is a must. Moving everyone into one office (designers, at Mott MacDonald construction managers, engineers, project controllers, etc.) made integration more efficient as staff are surrounded by other alliance members and therefore more willing to adopt alliance behaviours
3. Regular and effective communication is essential to make people feel as one team and behave as an alliance rather than an employee Risk management from one of the separate companies should not be a stand- 4. One IT system is vital as this reduces the time spent developing alone discipline but good communication interact and embed 5. Well-defined client and parent company governance processes itself into the project which must be followed should be outlined in the contract before the alliance is put in place. team among the other functions
32 Enterprise Risk Reprinted courtesy of Enterprise Risk magazine and the Institute of Risk Management