Jennifer Whyte - Digital innovation and the transformation of infrastructure projects
•
5 likes•665 views
APM Project Management Conference 2017 - Making the Mould.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Jennifer Whyte - Digital innovation and the transformation of infrastructure projects
Similar to Jennifer Whyte - Digital innovation and the transformation of infrastructure projects (20)
More from Association for Project Management
More from Association for Project Management (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Jennifer Whyte - Digital innovation and the transformation of infrastructure projects
- 2. Professor Jennifer Whyte Digital Innovation and the Transformation of Infrastructure Projects Twitter: @JenniferKWhyte; @csei_imperial APM 2017 Conference 27 April 2017
- 3. Project Whirlwind, foundation for SAGE (semi-automated ground environment)
- 5. Exponential growth in computing power • Devices are becoming cheaper, more distributed and more multi-functional • Increasing in data availability and use
- 6. Professor Jennifer Whyte • Laing O’Rourke/RAEng Research Chair in Systems Integration • Civil and Environmental Engineering, Imperial College London
- 7. Centre for Systems Engineering and Innovation Aim: Bringing Systems Engineering and Innovation to Civil Infrastructure • Production systems • Infrastructure interdependencies • Projects and operations A Faculty of Engineering initiative, hosted in Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
- 8. Future of Construction / Digital Transformation
- 9. Overview • Change in projects, project management and project managers • Building project capabilities for digital delivery • Infrastructure projects as complex projects • Examples from research: CM, visualization, hand-over • Need for next-generation tools and processes
- 10. Change in projects • Physical and digital Crossrail Site from Webcam Digital asset information as a deliverable to owners and operators wagstaff
- 11. Change in project management PM 1.0 Management as tracking and eliminating variance from plans PM 2.0 Agile monitoring, integrating and analyzing information on real-time and predicted performance Whyte, J.and Levitt, R. (2011) Information management and the management of projects Chapter 15 in Oxford Handbook of Project Management, Oxford University Press.
- 12. Change in project managers
- 13. Geyang Guo - Data to June 2013 Project 1 Project 2 Project 3 Project 4 Project 5Key features Most interactive project Similarities with 2,3 but double interactions. Similar with Project 3 Multi-type of interactions are evenly distributed. Similar with Project 2 Multi-type of interactions are evenly distributed. Project for pilot study Actions and comments leading network. No drawings project A different pattern of interaction and led by different companies. ActornetworkDocument-Actor network Basic stats 2232 Documents 205 Participants 6 Companies 33 Months (Sep. 2010) 1039 Documents 168 Participants 5 Companies 31 Months (Nov. 2010) 1026 Documents 157 Participants 6 Companies 31 Months (Nov. 2010) 895 Documents 576 Participants 4 Companies 31 Months (Nov. 2010) 599 Documents 49 Participants 4 Companies 30 Months (Dec. 2010) Basic interacts Nodes Edges 205 Actors 2068 Docs 829 A-A 9856 D-A Nodes Edges 168 Actors 1408 Docs 453 A-A 5995 D-A Nodes Edges 157 Actors 1585 Docs 417 A-A 5960 D-A Nodes Edges 576 Actors 1184 Docs 1130 A-A 6434 D-A Nodes Edges 49 Actors 575 Docs 160 A-A 2444 D-A
- 14. Building project capabilities for digital delivery • Draws on work on complex product systems [Davies and Hobday, 2006; Hobday, 1998; Miller et al., 1995] – E.g. aircraft, experimental facilities and railways. – Different from mass production, delivered through complex projects: – high-tech, capital intensive engineering projects of significant scale – relatively long duration – require firms to work collaboratively across firm boundaries in project delivery
- 15. Building project capabilities for digital delivery • Aligning and reconciling digital approaches between the firm and the project Sunila Lobo and Jennifer Whyte (2017) Building project capabilities for digital delivery in the project-based firm, Research Policy, 46, 1, 93–107. Small internal projects Complex projects
- 16. Motorway 1992: Preliminary work 1997: Scheme will go ahead 1986: Preferred route 1988: Public inquiry 1990: Tender design for bid 1994: Public inquiry 1998: Legal challenge 2003: complete 2000: Client tenders detail design and construction 1984: First proposed route 1998: Project splits into 2 sections for financing 1996: Design team appointed 1990: Alternative route 2007: Section 2 complete 1999: Construction begins 2003: Section 1 complete 2007: Early work began in November March 2008: Contract awarded Dec. 2010 complete 2006: Appointed in November Railway Highway 2000: Concept planning Sunila Lobo and Jennifer Whyte (2017) Building project capabilities for digital delivery in the project-based firm, Research Policy, 46, 1, 93–107. 1994: Internet made public IT industry developments 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s Building project capabilities for digital delivery
- 17. • Part of broader Innovation Strategy • Imperial’s work with Crossrail on an Innovation Platform • Now rolled out to the industry Building project capabilities for digital delivery
- 18. Building project capabilities for digital delivery • Operators leading new approaches to delivery
- 19. Complex projects • Rambling? Or climbing Everest? • Is your project: • Sunday stroll? • Expedition to climb highest mountain? Analogy from projectvaluedelivery.com Image: Matteo Leoni: https://www.flickr.com/ CC BY-NC-SA 2.0
- 21. Heathrow Terminal 5 From the digital to the physical (early 2000s)
- 23. Crossrail
- 24. Links to other sources of data, in which change may be uncontrolled as separately owned. Project digital systems Aggregation and links with increased data volume, velocity and variety Asset information as deliverable Project outcomes ‘as built’ Operation digital systems Information for decision-making in delivery Project processes ‘as designed’ Changing nature of information on major projects
- 25. DOD 2013 Configuration management requirements digital asset information physical assets
- 26. Configuration management requirements digital asset information physical assets Comparing configuration management processes in Airbus, CERN and Crossrail. Whyte, J., Stasis, A. and Lindkvist, C. (2016) Managing change in complex projects: configuration management; asset information and big data. International Journal of Project Management, 34, 2, 339–351 Stasis, A., Whyte, J. , Dentten, R. and Stephen, E. (2015) Examination of construction redlines procedure against good practice configuration management, TSBE Conference, University of Reading.
- 27. 27
- 28. Interdisciplinary Design Reviews using the 3D Mobile Visualization Environment (3D-MOVE), Crossrail Innovate 18 Project With Laura Maftei and Dragana Nikolic Virtual Reality and The Built Environment, 2nd edition with Dragana Nikolic, in progress
- 29. Handover: Passing the baton http://learninglegacy.london2012.com https://www.flickr.com/photos/london2012oda/
- 32. Handover: Passing the baton Construction projects Client for the delivery phase Project specific data management systems, using drawings and documentation Programme wide data management systems, approval of hand-over drawings and documentation Access to hand-over drawings and documentation Games 1 2 Tier 2 Tier 2 Tier 2 Tier 1 CLM ODA LOCOG LVRPA OPLC/LLDC Legacy operators Record drawings to DCMS, then National Archive Integration challenge • Getting high quality information from supply chain at end of construction; • Momentum (T minus process) • Not missing window (Difficult to check if teams disbanded) Strategy challenge • Engaging with organizations that will use the data after handover
- 33. Need for next-generation tools and processes Well established techniques for closed systems Danilovic and Sandkull, 2005 relatively manual, slow, document-based
- 34. Need for next-generation tools and processes
- 35. Need for next-generation tools and processes New tools for multi-criteria analyses of open systems Analyses that are automated, fast, asset-based New production systems
- 36. Need for next-generation tools and processes Projects as interventions in wider systems Source: Ellen Macarthur Foundation Fundamental changes: • Complex projects as long-term projects • Innovation in production systems • Changing relationship between operation and delivery • How we think about system boundaries; how we evaluate success
- 37. Conclusions • Change in projects, project management and project managers • Building project capabilities for digital delivery • Infrastructure projects as complex projects • Examples from research: CM, visualization, hand-over • Need for next-generation tools and processes
- 38. New research agenda / call to action • New research agenda: Projects as interventions in wider systems • New data-driven engineering approaches to gain value from digital information • Next-generation project management
- 39. Professor Jennifer Whyte Digital Innovation and the Transformation of Infrastructure Projects Twitter: @JenniferKWhyte; @csei_imperial APM 2017 Conference 27 April 2017
Editor's Notes
- One of my students, Geyang Guo, has done work on the interactions that go on through digital systems in the delivery of projects. What is novel about her research is that it takes data directly from the digital system and starts to help us understand the patterns of interactions in delivering complex projects.
- There are a set of studies on complex product systems in SPRU in the late 1990s that have highlighted how innovation in engineering systems, aircraft, experimental facilities, railways is very different from innovation in mass production industries. They are delivered through complex projects. High-tech, capital intensive, engineering projects of significant scale, relatively long duration, that require firms to work collaboratively across firm boundaries in project delivery. This work, in complex product systems, and in the programme for innovation in the built environment, that I was part of, has been highly influential. Has set the foundation for work on innovation in complex projects, the delivery of large engineering projects, at Imperial and internationally.
- Projects are future oriented. To project is to throw forward. Thus a project has an ‘end’ in that it was set-up to deliver certain outputs, to achieve certain outcomes. A project is no longer a project when it is delivered.
- I propose that we can think about built infrastructure (roads, railways, airports, nuclear power stations, buildings), and the way in which it is delivered, in terms of systems. A system is a set of components that work together: this might be a physical system; or a set of principles or method through which a process is organized Systems integration is becoming more challenging as infrastructure becomes cyber-physical in nature. We don’t always get this right.
- When I got into the roof sub-project team at Heathrow, I examined the way that they were using models, to go from the digital to the physical. As the project was called ‘playful engineering’ I had a question about whether they enjoyed the work, which I never got to as this was a team that absolutely enjoyed working together, that felt they had the right people around the table and were able to make decisions. This a big structure, the size of 8 football pitches, and there was a real concern to build it safely, so the roof was strand-jacked into place. Digital models, and a lot of physical models, with plasticine and card, trips to fabricators yards were used in design of the permanent structure and the temporary works and process of building it. While the single model environment only involved the tier 1 suppliers, these practices and processes engaged a broader supply-chain.
- I led some research on how all of this digital data was then handed over to owners and operators. We thought about this as passing the baton.
- We have done some work around managing change, which we know is an area in which errors may be introduced into designs. We brought together three leading organizations, Airbus, CERN and Crossrail to discuss managing change – tracking status of assets, recording origin of materials, links to manufacturer information, version and change control. Even in 2013, the department of defense document shows the document-based origin of these processes, which we need to adapt to ensure verification and validity of digital data-sets, which can involve thousands of assets and many kinds of interactions.
- We have done some work around managing change, which we know is an area in which errors may be introduced into designs. We brought together three leading organizations, Airbus, CERN and Crossrail to discuss managing change – tracking status of assets, recording origin of materials, links to manufacturer information, version and change control. Even in 2013, the department of defense document shows the document-based origin of these processes, which we need to adapt to ensure verification and validity of digital data-sets, which can involve thousands of assets and many kinds of interactions.
- We have done some work around managing change, which we know is an area in which errors may be introduced into designs. We brought together three leading organizations, Airbus, CERN and Crossrail to discuss managing change – tracking status of assets, recording origin of materials, links to manufacturer information, version and change control. Even in 2013, the department of defense document shows the document-based origin of these processes, which we need to adapt to ensure verification and validity of digital data-sets, which can involve thousands of assets and many kinds of interactions.
- This is it during games
- And this is it in legacy
- We were thinking about th If you’ve got poor data you can hand it over very efficiently. What we are trying to do here is get quality information that is handed over efficiently, in structures and formats that people can readily access. Challenge of FM maintaining the building; LOCOG making changes for games – control of the information – e.g. need to drill hole to put broadcast cables through a wall, capturing that on the record drawings – as an additional scope of works that has been deferred to after completion that could affect element of the work, multiple stakeholders Clear contractual obligations and commercial incentives A detailed plan of data requirements and standards Progressive build-up of documentation Implementation of a structured process up to the handover