See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/271848003

‘Time and Cost Overruns in the Edinburgh Tram Network (ETN)

Project: Causes and Scientific Modelling’

Conference Paper · July 2014

CITATION READS

1 626

3 authors, including:

Prince Boateng Zhen Chen

Robert Gordon University University of Strathclyde
36 PUBLICATIONS   273 CITATIONS    156 PUBLICATIONS   1,359 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Applications of System Dynamics in Infrastructure Project Performance View project

Decommissioning in the North Sea View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhen Chen on 14 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 1

MEGAPROJECT Whole Action Workshop, MC & Joint

Working Group Meetings, - IFB, Liverpool

Time & Cost Overruns in the Edinburgh

Tram Network (ETN) Project: Causes
and Scientific modelling

Prince Boateng
Dr Z. Chen
Prof. S.O. Ogunlana

11th July 2014

 Contents

 Overview of the new ETN project

 Causes of time and cost overruns
 Scientific modelling
 Summary
 Overview
 2001 – Feasibility studies of the Tram system

 30 options drawn up

 May 2002 – Formation of Transport Initiatives

Edinburgh (Tie) plc by the City of Edinburgh Council
(CEC)

o Tasked to deliver major transport projects for CEC, its

owner.
 Main Problems
 Expanding population
 Vehicular congestion
o 160, 000 vehicles enter city
every day
o 180, 000 by 2016 - CEC
forecast

 Frequent road repairs

 Consultation & Response
 24th March-18th May 2003

o 125, 000 leaflets distributed

o Several public meetings & Exhibitions
o Sectors consulted: Transport, Business, Environment,
Tourism, Conservative/Heritage, Disability groups,
Utilities, etc.

 Over 3,000 responses (83.6% in support of the

new tram network)

 January 2004 - Proposal submitted to the Scottish

Parliament to reintroduce tram in Edinburgh
 Objectives ETN Project
• Support the local economy by improving
accessibility
• Promote sustainability and reduce
environmental damage caused by traffic
• Reduce traffic congestion
• Make the transport system safer and more
secure
• Promote social benefits.
 Contractual Framework
 Development Partnering and Operating
Franchise Agreement (DPOFA)
 System Design Services (SDS)
 Multi Utilities Diversion Framework
Agreement (MUDFA)
 Infrastructure provider and maintenance
(Infraco) and
 Vehicle supply and maintenance (Tramco)
 System Design Services (SDS)
 2005 – Appointment of design consultants
 Originally, 3 lines were proposed
Phase 1a (final route) R Railway Station Saltire Lower Ocean
Phase 1a (never built) Square Granton Terminal
B Bus Interchange
Phase 1b (proposed) Caroline Granton Newhaven
Airport West Pilton Port of Leith
Other future proposals Park

Phase 2 Bernard Street

B Crewe Toll
Phase 3 Foot of the Walk B
Telford Road
Newbridge North Edinburgh Airport B Balfour Street
Craigleith
Newbridge South McDonald Road
Gogarburn
Ravelston
Ratho Ingliston B Ingliston Picardy Place
Station West Park & Ride Roseburn
Gyle Centre York Place
Shandwick Place
Edinburgh Murrayfield West End- St Andrew Square B
Park Central Saughton Stadium Princes Street for Edinburgh Waverley R
Edinburgh Park Bankhead Balgreen Haymarket Princes
R B Station
Street
R B

Proposed Route of the Edinburgh Trams - Source: The City of Edinburgh Council, 2013.

 Phase 1a = 18.5km, is being developed (Case study)

 Phase 1b = 5.5 km, to be developed later.
 Political Treat
 March 2006 – Tram Bill passed & granted Royal
Assent
 2007- Scottish National Party (SNP) was elected
o Pledged to cancel project to same money
o Voted by Parliament to continue project
o SNP agreed, but will not give extra public money
 Construction
 Spring 2007 – Beginning of
Multi-Utility Diversions Works
(MUDFA)

One of the many bodies

discovered during utility diversion
work on Constitution Street
 Construction (cont’d)
 October 2007 - Vehicle supply and maintenance
contract (Tramco) awarded to Spanish company
CAF

o £ 40 million
o 27 vehicles
o 250 capacity
 Construction (cont’d)
 May 2008 – Turnkey Infrastructure Construction
contract (INFRACO) awarded to Bilfinger
Berger & Siemens (BBS) Consortium
o Initial estimated costs £498 million
 TEST VERSION
ONLY

Project Time Performance

(Planned infrastructure construction programme)

Year 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Quarter number 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4

Newhaven to Foot of Leith Walk

Foot of Leith to St. Andrew
Square
St. Andrew Square to
Haymarket
Haymarket to Edinburgh Park
Station
Edinburgh Park station to
Airport
Legend: Utilities
Road and Tramworks
Source: Audit Scotland
Overhead line equipment
 TEST VERSION

Project Time Performance (cont’d) ONLY

(Delivery against key milestones)

Year 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2014
Quarter number 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3

Business Case

Design and Traffic

Regulation order

Utilities

Tram construction
(Tramco)
Infrastructure
construction (Infraco)
Legend: Plan
Actual
 TEST VERSION

Project Cost Performance ONLY

Spend to the end of December 2010

300 Budget as at May 2008
Expenditure to end December 2010
Note:
 2008 - Initial cost was £498
250  December 2009 – Cost revised to £545 mil
 December 2010 – Cost passed £545 mil
 Final Cost unknown
200
£million

150 £67m £33m £85m

100 £49m £27m £81m

50

0
Infrastructure Tram Utilities Design Project Land and Contingency
construction construction diversion management compensation
 Causes of Time & Cost Overruns
 Social risks CEC, TS, TEL,
Demand Lothian Buses, TIE,
o Dispute side MPs, Ministers
Internal
o Legal actions Supply BBS, CAF, Trandev,
side T&T, Parson, Alfred
o Multi-level decision McAlpine
making bodies
o Stakeholders’ Edinburgh residents, Scotland
pressure residents, UK residents, cycling
Private groups, Business owners,
media, other private transport
External operators

Public HSE, Lothian fire service,

Edinburgh Council, National
Government, Metropolitan
police authority, media
 Causes of Time & Cost Overruns(cont’d)
 Technical risks
o Utility diversion/ground
condition problems

Wartime tunnels under Haymarket

o Construction disruption
Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)
 Economic risks
o Economic downturn
o Delays of all types
o Changes in project governing body
o Quality deficiency/rework
Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)

 Environmental risks
o 2009/2010 & 2010/2011 – Freezing
temperature halted construction
 Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)
 Political risks
o Lack of political support
o Political indecision
o Contractual disputes
2009- BBS demand additional £50-£80 mil before
beginning work on Princes Street.
 Tie refused
2010- BBS announced 30 months delay to 2014
o 2011- Tie released from managing project
o 2011 - Cost revised from £545 to £776 mil
o 2012- T&T appointed to manage project
 Changes and Disputes to date.
816 notice of
251 – Still Claims
hanging
677 continued
139 withdrawn
with

426 Estimates
Cost of disputes to date submitted

£ 23.8 m
198 settled 228 not settled

20 settled thru’ 178 settled thru’ £

FDRP IDRP 12.6
m

7 resolved thru’ 2 resolved thru’ 11 resolved thru’

negotiation external mediation adjudication

£ £ £
3.7m 3.5m 4.0m
 Hierarchy of Identified Risk Areas in ETN Project
Level 1 STEEP Risks in Megaproject Construction

Level 2 Social Technical Economic Environmental Political

Level 3 Social grievances Ambiguity of project scope/ Change in government Environmental issues from Change in government funding
Scope change funding policy works (Pollution) policy

Multi -level decision Ground conditions on given Taxation changes Unfavourable climate Political opposition
making bodies project sites conditions (Snow, rain,
wind etc.)
Disputes Inadequate project complexity Change in government Government discontinuity
analysis
Legal Actions Unforeseen modification to Wage inflation Lack of political support
project
Stakeholder's pressure Inaccurate project cost Local inflation change Political indecision
estimate

Treats to person & asset Failure to meet specified Foreign exchange rate Project termination
security standards

Social Issues Technical difficulties in Material price changes Delay in obtaining consent/
utilities diversions Approval

Engineering and design change Economic recession Legislative/regulatory changes

Supply chain breakdown Energy price changes Protectionism

Based on desktop Project time overruns Catastrophic environmental Delay in obtaining temporary
search, ETNP source effects Traffic Regulation Orders
(TROs)
Project cost overruns Project technical difficulties
documents and
Interviews. Inadequate site investigation Project delays of all forms
 SDANP

 Analytical Network Process (ANP) model for

prioritising risk factors

 System Dynamics (SD) for simulating risks

overtime

24/67
 Data source Database
Risks identification and categorization

· Literature on STEEP
ANP route SD route
· Data from source List of
documents of past potential risks Initial model development
similar projects

Conduct prioritization survey based on

· Case studies experts’ decisions · Reference modes

Perform Mean Scores of importance · Model boundary chart

MV 
1 n



· Feedback structure
n  i 1 E i ( C ,T ,Q )  · Casual flow diagram

Develop and structure the ANP model

Model verification
· Expert opinion
Conduct pairwise Comparison
1 R 12
... R 1n

R ... R ...
PRw 
21 ij

... R  1 .... 1
ji
R ij R 1n Model development
R n1
... ... 1 · Develop formulae for flow diagrams

Normalized criteria Test not

n Model Testing passed
R w 
j 1
ij j max w i
·
·
Dimensional consistency
Structure consistency
n

 w
i 1
i
 1
Test passed

Perform Risk Priority Index (RPI)

Calculation Model simulation

RPIi  J W (RCi) * Rij

List of Top n
“priority risks”
Test not
Model validation passed
Testing of model structure &
behaviour

SDANP Framework
Software application
Test passed

Policy analysis, design and

improvement and implementation 25/67
Parameters Values
Number of questionnaires distributed 300
Number of responses received 145
Number of invalid responses 5
Number of valid responses 140
Percentage of responses received 48.30
Percentage of valid responses 46.60
Number of Interviewees 20
 Weighted Quantitative Score (WQS)
(Respondent’s Mean Scores of Importance - RMSI)
Project Objectives (Po)
Project
objectives (Po)
Cost Time Quality Rounded MVs
C: Cost 4.9 5
T: Time 4.8 5
Q: Quality 5.0 5

STEEP Risks Impact on (Po)

Risk Cluster (PR)

Cost Time Quality Rounded MVs

Cost Time Quality
PR1:Social risks 4.2 3.6 2.4 4 4 2
PR2:Technical risks 4.7 4.7 4.6 5 5 5
PR3:Economic risks 4.7 4.6 4.4 5 5 4
PR4:Environmental risks 4.1 4.1 4.0 4 4 4
PR5:Political risks 4.5 4.0 3.4 5 4 3
 Modelling in ANP for Risk Prioritization
Goal Potential Risks Prioritization
Goal: Risk Prioritization

List of high risks Criterion Time Cost Quality

PR4: Environmental
Options PR1: Social risks PR2:Technical Risks PR3: Economic risks PR5: Political risks
risks

Criterion: Potential Consequences on:

Cost Time Quality

Goal Technical Risks Prioritization

Criterion Time Cost Quality

Option: Potential Risks (PR)

Options TV1 TV2 TV3 TV4 TV5 TV6 TV7 TV8 TV9 TV10 TV11 TV12

PR1:Social risks PR2:Technical risks

SV1,Sv2, Sv3, Sv4 TV1,TV2,TV3,TV4,TV5,
TV6,TV7,TV8,TV9,
Sv5, Sv6, Sv7
TV10,TV11,TV12,

Goal Environmental Risks Prioritization

PR5:Political risks PR3:Economic risks

PV1,PV2,PV3,PV4, EV1,EV2,EV3,EV4,EV5,
PV5,PV6,PV7,PV8, EV6,EV7,EV8,EV9, Criterion Time Cost Quality
PV9,PV10, EV10,EV11,EV12,

PR4:Environmental
risks Options ENV1 ENV2
ENV1, ENV2

Inner
dependencies
ANP Network Models for STEEP Risks Prioritization
 Comparison Matrices
Project objective Potential
MVR PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 TPV Priorities R
Risks (PR)
4 PR1 1 1/2 1/2 1 1/2 0.13 0.13 4
Cost
λmax = 5.00 5 PR2 2 1 1 2 1 0.25 0.25 2
CI = 0.00 5 PR3 2 1 1 2 1 0.25 0.25 1
RI = 1.11 4 PR4 1 1/2 1/2 1 1/2 0.13 0.13 5
CR = 0.00 5 PR5 2 1 1 2 1 0.25 0.25 3
1.01 1.01
4 PR1 1 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.14 0.14 3
Time
λmax = 5.00 5 PR2 2 1 1 2 2 0.29 0.29 2
CI = 0.00 5 PR3 2 1 1 2 2 0.29 0.29 1
RI = 1.11 4 PR4 1 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.14 0.14 5
CR = 0.00 4 PR5 1 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.14 0.14 4

1.00 1.00
3 PR1 1 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 0.11 0.11 4
Quality
λmax = 5.08 5 PR2 3 1 2 2 3 0.37 0.37 1
CI = 0.02 4 PR3 2 1/2 1 1 2 0.21 0.21 2
RI = 1.11 4 PR4 2 1/2 1 1 2 0.21 0.21 3
CR = 0.02 3 PR5 1 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 0.11 0.11 5

1.01 1.01
Legend: λmax = maximum eigenvalue, CI = Consistency Index, RI = Random Index, CR = Consistency ratio, TPV = Total priority value,
NPV = Normal priority value, IPV = Ideal priority value R = Ranking
 Results of Final Mode ANP Decision Making Priorities

Potential Risks (PR) Priorities for Potential Risks Final Priorities

Local risk priority index Global risks priority index Synthesized
(RPIL) (RPIG) results
Cost Time Quality Cost Time Quality TRPI IRPI R
(0.33) (0.33) (0.33)
PR1:Social 0.13 0.14 0.11 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.13 0.43 5
PR2:Technical 0.25 0.29 0.37 0.08 0.10 0.12 0.30 1.00 1
PR3: Economic 0.25 0.29 0.21 0.08 0.10 0.07 0.25 0.83 2
PR4: Environmental 0.13 0.14 0.21 0.04 0.05 0.07 0.16 0.53 4
PR5:Political 0.25 0.14 0.11 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.17 0.56 3
Total 1.01 1.00 1.01 1.00 1.01

TRPI - Total risk priority index

IRPV - Ideal risk priority indexes
R - Ranking
 Regulatory everionment
<Risks of project bodies (local, national & +
time overrun> Europe wide) Environmental
+ regulation enforcement
Environmental issues
from works + +
-
- +
Environmental
+
certainties <Risks of project Mult level decision + Need to relocate
- time overrun> Social + making bodies
+ - <Legal involvement + Pedistran &
+ certainties Threat to
Environmental actions> + bicycle safety
uncertaintities
Environmental - personal&asset security ++ -
risks + Choice of travel
+ <Threat to +
- Escalation to mode
+ personal&asset + Pressure to modify - Social issues
security> Social risks Social grievances Land & property
+ project scope
Unfavourable + + uncertainties + values
+ + <Social
climatic conditions <Technical + +
grievances> + + + + + + Linkage between
<Inadequate site risks> +
+ residence & job
Supply chain investigation> + Legal actions + <Risks of project Social grievances +
<Social time overrun> + Accessibility difficulties to
breakdown. + +
risks> <Social issues> + De-escalation to - families, friends &community
Engineering & design + + Disputes
+ grievances resources
changes/problems <Political + Worksite coordination <Political <Government
- + + +
+ risks> problems + risks> + funding policy>
<Risks of project <New legislations &
Technical cost overrun.> <Error Cost of legal & <Rework>
Technical Technical + regulations>
certainties risks + generation> dispute resolution
uncertainties + +
- <Time to divert +
+ + + + Risks of project Cost of
+ cost overrun. rework underground utilities>
<Risks of project + <Economic + Project quality
Project complexity Error generation
time overrun> + risks.> deficiency + + Time to obtain
+ + Cost of delay in
Ambiguity of consent & approvals
+ + + utilities diversions
project scope + + Escalation to project
+ Risks of project cost overrun +
+ + time overrun + Cost of delays
Project scope Rework +
+ +
+
+ + +
Unforseen modification Cost estimation Time to divert Catastrophic Project technical +
<Project
to project problems underground utilities environmental effects termination> difficulties Traffic regulation
Work to do + <Mult level decision
Ground conditions + making bodies orders (TROs)
+ problem at a given site + +
involvement>
Modification to project + + <Government
Escalation to project time overrun <Supply chain discontinuity>
design/specification +
+ breakdown.> +
+ + Project delays of
+ + + + <Environmental +
Technical difficulties in + + all forms
<Technical <Error uncertaintities> -
utility diversions + +
uncertainties> generation> <Legal <Disputes> + Material price Foreign
Inadequate site actions> <Technical
+ exchange
investigation <Project quality Political + uncertainties>
<Social Wage inflation + +
deficiency> certainties <Risks of project uncertainties> <Government +
<Social time overrun> funding policy> Economic +
- acceptability> + recession Material
- -
+ - + + price hike
- Political +
- Political risks Economic + Local inflation
uncertaintities Economic Economic risks. +
certainties uncertainties Energy +
+ + +
+ <Material price
- +
- + price> + +
<Social +
acceptability> Taxation
+ Political + Project
indecision New legislations &
termination regulations
Political interferrrance

Causal Loop Diagram Political debates on

the project
+ in the project + + -
+

Political Political - +

for STEEP Risks in ETN Protectionism - support harmony Government

discontinuity Government
funding policy

Project +
+
Social
+ -
Political opposition
-

<Political
-

to the project +
acceptability support>

+
SD models for STEEP risks in ETN project

SOCIAL
Environ. Factors
SUBSYSTEM
 Effects of Project
 Air emission

TECHNICAL
 Habitat destruction
POLICAL
SUBSYSTEM
SUBSYSTEM
 Waste generation
MegaDS  Pollution (air/ water)
 Comfort disturbances
 Health & safety
ENVIRON. ECONOMIC  Effects on Project
SUBSYSTEM SUBSYSTEM
 Critical weather conditions
Design
(snow, rain, wind etc..)
 Temperature
Model structure
 Landslide, etc.
 Model Boundary
Risk Code Risk Type
Type I: Endogenous Risk Variables
PR4 Environmental risks
ENV3 Cost of legal action
ENV4 Disputes
ENV5 Environmental regulation enforcement
ENV6 Environmental certainties
ENV7 Environmental uncertainties
ENV8 Error generation
ENV9 Escalation to project cost overrun
ENV10 Escalation to project time overrun
ENV11 Legal action
ENV12 Multi decision making bodies involvement
ENV13 Project quality deficiency
ENV14 Risks of project cost overrun
ENV15 Risks of project time overrun
ENV16 Social issues
ENV17 Social grievances
ENV18 Worksite coordination problems
Type II: Exogenous Risk Variables
ENV1: Environmental issues from works
ENV2 Unfavourable climate conditions
System Dynamics: Dynamic Hypothesis (CLD)
+
{Pollution (Air, water, Worksite coordination
soil & noise)} problems
Environmental issues + Information
Error flow, e.g.
from works R8
+
how environmental
generation
+ R4 Project quality
+
+ deficiency uncertainties
+
affect
<Legal
Environmental
uncertainties R1
Environmental
risks
actions>
+
R7 project time
+

- R6
+ Escalation to project
R3
cost overrun
+ + Risks of project
- cost overrun +
Environmental Cost of legal + +
certainties action +
Unfavourable
R9
climatic conditions R2 -
Risks of project
-Snowfall; time overrun R5
+
-Heavy rainfall; Escalation to project
time overrun
-Flood; +
-Temperature <Environmental issues + +
from works>
-Heat waves; +
Disputes Legal Multilevel decision
-Drought;
+ actions making bodies
-Dust & Wind storms; + +
+ involvement
-Hurricane;
Social Environmental
-Thunder and Lightning; Social
grievances regulation
-Earthquake; issues
enforcement
Legend: +
+
. .. A casual relationship
-
+ (-) signs at the arrowheads indicate that the effect is
` related to the cause.
positively (negatively)
R denotes reinforcing loop
 SD: Stock & Flow Model Diagram
<Project quality
deficiency> Risks of project
<Risks of project Information links,
time overrun>
Escalation to project
cost overrun expressing
Flow, here an cost overrun Project quality
deficiency
dependencies
inflow <Error
generation> Worksite coordination
Cost of legal problems
action Error
Risks of project
Escalation to project generation
time overrun
time overrun

Multilevel decision <Risks of project

Legal action making bodies cost overrun>
’Constants’ (Values <Environmental involvement
<Environmental
uncertainties>
based on ANP’s RPI) Environmental
risks>
Disputes Social grievances
regulation Auxiliary variables
enforcement
Legend
Social issues A causal relationship

. Flow
; `
Accumulation of
Environmental
risks risks
Environmental issues Environmental Environmental
from works Represents ANP
uncertainties certainties
Priority Index
0.20
Stock, cumulated Valve
by of flow
..
0.79 Unfavourable Environmental risks cluster inflows and de- Source or Sink
climatic conditions priority index from ANP
cumulated by
outflows
 Environmental risks
0.2
1
1
1 1 1
1 Dynamic pattern (Actual)
18.7% (max)
2 2 2 2 1
12 2
2 1 Initial RPI for
0.15 2
2 1 PR4 = 16%
2 1
Max. PR4 impact 2 1
Max. PR4 @
9.9% (min)

Dmnl
0.1 level @ year 2 1
0% ENV2 2010 = 18.7% 2
1
impact level 2
1 Min risk impact
0.05 in year
Dynamic pattern @ level for PR4 =
2009.25 =
ENV2 = 0% impact level 0.07 (7%)
17%
0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Time (Year)
Environmental risks : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Environmental risks : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

a: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for environmental risks Project completion
time - 10/2013
Risks of project time overrun
0.6
1 Max. ENV15 @ 20%
Behaviour pattern for ENV15 1
ENV1 and 79%
based on 20% of ENV1 and 0% of 1
0.45 1 impact level =
ENV2 impact levels 1 2
55.4%
2
1 2
Level of 1 2
48% (max)
Dmnl

0.3 1 2
ENV15 in 2 Max. ENV15 @ 20%
1
2008 = 0% 2
1 2 Actual dynamic ENV1 and 0% ENV2
2 impact level = 41%
0.15 1
2 pattern for Risks
1 2
1 2
of project time
12 overrun
0 12
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Time (Year)
Risks of project time overrun : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Risks of project time overrun : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

b: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for risks of project time overrun
 Risks of project cost overrun
0.4
Max. ENV14 @ 20%
1
Actual dynamic behaviour pattern ENV1 and 79%
0.3 2 impact level = 35%
1
Behaviour pattern for 0% impact level
1 2

Dmnl
0.2 2 Max. ENV14 @ 20%
1
Level of 1
2 ENV1 and 79%
2
ENV14 in 1 2 impact level = 28%
0.1 1 2
2008 = 0% 12
12

0 1 2
1 2 12
12
12
23% (max)
12
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Time (Year)
Risks of project cost overrun : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Risks of project cost overrun : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

c: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for risks of project cost overrun

Project quality deficiency

0.2
Behaviour pattern for ENV13
based on 20% of ENV1 and 0%
7.29% (max)
0.15
of ENV2 impact levels

1 Max. ENV13 @
Actual dynamic
Dmnl

0.1 20% ENV1 and

1
Level of pattern for Risks 79% impact level
1
ENV13 in
of project time 2
= 11.37%
1 2
0.05 overrun 1 2
2008 = 0% 2
1
1 2
12 2 Max. ENV13 @
12
0 1 2 1 2 20% ENV1 and 0%
12 12 1 2 1 2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ENV2 impact level
Time (Year) = 8.28%
Project quality deficiency : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Project quality deficiency : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

d: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for project quality deficiency
 Social risks
0.6
DSBP @ 0% of SV7 1 DSBP @ 100% of SV7
1
1 1 2
0.3 3
1 3 4 2 1 1 2
12 3 4 3
45 5 2 5
3
5 5 2 45 5 5
2

Dmnl
0 2 4 1
4 4 3
2 3 4 3
3
-0.3
DSBP @ 25% of SV7 DSBP @ 75% of SV7 DSBP @ 50% of SV7
-0.6
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Time (Year)
Social risks : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1
Social risks : Current scenario 3 2 2 2 2 2 2
Social risks : Current scenario 2 3 3 3 3 3 3
Social risks : Current scenario 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4
Social risks : Current (Risk free scenario) 5 5 5 5 5 5

DSBP = Dynamic simulation behaviour pattern

b: Dynamic simulation scenario graphs for social risks
Economic risks
0.4
Max. PR3 impact level @
1 1 year 2010.13 = 33.03%
12 2 1
2
0.3 1 2
2 2 1
1
12 Initial RPI for
2 1
Dynamic Dynamic PR3 =25%
Dmnl

0.2 2 1
pattern (0% pattern impact level.
1 (Actual)
impact level) 2
0.1 2 1
2010.13
2 1
2 1
0 2 1 Min risk impact
2
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 level for PR3 =
Time (Year) 1.72%
Economic risks : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Economic risks : Base run@ 0% (Exogenous) risk impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

b: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for economic risks

Dynamic Confidence Bounds Sensitivity Graph for Political Risks
 Simulation interval continues to grow larger overtime

 50% chance that the level of political risks will be between 15% and 55%

 75% and the 95% confidence bounds suggest that the level of political
risks could range from 10% to 65% and 5% to 80% respectively.
Behaviour Mode (Actual)
50% 75% 95% 100%
"Political risks."
1

0.75

0.5

0.25

0
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Time (Year)

Cost (£ Million)
Year of Completion
Original Project Information (OPI)
Planned Project Budget (PPB) 545
Revised Project Budget (RPB) 776
Project Cost Variation (PCV) 231
Original Planned Date (OPD) 2011 (3 Years)

Expected New Date (END) 2014 (6 Years)

Completion Date Variation (CDV) 3 Years (30 month)
SDANP Simulation Project Information (SPI) Validated Project Information
Risks Level of Risk Impact on Project Performance –LRIPP (%) (OPI X SPI)

Cost (C) Time (T) Quality (Q) Total Impact Cost (£ million) Time (year)

(SPIC) (SPIT) (SPIQ) {(SPIC) x (PPB)} {(SPIT) x (OPD)}

Social 12.00 6.00 1.00 19.00 65.400 0.180
Technical 1.24 0.43 0.15 1.82 6.758 0.013
Economic 22.36 30.74 8.88 61.98 121.862 0.922
Environmental 11.43 29.3 3.35 44.08 62.294 0.879
Political 2.56 5.14 1.95 9.65 13.952 0.154
49.59 71.61 15.33 136.53 270.266 2.148
Total Impact
Source: Field Work 2013 (approx. 26 m)
 SDANPAccuracy
model level
Statistical
research *
= 83%
Average cost 49.59 44.70
escalation (%)
Accuracy (%) 85.47 N/A
 Work schedule Production-dep. Risks

clear site

rough grade High Risk Period

drill well

water tank foundation

excavate for sewer

excavate for electrical manholes

install well pump

erect water tank

install sewer and backfill

install manhole

Time-dep. Risks
43/67
 Well defined research methodology

 A study into STEEP risks impacts on ETN

project at the construction phase

 A SDANP model for planning against the

impact of STEEP on ETN project

 More case studies for accurate prediction

44/67
 SBE Heriot-Watt University

 EU COST Action TU1003 MEGAPROJECTS

 Edinburgh Trams

45/67
 Thank You
View publication stats