A-Team

Katy RoelichRobert Hickey

Ehsan RadRami Sariola

Introduction to process

• Support to correlation• Estimate effects• Impact identification• Explanatory factors?• Causality framework• Lessons

Why?

What?

Support to correlation    Case 2.1 - Andasol Solar Power Plant Case 2.2 - Anholt Offshore Wind Farm

Case 2.3 - Flamanville 3 Nuclear Power Plant

Duration   2 years 6 years 5 yearsTotal delay   delayed 1,5 years on time Delayed 4 years

Percent delay   75 % n/a 80 %planning delayed   Yes No No

construction delayed   No No YesTime impact value   5+3 n/a 5+2

Aggregate Time   8 n/a 7planned budget   0,6 bn 1,32 bn 3,3 bnactual budget   no data 1,32 bn 6 bnOverbudget   No No overbudget

Percent over budget   0 % 0 % 82 %Cost Impact value   0+5 0+5 5+2

Aggregate   5 5 7Quality   1 2 4

There is the presence of one major stakeholder

Correlated with a delay in construction and

overbudget

The project has more than one major stakeholder

The project has more than one major stakeholder

The project has one major stakeholder

The project has national public acceptability (no protest at national

level)

Correlated to going overbudget

Government support is required for approval, which is dependent on the

views of voters. Objection because land and water taken

for project Andosol farmers reduced resistance when they

were compensated

Lots of jobs were forseen Climate partnerships were promoted with local stakeholders

Anholt got external validation of environmental impacts to evaluate ex-

ante

Local residents:They receive a lot of money and incentives to accept the

project. Public: inquiry complains all “department” that are overlapped by

the circle area centered on the nuclear sit and having radios equal to five

kilometres. Environmentalists :Disagree

CriteriaRating

5 4 3 2 1

Cost

The effect if the �COST

targets are not met Descriptive

No additional fundsavailable and

projectwill not proceed

No additional fundsavailable and scope

reduced

Request for additionalfunds would be lengthy

and embarrassing

Some scope for

additional funds

Additional funds

available

Percentage of Overbudget >%25 %20-%25 %15-%20 %10-%15 <%10

Time

The effect if the �TIME

targets are not met Descriptive

Cannot be accommodated

under any circumstances

Severe disruption toclients business

Delays undesirable butcould be managed

Alternativearrangement

savailable

Completion datenot

important

Percentage of Overschedule >%25 %20-%25 %15-%20 %10-%15 <%10

QualityThe effect if the

QUALITYtargets are not met

Client's business ceases

altogetherClient's business

severely disruptedClient's business

moderately aected�Tolerable

effect�on client'sbusiness

No noticeable

effecton client's business

Scoring range (2-4) (5-7) (7-10)

Criteria Impact Low Medium High

Criteria and Impact identification based on (Baccarini & Archer,2001) and (Merrow,2010)

Impact identification

SuccessRisksFactors

Stakeholders

National plan

Support

Political

Financial

Decissions

Time

Quality

Cost

Planning

SuccessRisksFactors

Stakeholders

National plan

Support

Political

Financial

Decissions

Time

Quality

Cost

Construction

SuccessRisksFactors

Stakeholders

National plan

Support

Political

Financial

Decissions

Time

Quality

Cost

Planning

Financial

SuccessRisksFactors

Stakeholders

National plan

Support

Political

Financial

Decissions

Time

Quality

Cost

Planning

Financial

Time

What can we do better

• Stakeholders– More than one major stakeholder is either brilliant

or disaster– One major stakeholder leads to overbudget

• Support– understand factors affecting support better– Get external validation of key impacts– Design benefits into project– Incorporate contribution

What can we do better (2)

• National plans– Strategies, regulations and incentives are

important– Anticipate/integrate into planning and financing

Thank you!