Upload
alaina-evans
View
218
Download
3
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Agenda
• Goal• Process• Analysis• Results• Focus on stakeholders• Weaknesses and improvements• Conclusions
Goal(s)
• Understand why megaprojects behave like they do– Better understand the impacts of statistical
relevant variable– Assess if their impact is positive or negative– Influence of internal and external stakeholders– Verify with the literature
• What can we do to make them perform better
Process - AS
Preparation
• Selection of low p-value variables• Included as output benefit for local community (Turner's Input)• Focus on Energy (8 projects, but well understood)
MethodologySet-up
• Refinement of some variables• Enhanced definition for FOAK vs. New Platform• Local Resident power- Inform; consult, advice, co-produce, decide• Judgments from Yes/No to 1 to 5
Methodology Analys
is
• Correlations (excel)• Graph Plot• Understanding from the literature
Focused Database
Flamanville 3
Olkiluoto3 Hinkley MochGreater Gabbard
AndasolAdriatic
LNG
Anholt Offshor
eKraftwerk
Project Phase Construction Construction Pre-ConstrConstructio
n Construction In OperationIn
OperationConstructio
nPlanned Completion date 2012 2009 N/A 2012 Q1 2011 2004/2006 2004 2013
Actual Completion date 2016 2014 N/A 2014 Q4 2012 2007/2009 2009Planned Budget 3.300 3000 N/A 1.800 2 1 1.32bn
Actial Budget 6.000 5300 N/A 2.775
EPC has provision of
losses for EUR400M ?
(fixed price but s/con suffered losses) ?
FL3 OL3 Hin Moch GG AND AD LNG AN OF KRAFTEstimated benefits in the medium term for the communità 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 2OVERBUDGT 1 1 1 1 0 0 0DELAY during the construction phase 1 1 1 1 0 0 0
Delay during the planning phase 0 0 1 1 1
Number of years - construction 10 10 12 3 4 4 2Project has a foreign governance 1 4 3 4 1 4 4 2There is a presence of one major stakeholder 5 4 4 3 5 2 3 3
2.2 Green Peace or other international environmental activists have been involved in the project 1 1 1 1 5 2 1 1Local Resident power- Inform; consoult, advice, co-produce, decide 4 5 4 1 4 2 1Client and Owner are different 1 1 1 1 5 4 3 5Project has a well developed FEED 4 2 4 4 4 4 4Tough physical or environmental conditions 1 2 1 1 1 1 3 4Financial Support from the European Union 1 1 1 1 1 5 2 1
EXTRA The project is nuclear 5 5 5 5 1 1 1 1FOAK 4 5 3 2 1 4 4 1Change of platform (paradaigm) 2 2 1 2 1 4 3 1
Absolutly no Rather no In between Rather yes Absolutly yes1 2 3 4 5
2.1 Stakeholde
RESPONSE (DEPENDANT) VARIABLE is PROJECT PERFORMANCE
Refined databaseBE
N_L
OC O
VER
DELA
Y_PL
AN
Year
_con
s
Fore
ign_
gov
One
_bih
Gre
enPe
ace_
in
Loc_
res_
pow
Cli_
Ow
n_di
f
good
_FEE
D
Toug
h_co
nds
Fina
ncia
l_EU
Nuk
e
FOAK
Chan
ge_p
lat
FL3 3 1 0 10 1 5 1 4 1 4 1 1 5 4 2
OL3 3 1 0 10 4 4 1 5 1 2 2 1 5 5 2
Hin 2 1 3 4 1 4 1 4 1 1 5 3 1
Moch 2 1 12 4 3 1 2 1 4 1 1 5 2 2
GG 2 1 3 1 5 5 1 5 4 1 1 1 1 1
AND 2 0 1 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 1 5 1 4 4
AD LNG 1 0 1 4 4 3 1 2 3 4 3 2 1 4 3
AN OF 2 0 2 2 3 1 1 5 4 1 1 1 10,57 -0,31 0,50 -0,10 0,59 -0,44 -0,55 -0,33 -0,26 0,63 0,29 -0,210,71 -0,30 0,75 0,24 0,22 -0,57 -0,32 -0,62 -0,60 0,75 0,00 -0,46-1,00 0,49 -0,72 0,41 -0,58 0,65 0,61 0,10 0,53 -0,67 -0,65 0,32
0,24 0,23 -0,44 0,53 -0,96 -0,35 -0,49 -0,33 0,97 0,40 0,02
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 51
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
Local community: involvment vs. benefits
Involvment of Local Community
Bene
fit fo
r Loc
al c
omm
unity
Focus on stakeholders
• Hinkley Internal• Different Owner, different Client• Good FEED- to what extend• Performance/Impact with time?• Implication with Decommissioning?• external• Local community support• Green peace –major influence
Stakeholder Impact
• FL3• Internal• Owner and Client the same (EDF)• FEED depends on them- many issues for redesign and
management• FOAK/ New Platform- many issues /standards and
regulations/New reactors• External• Some Distraction- what impact on time/quality/cost?• Green peace-major influence?
Focus on stakeholders
• Moch• Different Owner, different Client• Does the fact that nuclear an important
factor?• Green peace-major influence• Does the purpose of the megaproject include
inherent political risks to varying degrees?
Weaknesses of our approachand how to overcome them!
• Few data– No true statistical relationships Increase the sample size– We found patterns
• Assessment from 1 to 5 is subjective– Use Fuzzy logic approach trough discussion about each variable
• Not fully understanding of some relationships– Look more at the literature– Deep the case study
• Data analysis with excel– Get and use a decent statistical software (SPSS!)
• Better focus on Turner model (outputs, goals…)– We'll do next time!
Conclusions
• Cross case analysis takes time!
• Look at the variable behaviour to make Megaprojects perform better– Involve the community (giving power) to increase
their benefits