Getting Giants to Dance (Stephen Pollard at DesignOps Summit 2017)
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•10,677 views
Stephen Pollard: "Getting Giants to Dance" DesignOps Summit 2017 • November 6-7, 2017 • Queens, NY, USA http://designopssummit.com
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Getting Giants to Dance (Stephen Pollard at DesignOps Summit 2017)
Similar to Getting Giants to Dance (Stephen Pollard at DesignOps Summit 2017) (20)
More from Rosenfeld Media
More from Rosenfeld Media (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Getting Giants to Dance (Stephen Pollard at DesignOps Summit 2017)
- 1. Stephen Pollard | Director, Advisory Services | Arup Getting Giants to Dance What can we learn from designing large and complex public infrastructure?
- 2. Stephen Pollard | Director, Advisory Services | Arup Getting Giants to Dance What can we learn from designing large and complex public infrastructure?
- 3. Airports are large complex beasts
- 5. Start with the Why? Simon Sinek Designing better business…
- 7. Purpose & Values Share Price ROI Employment Air Quality Economic Growth Sustainability ASQ Asset value Resilience Emotional Satisfaction Brand Landing Charges Slot Allocations Sales Income Rental Charges
- 8. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201103.pdf Regulated business model CapEx OpEx Depreciation+ + - Non-Aero Revenues = Total Charges Revenue x Passenger Numbers Landing Charge= Total Charges Revenue
- 9. Strategic Design Model Deliver DevelopDefine Resilience Performance Satisfaction Financials Recovery Time Runway Utilisation Misconnects ASQ £M • System • O&M • Capacity • People • Systems • Queuing • Crowding • Retail • CAPEX • OPEX • Income Airport Vision People Systems and Assets Organisation Technological Change AssetManagement RealTimeAirport OCD URD FDS DDS BR UAT SAT FAT OCD – Operational Concept Description URD – User Requirements Document FDS – Functional Design Specification DDS – Detailed Design Specification Resilience Recovery Time Airport VisionStrategicDemands, RequirementsandConstraints FAT– Factory Acceptance Test SAT – Site Acceptance Test UAT – User Acceptance Test BR – Benefits Realisation
- 10. Strategic Design Model Deliver DevelopDefine Resilience Performance Satisfaction Financials Recovery Time Runway Utilisation Misconnects ASQ £M • System • O&M • Capacity • People • Systems • Queuing • Crowding • Retail • CAPEX • OPEX • Income Airport Vision People Systems and Assets Organisation Technological Change AssetManagement RealTimeAirport OCD URD FDS DDS BR UAT SAT FAT OCD – Operational Concept Description URD – User Requirements Document FDS – Functional Design Specification DDS – Detailed Design Specification Resilience Recovery Time Airport VisionStrategicDemands, RequirementsandConstraints FAT– Factory Acceptance Test SAT – Site Acceptance Test UAT – User Acceptance Test BR – Benefits Realisation
- 11. Strategic Design Model Deliver DevelopDefine Resilience Performance Satisfaction Financials Recovery Time Runway Utilisation Misconnects ASQ £M • System • O&M • Capacity • People • Systems • Queuing • Crowding • Retail • CAPEX • OPEX • Income Airport Vision People Systems and Assets Organisation Technological Change AssetManagement RealTimeAirport OCD URD FDS DDS BR UAT SAT FAT OCD – Operational Concept Description URD – User Requirements Document FDS – Functional Design Specification DDS – Detailed Design Specification Resilience Recovery Time Airport VisionStrategicDemands, RequirementsandConstraints FAT– Factory Acceptance Test SAT – Site Acceptance Test UAT – User Acceptance Test BR – Benefits Realisation
- 12. Strategic Design Model Deliver DevelopDefine Resilience Performance Satisfaction Financials Recovery Time Runway Utilisation Misconnects ASQ £M • System • O&M • Capacity • People • Systems • Queuing • Crowding • Retail • CAPEX • OPEX • Income Airport Vision People Systems and Assets Organisation Technological Change AssetManagement RealTimeAirport OCD URD FDS DDS BR UAT SAT FAT OCD – Operational Concept Description URD – User Requirements Document FDS – Functional Design Specification DDS – Detailed Design Specification Resilience Recovery Time Airport VisionStrategicDemands, RequirementsandConstraints FAT– Factory Acceptance Test SAT – Site Acceptance Test UAT – User Acceptance Test BR – Benefits Realisation Design Team Client & Advisors Delivery Partners Design Ops
- 13. The evolutionary tale… Terminal 5 2002 – 2008 Terminal 2 2009 - 2014 Q6 2013 - 2018 Runway 3 & … 2017 - A Flagship Building A Complex Operation Driving for business value A Political Vision and Future for the UK
- 14. Terminal 5
- 15. Terminal 5 Culture of Design Thinking Open Partnership Budget issues and Massive Operational Failure
- 16. Terminal 2
- 17. Terminal 2 Back to Basics (but keep the good bits) Operations as Partners Learning Organisation Intelligent Client
- 18. Q6 – Five year programme of improvements
- 19. Q6 Business drivers to get value from assets Programme Designers and Delivery Integrators New business case process, ‘Getting our Mojo back’
- 20. Third Runway and Beyond
- 21. Third Runway and Beyond Business & Design Integrators Collaboration Behaviours Evolution not revolution New Digital Future
- 22. Summary T5 T2 Q6 R3 & … Delivering… A Flagship Building A Complex Operation Value for Airlines National economic Vision & Investment Organisation Model & Tools Open Partnership Programme Mgt Intelligent Client Operations Partners Delivery Integrators Business Case Gateways Business & Design Integrators New Data Science Values Culture of Design Thinking Learning Organisation Getting our Mojo Back Evolution not Revolution Cost £4.2bn £2.3bn £3.2bn £18.6bn +? Success … … …
- 23. Stephen Pollard | Director, Advisory Services | Arup Thank you stephen.pollard@arup.com
Editor's Notes
- Thank you to organisers and credit to previous speakers = “getting giants to dance” – not those Giants!
- Its these giants – this is London heathrow we’re looking at - spectacular pieces of infrastructure that cost billions to design and deliver and yet have a myriad of demands to meet (hence the idea of dancing giants) It is a great honour to be here today as one of team of 100s of designers involved in projects such as these (as Kristin said about our firm – we pride ourselves on world class design that helps shape a better world) My own interest and career starting as a technologist began around the design of systems, processes, and latterly my focus is on how to design services, customer experience, and ultimately how to better design business My hope today - by talking about something really quite different to what has gone before – is to explore what parallels and differences there may be. This is a story in two parts – first will look at the kind of design and design ops challenges exist around airports The second I will look at evolution of what we’re now calling design ops capability in heathrow over a 20 year period – what some of the successes and failures were and what the future looks like it is really a showcase of the progression we heard about yesterday – which is that in order to get the best value from great design - designers need to shape the strategy and get the right organisation in place So lets start with taking at look at the kind of designand design ops challenges we face in an airport
- In looking at designing an airport we’ve got challenge number one they are large and complex beasts Scale $40bn Size of about 2,5000 (American) football fields Logistics Complexity 100 million passenger movements per annum 30 miles of baggage systems Place of work for 78,000 people Technical complexity There are 100s of primary systems in an airport each of which needs a technical specialist under the overall umbrella of the designers Structure, water, air, PH, electricity, gas, facade, IT, fire, environment, baggage, access control, ground transport, lighting, food, Each with their own integral architecture, interfaces with each other all of which combine to play a role in the overall success of the airport All of that technical complexity needs to combine to deliver cross cutting themes or outcomes of the airport such as security, operational efficiency, and the passenger experience. Security today is something that is really testing the role of designers Security Operational efficiency (total crunch point in passenger experience) Security – malevolent and continually ingenious threat the design of the physical environment – screening systems continually being stretched by new specific threats calling for new technology, different machinery, different staffing models, all to ensure that people can still get quickly into the lounge, or shops relatively unstressed Now a new threat is stretching involvement of other systems – psychologists to design new ways of engaging with the public, training staff attempting to achieve a culture shift in prevention, and stretching scope of design to outside the building, back into the transport system, airline ticketing systems Each time this happens the design team need to let go of the design patterns that have worked before to head back into the problem space to understand what the new challenge may be, as well as incorporate a different discipline (psychologist, risk analyst) in the design process
- Now the design challenge led by technology revolution – fundamentally affecting and driving the passenger experience, completely changing the infrastructure that may be designed, as well as transforming the tools and methods we have to design Lets look at the examples of the changing passenger journey – cos some of these are pretty appealing Touchless security zone Hyperloop rapid urban transit Bit closer to home personal bag drop – permanent tag of your own on your baggage – no label Pre booked overhead space for your bags This kind of innovation takes alignment of a lot of planets to achieve in one hit costs and operational effectiveness have to be proven before large scale adoption as you really impact large amounts of steel and concrete Techniques are to architect layers appropriately i.e. the building and supporting systems to enable iterations of development as the new capabilities become proven Bigger areas of revolution is in big data – the instrumentation of the whole process, combined with new tools for design
- Were going to take a change of tack now – by moving on from some of the what gets designed to look at the why – which really is the same as the quote Kristin gave us yesterday – designers need to show up like business people first Pretty sure people are familiar with Simon Sinek’s ted talk – premise being that People don’t buy what you do but why you do it Focus on the why not the what- I bring this up because in the design world of complex airport infrastructure we are beginning to be able to push through the challenge of design a lot of complex things to focus on delivering outcomes that match the why - the purpose or the underlying values To get under the skin of this its worth taking a look at the different stakeholders behind the design and development of an airport
- So when we recently helped Heathrow launch terminal 2 we drew up the stakeholder map – it had over 380 different stakeholder organizations on it. For simplicity we can see 7 main groups as designers we’ve needed to learn about the outcomes they seek and what drives or enables those outcomes Across the top we have Owner, occupier, and main tenant paying customer Across the bottom we have local community, government, and retailers all of whom have a controlling say
- Overlaid now are the measures of success, outcomes that each may be looking for profit, share price of the owner / investor Operator will need to prove that under their hands the asset has increased in value, delivers high quality pax experience and is resilient Airlines wanting efficiency, platform for their brand, and access to their market through slot allocations Local community will want employment, zero noise disruption, and improving pollution Government will have national ambitions Whilst retailers want the right access to a vibrant market place In the middle you and I who just want travel safely, enjoy the experience and get value for money So as a problem domain there are some interesting challenges There are directly conflicting objectives Air quality and growth in throughput Takes us into unexpected solution spaces – looking at designing transport solutions to get to the airport Conflicts over demands for resources or control of a process Shopping experience, security and passenger process logistics Means employ service architect approaches to map emotional journey along the process nodes This has meant as designers we’ve needed to do four things 1 Stakeholder engagement in the design process has become key 2. Management process of setting the brief, evaluating design options that considers these outcomes rather than traditional cost and aesthetics 3. bring new skills into the mix – new disciplines different language and meta structure to their approach to design – business psychologists, economists & financial analysts 4. Finding solutions that work across all of these parties and maybe changing the plans of each of them to achieve an optimal outcome Managing this across a multi billion dollar programme is hard
- Digging one step deeper into the economics of this we also find interesting constraints and incentives that will drive design this formula is the basis by which heathrow is given its licence to build and run an airport, It basically says that what you make on landing charges you can spend on investing in and running capital assets. As the landing charges need to be fixed and as low as possible – you are incentivised to make money from retail and other things like car parking fees and can plough some of that back into investing in and operating the airport This formula incentivises you to invest to grow passenger numbers - and rewards you if you can find solutions that deliver economies of scale Oddly it doesn’t incentivize you to find operational efficiencies for your major customer the airline, but at some level you need to make your platform attractive to them and find ways t support their aims for competition in the market place This situation makes for a very complex multi variate optimization problem – even something as simple as ground transportation – should we bus people between terminals or spend money on a people mover – different capex and opex, passenger experience, and impact on the airlines As design teams we’re now using different optimsation tools to evaluate and iterate design solutions - and with the digital revolution able to draw upon live data sources from across the airport machine – so the answer to this challenge could now be solved by changing the flight schedules, reducing walking distances in the building, or build new departure gates somewhere else Forcing us as designers to bring in new skills and look around the problem space for longer using new data sources To get more market share – at the macro scale to grow passenger numbers it’s in the airports best interest to spend big on capex to get passenger numbers up. The link with operating budget is also interesting – How things are labelled make a difference two - the difference between a people mover vs a bus. It’s a see saw type effect. the role of retail or car parking revenues means …Design teams need to balance with non-regulated revenues. The relationship with airlines is also unexpected as the reducing airline operating cost doesn’t impact on airport profit so not motivation to do so. No incentive to drive airline-operator efficiencies. But airlines need to agree to the planned expenditure amounts So as designers getting buy in to consultant and stakeholder challenge with the airline community is huge. https://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP%201103.pdf – page 20
- So where does design Ops fit into this picture? Lets consider the management process and structure behind the development Typically you are dealing with a five year cycle spending several billions per year – at the macro scale here the cycle is traditional waterfall – three chunks of define, develop, and deliver. The first element highlighted is define Lets look at the process of define – we need to lay out aims “how resilient to security threats are we today, how resilient do we want to be in the future, what are the factors affecting this, how much do we want to invest in this compared to anything else like passenger experience, how will we measure success” – defining this with skill and without entering the solution space can be a challenge
- If the brief has been set well then the design process can start- picking up some of the challenges we discussed earlier – collaboration, integrating skill sets, establishing a common design language, assessing the risk involved and likelihood of delivering the intending aim – ensuring the delivery phase has the right information
- Finally in delivery – V diagram on its side – testing and proving – complex systems integration challenges – as designers key element will be the feedback loop around what was delivered – did it work – have we measured it – were the benefits realized What data can we capture and re-use from the live deployment
- Design ops is at the heart of this challenge – the right culture, the right tools, process and organization Requiring coordination of the design management office across thousands of people, 80 tier 1 partners and 20,000 below them Not easy to do as designers – requires good joint understanding with the client as to what state of the art might be We have seen however successful programmes deliberately focus on the right culture explicitly focusing on the behaviours needed to drive success , as well as processes, tools, and the right resourcing of skills And the next part of the story is to look at how this has evolved over 20 years at heathrow
- We’re looking now at the timeline we going to go back over An investment journey of 40bn over 15 years with another 15 to go Terminal 5 – Which turned out to be amazingly innovative and a disaster at the same time Terminal 2 – which proved what a learning organization could achieve Q6 – which means quinquennium 6 (a regulated five year period) which set a new approach in the industry by thinking about driving for business value Finally Runway 3 which has the ambition to re-set the clock – and build a new platform for UK aviation transport Scale of investment is similar for the first three ~5 bn each, with the last one being 3 to 4 times more.
- Focus: Delivering a flagship building – support BA Context at the time was for failures in delivery to cost and time and a desire to set a new benchmark in the industry for quality of passenger experience Ambition was to create an organization structure that would free up thinking, enable innovation, provide a common data environment, and ensure buildability (contractor on board right away)
- SO how did it go? Well getting right to the disaster side of this story the building did set a new benchmark, unfortunately for what was a very public problem in launching the building T5 There were also real challenges in the budget, and ongoing maintenance of the building – had to employ tightrope walkers to change the 120,000 lightbulbs There was however very successful aspects to the approach – the design team culture of open partnership achieved what is still held to be an excellent quality passenger experience with innovations in the use of technology and The underlying management process was driven around programme delivery rather than a design focus
- Moving on to the next stage of development terminal two the ambition was to deliver the same quality of brand positioning, passenger experience, but without the same operational failures and more practical innovation in terms of ability to run and maintain things There was one major complication to this – the airport needed to support 22 different airlines rather than just BA for terminal 5 Which needed a radical rethink on how to stage shared operations whilst keeping the innovative check in procedures and equipment delivered in T5 The image by the way is an actual picture taken from workshops to explore the operational process and how to shape
- This was achieved
- Moving on to the third – and the credit crunch meant that the financial climate set an aspiration of improving the business without large scale showpiece developments This still meant the best part of 4bn investment – but the driver was to focus on improving passenger experience to ensure continued competitive position, improving baggage handling, resilience, asset management to protect the value of the operation
- This meant the invention of a new role - Programme Designers e.g. PD for pax experience – turning the organization on its head freeing up the designers to focus on any element that would improve passeneger epxerinece rather than squeezing passenger experience into the design of building x or building y It also meant a different means of governance and tracking value was introduced – again because the aim was to improve baggage or passenger service then projects were given the go –ahead or not according to the basis upon which they might deliver these outcomes – quite a challenge for us as designers to combine and repackage Finally the values and aims for the programme were described as getting our mojo back - knowledge management – retention strategy after the down cycle of losing people through the credit crunch coninciding with the end of the last programme Outcome: - Passenger Experience = in summer 2017 an ASQ of 4.16 which means 83% of passengers rated Heathrow as excellent or very good. - Baggage Programme = driving for 999 of 1000 bags to travel with the passenger by 2030. (Put it into perspective HAL handle 100,000 bags/day = 36.5m bags/year). Incremental projects driving efficiencies & improvements from people, process, asset, technology. - Resilience Programme = delivered improved airfield ground infrastructure to enable A380 (wide bodied) aircraft movements around the airfield. - Asset replacement programme = upgrades all over the campus on multiple systems.
- Focus: Delivering a political vision (connection to the world) ‘the UK’s direct connection to the world and UK’s hub of choice by making every journey better’, ‘taking Britain further’ Ambition: National importance to remain competitive, lots at stake as major vehicle for the investment community Key Areas: Q6 keeps getting extended, can’t start H7 until we know if third runway is being built (ties back to politics – how do you design when you don’t know the future state?), New deliver model (PCP and IDT), return to NEC, Existed trusted supply chain, Challenge of evolution not revolution (airlines want incremental expansion, they don’t want other airlines stealing their slots) they prefer sustained asset sweating with spend matched to pax increase. Outcome: Currently being invented…
- Business integrators – skills and resources needed to develop the business model hand in hand with the design masterplan that is emerging Design integrators – designers leading other designers in the enourmously complex multi disciplinary challenge The whole design team has been carefully screened and selected for their ability to collaborate creatively and for the benefit of the whole project Approach is to manage cycles of evolution – not plan for revolution – the only way yo handle the different cadences of a 40 year programme Rapid investment ongoing right now into new analytical tools, as these are needed to help solve the complex optimization problems that come with developing the airport
- So to recap on what we’ve seen here There has been a steady evolution of the aims starting with a building leading to the delivery of a national economic vision and investment – moving from getting the design right to influencing the business The organisation strategy has been deliberately designed on the way – with some major lessons learned Focus on culture has been explicit and the degree of science being applied has changed increased over this time At the heart of this DesignOps is still hard to fully pin down and define – but I hope you’ll agree with me that it is vital to the success of ventures like these and can cleaerly be seen to deliver value