Unveiling Falcon Invoice Discounting: Leading the Way as India's Premier Bill...
Jennifer Whyte - Digital innovation and the transformation of infrastructure projects
1.
2. Professor Jennifer Whyte
Digital Innovation and the
Transformation of Infrastructure Projects
Twitter: @JenniferKWhyte; @csei_imperial
APM 2017 Conference
27 April 2017
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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