Project management analysis of

Bycyklen 42429 - Project Management

Handed in: 26th of August 2015

Signe Skovmand Jakobsen

s113540

Muhammad Sarfraz

s132004

Emil Gram Spork

s100456

Peter Wulff Harslund

s133620

Megan Claire Anderson

s142837

Joachim Andersen

s133622

1

Summary

The Bycyklen project is about creating a new bike sharing system in Copenhagen, which will connect the commuters, locals and tourists with the existing public transportation system. By this initiative Copenhagen will stand as a role model for green alternatives and establish its’ position as one of the most innovative and attractive bicycle cities in the world. This report is based on an analysis of the project management of the real-life project, Bycyklen. The scope is to evaluate how project management has worked in practice and identify its successes or failures. To an-alyze the project, relevant information has been found. Mainly articles, reports from municipalities and rel-evant company websites has worked as the basis of knowledge for the analysis. In order to evaluate the project from a project management point of view, the four different perspectives on project management vision, complexity, uncertainty and human behavior are used. This reveals a very clear and ambitious project vision, but with very weak success criteria. The project is complex as many ac-tivities are managed and dealt with simultaneously, in order to meet the vision. The high level of complex-ity in the project contributes many uncertainties. Uncertainties are present in all projects and in a large pro-ject, such as this, the identification of risk and opportunities is an extraordinary task. The analysis ends in an observation of how the stakeholders are engaged and communicated with differently, and what this mean for the shaping of the project. After the analysis of the different perspectives, the report focuses on connecting the dots by integrating all the parts in relation to the project success or failure. It is obvious how the different aspects of the perspec-tives relate to each other and that the vision and stakeholder management have been key factors in the project. How these activities has been performed make the project complex. The large degree of complex-ity leads to many uncertainties and a high need of communication between and with stakeholders. A deeper analysis has been made on the vision and success criteria proposed by the project leader, CykelDK. It is clearly seen that the success criteria doesn’t follow the theory of SMART criteria, and this has influenced the potential success of the project. Suggestions has been made on how to make the criteria more SMART, mostly by making them more specific, measurable and time-bound. The project is not yet fully completed and therefore its overall success is difficult to evaluate. Though, by using the tools provided in the course it is possible to evaluate how the project has been managed and whether the project management is successful. The analysis illuminate the project management shortcom-ings, and how multiple activities could have been done differently. Wrong decisions has definitely been made, but the level of complexity of this large project is very high and require immense project manage-ment skills in order to achieve success.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

2

Contents

1. Project description ............................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................................. 1

1.2. Stakeholders ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.3. Success ......................................................................................................................................... 3

1.4. Information .................................................................................................................................. 3

2. Connecting the dots ............................................................................................................................. 3

3. Zooming in on the vision and success criteria in relation to project success .......................................... 8

3.1. Vision and Success Criteria ........................................................................................................... 8

4. References ..........................................................................................................................................12

5. Appendix.............................................................................................................................................13

5.1. Appendix A - Vision .........................................................................................................................13

5.1.1. Vision ......................................................................................................................................13

5.1.2. Success Criteria ........................................................................................................................13

5.1.3. Project Success ........................................................................................................................15

5.1.4. Lifecycles .................................................................................................................................16

5.2. Appendix B – Complexity .................................................................................................................17

5.2.1. Work Breakdown Structure .....................................................................................................17

5.2.2. Network Plan ...........................................................................................................................18

5.2.3. Review and Optimization .........................................................................................................19

5.2.4. Visualization of the plan ..........................................................................................................20

5.3. Appendix C – Uncertainty ................................................................................................................21

5.3.1. Risks and opportunities ...........................................................................................................21

5.3.2. Risk Assessment ......................................................................................................................23

5.3.3. Risk Treatment ........................................................................................................................24

5.4. Appendix D – Human behavior ........................................................................................................25

5.4.1. Stakeholder Management .......................................................................................................25

5.4.2. Communication .......................................................................................................................25

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

1

1. Project description

1.1. Introduction Projects have become increasingly common and relevant-in our economy, society and also in our life1. An example of such a project is the Bycyklen project that target connectivity of Copenhagen as a whole by combining the metro, busses and train with a city bike. The overall aim for the project is to encourage peo-ple to make better use of public transport in regular commutes. In addition this will create a greener city and in that way act as a role model for other cities around the world. The plan is to make a large number of docking stations near public transportation stations around the city to store the new bikes. This creates a possibility to travel independently in connection with the established public transport system in an easy way2.

FIGURE 1. - METHODS OF TRAVEL IN COPENHAGEN.

Copenhagen had a pre-existing bike-sharing system, which was established back in 19953. This system started as a success, but became obsolete and therefore Copenhagen- and Frederiksberg Municipalities joined DSB in search for a replacement, to be integrated with the existing public transport. GoBike was cho-sen as supplier of the bikes in 2012, having previously succeeded in developing bike sharing systems in Spain and the Netherlands. They were commissioned to deliver 1.260 bikes with 1.890 docking points dis-tributed around 65 stations in Copenhagen and Frederiksberg during the summer of 2013. In total, 88 mil-lion DKK will be invested in the project by Copenhagen, Frederiksberg and DSB4.

1 Thuesen, Christian & Geraldi, Joana 2015 2 Jessen, Mai Z., 2014 3 Copenhagenize, 2014 4 Lilmoes, Søren P., 2015

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

2

1.2. Stakeholders The project of creating and implementing an attractive solution for a bicycle sharing system in Copenhagen is complex and involves many stakeholder. The size and complexity of the project forces boundaries to be clear, since an analysis of all areas of the project would be too comprehensive. The involved stakeholders are found through a determination of the individuals, groups or organizations affected by or affecting the project5. The main and most important stakeholders of the project will be identified and a project owner will be determined.

FIGURE 2. MAIN STAKEHOLDERS OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT

CykelDK is the connecting link between Frederiksberg- and Copenhagen Municipalities, DSB and GoBike and thereby handles the interests of the key stakeholders. CykelDK is identified as the coordinator and manager of the project. In large parts of the report the way CykelDK are acting and managing the project will be the main focus. CykelDK’s responsibilities were taken over by By- og Pendlercykelfonden in September 20146.

The project is sponsored by the two municipalities and DSB. DSB is interested in the project, because they want the system to be implemented with the existing public transport network and city. An impressive bi-cycle culture, the publicity and the image it brings with it, are the main reasons of the municipalities’ large interest along the desire to create sustainable and alternative transportation conditions for their citizens.

5 ISO 21599, p. 17 6 Frederiksen, Peter, B., 2014, Årsrapport for CykelDK

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

3

GoBike pioneered the idea of the modern city bike in Spain and the Netherlands7, and now want to imple-ment it in Copenhagen. Because of the city’s status as a city of cyclists it is an obvious place for promoting their solution.

MIFA AG is a German company manufacturing the bikes. They became the manufacturers of the bikes after the original Spanish manufacturer backed out8.

1.3. Success The project is still in progress, which make the level of success difficult to grade. GoBike has been delayed by the need for more money to produce more bikes and all bikes are yet to be delivered. The project nearly stopped in April 20159, but it was decided in May 201510 to continue, on the condition that GoBike will de-liver all the bikes by autumn 2015. Furthermore, the city bikes are, at this point in time, rarely used but it is hard to determine if that makes it unsuccessful. The promotion phase of the bikes are yet to be initiated which could lead to increased usage over time and overall success of the project.

1.4. Information The key information sources can be found in References page 12.

2. Connecting the dots The successes and failures of the project is hard to conclude at this point in the project. Yet, the success of the project management so far can be evaluated, since some important factors do not conform to the ini-tial expectations.

The four perspectives can be used to evaluate the success of the project. The illustration below show how the four perspectives are connected and influence each other through different activities. Through the analysis it has been clear that the outcome or execution of one perspective contributed to the result of the others. Examples of this behavior will be explained later.

FIGURE 3. GRAPHICAL PRESENTATION OF THE MAJOR PARTS OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT AND THEIR CONNECTIONS.

7 GoBike, 2015, Target Group Benefits 8 Østergaard, N., 2013 9 Larsen, Louisa. 2015 10 Hansen, Tobias Birk, 2015

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

4

The vision stated by CykelDK11 is very clear and ambitious, but not too specific holding many possible solu-tions. The subsequent success criteria in the vision part are problematic, since they are very poor in terms of meeting the SMART criteria12, which is discussed further in the Zooming In part on page 8. The quality of these criteria has affected the rest of the project, as it has been hard to specify exactly what should be aimed at in order to make the project a success.

The planning is essential in the complexity part as the project has many different activities, which run paral-lel. The illustration below shows the intended timeline of the project, and the time frame by which CykelDK had to deliver the installed bikes and docking stations.

FIGURE 4. INTENDED TIMELINE OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT.

Many sub-tasks ran concurrently, and therefore thorough planning, timing and communication has been

essentials in order to finish the project on time and with acceptable outcomes. In retrospect, the planning

has not been successful. CykelDK planned to have all the bicycles installed by summer 2013 and, in this

writing moment, far from all the bicycles and docking stations are delivered. The whole project was delayed

due to bad planning. This was mainly caused by lack of incorporation of uncertainties and risk assessment

in the initial contract - the timeline below shows an overview of the actual progress.

11 http://www.toef.dk/file.php?name=/files/Samk%C3%B8rsel/Gobike.pdf 12 Olsson John, Ryding & Attrup Mette, Lindegaard “Power in projects programs and portfolios” s.112

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

5

FIGURE 5. ACTUAL TIMELINE OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT

Bycyklen is a complex project, particularly since it involves governmental stakeholders and public compa-

nies. As such, there will be a lot of uncertainties, some in the forms of opportunities to benefit the project,

but also risks (see Appendix C - Uncertainty). Some of these risks were not properly accounted for and have

had a large impact on the project. In particular the effect of delays from switching manufacturers, and from

inadequate planning of the delivery schedules (see Appendix B - Complexity).

By looking at the intended timeline in Figure 4 the intended delivery that GoBike agreed on, was to deliver

1.260 bikes and 1.890 docking stations within a year. This delivery and timeframe is extremely optimistic,

and GoBike was not able to fulfill this. It is obvious that the planning and risk identification from GoBike has

failed, since unidentified risks have been causing the delays. Also, the overall project leaders from CykelDK

were not predicting, observing or reacting to this very optimistic time estimation from GoBike (see Appen-

dix B - Complexity). CykelDK’s failure in doing so comes back to deficient stakeholder engagement, commu-

nication and ability to reasonably understand the work GoBike has to deliver, and evaluate if it is realistic.

Thus, human behavior played a huge part in the project. As mentioned earlier, the success criteria made by

CykelDK were not meeting the SMART criteria (see Appendix A - Vision), which makes it hard to make rele-

vant milestones that could help accomplish the project goals and more easily execute proper planning and

communication between the stakeholders.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

6

The predicted delivery date was very optimistic from the beginning, which is due to the political influences, where results should be easy and quick to measure. The Town Council of Copenhagen and Frederiksberg changes approximately every fourth year, which urges rushed processes and changing opinions and inter-ests. The first delivery failure was caused completely by GoBike, and this delay may have influenced the de-sire to continue the project as an election was close. The Town Council has had multiple disputes about whether the money should be released for the continuation of the project. The cost of the project was clear in the beginning, but due to delays and missing deliveries from GoBike, skepticism started in the parties of the Town Council of Copenhagen. The politicians have discussed terminating the project and saving the cost, which could be used elsewhere.

The politician’s doubt is caused by bad planning and uncertainties arising in the middle of the project (see

Appendix B - Complexity). It is a matter of course that new uncertainties and risks arise during a project,

therefore risk identification should be a repetitive process performed throughout the lifetime of the pro-

ject13, which was not fulfilled in the project. Doing repeatable risk identification would help navigate and

reduce the impact of arising risks. If the risks of delay or missing deliveries were identified more clearly

from the beginning or earlier in the project, the setbacks might have been avoided. This also relates to

stakeholder management; if there had been a higher degree of engagement with the political stakeholders

by managing them closely, the uncertainties would have been lowered.

The first contract between the sponsors and CykelDK was rushed, and therefore basically based on a vision and a desire to replace the previous city bikes. This caused the uncertainties to be overlooked in the con-tract, which induced the next delays, as the Municipality of Copenhagen withdrew from the contract due to GoBike having no bank guarantee - if they went bankrupt, the sponsors would receive no reimbursement.

FIGURE 6. ALL FOUR PERSPECTIVES SHOULD BE CONSIDERED WHEN ESTABLISHING CONTRACTS.

Another issue for Bycyklen is the fact that fewer people than expected have subscribed to use the bikes.

Center right-wing politicians have complained heavily in the media about the fact that there are no need

for the bikes in Copenhagen, since all inhabitants have their own bikes. The bike sharing system is targeted

commuters, tourists and locals, but in the gathered information about the project, there are no signs of en-

gagement with actual representatives of these groups (see Appendix D – Human behavior). The actual us-

ers have to be involved in the process to make a successful solution. More engagement of the target groups

13 ISO 21500, p. 25

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

7

would have created a better solution, resulting in increased use of the bike system from first release. Fur-

thermore, the missing engagement of the target groups (see Appendix D – Human behavior) can be traced

back to the poor planning from both GoBike and CykelDK. As the delay increases, rushed decisions had to

be taken and compromises made in order to try and keep the project going.

When the plan deviates from its’ original path, it is important to keep the vision in mind. The vision needs to be clear and ambitious, yet flexible enough to accommodate changes. The success of the project de-pends on how the plan changes the capacity to fulfill the success criteria, which need to be realistic, spe-cific, and most importantly measurable. This is two-fold as it needs to be measurable in time, and in what-ever other metrics are specified.

The project management of Bycyklen appears to have been a struggle and several areas of the project man-

agement process should have been done differently or be given more attention. In political projects, as By-

cyklen, deadlines and budgets are often very optimistic to show courage and ambition, but are rarely a suc-

cess within the mentioned parameters (see iron triangle Appendix A - Vision). Yet, the project has potential

and as it is still not completed it can turn out to be a major success.

Project Management requires significant coordination and, as such, requires each process used to be ap-

propriately aligned and connected with other processes14. The analysis of the project clearly show how the

four perspectives are connected and affect each other and finally together form the project output. It is ob-

vious, that balancing, connecting and synchronizing the four perspectives require great managerial skills

from the project manager.

14 ISO 21500 p. 9

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

8

3. Zooming in on the vision and success criteria in relation to project success

3.1. Vision and Success Criteria This area is poorly executed, as the vision is very broad and none of the success criteria follow the SMART criteria. The vision perspective will set the boundaries of the project and define its success15. Therefore, this area is the basic foundation for the rest of the project; since this is weak, the project lacks direction, pur-pose and successes.

One of the main problems with the project is that it was launched to replace the old city bike system. The new system is therefore simply aimed at being a better solution than the previous and the extent and scope for the project was never considered. The vision states;

Denmark is to be a pioneer of the world's best urban- and commuter infrastructure with full integration to

public transport, municipalities and local businesses16.

The fact that Bycyklen is the second version of a bicycle sharing system in Copenhagen, might not be bene-ficial to the project at all. The vision is good but made for the wrong reasons. This could be one of the major issues regarding the success, since nothing was specific; it was only needed as a replacement. This also af-fects the public perception of the bike sharing system, since everyone has an opinion on the new system from the very beginning. It carries the reputation and old connotations of the old bicycle sharing system into the new project.

The vision is ambitious with a well-defined end-goal, but the success criteria introduced from CykelDK17 are not meeting the SMART criteria, which works as a tool to evaluate the quality of the success criterion. A success criterion should furthermore relate and support the vision. For further investigation, the success criteria for ByCyklen will now be analyzed independent of one another.

1. It must be the world's most widely used solution - the bicycles to be used more than any other solution in the world

It is not specific - The phrase “Any Other Solution” covers an extensive area. The phrase is not clear

about any other bicycle solutions. However, there can be alternative ways to make sharing-solu-tions, for example, going for the green solutions such as electric cars, or solutions made by intro-ducing new technologies. The way of expressing this goal is very superficial, it should at least nar-rate the extent of Bycyklen’s usage. It could be the number of bike trips, or a minute count, or al-ternatively it could count the relative proportions of bicycles used by private bicycle owners, inhab-itants or tourists.

It is measurable - The total usages can be measured throughout the project and compared to “other solutions” as long as the other solutions are specified. There are many other parameters to measure in this success criterion.

It is attainable - Copenhagen has a bicycle culture, which is perfect for the project implementation. It is relevant - For Denmark to be a pioneer, it is relevant that the bikes will be used the most and

known around the world. It is not time-bound - It does not state when this condition should be achieved.

15 Thuesen, Christian & Geraldi, Joana 2015, p.20 16 Cykel DK, 2012, Sjovt og hurtigt gennem byen 17 Cykel DK, 2012, Sjovt og hurtigt gennem byen

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

9

This criterion is Measurable, Attainable, and Relevant, and is in correlation with the vision to have the world's best urban- and commuter infrastructure.

The success criterion could be meeting all SMART criteria by adding specific and time-bound requirements to the criterion, such as: It must be the world's most widely used city bike solution - the bicycles must be used more minutes per day than any other city bike solution in the world, 1 year after launch and forward. 2. The solution must constantly innovate - the world's leading cycling nation cannot have a solution that be-comes obsolete the day after it is implemented

It is not specific - innovation is an ongoing and evolutionary process, as such it is impossible to spec-

ify how the innovation can be done without contradicting the aim of this criterion. It is not measurable - It is a relative term if a solution is innovative or obsolete. In short innovation

is not measurable as it is the constant way of improvement. It is attainable - despite being neither specific nor measurable, it is possible to be innovative. It is relevant - this is to avoid what happened to the previous version of Bycyklen, which was not

maintained. Furthermore, a green way of traveling has been a political issue for years, and many cities all over Denmark works progressively on removing cars from the city and creating other ways of traveling. The Danish cycling paths are improving and the network of roads is being expanded, thus making more room for bicycles.

It is not time-bound - Innovation is an ongoing process and is (often) determined by uncontrollable factors. So there is always a time and room for improvement in innovations, which never stop. Which again makes this difficult, if not impossible, to measure.

This criterion is Attainable and Relevant, and is in relation to the vision as the world's best urban- and com-muter infrastructure, which includes up-to-date public bicycles. But it is the most difficult one to make more specific and measureable - it should be entirely changed. The idea behind the constant innovation is to make the solution attractive throughout its lifetime. A proposal for such a success criteria which is also SMART could be: The solution must maintain its baseline of usage and continue to grow annually by 5% and keep a minimum user satisfaction of 85%, measured at least once a year.

3. The solution must be an attractive offer to the municipality citizens, commuters and tourists

It is not specific - it is not always that the level of attraction from the municipality citizens is the

same as the commuters or tourists. They are different target groups with different needs and inter-ests. This could be the quality of the bike, about the need of an electrical engine and a GPS, or other factors such as location and cost. By focusing on one group or similar groups, there is a greater chance of producing an attractive product.

It is not measureable - perceived attractiveness is a subjective metric, some trends can be found, but this is an inaccurate and possibly risky system of measurement. Since a minority that find it un-attractive might be more powerful stakeholders.

It is attainable - although there might be differences in the attractiveness to the different groups. It is relevant - to be the best, most-used system in the of course it must be attractive. It is not time-bound - it does not state when this goal should be met.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

10

This criterion is Attainable and Relevant, and is in relation to the vision. Yet, this criterion is a sub criterion to the first, as the World’s most used public bicycle system of course must be attractive in order to be the most used.

A good tradeoff is required in order to benefit travelers and investors at the same time e.g. attractive offer in terms of making profit and benefiting travelers at the same time.

To emphasize the different target groups, a more measurable and specific criterion could be: The solution must be an attractive offer to the municipality citizens, commuters and tourists. At least X citi-zens, Y commuters and Z tourists, must use the system every year. A satisfaction of at least 70% from each target group must be achieved within the first year. 4. The solution must integrate the bike in public transport, so that the bicycle becomes a natural part of the journey.

It is specific - it must come naturally to the user as a public transport option It is not measureable - a natural part of a journey is a “soft” criterion and not quantifiable Is it attainable - the bike is an independent transportation form, which fits very well in the public

transportation system as there is a need to supplement the gaps in coverage. It is relevant - this allows a greater flexibility in the public transport networks with a “greener” al-

ternative than busses. This will help make the solution more attractive to commuters, who might chose this over their cars.

It is not time-bound - as the other criteria, this is not specific in time.

This criterion is Specific, Attainable and Relevant, and is very much in correlation with the vision. Of course

the “World's best urban- and commuter infrastructure with full integration to public transport, municipali-

ties and local businesses” will need a bicycle as part of a natural journey. The bicycle finishes the public

transportation puzzle, as it gives the user freedom of movement and independence.

To make this criterion a SMART criterion, it should somehow be measurable and time-bound. It could be

changed as follows:

The solution must integrate the bike in public transport before 2020, where at least 15% of the existing pub-

lic transportation stations and other key points of transportation must have docking points. Besides, at least

20% of Metro, Bus and Train users should also use the bike system.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

11

None of the success criteria meet all the SMART criteria, most of them are only attainable and relevant. A

summary of the success criteria can be seen in the figure 7 below:

FIGURE 7. SUCCESS CRITERIA OF BYCYKLEN ANALYZED WITH SMART CRITERIA.

Most of the success criteria are either relative or non-measureable, and they all seem more like visions

than goals. The success needs to be quantifiable and tangible, but that refers to none of the above. Overall,

the success criteria are not very specific making it hard to evaluate on the success of the project. By making

the suggestions to change the success criteria they will be measurable and time-bound, which will make it

simpler to set and follow up on milestones in the planning and execution of the project. As the criteria get

more specific it will become more clear how to achieve the goal in relation to the vision, which will make

other stakeholders easier to engage and satisfy. As the goals are already attainable and relevant the vision

in all has a potential of being a success, and by making the criteria more SMART, the goals get supported

and success is defined.

“The aim of the success criteria is to make the purpose measurable18”

18 Olsson John, Ryding & Attrup Mette, Lindegaard s.110

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

12

4. References 1. Bredsdoff, M., 2015, Erfaren rådgiver: København skulle hellere bruge pengene på ordentlig cykel-

parkering, Ingeniøren, Denmark, URL: <http://ing.dk/artikel/erfaren-raadgiver-koebenhavn-skulle-hellere-bruge-pengene-paa-ordentlig-cykelparkering> Accessed: 5th August 2015

2. Østergaard, N., 2013, Københavnske bycykler i kamp mod uret, Ingeniøren, Denmark, URL: <http://ing.dk/artikel/koebenhavnske-bycykler-i-kamp-mod-uret-158348 Accessed: 20th August 2015

3. Jessen, Mai Z., 2014, Politikere klar med 40. mio. kr. til bycykler i København, GoBike Denmark, Den-mark URL: http://gobike.com/media/1244/politikere-klar-med-40-mio-kr-til-bycykler-i-koeben-havn.pdf Accessed: 20th August 2015

4. Copenhagenize, 2014, The Bike Share Bicycle Copenhagen system almost had, Copenhagenize, Den-mark URL: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2013/05/the-bike-share-bicycle-copenhagen.html Ac-cessed: 19th August 2015

5. Lilmoes, Søren P., 2015, Bycykler for 88 millioner i København: Så lidt bliver de brugt. Denmark URL: http://www.bt.dk/danmark/bycykler-for-88-millioner-i-koebenhavn-saa-lidt-bliver-de-brugt

6. Accessed: 20th August 2015

7. Wamsler, J., 2015, official letter Notat om By- og Pendlercykelfondens godkendelse af ny aftale med Gobike, on behalf of Københavns Kommune, Denmark URL: <https://www.kk.dk/sites/default/fi-les/edoc/74efe533-3005-41b5-8549-c5281d8c186a/49306e87-83a4-4dd0-87ad-75574fdf4506/At-tachments/13028621-14420028-5.PDF> Accessed: 9th August 2015

8. Larsen, Louisa. 2015, Time lang debat udsætter dommen over udskældte bycykler 9. Frederiksen, Peter, B., 2014, Årsrapport for CykelDK v. Beierholm revisor selskab, NNE data, Den-

mark 10. Beckendoff, J., 2015, MIFA: Delisting From Stock Exchange and New Name, Bike Europe, Valkmedi-

anet, Netherlands, URL: <http://www.bike-eu.com/home/nieuws/2015/1/mifa-delisting-from-stock-exchange-and-new-name-1014545>, Accessed: 10th August 2015

11. GoBike, 2015, Vision & Mission, GoBike Denmark, Denmark, URL:<http://gobike.dk/about/vision-mission/>, Accessed: 4th August 2015

12. GoBike, 2015, Target Group Benefits, GoBike Denmark, Denmark, URL:<http://gobike.dk/solu-tion/target-groups-benefits/>, Accessed: 4th August 2015

13. GoBike, 2015, About GoBike, GoBike Denmark, Denmark, URL:<http://gobike.dk/about/history-about-gobike/> Accessed: 4th August 2015

14. Cykel DK, 2012, Sjovt og hurtigt gennem byen, CykelDK, Denmark 1. URL: <http://www.toef.dk/file.php?name=/files/Samkørsel/Gobike.pdf> Accessed: 4th Au-

gust 2015 15. Colville-Andersen, M., 2015, Innovation in, lycra out: what Copenhagen can teach us about cycling,

The Guardian online, URL:<http://www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/oct/16/copenhagen-cycling-innovation-lycra-louts-green-wave-bike-bridges> Accessed: 10th August 2015

16. http://www.thelocal.dk/20150512/costly-copenhagen-city-bikes-get-another-chance 17. http://www.copenhagenize.com/2015/02/watching-copenhagen-bike-share-die.html 18. http://www.copenhagenize.com/2012/10/goodbye-bycyklen.html 19. Hansen, Tobias Birk, 2015, Leverandør af bycykler får ny chance - stik i mod kommunens ønske,

URL: <http://www.dr.dk/nyheder/regionale/hovedstadsomraadet/leverandoer-af-bycykler-faar-ny-chance-stik-imod-kommunens > Accessed: 21th August 2015

20. Thuesen, Christian & Geraldi, Joana 2015, 42430 Project Management: Handbook, Technical Uni-versity of Denmark, Denmark

21. Olsson John, Ryding & Attrup Mette, Lindegaard “Power in projects programs and portfolios”.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

13

5. Appendix

5.1. Appendix A - Vision

5.1.1. Vision The stated vision found in the material of CykelDK says (translated from Danish)19:

Denmark is to be a pioneer of the world's best urban- and commuter infrastructure with full integration to public transport, municipalities and local businesses.

CykelDK is the project owner, and therefore want to satisfy all the stakeholders in order to coordinate ef-fectively. The vision will be analyzed with the stakeholders in mind. If the vision is realized it will create a great value for the shaping of the infrastructure in Denmark, as well as increase tourism and publicity, which makes it desirable and acceptable. The vision is very ambitious, yet realistic. The vision refers to Denmark, and not only the greater Copenhagen area. The statement is clear, but not concrete and specific. This can be problematic as two of the affiliates are municipalities in Copenhagen, and they might have diffi-culties accepting being part of creating a full solution for Denmark. On the other hand, if the project suc-ceeds, they will benefit a lot since they have been a key part of shaping the national solution from the be-ginning. The vision holds many possible solutions, which makes it non-specific. Yet, it is still very clear; Denmark must have full solution. The vision is certainly ambitious, and can be realized in a place like Den-mark that has many commuters and an innovative, adaptive, and extensive infrastructure consisting of roads, railroads, metros, and cycling. The prospect of a somehow realistic and realizable vision can have great influence on the motivation of the stakeholders.

5.1.2. Success Criteria CykelDK has four success criteria for the project20, which are important to be in correlation with the vision. Below are the success criteria stated with their individual connection to the vision.

1. “It must be the world's most widely used solution - bicycles to be used more than in any other solu-

tion in the world.”

This success criterion is in correlation with the part of the vision to have the World's best urban- and com-muter infrastructure.

2. “The solution must constantly innovate - the world's leading cycling nation cannot have a solution

that becomes obsolete the day after it is implemented.” This success criterion is in relation to the part of the vision as the world's best urban- and commuter infra-structure, which includes up-to-date public bicycles.

3. “The solution must be an attractive offer to the municipality citizens, commuters and tourists.”

This success criterion is in relation to the vision. Yet, this criterion is a sub criterion to the first, as the World’s most used public bicycle system of course must be attractive in order to be the most used.

19 Reference: Cykel DK, 2012, Sjovt og hurtigt gennem byen 20 Reference: Cykel DK, 2012, Sjovt og hurtigt gennem byen

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

14

4. “The solution must integrate the bike in public transport, so that the bicycle becomes a natural part of the journey.”

This success criterion is very much in correlation with the vision. Obviously, the “World's best urban- and commuter infrastructure with full integration to public transport, municipalities and local businesses” will need a bicycle as part of a natural journey. The bicycle finishes the public transportation puzzle, as it gives the user ownership of the trip and independency. All of the success criteria is related to the vision somehow, even though some are a repetition/rephrased version of another and/or the vision itself.

The chart below shows how the success criteria meet the different criteria of SMART:

FIGURE 8. SUCCESS CRITERIA OF BYCYKLEN ANALYZED WITH SMART CRITERIA.

None of the four success criteria meet all the SMART criteria - they seem more like visions than goals. Most

of the success criteria are either relative or non-measureable. The success needs to be quantifiable and

well-defined, which none of the above are.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

15

5.1.3. Project Success The project success can be partially evaluated with help from the Iron Tri-angle. It is important to have in mind that the limitation of the Iron Trian-gle is that is doesn’t have the Vision perspective in it. We will use it to evaluate on the initial cost and time constraints set for the project. Quality: There are several aspects to the project that contribute to the Quality, and it can be measured in many different ways. The quality of this project depends on the user’s response and their experience. Therefore, for the iron triangle, we will mainly focus on the two other corners, Cost and Time.

Cost: The initial cost for the project was set to 88 mio. DKK21. The final cost can only be projected at this point as the project is still in progress. Also, due to the political involvement in the project, the initial budg-ets are likely to have been very conservative, almost unrealistic, and has been revised. So far, 20.5 mio. DKK has been paid to GoBike22.

Time: The initial projected time frame for the delivery of 1,260 city bikes was the summer of 201323. GoBike and its suppliers had setbacks and delays in the execution phases of this project. This slowed the produc-tion of the bikes and the docking stations, meaning that the goals for the number of bikes and docking sta-tions delivered by summer 2013 were not met.

According to the Iron Triangle measurement, the project is not a success, especially not from a cost and time point of view. When the cost and time factors are not met the situation becomes detrimental for some stakeholders.

The success of Bycyklen is very hard to measure because of the non-specific criteria associated with the vi-sion. Despite the success criteria being vague and the difficulty of measuring the success, due to the delays and complex timeline of the project, some conclusions can be drawn from the existing initiatives. The solu-tion, which is currently being implemented, is very innovative, and changes and upgrades has already been made to the first version of the bikes and the system, which fulfills the second success criterion. In addition, the solution is being integrated into the existing public transportation system and thereby correlated with success criterion number 4. Success criterion 1 and 3 are difficult to measure at the current stage of the project.

The project has already exceeded the timeframe by 100%, and cost much more than planned. Yet, the pro-ject is only starting to be implemented in the infrastructure of Copenhagen, and its success can therefore be measured over the next 8 years, where the supplier is maintaining the system.

21 Reference: Bredsdoff, M., 2015 22 Reference: Wamsler, J., 2015 23 Reference: Cykel DK, 2012, Sjovt og hurtigt gennem byen

FIGURE 9. IRON TRIANGLE.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

16

5.1.4. Lifecycles The fuzzy front-end project unfolded as the new modern city bike was developed and chosen to be located in Copenhagen as it’s a city famous for its cycling culture. In 2013, the new bike system premiered in Co-penhagen and Frederiksberg, but the expected benefits are not fully realized. The project is still ongoing, and the system will be maintained over the next 8 years - these years will be the most beneficial.

The product/IT development of the bike and docking station:

FIGURE 10. LIFE CYCLE PROCESSES OF BYCYKLEN.

The project has two major life cycles, which overlap each other in different phases. A lot of the decision making in the policy development has influences on the design, implementation and maintenance phases of the product itself.

Policy development of implementation of the system in the municipalities:

FIGURE 11. LIFE CYCLE PROCESSES OF THE IMPLEMENTATION.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

17

5.2. Appendix B – Complexity

5.2.1. Work Breakdown Structure The Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) is focused on the top-level management view, as this is deemed the most relevant area to analyze. A useful Purpose for the analysis could be “Upgrading the bike sharing sys-tem in Copenhagen”. This is the overall mission, and a Work Breakdown structure to fulfill this can be seen in figure 11.

FIGURE 12. WBS OF BYCYKLEN FROM CYKELDK’S POINT OF VIEW.

The Work Breakdown Structure and its categories have been extrapolated, because of limited information. Though, it is created with the available and found information and observed circumstances from the pro-ject in mind, so it to some extent acts realistic.

Process-oriented Integrate within Infrastructure

Procedure-oriented Integrate within existing supporting platforms Generate PR

Problem-oriented *(e-bikes are new technology, thus there will be design issues and bugs)

Resource-oriented Manufacture bikes* Create docking stations*

Process-oriented activities are characterized by the fact that they cannot be sped up. This may be due to the nature of the process, or the fact that it is controlled by another stakeholder or partners. In this case, the integration in existing infrastructure has to be determined and approved by the municipalities and DSB, as such CykelDK has no control over the time taken for this task.

Procedure-oriented activities have set sequences for the activities, but the outcomes are uncertain. For By-cyklen, the integration with existing supporting platforms such as Google Maps and Rejseplanen has a given procedure, but the outcome and success are beyond CykelDK’s control.

Problem-oriented activities were difficult to pinpoint for the Bycyklen project, but elements can be found in the manufacturing of the e-bikes and docking stations as these represent an emerging technology, hence requiring a degree of flexibility and innovation in the implementation by CykelDK.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

18

Resource-oriented activities can be pinpointed for Bycyklen, but aren’t strictly controlled by CykelDK. The manufacture of the bikes, for example, can be crashed by adding more resources, labor, and money. But the actual activities are carried out by the suppliers and manufacturers at GoBike and MIFA AG, which lim-its CykelDK’s influence on the task execution.

5.2.2. Network Plan From the WBS it is possible to start seeing how the different tasks depend on each other and thereby get an idea of the overall timing of the project and which areas that should have most attention. The ISO 21500 explains the use of a network plan as: “All activities within the project should be with dependencies to pro-vide a network diagram such that the critical path may be determined”.

FIGURE 13. NETWORK PLAN OF BYCYKLEN FROM CYKELDK’S POINT OF VIEW.

Most of the activities are sub-projects, which run concurrently. All the sub-projects can more or less run from the beginning, but some activities have dependencies with each other as seen in Figure 13. The “in-stallation of docking stations and bicycles” are done parallel (yet delayed 5 months) to the manufacturing, and will therefore be installed in clusters, as the work progresses.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

19

5.2.3. Review and Optimization The durations of the activities are rough estimations made by the group and the duration of these have been compared and interrelated through their dependencies. From the durations we can identify the Criti-cal Path of the project.

A: Generate PR E: Integrate with Infrastructure B: Manufacture bicycles F: Integrate with existing supporting platforms C: Manufacture docking stations G: Installation of docking stations and city bikes D: Create booking System

FIGURE 14. CRITICAL PATH DIAGRAM OF BYCYKLEN FROM CYKELDK’S POINT OF VIEW.

Figure 14 shows that the “Manufacturing of the Bicycles” is the Critical Path of the project and has no float. There is no buffer because the bicycles and docking stations are installed as the project progresses. It was assumed there would be enough bikes and docking stations to begin the integration of the projects by 5 months of manufacturing.

“Generate PR” is an activity with a concurrent process, which start and end with the lifecycle of the project. The PR activity is controlled by the other activities and do not control anything. Because of this the PR activ-ity cannot be critical and is left out of the critical path diagram.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

20

The critical chain is through the integration within infrastructure, through manufacturing the docking sta-tions and onto the installation of the docking stations and city bikes. If any delays occur, it is most likely it will happen in the Critical Chain. It would be ideal to have a buffer at the end of the project, at the end of the longest chain. In this project many of the activities run parallel, but they are still dependent on each other to finish in order to deliver on time.

5.2.4. Visualization of the plan The Gantt Chart supports the network plans and showcases the time schedule of the tasks and their de-pendencies, which is very useful in making a nice overview of the project.

FIGURE 15. GANTT CHART FOR BYCYKLEN FROM CYKELDK’S POINT OF VIEW.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

21

5.3. Appendix C – Uncertainty

5.3.1. Risks and opportunities To identify risks and opportunities a framework of uncertainty and risks has been developed in three stages; Identification, Assessment, and some preliminary Treatment. Below is a diagram of the identified uncertainties of the Bycyklen project;

FIGURE 16. IDENTIFIED UNCERTAINTIES OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT.

The four categories carry different meanings relating to CykelDK’s level of awareness of the uncertainty, and the knowledge of how to manage it.

Known-knowns are situations that CykelDK would be aware of, would anticipate and have a plan for how to manage them. Such as the cycling culture in Copenhagen, which they are taking advantage of by imple-menting the bike-sharing system at all.

Known-Unknowns are situations that CykelDK would be aware of, but have no set strategy for, or perhaps even possibility of, managing directly. One example being the popularity of the e-bikes. They are aware that this is a factor, but have no possible method of ensuring a favorable outcome. Unknown-knowns are situations or assumptions that may exist within CykelDK, or be inherent in other as-pects of the project. CykelDK would not necessarily be aware of them, but could account for and manage them if needed. This is shown in the example of cost, where budget estimates are typically conservative in the beginning of the project, and usually overspent. CykelDK would not know exactly by how much, but they would likely have recourses they could use to address any issues that occurred.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

22

Unknown-unknowns are situations that are difficult to plan for at best. These situations, CykelDK would not be aware of, and would have no strategy for managing. Often these are generated by external circum-stances, such as the political changes example, where CykelDK would have no warning, and have no possi-bility of strategizing around the possible changes this could assert into the project.

To further support the risk identification, a SWOT-analysis has been made and further threats, opportuni-

ties, strengths and weaknesses were identified and categorized:

FIGURE 17. SWOT ANALYSIS OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT.

The SWOT divides the uncertainties based on the location, whether internal or external, then the positive and negative categories. Strengths and Weaknesses are internal to CykelDK, such as the prior knowledge from the old Bycyklen project as a Strength. Whereas, the fact they’ve chosen e-bikes, thus limited their possible supply chains, presents a weakness in the project plan. The external factors, Opportunities and Threats are outside CykelDK’s influence but this does not make them inherently negative. The innovation of the e-bikes has been a central part of the Bycyklen project, but CykelDK did not invent, nor do they manufacture, these e-bikes. However, the new technology means that the suppliers are limited, as mentioned previously, and the project is vulnerable to loss of suppliers. In this project, the manufacturers have gone into receivership, and thus the Bycyklen project has been greatly de-layed, which threatens the project deliverables.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

23

5.3.2. Risk Assessment The risks identified as the most relevant in the project have been organized in a risk breakdown structure to arrange them into categories and get a visual impression of their individual sector contexts:

FIGURE 18. RISK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT.

The Business block concerns the risks relating to cash flow and stakeholders The Project Management deals with managing time and resources and overall conflicts, which will

affect the course of the project. Socio-political focuses on the human perception of the bike-sharing system and political changes

that impact the project. Infrastructure involves the competition from pre-existing transportation alternatives, potential hin-

drance caused by the new docking stations in the existing infrastructure (e.g. the traffic) and the sustainability of the bike sharing system in the future.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

24

5.3.3. Risk Treatment For assessing the priorities and possible treatment solutions, the risks have been analyzed in relation to their probability and impact level throughout the project. This is a reduced risk register with only two levels for each aspect and, following the ARTA model, possible responses are outlined for each quadrant:

FIGURE 19. ARTA MODEL OF THE BYCYKLEN PROJECT.

Low probability-low impact quadrant contains the risks that can be deemed ‘acceptable’. In that they will be monitored and managed with relative ease throughout the project. The life-cycle of the bikes, for exam-ple, can be managed by implementing a regular maintenance cycle.

High probability-Low impact quadrant refers to risks that will require attention and reduction. Delays are a main example in the Bycyklen project; they should be addressed as soon as possible but in the context of this project, they are not a serious threat to the overall success.

Low probability-high impact quadrant are risks that should be transferred to other stakeholders, who can better manage this risk. The loss of a supplier or manufacturer has jeopardized CykelDK’s ability to deliver the volume of bikes promised, and as such needs to be resolved by finding a new supplier. High probability-high impact risks are to be avoided as much as possible, or heavily mitigated. It was diffi-cult to find obvious examples of this, as the two shown in Figure 18 are inextricably linked to each other, and the other three quadrants. However, negative perception has had a devastating effect on the success of the Bycyklen project, as the bikes still carry connotations of tourism, which local commuters wish to avoid. Also, some safety concerns surrounding e-bikes can tarnish the public image of Bycyklen, and com-bined with the tourist stigma, is leading to less usage and, consequently, loss of profits.

42429 – Project Management Analysis of Bycyklen

25

5.4. Appendix D – Human behavior

5.4.1. Stakeholder Management We have identified these stakeholders, as shown in Figure 20 below, to be the most relevant for the pro-

ject:

FIGURE 20. IDENTIFICATION OF THE STAKEHOLDERS IN RELATION TO THEIR POSITION.

In the stakeholder engagement analysis we have chosen to have focus on the users. Commuters, Tourists and Locals were difficult to locate, since these are very important stakeholders, but their Influence so far has been very limited. According to various articles the bikes have not been used a lot yet, indicating that these stakeholders should have been more engaged. Though, it is worth mentioning that the representa-tives in the municipalities were elected by the local citizens and (should) act as the voice for them, and through this the local’s opinion can be represented. It must also be pointed out that the elected decision makers are likely Copenhageners, not commuters or tourists. In the gathered information about the pro-ject, there are no obvious signs of engagement with actual representatives of these groups even though they are the targeted customers for the bike-share system. The actual users need to be involved in the pro-cess to make a successful solution. More stakeholder engagement of this group would have made a better solution resulting in an increased use of the bikes from first delivery, thus covering the expenses sooner.

5.4.2. Communication Due to the unstable and late delivery of the bikes, the project managers have been facing criticism from the media forcing them to navigate and handle crises. We will analyze how Niklas Marschall from CykelDK, who had the role of project owner from 2011 to late 2014, and By- and Pendlercykelfonden, who have been leading the project since 2015, communicate the crisis of the project to the public through the media.

A lot of criticism has been addressed to the unused bikes already implemented in Copenhagen. Nikolaj

Bøgh, from By- and Pendlercykelfonden, has been dealing with these critical questions from journalists and

he agreed on the statement that the bikes are not used enough. Still, he is optimistic and blames the lack of

marketing, planned to be initiated later on in the project. He turns the situation of the low number of uses

to a positive thing, when addressing that people are actually using the bikes even though they have not

been promoted and rolled out fully yet.