Question Answer Assignment on Edinburgh Tram Venture

1
 Table of Contents
Question 1........................................................................................................................................3

Question 2........................................................................................................................................7

Question 3......................................................................................................................................10

Question 4......................................................................................................................................11

Question 5......................................................................................................................................14

References......................................................................................................................................19

2
Question 1
If model equations of device dynamics are formulated, it will significantly evaluate the full base
stock as well as flow maps planned for each combination stock and current structure model.
Thereafter for human risk system models, risk variables (endogenous variables) are measured.
This establishes the coherence checking structure for all of the system variables to be conducted
in equations and provides a good starting point for simulation. Any studies for interconnected
device models are fully explained in chapter nine of this report. In combination with that above
the right-hand border, the equations and their corresponding units in the left (LHS) should be
aligned in order to capture the relationship essence in models (RHS) properly. The principal aim
of the process simulation is to evaluate critical variables influencing the time, cost, and
performance of the project in a danger framework model. The only possible path is the way to
search MegaDS system versions. Typical models such as those shown in the figures below and
page 174 are too broad and difficult to reproduce for each system type mentally.

3
 Fig: Network illustration in conjunction with the timetable

Simulation becomes thus the most reliable method of evaluating assumptions and calculating the
potential effects of policy on project existence, cost, and productivity to mitigate dangerous
effects. In this report, detailed comments on product diagrams, measurements, and simulation
results of Megads inter-related system models are included. This project has begun the
development of preliminary simulations of Structure Dynamics (SD) underlying the analysis in
conjunction with the ANP paradigm concept (Ahiaga-Dagbui., 2019). The design framework and
initial model manufacture constitute a building phase in the life cycle of a megaproject for
transport. The interdependency of the danger (relationships between causes and effects) is
explored in case scenarios causal loop diagrams. The segment finishes by checking the concept's
initial configuration. This disparity has been explained throughout the discussion (Ahiaga-
Dagbui et al., 2017).

The model's layout

In the first instance, a causative high-intensity illustration is constructed for the whole project
during the development process for a case study project (ETNP). This is seen in this project. The
variables of the higher-stage picture remain causally related to the structure of a circle and have
no effect on the feature or affect positive or negative. All in all, all is based on everything else,
directly or indirectly.

Due to the varying quantity of the unit (entities) as well as loops in the Fiche 7.1 transport mega-
ventures may be identified by means of the following characteristic (Boateng., 2019) as by
Sterman as belonged to the complex dynamic machine class:

They are component various and colorful.

They're really dynamic.

Multiple input processes are needed

It involves nonlinear relations and

Strong data is present, as well as soft data.

4
 Fig: Stakeholder of the venture

In this model, robust data, such as expenditures, may be detected, whereas subjective variables
such as social uncertainties. For convenience, the following figure is modeled on the sub-
arrangements: 1) the business risk structure, 2) the technical risk system, 3) the financial risk
systems; each of which will be simulated to illustrate the effects overtime on the project's
expenditure, period and efficacy. In the final analysis, sub-models would be combined into a
megaproject ETNP generalized danger stock model to test the overall impact of all risks on
transport (Boateng, Chen, and Ogunlana., 2017). This makes the model layout easier to handle,
especially as shifts in the risk value inside the system are found. Further information on the
dangerous subsystems is explored. For any person along the STEEP danger causative loop

5
paradigm, two different causality trees can be drawn. The first "affects tree" defines the entity in
question when it is at the end of the tree, which includes each of the variables (entities). The
following tree-like diagram displays the entity at the top and its other entities, as characterized by
our tree. For example, the following is seen in the figure illustrating "causes" of the technological
uncertainties tree (Boateng, Chen, and Ogunlana., 2017).

Considering the links between the portion of technical uncertainty in the figure below, project
participants can assimilate the triggers and use the figure and table treemaps below.

6
Question 2
Transport Projects in Edinburgh (TIE) is overseen by the design of the ETNP, a professionally
run CEC firm responsible for tram development management until August 2011 (Henderson,
2009). Modern bridges, walls for the storage, viaducts, terminal trams and trams, electric metro
stops, 750-volt power for the overhead road, and the tram and tram stops were built.

MUDFA has begun work on diversion schemes (to prepare the approach developed for rail
monitoring throughout Leith by July 2007. The Systems Design Services (SDS) have been under
the direction of the Parsons Brinckerhoff, and the Halcrow Group Restricted through these
works. The final guidelines for the construction of this tram system were released in May 2008
in collaboration between BB&S or Bilfinger Berger and Siemens and the Spanish tram maker
CAF (Burns., 2017).

The projects included the construction of 12 modern bridges at the Balgreen Road Access
Bridge, Balgreen Street Bridge, Carrick Knowe Bridge, Depot Access Bridge, Gogarburn
Bridge, Russell Road Bridge, Leith Bridge Water, and South Gyle Access Bridge. A tunnel
underneath the A8 was also built next to the roundabout of Gogar, while trams were changed in
the Murrayfield viaduct. A number of demolition works, for example, under Category C(S) on
the former Caledonian Alehouse, on Haymarket Terrace for an attempt to construct tram
interchange at Haymarket station (Edinburgh Tram Line one proposal of ecological
announcement). Research reveals the bridges with their respective widths and lengths in meters.
Any of the roads have now been placed in a special foundation of asphalt roads that sustain the
existing road configuration in Edinburgh. However, because of the bike resistance, this asphalt
road surface has been removed in many areas (Cash-Gibson et al., 2019). At the end of 2011, the
ETNP management published TIE or else Edinburgh. CEC has founded Turner & Townsend as a
project management advisory company to ensure effective project control and execution. An
analysis of the existing governance structure was carried out smoothly in 2012, as can be seen in
the figure below. But in May 2013, it was noticed that there were no more than 160 meters of
concrete beds built up in accordance with Shandwick Position in the Haymarket, and so the
necessary replacement was fulfilled. The CEC or the city council of Edinburgh assured us that
this would not change the original project date (Chen., 2019). The BB & S eventually decided
and proceeded to resolve the concrete trackbed deficiency. Shandwick Place and Haymarket

7
were then further disrupted, which are expected to be cleared from trackwork by September
2013.

Fig: Technological uncertainties

Fig: Tree diagram of technological uncertainties

Electric overhead wires were mounted on the central portion of the road in June 2013. The last
critical step of the design project was taken into consideration. The trams are attached to the
construction sides and driven by overhead cables. Of the nine electric substations (concealed
along with the above-base) intended on the Newhaven road, only five remain in the business area
due to the fact that the railways operate to York Square (Flyvbjerg., 2018). Negotiations between
the Government of Scotland and the Edinburgh Council on 17 September 2013 revealed that

8
development of the tramway was to take place about two months until May 2014. In October
2013, road and tram works were conducted in collaboration. Top of 8 October 2013, trams begin
to be tested between the warehouse and Edinburgh Park. In November 2013, the Bankhead tram
stop at York Spot triggered the tram line, and for the first time, it was completely energized (City
Council of Edinburgh, 19 November 2013). By December 2013, testing on the whole route is
scheduled to begin. The machine works from the Gogar warehouse on the A8, just north of the
tram station of Gyle. Before February 2011, there were big over-the-top project reversals in
inconsistencies with the extra job on the diversion of services (figure below). At the end of
December 2010, BB&S released 817 notifications on its assertion, of which 139 were later
withdrawn. BB&S submitted approximate costs for 427 out of the remaining 678 announcements
(Tian et al., 2019). TIE and BB&S have either dismissed or not already embraced one hundred
and ninety-eight of such claims with others. The TIE added EUR 24 million to the agreed parties
against EUR 45.0 million, to which BB&S asked (55 percent) (Saunders and Townsend., 2019).

Fig: Causality of technological uncertainties

The 198 resolutions contain 21, as approved by the document, which decreased BB&s's extra-
payment claims from £25.0 million to £113 million (48 percent) by a formal dispute arbitration
process (Flyvbjerg et al., 2018). Five such cases were forwarded for external adjudication or
arbitration, and all were closed by processes for conflict resolution. TIE says that these
adjudications have contributed to the clarification of some of BB&S's overlapping contracts.

9
Question 3
With regard to the updated Edinburgh Tram, Newhaven project summary, the suggested arrangement
for the development of additional buildings is that the standard NEC4 (Option C) agreement be
used on behalf of a worker's assortment, for the provision of equipment and amenities works as
well as for the provision of connectivity and control systems for the project.

The key emphasis of this choice was on the following:

The UK building industry is familiar with the project, which is generally recognized as an
appropriate contractual form.

A number of initiative activities have been successfully utilized, like the Olympic, Thames
Tideway Tube, and Crossrail.

The project is commonly accepted as the most effective way to encourage better practice and to
allow project risk management through the use of an objective number for construction
(substructure arrangements have been embraced, primarily in view of consumer hunger and
additional costs for monetary deliberations). The project has a long background (Imanghaliyeva.,
2020). Cover specification for all tram services and operations, including the scope of
infrastructure and the contracting system arrangements, in accordance with efficiency
requirements and operator conditions

Establish and retain all traffic control services.

All succeed to demolish the site

The design of all tram facilities

The development of parks, including footpaths and some hard/soft scenery.

The lighting on the lane

The road signals

There have been five tram stops.

The development of substations and

Both Siemens works and integration of computers

10
All related works include the scope of the Infrastructure & Systems agreement for Siemens, the
current provider, and maintainer of the patented equipment (Liew et al., 2019.). Works and
installations may include Certain technological and electrical aspects of the arrangement.

Fig: Venture disputes

Containment and extension, including tram signaling, views in addition to points, programmed
car location schemes, Central Regulator, Immovable paraphernalia, SCADA power supply,
Passengers' proof, Closed TV Circuit, Public address systems, time, dissemination, cable, and
telecommunications.

Construction, checking and commissioning already in accordance with the initial tram system of
the traction substation facilities.

Question 4
SDANP Hypothesis Assimilated

11
Schemes establish a basis for the creation of linked inventory and flow structures. The
framework for psychological, scientific, fiscal, environmental, and political risk Figure below
indicates the inventory and flows of certain processes (influxes and outflows).

Equation Type Formulation, analysis, and emulation

For model equations, built-in device dynamics, the whole structural stock, and flow map of each
combined inventory and flow systems model must be structurally evaluated. Equations of risk
variables (endogens) for each risk system model can then be formulated. This offers a solid
foundation for consistency checks on all the factors in the equations to be demonstrated and a
good starting point for simulation. Numerous studies are further explained in this analysis of
interconnected system types. In order to preserve a balance in accordance with the right hand, the
formulas used and its corresponding part on the LHS or else left hand need to catch the
fundamental essence of the ties contained in the RHS models proper (Love et al., 2018).

Fig: ANP prototypical

The primary aim of the process simulation is to evaluate the essential variables that influence
each risk system model for each project's time, cost, and performance. Simulation is a possible
way to evaluate MegaDS models. For each computer model, it is too broad and complicated to
mentally reproduce the traditional mathematical constructs such as those in the figure.
Simulation, however, is the most accurate method of testing assumptions and assessing the
possible influence of risk mitigation strategies on project time, expense, and performance. The
previous study pieces include extensive commentary on inventory graphs, measurements, and
simulation findings for MegaDS system model integrations.

12
The mechanism for social danger in the stock and flow model were optimized.

This model mostly tackles social issues (pollution, infrastructure, noise, resettlement needs, foot
and bike protection criteria, the option of modes of transport, land and property values in the
project route, connection between difficulties at home and work, and difficulties in accessing
family, friends and community funds) and also environmental problems. The quantification of
hazards in this form of the model is a problem on the absolute scale in line with measuring
vectors as a force in newtons.

In complex devices but not numbers and absolute units, the trend and pattern of variance are
always important. The figure below demonstrates the rate variables, i.e., increasing grievances
and de-escalating complaints, societal uncertainties, and social security increased overlaps in
project periods, increased project expense, and error development dependent on diagram causal
loop parameters. In the following table, statistical simulations (equations) of the numerous
interface variables (endogenous variables) are generated for the model following the
configuration and structural assessment of the integrated reserves and the social hazards flow
scheme for the sub-model. The model assessment is conducted in the following manner. A
dimensional consistency evaluation takes place with the essential function of the Vensim
(Mantry., 2018). The Vensim message demonstrates the dimensional accuracy of the degree,
auxiliary instruments, constants, units, and speeds, as shown in the figure below.

The correlation between threats in the subsystem of social risk is evaluated quantitatively
through an extensive simulation model. The difference between different factors in the social risk
system is its utility to model scenarios. The design feedback of the simulation model allows for
the identification and quantification of the cross-reference impact of multiple risks on project
cost, time, and performance (McCrone., 2018).

The next step is the vital danger agency representing societal problems.' While a risk-free
scenario is replicated, social complaints, social threats, the time and cost of the project, and the
lack of efficiency are used as basic measures. The figure demonstrates simulated risk-free
patterns for social risks in sub-models.

13
Question 5
Results As a consequence of the analyses seen below, although the social problems were 0% of
the simulated trend of social grievances, the initial priority threat rating in was steadily lowered
by 0.06 (6%) when physical production of the ETNP began in the second half of 2013 at 0% at a
period when considerable work was completed. The statistics shown below suggest that 0% of
social challenges in the building phase for the ETnp were smaller than 0% in simulated model
patterns of the project time threat, cost overruns, and project performance defects. However, the
chart below reveals that social risk operation is steadily decreased to 0% during the previous
year, with the value falling more until the first quarter of 2013 (Nabawy and Khodeir., 2020).
During the first and second quarters of 2013, the pattern simulated substantially increased to
more than 0 percent before minimizing it to less than zero for the remaining simulated times.

Fig: Simulation result 1

The second is to activate the "social issues" object, which is assigned its value (RPI). The
ANP(RPI) values of Scenarios 1 to 4 for the project progress are stimulated at 0.01, 0.03, 0.02,
and 0.04 for calculating the effects and comparing them with the simulations of the simulation-
based basis-run patterns (Norouzi and Namin., 2019). The goals of this process are to investigate
the effects of societal issues on the length of the program, costs, and performance. In order to
suggest measures to mitigate those issues, the effects of hazards that cause societal threats in the
ecosystem must, therefore, be revealed with regard to biological importance.

14
 Fig: Simulation result 2

In order to demonstrate the dynamics of the social risk impacts on the process over time,
measurement of the consequences of services, expenses, and productivity on social risk factors is
carried out in the overall design of the social risk environment. Digital behavior patterns in
Scenarios 1, 2, 3, as well as 4 were built in conjunction with the basic run patterns. In the figure,
time and cost changes and performance differences across six years are shown in the simulation
curves of the four processes.

15
Furthermore, all variables of the social risk sub-model are generated and displayed in the graph.
These nuanced conclusions help the evaluation of risks by the quantification and representation
of the physical concepts that may be opposed to the real beliefs, all danger variables, in the social
risk model. That is, statistical values generated helped to consider the effect of social risk factors
on project performance at different levels of development (Shackman et al., 2019). Second,
conditions such as those indicated by the statistics and the analyses of sensitivity are essentially
carried out in order to achieve desired risk limits that cause an impatient outcome by a shift in
parameters in decision making and different design processes.

16
Fig: Simulation result 3

Fig: Simulation result 4

Fig: Simulation result 5

17
The consequences of these risks on transport megaproject goals are mostly evaluated as the risk
of project times and costs or project performance failures and are viewed as the risk of social
damage from the dynamic simulation outcomes (Pagoni and Patroklos., 2019.). Social threats
have been measured uniformly for the period, expense, and quality of services (ANOVA). The
aim of the One-way Variance Analysis (ANOVA) is to assess if a defined project objective has a
massive influence on the social risks by using the .002 alpha. If so, the key issue would be the
aspects of these distinctions and what are the parallels.

18
References
Adegbite, O., Part A: Project Planning Presentation Notes and Slides.

Ahiaga-Dagbui, D., 2019. Reference Class Forecasting: A clear and present danger to cost-
effective capital investment on major infrastructure projects. London: Public Administration and
Constitutional Affairs Committee.

BAI, B.A.I., Test, B.V.M.G., Inventory, B.T., Plus, F.F.Q., Inventories, M., Inventory, R.N.P.,
Briggs, K., Assessment, B.B.C., Broadbent, D.M., Edinburgh, B.I.T. and Test, B., TRAM 165,
166 Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children 190 Biesheuvel, Simon 195 Bill of Rights 419.
children, 365, p.8.

Boateng, P., 2019. Risk assessment in construction and engineering projects with SDANP plus.
Risk Management in Engineering and Construction: Tools and Techniques, p.163.

Boateng, P., Chen, Z. and Ogunlana, S.O., 2017. The Edinburgh Tram Network (ETN) Project.
Megaproject Risk Analysis and Simulation.

Boateng, P., Chen, Z. and Stephen, O., 2017. Ogunlana (2017).'Index', Megaproject Risk
Analysis and Simulation. evaluation, 203(207), pp.327-334.

Burns, R., 2017. Megaproject Escalation of Commitment. The Oxford Handbook of Megaproject
Management, p.194.

Cash-Gibson, L., Tigova, O., Alonso, A., Binkley, G. and Rosenmöller, M., 2019. Project
INTEGRATE: Developing a Framework to Guide Design, Implementation and Evaluation of
People-centred Integrated Care Processes. International Journal of Integrated Care, 19(1).

Chen, Z., 2019. Grand challenges in construction management. Frontiers in Built Environment,
5, p.31.

Fenwick, J. and Gibbon, J., 2017. The rise and fall of the Big Society in the UK. Public Money
& Management, 37(2), pp.126-130.

Flyvbjerg, B., 2018. Expert Testimony at the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry. Available at SSRN
3149548.

19
Flyvbjerg, B., Ansar, A., Budzier, A., Buhl, S., Cantarelli, C., Garbuio, M., Glenting, C., Holm,
M.S., Lovallo, D., Lunn, D. and Molin, E., 2018. Five things you should know about cost
overrun. Transportation research part A: policy and practice, 118, pp.174-190.

Green, O., 2018. Trams and Trolleybuses. Bloomsbury Publishing.

Gregory, K. and Maldonado, M.P., 2020. Delivering Edinburgh: uncovering the digital
geography of platform labour in the city. Information, Communication & Society, 23(8),
pp.1187-1202.

Imanghaliyeva, A.A., 2020, April. An AcciMap of the Edinburgh Tram Network Project
Delivery Failure. In International Conference on Human Interaction and Emerging Technologies
(pp. 34-38). Springer, Cham.

Liew, K.T., Low, W.W., Wong, K.S. and Wong, S.Y., 2019, April. Risk assessment of
infrastructure projects on project cost. In IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering (Vol. 495, No. 1, p. 012088). IOP Publishing.

Love, P.E., Ahiaga-Dagbui, D.D., Smith, S.D., Sing, M.C.P. and Tokede, O., 2018. Cost
profiling of water infrastructure projects. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 24(4), p.04018023.

Mantry, S., 2018. A Study on Risk Management and its Assessment and Analysis in
Infrastructure Projects with Special Reference to Hydro Power Projects.

McCrone, D., 2018. Lost in Leith: Accounting for Edinburgh's trams. Scottish Affairs, 27(3),
pp.361-381.

Nabawy, M. and Khodeir, L.M., 2020. A systematic review of quantitative risk analysis in
construction of mega projects. Ain Shams Engineering Journal.

Norouzi, A. and Namin, H.G., 2019. A Hybrid Fuzzy TOPSIS–Best Worst Method for Risk
Prioritization in Megaprojects. Civil Engineering Journal, 5(6), pp.1257-1272.

Saunders, F.C. and Townsend, E.A., 2019. Delivering new nuclear projects: a megaprojects
perspective. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business.

20
Tian, Z., Zhao, N., Hillmansen, S., Roberts, C., Dowens, T. and Kerr, C., 2019. Smartdrive:
traction energy optimization and applications in rail systems. IEEE Transactions on Intelligent
Transportation Systems, 20(7), pp.2764-2773.

21