1

Time & Cost Overruns in the Edinburgh Tram Network (ETN) Project: Causes and Scientific modelling

Prince BoatengDr Z. ChenProf. S.O. Ogunlana

11th July 2014

MEGAPROJECT Whole Action Workshop, MC & Joint Working Group Meetings, - IFB, Liverpool

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 proposedSaltire

Square

Caroline

ParkGranton

Lower

Granton

Newhaven

Ocean

Terminal

Port of Leith

Bernard Street

Foot of the Walk

Balfour Street

McDonald Road

Picardy Place

York Place

St Andrew Square for Edinburgh Waverley

Princes

Street

Shandwick Place

West End-

Princes Street

Haymarket

Murrayfield

Stadium

Roseburn

Ravelston

Craigleith

Telford Road

Crewe Toll

West Pilton

B

R

Balgreen

Saughton

BankheadEdinburgh Park Station

Edinburgh

Park Central

Gyle Centre

Gogarburn

Ingliston

Park & Ride

Edinburgh Airport

Ingliston

West

Ratho

Station

Newbridge South

Newbridge North

R

R

R

Phase 1a (final route)

Phase 1a (never built)

Phase 1b (proposed)

Other future proposals

Phase 2

Phase 3

B

B

B

B

B

B

Railway Station

Bus Interchange

Airport

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

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)

Construction (cont’d)

May 2008 – Turnkey Infrastructure Construction contract (INFRACO) awarded to Bilfinger Berger & Siemens (BBS) Consortium

o Initial estimated costs £498 million

TEST VERSIONONLY

(Planned infrastructure construction programme)

YearQuarter number

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

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

2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 412 3 4

Legend: Utilities

Road and Tramworks

Overhead line equipmentSource: Audit Scotland

Project Time Performance

TEST VERSIONONLY

(Delivery against key milestones)

YearQuarter number

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2014

Business Case

Design and Traffic Regulation order

Utilities

Tram construction (Tramco)

Infrastructure construction (Infraco)

2 3 41 2 3 41 2 3 412 3 413 4 1

Legend: Plan

Actual

Project Time Performance (cont’d)

2 312 3 4

TEST VERSIONONLYProject Cost Performance

Spend to the end of December 2010

Budget as at May 2008Expenditure to end December 2010

£m

illi

on

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Infrastructure construction

Tramconstruction

Utilities diversion

Design Projectmanagement

Land and compensation

Contingency

Note: 2008 - Initial cost was £498 December 2009 – Cost revised to £545 mil December 2010 – Cost passed £545 mil Final Cost unknown

£67m

£81m

£85m

£27m

£33m

£49m

Causes of Time & Cost Overruns

Social risks

o Dispute

o Legal actions

o Multi-level decision

making bodies

o Stakeholders’

pressure

Internal

Demand side

Supply side

CEC, TS, TEL, Lothian Buses, TIE, MPs, Ministers

BBS, CAF, Trandev, T&T, Parson, Alfred McAlpine

Private

External

Public

Edinburgh residents, Scotland residents, UK residents, cycling groups, Business owners, media, other private transport operators

HSE, Lothian fire service, Edinburgh Council, National Government, Metropolitan police authority, media

Technical risks

o Utility diversion/ground condition problems

Causes of Time & Cost Overruns(cont’d)

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

Environmental risks

o 2009/2010 & 2010/2011 – Freezing temperature halted construction

Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)

Political risks

oLack of political support

oPolitical indecision

oContractual disputes2009- BBS demand additional £50-£80 mil before

beginning work on Princes Street.

Tie refused

2010- BBS announced 30 months delay to 2014

o2011- Tie released from managing project

o2011 - Cost revised from £545 to £776 mil

o2012- T&T appointed to manage project

Causes of Time & Cost Overruns (cont’d)

Changes and Disputes to date.816 notice of

Claims

677 continued

with139 withdrawn

426 Estimates

submitted

198 settled 228 not settled

20 settled thru’

FDRP

178 settled thru’

IDRP

7 resolved thru’

negotiation

2 resolved thru’

external mediation

11 resolved thru’

adjudication

251 – Still

hanging

£

3.7m

£

3.5m

£

4.0m

£

12.6

m

Cost of disputes to date

£ 23.8 m

Hierarchy of Identified Risk Areas in ETN Project

Level 1

Level 2

Level 3

STEEP Risks in Megaproject Construction

Social Technical Economic Environmental Political

Social grievances

Multi -level decision

making bodies

Disputes

Legal Actions

Stakeholder's pressure

Social Issues

Treats to person & asset

security

Ambiguity of project scope/

Scope change

Ground conditions on given

project sites

Unforeseen modification to

project

Inadequate project complexity

analysis

Inaccurate project cost

estimate

Failure to meet specified

standards

Technical difficulties in

utilities diversions

Engineering and design change

Supply chain breakdown

Project time overruns

Project cost overruns

Inadequate site investigation

Change in government

funding policy

Taxation changes

Wage inflation

Change in government

Local inflation change

Foreign exchange rate

Material price changes

Economic recession

Energy price changes

Catastrophic environmental

effects

Project technical difficulties

Project delays of all forms

Environmental issues from

works (Pollution)

Unfavourable climate

conditions (Snow, rain,

wind etc.)

Change in government funding

policy

Political opposition

Lack of political support

Government discontinuity

Political indecision

Project termination

Delay in obtaining consent/

Approval

Legislative/regulatory changes

Protectionism

Delay in obtaining temporary

Traffic Regulation Orders

(TROs)

Based on desktop search, ETNP source

documents and Interviews.

24/67

SDANP

Analytical Network Process (ANP) model for prioritising risk factors

System Dynamics (SD) for simulating risks overtime

25/67SDANP Framework

Model verification

· Expert opinion

Model development

· Develop formulae for flow diagrams

Initial model development

Model simulation

Model validation

Testing of model structure &

behaviour

Policy analysis, design and

improvement and implementation

Test not

passed

· Reference modes

· Model boundary chart

· Feedback structure

· Casual flow diagram

Model Testing

· Dimensional consistency

· Structure consistency

Test passed

Test not

passed

Test passed Software application

Develop and structure the ANP model

List of Top n

“priority risks”

wwR ij

n

jij max

1

11

n

iiw

Normalized criteria

Perform Risk Priority Index (RPI)

Calculation

RWRPI ijJ RCii*

)(

List of

potential risks

Database

Risks identification and categorization

Perform Mean Scores of importance

n

iQTCiE

nMV

1),,(

1

· Literature on STEEP

· Case studies

Data source

· Data from source

documents of past

similar projects

ANP route SD route

1......

1....1...

......

...1

1

1

21

112

RRRR

RRRR

n

nijji

ij

n

PRw

Conduct pairwise Comparison

Conduct prioritization survey based on

experts’ decisions

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

Project

objectives (Po)Cost Time Quality Rounded MVs

C: Cost 4.9 5

T: Time 4.8 5

Q: Quality 5.0 5

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

Project Objectives (Po)

STEEP Risks Impact on (Po)

Weighted Quantitative Score (WQS)(Respondent’s Mean Scores of Importance - RMSI)

Option: Potential Risks (PR)

Inner

dependencies

SV1,Sv2, Sv3, Sv4

Sv5, Sv6, Sv7

ENV1, ENV2

TV1,TV2,TV3,TV4,TV5,

TV6,TV7,TV8,TV9,

TV10,TV11,TV12,

PR1:Social risks

PV1,PV2,PV3,PV4,

PV5,PV6,PV7,PV8,

PV9,PV10,

EV1,EV2,EV3,EV4,EV5,

EV6,EV7,EV8,EV9,

EV10,EV11,EV12,

PR2:Technical risks

PR5:Political risks PR3:Economic risks

PR4:Environmental

risks

List of high risks

Goal: Risk Prioritization

Criterion: Potential Consequences on:

Cost Time Quality

Potential Risks Prioritization Goal

Time Cost

PR2:Technical RisksPR1: Social risks PR5: Political risksPR4: Environmental

risksPR3: Economic risksOptions

Criterion Quality

Technical Risks PrioritizationGoal

Time Cost

TV1Options

Criterion Quality

TV12TV11TV10TV9TV8TV7TV6TV5TV4TV3TV2

Environmental Risks PrioritizationGoal

Time Cost

ENV2ENV1Options

Criterion Quality

Modelling in ANP for Risk Prioritization

ANP Network Models for STEEP Risks Prioritization

Project objectiveMVR

Potential Risks (PR)

PR1 PR2 PR3 PR4 PR5 TPV Priorities R

Costλmax = 5.00CI = 0.00RI = 1.11CR = 0.00

4 PR1 1 1/2 1/2 1 1/2 0.13 0.13 4

5 PR2 2 1 1 2 1 0.25 0.25 2

5 PR3 2 1 1 2 1 0.25 0.25 1

4 PR4 1 1/2 1/2 1 1/2 0.13 0.13 5

5 PR5 2 1 1 2 1 0.25 0.25 3

1.01 1.01

Timeλmax = 5.00CI = 0.00RI = 1.11CR = 0.00

4 PR1 1 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.14 0.14 3

5 PR2 2 1 1 2 2 0.29 0.29 2

5 PR3 2 1 1 2 2 0.29 0.29 1

4 PR4 1 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.14 0.14 5

4 PR5 1 1/2 1/2 1 1 0.14 0.14 4

1.00 1.00

Qualityλmax = 5.08CI = 0.02RI = 1.11CR = 0.02

3 PR1 1 1/3 1/2 1/2 1 0.11 0.11 4

5 PR2 3 1 2 2 3 0.37 0.37 1

4 PR3 2 1/2 1 1 2 0.21 0.21 2

4 PR4 2 1/2 1 1 2 0.21 0.21 3

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

Comparison Matrices

Potential Risks (PR) Priorities for Potential Risks Final Priorities

Local risk priority index

(RPIL)

Global risks priority index

(RPIG)

Synthesized

results

Cost

(0.33)

Time

(0.33)

Quality

(0.33)

Cost Time Quality TRPI IRPI R

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

Results of Final Mode ANP Decision Making Priorities

TRPI - Total risk priority index IRPV - Ideal risk priority indexes

R - Ranking

Project complexity

Project scope

Ground conditions

problem at a given site

Technical

uncertainties

Cost of delay in

utilities diversions

Modification to project

design/specification

Rework

Cost of

reworkError generation

Time to divert

underground utilities

+

Cost estimation

problems

Political risks

Political debates on

the project

Government

discontinuity

Political

support

Political

indecision

Time to obtain

consent & approvals

Protectionism

Legal actions

Political opposition

to the project

<Legal

actions>

Social grievances

Social issuesPressure to modify

project scope

Threat to

personal&asset security

Need to relocate

Pedistran &

bicycle safety

Accessibility difficulties tofamilies, friends &community

resources

Choice of travel

mode

Linkage between

residence & job

Land & property

values

Social risks

++

+

+

++++

+

+

Environmental

risks

Unfavourable

climatic conditions

Environmental issues

from works

Environmental

uncertaintities

+

++

+

Economic

recession

Material price

Energy

price

Government

funding policy

Wage inflation

Local inflation

Foreign

exchange

Economic risks.

Taxation

Escalation to project

cost overrun

New legislations &

regulations

Disputes

Cost of legal &

dispute resolution

Project delays of

all forms

<Material

price>

Social

uncertainties

+

+

+

Economic

uncertainties

+

+

+

<Government

funding policy>

Political interferrrance

in the project

Political

uncertaintities

+

-

+

Technicalrisks

Risks of project

cost overrun.

Escalation to project time overrun

Work to do

+

Engineering & design

changes/problems +

+

Inadequate site

investigation

+

<Inadequate site

investigation>

+

<Technical

uncertainties>

+

+

+

+

Supply chain

breakdown.

+

Risks of project

time overrun

+

+ +

Mult level decisionmaking bodies

involvement

+

<Rework>

<Social

grievances>

<Threat topersonal&asset

security>

+

+

Regulatory everionmentbodies (local, national &

Europe wide)

+

+

+

Escalation to

grievances

-

+

+Social

certainties

-

-

Project quality

deficiency

Worksite coordination

problems

+

+

+

+

+

<Error

generation> <Disputes>

+

+

+

+

+

+

<Social

risks>+

Environmental

certainties

--

<Risks of project

time overrun>

<Risks of project

time overrun>

-

-

<Social

uncertainties>

<Environmental

uncertaintities>+

+

+++

+

Ambiguity of

project scope

+

+

Technical

certainties

-

-

<Risks of project

time overrun>

Unforseen modification

to project

+

+

+

Technical difficulties in

utility diversions

++

+

+

<Error

generation>+

+

<Time to divert

underground utilities>

++

Political

harmony

Social

acceptability

+

+

+

+

--

-

++

++

Politicalcertainties

--

+

--

-+

<New legislations &

regulations>

+

+

Cost of delays+

+

Economic

certainties

+-

-

+

+

<Technical

uncertainties>

+

<Economic

risks.>

+

<Politicalrisks>

+

Traffic regulation

orders (TROs)

+

+

Material

price hike

+

+

-

++

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

De-escalation to

grievances-

<Legal

actions>

+

<Risks of project

time overrun>

+

+

+

<Risks of project

cost overrun.>

+

+

+

+

<Project quality

deficiency>

+

+

<Technical

risks>

+

+

+

<Supply chain

breakdown.>+

+

+

<Government

discontinuity>

+

Catastrophic

environmental effects

Project technical

difficulties

++

<Government

funding policy>+

+

-

<Social

acceptability>

-

<Social

acceptability>

+

+

Project

termination

+

+

<Project

termination>

+

<Risks of project

time overrun>

-

<Political

support>+

<Political

risks> +

<Mult level decisionmaking bodiesinvolvement>

+

<Social issues>+

Environmental

regulation enforcement

+

+

+

-

Causal Loop Diagram for STEEP Risks in ETN Project

Design

SD models for STEEP risks in ETN project

Model structure

MegaDS

SOCIAL SUBSYSTEM

TECHNICAL SUBSYSTEM

ECONOMIC SUBSYSTEM

ENVIRON.SUBSYSTEM

POLICAL SUBSYSTEM

Environ. Factors

Effects of Project

Air emission

Habitat destruction

Waste generation

Pollution (air/ water)

Comfort disturbances

Health & safety

Effects on Project

Critical weather conditions (snow, rain, wind etc..)

Temperature

Landslide, etc.

Risk Code Risk TypeType I: Endogenous Risk Variables

PR4 Environmental risksENV3 Cost of legal actionENV4 DisputesENV5 Environmental regulation enforcementENV6 Environmental certaintiesENV7 Environmental uncertaintiesENV8 Error generationENV9 Escalation to project cost overrunENV10 Escalation to project time overrunENV11 Legal actionENV12 Multi decision making bodies involvementENV13 Project quality deficiencyENV14 Risks of project cost overrunENV15 Risks of project time overrunENV16 Social issuesENV17 Social grievancesENV18 Worksite coordination problems

Type II: Exogenous Risk VariablesENV1: Environmental issues from works ENV2 Unfavourable climate conditions

Model Boundary

Environmental

risks

Unfavourable

climatic conditions

Environmental issues

from works

Environmental

uncertainties

+

+ +

+ Project quality

deficiency

Risks of project

cost overrun

Risks of project

time overrunEscalation to project

time overrun

Escalation to project

cost overrun

+

+

+

+

Worksite coordination

problems+ Error

generation

+

+

+

+

+Environmental

certainties

-

-

R1

R2

R3

R4

R5

R6

-Temperature

-Hurricane;

-Heat waves;

-Thunder and Lightning;

-Earthquake;

-Drought;

-Heavy rainfall;

-Snowfall;

-Flood;

-Dust & Wind storms;

. .. A casual relationship

Legend:

+ (-) signs at the arrowheads indicate that the effect is

positively (negatively) related to the cause.

R denotes reinforcing loop

{Pollution (Air, water,

soil & noise)}

+

R7

-

R8

+

Social

issues

Social

grievances

Disputes Legal

actions

Environmental

regulation

enforcement

+

+

+

+

+

+

+

<Legal

actions>

Cost of legal

action

+

+

Multilevel decisionmaking bodies

involvement

+

-

`

<Environmental issues

from works>

+

R9

Information flow, e.g. how environmental uncertainties affect

project time

System Dynamics: Dynamic Hypothesis (CLD)

SD: Stock & Flow Model Diagram

Environmental

risks

Unfavourable

climatic conditions

Environmental issues

from worksEnvironmental

uncertainties

Environmental

certainties

Risks of project

time overrunEscalation to project

time overrun

Risks of project

cost overrunEscalation to project

cost overrun Project quality

deficiency

Error

generation

Worksite coordination

problems

<Error

generation>

<Risks of project

time overrun>

<Project quality

deficiency>

Environmental risks cluster

priority index from ANP

<Environmental

risks>

Legal action

Disputes

Multilevel decision

making bodies

involvement

Cost of legal

action

Social issues

Social grievances

<Environmental

uncertainties>

Environmental

regulation

enforcement

<Risks of project

cost overrun>

Legend

A causal relationship

Flow

Accumulation of

risks

Represents ANP

Priority Index

Valve of flow

Source or Sink..

. `;

0.20

0.79

Stock, cumulated by inflows and de-cumulated by

outflows

’Constants’ (Values based on ANP’s RPI)

Information links, expressing

dependencies

Auxiliary variables

Flow, here an inflow

a: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for environmental risks

Environmental risks

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

0

22 2 2 2

22

2

2

2

2

2

2

2

1

11

1 1 11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Time (Year)

Dm

nl

Environmental risks : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Environmental risks : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Max. PR4 impact

level @ year

2010 = 18.7%

Initial RPI for

PR4 = 16%

Min risk impact

level for PR4 =

0.07 (7%) Dynamic pattern @

ENV2 = 0% impact level

Max. PR4 @

0% ENV2

impact level

in year

2009.25 =

17%

Dynamic pattern (Actual)

b: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for risks of project time overrun

Risks of project time overrun

0.6

0.45

0.3

0.15

0 22

22

22

22

22

22

22

1

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Time (Year)

Dm

nl

Risks of project time overrun : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Risks of project time overrun : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Max. ENV15 @ 20%

ENV1 and 79%

impact level =

55.4%

Max. ENV15 @ 20%

ENV1 and 0% ENV2

impact level = 41% Actual dynamic

pattern for Risks

of project time

overrun

Behaviour pattern for ENV15

based on 20% of ENV1 and 0% of

ENV2 impact levels

Level of

ENV15 in

2008 = 0%

9.9% (min)

48% (max)

18.7% (max)

Project completion time - 10/2013

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

d: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for project quality deficiency

Risks of project cost overrun

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

02 2 2 2

22

22

2

22

2

2

2

2

1 11

11

11

11

1

1

1

1

1

1

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Time (Year)D

mn

l

Risks of project cost overrun : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Risks of project cost overrun : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Project quality deficiency

0.2

0.15

0.1

0.05

02 2 2 2 2 2 2

22

22

22

2

1 1 1 1 1 11

11

11

1

1

1

1

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Time (Year)

Dm

nl

Project quality deficiency : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Project quality deficiency : Baserun@ 0% ENV2 impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Behaviour pattern for 0% impact level

Actual dynamic behaviour pattern

Level of

ENV14 in

2008 = 0%

Max. ENV14 @ 20%

ENV1 and 79%

impact level = 35%

Max. ENV14 @ 20%

ENV1 and 79%

impact level = 28%

Max. ENV13 @

20% ENV1 and

79% impact level

= 11.37%

Max. ENV13 @

20% ENV1 and 0%

ENV2 impact level

= 8.28%

Actual dynamic

pattern for Risks

of project time

overrun

Behaviour pattern for ENV13

based on 20% of ENV1 and 0%

of ENV2 impact levels

Level of

ENV13 in

2008 = 0%

23% (max)

7.29% (max)

b: Baserun and actual scenario simulation patterns for economic risks

Economic risks

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

2

22

2 22

2

2

2

2

2

2

22

2

11

11

1 11

1

1

1

1

1

1

11

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Time (Year)

Dm

nl

Economic risks : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1Economic risks : Base run@ 0% (Exogenous) risk impact level 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

2010.13

Max. PR3 impact level @

year 2010.13 = 33.03%

Initial RPI for

PR3 =25%

impact level.

Dynamic

pattern

(Actual)

Min risk impact

level for PR3 =

1.72%

Dynamic

pattern (0%

impact level)

DSBP = Dynamic simulation behaviour pattern

b: Dynamic simulation scenario graphs for social risks

Social risks

0.6

0.3

0

-0.3

-0.6

5 5 5 5 5 5 5 54

4 4

44

4

44

3

33

3

33

3

3

3

22

2

2

2

2

2

2

21

1

1

11

1

1 1

1

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Time (Year)

Dm

nl

Social risks : Current (Actual) 1 1 1 1 1 1Social risks : Current scenario 3 2 2 2 2 2 2Social risks : Current scenario 2 3 3 3 3 3 3Social risks : Current scenario 1 4 4 4 4 4 4 4Social risks : Current (Risk free scenario) 5 5 5 5 5 5

DSBP @ 25% of SV7

DSBP @ 100% of SV7 DSBP @ 0% of SV7

DSBP @ 75% of SV7 DSBP @ 50% of SV7

Behaviour Mode (Actual)

50% 75% 95% 100%

"Political risks."

1

0.75

0.5

0.25

02008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015

Time (Year)

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.

Original Project Information (OPI)

Cost (£ Million) Planned Project Budget (PPB) 545

Revised Project Budget (RPB) 776

Project Cost Variation (PCV) 231

Year of Completion 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

Total Impact 49.59 71.61 15.33 136.53 270.266 2.148(approx. 26 m)Source: Field Work 2013

Accuracy level = 83%

SDANP model Statisticalresearch *

Average costescalation (%)

49.59 44.70

Accuracy (%) 85.47 N/A

43/67

clear site

rough grade

drill well

water tank foundation

excavate for sewer

excavate for electrical manholes

install well pump

erect water tank

install sewer and backfill

install manhole

Work schedule Production-dep. Risks

Time-dep. Risks

High Risk Period

44/67

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

45/67

SBE Heriot-Watt University

EU COST Action TU1003 MEGAPROJECTS

Edinburgh Trams

Thank You