Welcome to the Project 13 Network

ECITB Project Collaboration Toolkit and Project 13

A number of Project 13 adopters have benefited from application of the ECITB (Engineering Construction Industry Training Board) Project Collaboration Toolkit.  First developed to support project teams working in the oil and gas sector, the Toolkit incorporates learning from across a range of oil and gas projects to provide a ‘go to’ guide based on the principles of collaboration. In seeking to drive the changes in culture and behaviour that underpin successful projects the toolkit shares common ground with Project 13 – and it is apparent why the adopters will have recognised this alignment in using the Project Collaboration Toolkit to support their change programme. This relationship is now being further developed, with the ECITB’s Collaboration Toolkit being made available through Project 13 to help bring both improved productivity and cost savings on major infrastructure projects. Background The Project Collaboration Toolkit is a practical ‘go-to’ guide, created by the Engineering Construction Industry Training Board (ECITB) and aimed at supporting and benefitting projects through improved collaboration and smarter ways of working.  Originally designed for the offshore oil and gas sector, the toolkit is freely available for projects across other engineering construction sectors, helping to guide clients and contractors on how to work together more efficiently whilst sharing industry best practice on joint working. Use of the ECITB Project Collaboration Toolkit across major offshore projects – such as Shell’s Brent Bravo topsides decommissioning project which achieved cost savings of 40% – shows that collaboration between investors, developers and the supply chain network can achieve significant efficiencies, greater productivity and faster project completion. Now in its second edition, and closely aligned with the ISO 44001 standard on collaborative business relationships, the toolkit has been updated to fit all industry sectors engaged in capital projects. Presented as a workflow aligned to a typical project lifecycle, the toolkit is designed to be used at all levels of the supply chain, from regulators and operators through to contractors and suppliers, with the intention of building on existing synergies to help them become even stronger over time. The whole toolkit can be used to support project collaboration from inception to completion, or individual phase steps and activities can be applied by project managers to projects which have not been established on a collaborative strategy. Next Steps for Project 13 and the Project Collaboration Toolkit. Both Project 13 and the ECITB Collaboration Toolkit have sought to consolidate industry learning and to share this learning across the wider sector. In both cases this open sharing of best practice has served to accelerate broader industry progress. It is no surprise that the two initiatives are now looking to develop a closer relationship, sharing progress from two sectors that are underpinned by significant investment programmes. As a first step the Toolkit is now available through the Project 13 network. The start of what will be a mutually beneficial relationship.    Find out more and download the free toolkit HERE

0 replies · Posted by Melissa Zanocco, July 8

• integration
• organisation

How to identify and recruit infrastructure leaders

What competencies, skills and experiences are required by leaders in a Capable Owner organisation? How does an Owner find these individuals and what barriers might it face to securing them?   Project 13’s Capable Owner working group has published considered advice on the composition and recruitment of leadership teams. The Identifying & recruiting infrastructure leaders report reflects the research and discussions that took place during the Capable Owner working group on the skills and experience required by the leaders of Owner organisations. It suggests factors to consider when recruiting such individuals, and practical steps that an infrastructure organisation should take to maximise its chances of recruiting the best leadership possible?  About the report Between July and October 2017, the Capable Owner working group of Project 13 considered the necessary qualities, capabilities, and behaviours of infrastructure Owners. It summarised its findings in a Capability Maturity Model.  This model provides an effective tool by which an Owner can evaluate its current approach and measure its progress towards Capable Owner status.  <br>  <br> In parallel, the Capable Owner working group explored the competencies of leaders within Owner organisations as ultimately it is they who will set the goals, priorities and culture to ensure the Owner organisation achieves its specified outcomes.  <br>  <br> Regardless of whether they are employed directly by the Owner or come from a consultancy, integrator or supply chain partner, the quality of leaders is vital. Selecting them and ensuring that they operate effectively is one of the most important decisions the Owner organisation will make.   <br>  <br> So, what competencies, skills and experiences are required by leaders in a Capable Owner organisation? How does an Owner find these individuals and what barriers might it face to securing them?   To answer these questions, the Project 13 Capable Owner working group with the support and facilitation of Professor Graham Winch and his team from Alliance Manchester Business School, examined the skills required by leaders in a Capable Owner organisation in the infrastructure sector. The report and its conclusions can be downloaded via the resources section of the Project 13 Network website Please note that you must be signed in, or register as a member of the Project 13 network to access this report.  It is free to become a member, and you simply need to complete the simple registration details here

1 reply · Posted by Adam Kirkup, June 21

• capable owner

The digital transformation of the industry gathers pace

Melissa Zanocco, ICG Head of Programmes, summarises the highlights from the latest Digital Maturity Benchmarking Report, illustrating that UK asset owners and operators accelerated their digital transformation in reaction to COVID-19. The findings of the Infrastructure Client Group (ICG) Digital Benchmarking Report 2020, which provides a snapshot of digital maturity from members of the ICG’s Digital Transformation Task Group (DTTG), show that digital maturity increased by around 20% relative to last year driven particularly by improvements in digital transformation and asset management. The report, produced by Mott MacDonald for the ICG using data from the Smart Infrastructure Index, surveyed leading asset owners and operators from the transport, energy, defence and water sectors representing more than 40% of the national infrastructure and construction pipeline, including Project 13 Adopters. It showed that those with a clear digital strategy, who had already embraced the need for transformation, were much better positioned to ride out the storm and capitalise on the new digital-first normal. Benefiting from three times as many responses as last year and involvement from the new Buildings Client Group, the report represents the most comprehensive benchmark yet of digital maturity across UK infrastructure and the built environment. Highlights from the report include: +10pts improvement in digital strategy and plans. Twice as many organisations had an empowered network of digital change agents. +17pts increase in standardisation and automation. Only 36% were confident most decisions were informed by evidence, not instinct. 77% say poorly organised information prevents them from realising its full value. There have been dramatic improvements in some of the areas tested hardest by the COVID-19 pandemic - resilience, how well risks to service were handled, and security – as organisations were forced to adopt remote and online working at speed. The members shared how this has strengthened the business imperative for digital transformation, with initiatives that previously might have waited months for approval being rolled out almost overnight. In this way COVID-19 has served as a digital accelerator, forcing to the front what many held as a long-term priority. Mark Enzer, Chair ICG Digital Transformation Task Group and Chief Technical Officer, Mott MacDonald said: “   Digital Benchmarking Report 2020 Read the report here to learn more about its findings related to the six cross-cutting themes: organisational alignment; adopting effective operating models; unlocking investments; the human challenge; digital twins; and short-term pressure: the impact of COVID-19 on digital transformation. Melissa Zanocco is Head of Programmes for the Infrastructure Client Group

0 replies · Posted by Adam Kirkup, May 14

Empire State Building – 90 years old, designed and built in 20 months and still ahead of most of us on integration and efficiency 90 years on

When it opened in May 1931, the Empire State Building (ESB) in New York was the tallest building in the world.  It had also been delivered in record time.  “Within just twenty months – from the first signed contracts with the architect in September 1929 to opening-day ceremonies on May 1st 1931 – the Empire State Building was designed, engineered, erected and ready for tenants.”1  This challenging schedule included the demolition of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel on whose site the ESB was built. It is tempting to argue that the construction of the ESB reflected conditions in the US in the early 1930s and cannot be used to benchmark the construction of tall buildings today.  It was built at the beginning of the Great Depression, so there were no shortages of labour or materials.  It was also built at a time when there was less concern with the health and safety of the workforce.  Seven people were killed during the construction of the ESB – one of them was a young woman in the street below who was injured by a piece of wood that fell from the building and who subsequently died from sepsis.  But by making these arguments, we ignore the fact that the design, engineering and construction of the ESB was delivered by an integrated team of experienced architects, contractors and suppliers using the most advanced production methods available at the time. Fortunately, we have accounts of the construction of the ESB that we can use to explore how this remarkable building was delivered.  In 1928 William Starrett published Skyscrapers and The Men Who Build Them which is a personal and detailed account of the design and construction of tall buildings.  Starrett was a partner in Starrett Brothers and Eken – the contractor that delivered the ESB.  After the building was opened, staff in the contractor’s office wrote up detailed notes of the planning and construction of the building and these have been published by The Skyscraper Museum.  Since then there have been several academic studies of the project including a recent paper from Indiana University. Taken together, these sources paint a picture of an approach to promoting, designing, engineering and constructing the building that is different to the approaches we use today.  The promoters were a small group of wealthy men who had intimate knowledge of the economics of tall building and were clear about the outcomes they required.  They appointed the architect and the contractor at about the same time and based on capability and experience rather than on price.  And they engaged the key suppliers like the Otis Elevator Company at the outset in completing the design of the ESB and planning its construction.  In many ways they were following the principles we advocate today through Project 13. Integrated processes and information Starrett Brothers and Eken were experts in the construction of tall buildings.  It is clear from William Starrett’s book that they understood how every component in a tall building was made and how much labour, materials and plant were consumed in making it.  The processes they used to plan and manage the construction of the ESB was based on this deep knowledge and reflected their culture and attitudes.  They were respected as experts in their field and, although they sub-contracted large elements of the project, they took responsibility for its engineering and construction.  In the accounts of the project, there is no mention of transferring risks to sub-contractors.  Starrett Brothers and Eken took most of the risks and expected to keep most of the rewards. The estimates were developed from first principles using the contractor’s knowledge of the costs of materials, plant and labour.  From their experiences of building similar skyscrapers, the contractor knew how much labour was needed to construct a cubic foot of concrete floor or a square foot of limestone cladding and this Labour Unit Cost was a key metric in monitoring construction and assessing whether the project was within budget. During construction, the contractor employed a team of inspectors that visited every part of the project several times a day and recorded the amount of work that had been done.  This information was summarised in the Daily Construction Report and was used to calculate the actual labour unit cost for each element of work.  If this number was above that used in the initial costs estimate, the contractor was losing money and if it was less, they were making money.  And because the information was available within hours of the work being completed, the contractor was able to take action before any problems became too large. This approach to monitoring the construction also ensured that in respect of the current status of the project, there was one version of the truth that was available almost in real time.  The inspectors measured the work that had been done that day, the staff in the project team consolidated it into a summary report and it was presented to the Superintendent and to Paul Starrett within hours of the work being completed.  The whole team seemed to have been aligned towards achieving the targets rather than challenging the data. To read more from Simon on the Empire State Building click here

2 replies · Posted by Simon Murray, May 6

• integration

Project 13 reveals the seven elements that drive integration

Analysis of seven major programmes by Project 13 has revealed a golden thread of seven key features that drive integration which it says is at the heart of improved decision making and better outcomes. This analysis features in the new Project 13 Integration paper discussing integrating processes and information within project teams. Click here to read the full Project 13 Integration Report The Project 13 Integration Board analysed how schemes, from construction of Stratford East Village to development of Highways England’s Business Information Framework successfully used integration to deliver better results. This revealed the elements that were common and that allowed the projects to successfully integrate their processes and information.  These the board have categorised as enabling features or core technical features. Under enabling features, all of the programmes had: Capable owners that had clear business objectives that set out to adopt integrated approaches to delivery Governance and metrics were used to monitor the delivery of the programmes and satisfy owners that the business objectives were being achieved. Organisation and culture was established at the outset to support integrated working. Under governance and metrics for example, GSK’s Factory in a Box used full scale trials of the erection of a factory to demonstrate that the approach would work in a developing country using local labour. The core technical features are: Product development  - the case studies suggesting that the first step in implementing integrated processes is to define a project as a set of products. Process development  - successful integration meant teams developed their production processes in parallel with the detailed engineering of the projects. The emerging production process were usually led by the owner and its contractors which influenced the engineering, details of components and arrangement for transporting them and fixing them in place. Supply and logistics – where the case studies demonstrated that not only streamlined delivery of materials was critical but also the workforce. Information architecture – a common thread was the ability to access shared information that could be instantly consolidated to create real time data on progress. Under core technical features the Project 13 Development Board highlights as an example construction of HMS Queen Elizabeth. The warship was conceived as nine functional modules built in six different shipyards and then towed to Rosyth Dockyard for assembly. Programmes studied were: Empire State Building –opened in 1931 and still groundbreaking<br>Stratford East Village – two 23 storey residential towers build using production techniques developed by Mace<br>Factory in a Box – GSK’s development of pharmaceutical manufacturing plants using standard components<br>HMS Queen Elizabeth – production techniques to improve productivity in construction of a very large warship<br>Highways England Business Information Framework – development of standards and processing for integrating information across all its major programmes<br>Strategic Pipelines Alliance – Anglian Water’s strategy for delivering £650M investment in improving resilience of water supply<br>Construction to production – developed by Drees & Sommer of processes and systems for productionising design and construction. Click here to read the full Project 13 Integration Report

0 replies · Posted by Adam Kirkup, April 28

• integration

Vision for the Built Environment aligned with core Project 13 Principles

Dale Evans, Chair Project 13 and member of the Vision Steering Group, explains how the Project 13 Principles align with the Vision and how Project 13 will play its part in making it a reality. ‘Our Vision for the built environment’ released today (22 April 2021), reinforces the direction advocated by Project 13.  With contributions from over 75 industry leaders and endorsed by more than 35 industry bodies spanning the built environment, the vision describes the future we want: a built environment whose explicit purpose is to deliver better outcomes for people and nature. It recognises the significant opportunity we are presented with, in now having the tools, technology and delivery models to make this future vision a reality. Outcome-focused collaborative delivery models The Vision calls for ‘approaches to the delivery of interventions that are able to deal with complexity, and enable effective integration of new assets into the existing systems. Outcome-focused collaborative delivery models leverage input from across the supplier ecosystem, bringing together engineering and technology to deliver intelligent solutions.’ The built environment has traditionally been seen as a series of unconnected construction projects focused on short-term outputs.  Suppliers construct individual assets, delivering solutions predetermined by the owner.  The resulting delivery processes and relationships are formed narrowly around the scope of this new asset.  By the time delivery teams are brought together, there is little recognition of the outcomes required of the solution. The Project 13 Principles require that the end-to-end process of development is focused on improving outcomes; so maintaining the focus on the purpose of the intervention, aligning teams around a common purpose and creating greater opportunity for creativity and innovation. This marks a significant shift from the traditional approach that focuses on projects and building stuff - and where success is defined in terms of project metrics and cost. The Project 13 Enterprise delivery model allows owners and operators to: Focus on the better outcomes we are trying to achieve for people and nature; Recognise that an understanding of the existing system increases the opportunity to achieve these outcomes through better and more efficient use of the system; Ensures that where the required intervention does include new assets, they are integrated effectively with the existing system. The Vision is aligned with Project 13 in calling for the alignment of outcomes; from global and national strategic priorities, through to investment decisions for individual interventions. The Project 13 Principles advocate owners developing processes that provide a clear understanding of local requirements; the voice of the customer, the communities and the environment. The dialogue that takes place to agree the desired outcomes is crucial in creating alignment and clearly articulating the outcomes required. Making the Vision a Reality The Vision calls for everyone involved in development of the built environment to contribute to this new approach. As the Project 13 Community, we aim to do just that. In 2020 the number of Project 13 Adopters doubled, and the Project 13 Network, launched in March 2021, already has over 750 registered members, demonstrating the commitment to leading the change required and to helping the industry make this shift. Project 13 is also contributing to the Infrastructure and Projects Authority on the Transforming Infrastructure Performance: Roadmap to 2030 to be published later this year, which will help to translate the Vision into policy.

0 replies · Posted by Melissa Zanocco, April 22

• capable owner
• governance
• integration
• organisation
• digital transformation