Uncertainty and stakeholder management – a study of two railway projects Hans Petter Krane,

1. Uncertainty and stakeholder management – a study of two railway projects Hans Petter Krane, PhD student, NTNU EURAM, Liverpool 14.05.2009

2. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Outline of the presentation • Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion

3. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion What did we look at? • How the Management of Stakeholders and Risks is Combined in two fairly ”media exposed” projects • How risks to the functionality delivered by the projects are handled • And how both internal and external stakeholders are handled

4. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion What did we believe? • Projects are not giving priority to functionality delivered • Focus mostly on external stakeholders • Focus mostly on threats • Large projects have most resources; will do it best

5. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion What did we find? • Large project focused on costs & time – small project on ”getting it right” • Both projects studied were mostly focussed on neighbours • Main focus for both projects: Threats • – And the implications of this ? ……

6. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion The setting • Look at projects with ”high profile” towards society • -That have much interaction with their environment • -And may easily be critisised • Important risks/uncertainties will be stakeholder-related

7. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Further issues in focus Approval of projects for further develpment For projects > 500MNOK (60 M€), public sector • Governmental QA-regime • Stakeholder and power relations • The relation: Line organisation   Project

8. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Research questions • In the paper formulated as: • Explore how risk management worked in the projects • Study influence from internal and external stakeholders • But here also deeper into: • How were risks to ”functionality delivered” handled? • How did power relations around the projects work?

9. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion The cases • Large project: • New double track line • Commuter area near capital • 450 Mill € • Primo 2001 – Aug. 2005 • Small project: • Station upgrade • Commuter area near capital • 3 Mill € • Autumn 2006 – summer 2007 • Qualitative research, Interview based • 24 persons (sum both projects)

10. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Some findings, with comments • Here we have just gone deeper into a few (– The rest you must read yourself!)

11. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Example 1:”The Curve” (in the small project) • Safety requirements => Major alterations to plans • Strong restrictions to establishment of new stations in curves • Several changes in approach / possible outcome as time passed • Expressing different perceived power among stakeholders

12. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Example 2: ”The Neighbourhood” (in both projects) • Handling of neighbours defined as crucial (possibly stopping project, giving bad esteem) • Hence: A well prepared strategy, projects organised to keep up good relations • Stable situation over long period

13. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Example 3: ”The Reductions” (in the large project) • “Reduction list” prepared if cost overruns • I.e. prepared for reductions in functionality/ benefits • When used: Internal disputes in railway authority regarding use and effects • Seemingly internally stronger tensions regarding • communication • stakeholder relations • power relations than externally

14. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Some comments • ”The Curve” • Strong safety authority (SJT) • Multi phase development of relations • ”The Neighbourhood” • Stable situation – taken care of - all OK! • ”The Reductions” • Unclear area • Tensions, unsettled

15. Risk area Functionality/ Benefits Cost, delivery Positive Opportunities Risk polarity X Negative Risk • Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Possible conclusions • Neighbours – well managed, stable relations • Safety authority (SJT) – unclear power relations • Line organisation  Project – unclear, strong interests • For risk management as a whole:

16. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Summing up: • This was a fairly loose collection of observations, but most important lessons are: • Found dynamic, new, unexpected relations – if not taken serious, may present major challenges to project success • Challenging interest differences found Line organisation  Project organisation – Problems if not recognised

17. Introduction • Background • Main results, discussion • Conclusions • Questions, discussion Questions, discussion

18. Thank you for your attention ! • hans.p.krane@ntnu.no (Tel. +47 975 15 809)