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

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

3. 3 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 Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

4. 4 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 Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

5. 5 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 ? …… Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

6. 6 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 Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

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

8. 8 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? Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

9. 9 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) Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

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

11. 11 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 Example 1: ”The Curve” (in the small project) Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

12. 12 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 Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

13. 13 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 Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

14. 14 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 Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

15. 15 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: X Cost, delivery Functionality/ Benefits Positive Opportunities Negative Risk Risk polarity Risk area Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

16. 16 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 Introduction Background Main results, discussion Conclusions Questions, discussion

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

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