1. Specific Requirements for Choosing a Programme
- You should choose a programme, not a company or a deliverable;
- The chosen programme has to be a programme, but not a project or a portfolio;
- The chosen programme has to be real-life, not something that you made up, or in fantasy;
- The chosen programme should be either completed or close to
completion, not one that may have yet to start or just started which will not provide sufficient information required for this assessment.
2. A Suggested Structure
Slide 1 – Cover page: the Title of your PowerPoint slides with your student number and programme name ;
Slide 2 – Table of Contents: making it neat with correspondent slide numbers;
Slide 3 – Introduce the chosen programme: referring to the definition of programmes to justify your choice as a programme, but not a project or a portfolio, as well as its significance in the industry/sector; [With in-text citation both on the slide and in the Note page]
Slide 4 – Specify the programme management structure, approach and
content: referring to the frame of reference, and typical way of PMOs; [With in-text citation both on the slide and in the Note page]
Slide 5 – Analyse the programme governance structure: including expected benefits and outcomes, CSFs and so on. Please note that you need to specify clearly the strategic objectives of the programme either on Slide 4 or 5. If needed, you can use 2 slides for analysing the programme governance structure; [With in-text citation both on the slide and in the Note page]
Slide 6-12 (Maximum) – Critically assess/review the programme’s process and activities: with the support of appropriate theories/models, including (but not limited to) stakeholder management approaches, benefits delivery, change management, knowledge management, risk management and as such; [With in-text citation both on the slide and in the Note page]
Slide 13 – Critically evaluate the programme delivery: linking back to the strategic objectives of the organisation that the programme was set to achieve; [With in-text citation both on the slide and in the Note page]
Slide 14 – Conclusion: concluding the key points of the discussions and specify the strengths and weaknesses of the chosen programmes’ governance (NO SWOT ANALYSIS NEEDED);
Slide 15 – Recommendations (in bullet points): based on the Conclusion and the focus needs to be on how to improve the chosen programme governance;
Slide 16 – References: in the required Harvard format only. If needed, you can use one extra slide;
Slide 17 – Final slide: Thank you and Any questions?
Introduction to the Crossrail / Elizabeth Line Programme
•Crossrail is a programme, not a project or portfolio, because it consists of multiple interconnected projects aimed at achieving strategic, long-term objectives (PMI, 2021).
•The Elizabeth Line involves new stations, tunnels, and transport upgrades, integrating efforts across various fields (Whyte et al., 2022).
•It addresses London’s increasing transport needs, providing a 10% capacity boost (Whyte et al., 2022).
•The programme is crucial for London’s growth, enhancing connectivity between residential and business areas (Muruganandan et al., 2022).
•Crossrail supports economic regeneration, benefiting both public and private sectors (Muruganandan et al., 2022).
Programme Management Structure and Approach
•Crossrail implemented a Hub-and-Spoke PMO model to manage its complex infrastructure across 40 sites (Skinner, 2022).
•The Central PMO, located at Crossrail Ltd., oversaw governance, risk management, and alignment with strategic goals set by Transport for London (TfL) and the UK Government (Kumar, 2022).
•Local PMOs at key sites like Paddington, Tottenham Court Road, and Canary Wharf handled site-specific project delivery, contractor management, and operational decisions (Whyte et al., 2022).
•The Hub-and-Spoke structure ensured centralized control, while local PMOs had the flexibility to manage site-specific challenges (Skinner, 2022).
Analysis of Programme Governance
•Programme Governance Framework: Crossrail used a multi-tiered governance system, with corporate governance handled by the Crossrail Board, and programme governance managed by Crossrail Ltd, ensuring operational alignment with strategic goals (Mahalingam, 2022).
•Strategic Objectives:
•Deliver a world-class integrated railway (Elizabeth Line).
•Increase transport capacity by 10%.
•Drive economic growth through urban regeneration.
•Expected Benefits:
•Reduced travel times and congestion.
•Enhanced public transport accessibility.
•Economic regeneration, especially in areas like Canary Wharf and Woolwich.
•Critical Success Factors (CSFs):
•Effective risk management, especially for complex tunneling.
•Strong collaboration with contractors (e.g., Balfour Beatty, Skanska).
•Robust stakeholder engagement and communication.
Stakeholder Management Approach
•A Stakeholder Matrix (Power/Interest Grid) can be utilised to categorize Crossrail’s stakeholders.
•High Power/High Interest: Key decision-makers like Transport for London (TfL), UK Government, and contractors (Singh, 2021).
•High Power/Low Interest: Regulatory bodies and local authorities (Singh, 2021).
•Low Power/High Interest: Local communities, residents, and businesses affected by construction (Gil and Fu, 2022).
•Low Power/Low Interest: General public and media (Singh, 2021).
•Crossrail’s approach included extensive consultation phases during planning and construction (Thomas, 2021).
•Community liaison panels and a 24/7 helpdesk were established to address concerns in real time (Thomas, 2021).
•Transparency and proactive engagement helped minimize opposition and keep stakeholders informed.
Benefits Delivery (Balanced Scorecard Framework)
•Financial: Crossrail increased transport capacity by 10%, generating long-term economic growth through better connectivity across London and the South East (Cocconcelli and Medda, 2021).
•Customer: Improved journey times, reduced congestion, and enhanced accessibility, benefiting millions of passengers annually (Mahalingam, 2022).
•Internal Processes: Effective risk management and stakeholder engagement ensured on-time delivery, with significant technical innovations in tunneling and station construction (Seidu et al., 2023).
•Learning and Growth: Crossrail developed new skills within the supply chain, contributing to workforce development and operational efficiency (Seidu et al., 2023).
Risk Management
•Crossrail used a Quantitative Risk Assessment (QRA) approach to manage cost and time uncertainties (Underwood, 2018).
•Risks were identified early in the design and construction phases, focusing on health, safety, and engineering challenges.
•A Risk Sub-Committee monitored key risks and ensured continuous mitigation efforts (Underwood, 2018).
•Regular assessments and a P50/P95 confidence level system helped manage financial risks and inform stakeholders (Underwood, 2018).
•Risks from tunneling, stakeholder coordination, and complex system integration were continuously assessed and mitigated.
Change Management (Lewin’s Framework)
•Unfreeze: Crossrail addressed critical schedule delays and budget overruns, using stakeholder feedback and performance data to build consensus for change. Initial delays in tunneling and construction led to extensive re-evaluation of project timelines and scope (Landis, 2022).
•Change: Through structured Change Control Processes, Crossrail revised contracts, reallocated resources, and adjusted timelines. Major changes were implemented in station construction and system-wide integration (Landis, 2022).
•Refreeze: New procedures and schedules were formalized into daily operations, solidifying improved project delivery and mitigating further disruptions (Cocconcelli and Medda, 2021).
Knowledge Management (SECI Model)
•Socialization: Crossrail’s knowledge sharing involved frequent workshops and collaborative forums between engineers, contractors, and local authorities to share tacit knowledge on complex tunneling and system integration (Whyte et al., 2022).
•Externalization: Critical insights from on-site operations (e.g., tunneling under congested areas) were documented into explicit technical guidelines, accessible across teams (Mahalingam, 2022).
•Combination: Data from different projects (design, safety protocols) were integrated to enhance decision-making for system-wide adjustments (Kumar, 2022).
•Internalization: Lessons from construction phases were embedded into operational procedures for future phases, ensuring continuous improvement (Kumar, 2022).
Programme Leadership and Communication
•Leadership Style: Crossrail employed a transformational leadership style, emphasizing inclusivity and transparency (Kuknor and Bhattacharya, 2022).
•Communication Strategy: Leaders like Mark Wild advocated for a transparent, open culture to coordinate the project’s many stakeholders and teams (Thomas, 2021).
•Key Approaches:
•Coordinating Complexity: Leaders managed complex interdependencies using clear sequencing and an agile approach to adjust workflows (Seidu et al., 2023).
•Inclusivity: Leaders focused on inclusive decision-making to ensure alignment across diverse project teams and contractors (Seidu et al., 2023).
Critical Evaluation of Programme Delivery
•Strategic Objective: Provide a high-quality, unified rail transport system (Elizabeth Line) that enhances transport capability by 10%.
•Economic Growth: The project sought to spur economic recovery in places such as Canary Wharf and Abbey Wood (Muruganandan et al., 2022).
•Successes: The Elizabeth Line was opened up, which has cut down the time and space considerably and also increased the number of passengers (Warren and O’Sullivan, 2022).
•Challenges: Scheduling was impacted by delays and a bloated budget, yet the changes made by the team allowed for delivery within a reasonable timeframe (Landis, 2022).
•Overall Impact: The programme achieved its fundamental goals, and the positive impact was felt in the transport sector, economy, and regeneration of cities (Muruganandan et al., 2022).
Conclusion
•Key Strengths: Proper governance structure that defines the roles and responsibilities of the Crossrail Board and the project teams.
•Achievements: Implemented a revolutionary railway system that enhanced the transport capacity by 10% and fostered the economic revival (Gil and Fu, 2022).
•Weaknesses: Longer project duration and increased costs due to the lack of coordination between the contractors and the initial underestimation of the technical challenges involved (Skinner, 2022).
•Key Takeaway: Crossrail achieved its main goals, but better risk handling and more specific integration plans would have helped to avoid the budget growth and schedule extension.
Recommendations
•Advanced risk management tools: Implement the use of predictive analytics to anticipate risks and solve problems before they occur (Araz et al., 2020).
•Centralized contractor coordination: Ensure that communication and tasks are coordinated through a single platform with all contractors to avoid time wastage (Ekhlasi, 2024).
•Agile timelines: Choose a fluid, flexible timeline structure that can be modified in real time if necessary but still maintains the overall plan (Alshareef, 2024).
•Transparent stakeholder engagement: Conduct frequent, engaging sessions for stakeholders’ feedback in real-time (Singh, 2021).
•Holistic system integration: Create a comprehensive plan for integrating the system into the existing framework and conduct simulations to minimise operational issues (Ekhlasi, 2024).
Read More Top Samples
References
•Alshareef, A. (2024) A Three Phases Model To Transform Traditional Project Management Offices To Become Agile. Journal of Namibian Studies: History Politics Culture, 41, pp.355-382.
•Araz, O.M., Choi, T.M., Olson, D.L. and Salman, F.S. (2020) Role of analytics for operational risk management in the era of big data. Decision Sciences, 51(6), pp.1320-1346.
•Cocconcelli, L. and Medda, F. (2021) Innovative financial mechanisms for transport infrastructure in time of crisis: The case of London Crossrail. In Urban Form and Accessibility (pp. 307-325). Elsevier.
•Ekhlasi, T. (2024) The Impact of Integrated Supply Chain Platforms on Project Management Criteria: A Study of Time, Cost, and Risk Management in Construction Projects (Doctoral dissertation, Politecnico di Torino).
•Gil, N. and Fu, Y. (2022) Megaproject performance, value creation, and value distribution: An organizational governance perspective. Academy of Management Discoveries, 8(2), pp.224-251.
•Kuknor, S.C. and Bhattacharya, S. (2022) Inclusive leadership: new age leadership to foster organizational inclusion. European Journal of Training and Development, 46(9), pp.771-797.
•Kumar, B.R. (2022) Case 8: London Cross Rail Project. In Project Finance: Structuring, Valuation and Risk Management for Major Projects (pp. 131-137). Cham: Springer International Publishing.
•Landis, J.D. (2022) Unfinished business-london crossrail. In Megaprojects for Megacities (pp. 133-165). Edward Elgar Publishing.
•Lobo, S. and Abid, A.F. (2020) The role of social media in intrastakeholder strategies to influence decision making in a UK infrastructure megaproject: Crossrail 2. Project management journal, 51(1), pp.96-119.
•Mahalingam, A. (2022) Megaproject governance and innovation. HIGH SPEED RAIL IN ASIA.
•Muruganandan, K., Davies, A., Denicol, J. and Whyte, J. (2022) The dynamics of systems integration: Balancing stability and change on London’s Crossrail project. International Journal of Project Management, 40(6), pp.608-623.
•Seidu, R.D., Robinson, H., Young, B.E., Ryan, M. and Fong, D. (2023) Infrastructure Development in the UK: Key Drivers and Implementation Challenges. Journal of Infrastructure Policy and Management (JIPM), 6(1), pp.33-51.
•Singh, S. (2021) Stakeholder management within BIM implemented projects in the UK construction industry.
•Skinner, A. (2022) The strategic portfolio management office (SPMO). In Strategic Portfolio Management (pp. 263-277). Routledge.
•Thomas, A. (2021) The design of the Crossrail tunnels in UK. Geomechanics and Tunnelling, 14(4), pp.340-346.
•Underwood, N. (2018) Quantitative cost risk assessment, Crossrail Learning Legacy. Available at: https://learninglegacy.crossrail.co.uk/documents/quantitative-cost-risk-assessment/ (Accessed: 21 September 2024).
•Warren, H. and O’Sullivan, F. (2022) Here’s How Crossrail Will Transform London Travel, Bloomberg.com. Available at: https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-uk-elizabeth-tube-line-opening/ (Accessed: 21 September 2024).
•Whyte, J., Davies, A. and Sexton, C. (2022) Systems integration in infrastructure projects: seven lessons from Crossrail. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Management, Procurement and Law, 175(3), pp.103-109.