Navigating Major Programmes (Riccardo Cosentino)
Explore every episode of Navigating Major Programmes
| Pub. Date | Title | Duration | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 08 May 2023 | Being The Only Women In The Room with Mariska Pinto | Building Bridges: Women in Infrastructure | S1 EP 1 | 00:23:44 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Mariska Pinto, who has spent the last decade successfully navigating the male-dominated infrastructure industry. With a mechanical engineering background from McGill University, Marishka now leverages her technical and commercial background as she works cross-functionally amongst various teams at Crosslinx Constructors as a Systems Claims Manager for Eglinton Crosstown LRT.
In this conversation, Riccardo gives Mariska the floor as he looks for insight to a topic he will never fully understand—being the only woman in the room. This conversation aims to build bridges that inspire allyship and encourage women to pursue a career in infrastructure.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn: Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 28 Aug 2023 | Do Women Need to Play Golf in Order to Lead Major Programmes? With Corail Bourrelier Fabiani | Saïd Business School, University of Oxford | S1 EP 9 | 00:38:16 | |
Do women still need to get on the course to progress their careers in major programmes? Does The Boys Club still exist in 2023? Inclusivity and ambition—how are they connected? Navigating Major Programmes podcast co-host, Corail Bourrelier Fabiani, shares her Oxford Saïd Business School dissertation’s insightful findings in this week’s episode. Riccardo and Corail take a deep dive into equality, diversity and inclusion in the infrastructure industry uncovering the taboo topics that have been avoided for decades.
“In the research, you can see that women's interests are not really accommodated in major urban transport infrastructure programs,” says Corail. “And there is a big gender data gap, which is kind of reinforcing inequalities in this space. In my opinion, all this is reinforced by the fact that we don't have enough women at the top. So I thought, how are we changing this?”
Corail, the accomplished programme manager behind projects such as the Paddington Square Public Art Programme and the Shard Quarter Public Art Programme in London, concludes the discussion with four steps to solve this complex, systemic issue.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino brings over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's day business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode, as I press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Hi, welcome back to another episode of navigating major programs. Today I'm here with a recurring guest and co-host of this podcast.
Corail 01:03 I am with Corail
Riccardo Cosentino 01:04 l, how're you doing?
Corail 01:06 I am doing great. Thank you, Riccardo,
Riccardo Cosentino 01:08 Thank you for joining us again. Really glad that you're here today. Today, we're gonna talk about your dissertation from your master's degree at Oxford. If I remember correctly, you did a dissertation titled, "do women need to play golf in order to lead measure programs?" really catchy title? But maybe you can tell us a bit more why you picked that dissertation? And what dissertation was all about?
Corail 01:39 Yeah, sure. Yeah. So yeah, this title was kind of a humorous reference to an HBR article, which said that basically, many women in male dominated industries feel compelled to play golf to access to the top leadership network. And my research was about women's network, and how can those women network help change the culture of major program, which are notoriously male dominated environments? And I thought it was funny that some women would think like, Okay, I'm gonna play golf, so make the most important contact, and I was like, okay, is this still happening? Do we still need to go on, on the course to get this important contact. So I did this research as part of our MSc in major program management at the Said business school. And it was really like, out of had the like, how out of an impulse after an event that happened during a master's degree. And I don't know if you remember that. But basically, each year, the program gets the opportunity to do a debate at the famous Oxford Union. And during our cohort, we have Ella a brilliant change manager, men's leader, who proposed the motion for that debate, which was around the importance of gender diversity in major programs, team versus versus experience. And we were all quite excited to debate this topic at the Union. But basically, the university got back to us and said, it's too late volatile as a topic. So they brushed it off, and they say, maybe debate another topic. And at the time, I was really shocked. And I think we were all the women of our cohort. I think we were below 30%, maybe around 28% 25% 28% of women in the cohort. And we were all pretty upset about this decision. Because we didn't understand it. We were like this is the Oxford Union the Union debates corruption slavery, things like that. And we can talk about that, you know, gender diversity in major program, but I saw Okay, that's that's say something right about our industry and about the I think the leap that we have to make to make it an OK topic, you know, to talk about that. So we decided to self organize, and to redo that debate, just organized by students. And it was a great, great moment. And I thought, Okay, I want to look deeper into all this EDI questions on major program. So I started like looking a little bit into what the UK Government says about gender diversity in major program. So I looked at the infrastructure and projects authority report at the time. And what I found was quite upsetting when you look at the budget, although major programs represent like astronomical budgets in the UK, but first of all, only 10% last year were classified as likely to be successful, and most of them only had just thought So you think there is an issue they are right. And in the IPA report, they acknowledge that the main issue was with capacity and capability of the teams and of the leadership in the UK. But there was no mention at all about, you know, the fact that we are losing opportunity, because we're not leveraging women's talent pool. And I looked deeper into it. And I looked at the appointment process for senior responsible owners, you know, the leader of this major program. And I found that although there is a mention about diversity, in the report, it's very, like there are no real KPIs or practical ways to do it, or methodologies or anything, and when you look at what they're looking for the SRO usually in, in a biased environment, you would, it's more oriented towards male. So there, we have something like, You should possess strong leadership and decision making skills, that's fine. But when you are in a male dominated industry, leadership resonate with a man. So that's where we'll come to your man. Mind. Sorry. And that's, you know, for example, Bent Flybjerg, called the major program leaders, Master Builder, Master Builder, as a word, I think you will think about a man rather than a woman, just just with that simple words. There are other things that I thought were interesting in the way they said this the label thing, for example, they say, you need to have the experience, the character and personality that are right for the program. And I think this is all well, but it's very subjective, right. And in unbiased environment, it's subject to bias. So I think there are lots of different things like that, that will, that are not not laid out in a way to promote women as leader in that in that environment. And what effectively, when you look at how many leaders of major program in the UK are female, it increased a lot recently, you have about 30% of SROs, that are leaders that are female leaders. But actually, they're only managing about 10 to 15 15%, of the major program budgets. So you realize that they, you're increasing the number of women at the top, but in effect, the budget that they manage is so much smaller than the budget and then manage. And really, in the research, you can see that women's interests are not really accommodated for in major urban transport infrastructure programs. And there is a big gender data gap, which is kind of reinforcing inequalities in this space. And in my opinion, all this is reinforced by the fact that we don't have enough women at the top. So I thought, Okay, how are we changing this. And I looked at what was suggested as the best way to improve gender diversity in leadership roles. And I realized that in research networks are always mentioned as one of the ways and in some research, it's mentioned as a way like a hidden gem. So something that is really useful. But that is not really, that male leaders don't think is really is actually useful. But let me say it's again, because network has shown are shown as hidden gem in the literature, because men leader don't really think that they are that useful when female leaders think that they are really useful. And I thought it's an interesting is one of the most interesting points to look at. Because when you have a strong network, that a lot of the other the issues that you can that you can solve. So for example, if you have a strong network, and you want to have more role models to improve your gender diversity, you can find this through your this network. And so that's how I started looking into it. to remit to continue,
Riccardo Cosentino 09:22 no, let me let me jump in. So it's interesting. So you talk about network and I understand anecdotally how important they are. Because I've seen my level, you know, when you're recruiting for executive talent, the first thing you do is you go into your network, you know, I mean, the day is when you get a certain level in our organization, and so the seniority, you know, you do post a job, but you typically make sure that people within your network, see the posting and apply and so it is about networking. Because when you hire the certain level you need, you know, the compensation is high, the responsibilities high. So you really want a second opinion even before you start the process. So yeah, I can see our network. Very, very important. So it's interesting that you, you got to that conclusion for your research as well. I guess my question is, does he have to be a woman network or does just have to be a networking, we talked about this in the last podcast as well. As you change as your research actually has a different view than the previous answer you gave me in the previous podcast?
Corail 10:37 Now, my my, I think, my research says that it does need to be a women's network as in the people who need to, to design it need to be women. But obviously, men need to be involved in it massively. And it's, especially male leaders need to be actively involved in the network and give feedback, etc. But it's all about women designing this network and women using systems thinking to think about their situation and think about how to improve it together. Before you know like talking about it was male leaders and receiving and, and having the kind of reverse mentoring, interaction with male leaders, I think why it's important that it's that we use Women's Network is that obviously, men and women don't benefit from networks in the same way. So in, in the research, in paper, academic papers, you see a lot of research about men network, and what we call weak ties. And I think it's a, you know, Granovetter, who was like one of the first in social science to talk about networks, who said something really funny, he said, It is remarkable that people receive crucial information from individuals whose very existence they have forgotten. So it means like you you get crucial information to get a job from your loose ties for people who are not like in your closest process network, because the information that your best friend knows you already know. But you know, it's the friend of your friend who's going to have the information that you need, or you know, and all this loser ties that you have in your network. And that's really true for men. But for women, research shows that is slightly different. women really need strong ties, as well as weak ties, not only the weak ties on the don't surface, just because they don't have enough of them, and they don't, they can't have as good network with men because you have a homophily bias. So you will want to connect, or you will naturally connect faster with someone who looks like you and who is like you and has the same gender, etc. So there is a sort of imbalance and because we men generally at the top are a bit lonely, a way to, for them to basically catch up with men is to have strong networks, both men network and female network. But when they're alone at the top, they need to develop strong ties with the men who are the top but then if they want to change the system and change, you know, the culture of this environment, then they need to proactively create networks to connect with those women that they wouldn't meet otherwise, and to rethink the way we're doing thing together. I think
Riccardo Cosentino 13:40 there's a very interesting finding, I'd like to take you back actually, to the beginning of this conversation when you were mentioning about the biases within even the job postings having that that's a very interesting concept. And it's something that I read in literature where even the adjectives used to describe things. You know, I think you mentioned master builder, right? If you think of a master builder, the first thing that comes into mind is a man with a beard. And probably a hat, right, a pointy hat. And so your mind I mean, this is probably deviating a little bit from your research but I think it'd be interesting to know your view is how do you remove that bias when even the who writes the job posting is probably a man or maybe recycling a job posting that was already you already developed by another man so how do we break that cycle?
Corail 14:40 Yeah, I think I think that's that's a good question. It's really difficult you know, and what is interesting is like some research even show that depending on your language, if you're French for example, or if you're a Italian like you Ricardo, we gender everything is gender, right? We say he we say her and if you say Speak, you know, or if you write, you know, whether it's a woman or a man. Whereas you have some languages that are non that if you say, my friends, you don't know whether it's a man or a woman, etc. And it's funny because it does something that the tricks our brain and induce countries, usually you have less issues with gender inequalities than in the countries that really differentiate in the language, whether you're a man or a woman. And I think there has been a lot of work done on this to try and neutralize as much as possible, the adverts. So that it there is no gender assigned to the advert and the terms employed by the employers are really gender neutral, and try to bring to your mind like a gender neutral candidate. But I think beyond that, some, well, companies like need to improve that the pipeline and try are trying to go directly and look at the you know, train women from from, you know, create specific programs for women from earlier on, so that there are more women in that pipeline, etc. There is something really interesting as well, is that research shows that women will only apply when, you know, they fit all the criteria. And I think you know that whereas men will apply when they feel only 60 I think it's around 60% of the criteria. So I think there is something as well, In that which you see more and more now, it's just a simple line saying, if you don't feel all this criteria, please play anyway. And that that helps you getting more female candidates who will match the male candidates because they will be encouraged to apply no matter you know, even if they feel a bit overwhelmed by the by the description.
Riccardo Cosentino 16:47 That's very, that's very interesting insight. And I knew of the problem, but I didn't know the solution. So thank you for the firm, thank you for the solution. I will definitely make sure my next job posting has that additional line at the bottom. What What else? What else? Are you finding your research? I think you had 7 to seven points of conclusion, I believe in your research, well, what are the what are the points? What are the conclusion do you draw from from what you researched?
Corail 17:19 Yeah, so I have seven several layers of finding. So the first the first findings was indeed, like I found seven gender related challenges in major programs. One group of challenges was feeling older, you know, feeling like the oldest gender bias unfair expectation that you find in male dominated industries. And catalyst actually refers this as the double bind dilemma. Expectations put upon women are higher than men, despite lower compensations. Women are perceived as too soft, too tough, never just right. And women leaders are perceived as complete, competent or likeable. But rarely, both of them. That's what catalyst says. And that's what a lot of the women in that I interrogated, told me. And I found that most of the time, the way that they respond to that is with personal ways of responding or personal ability. So some will train super hard will take extra lessons will work so much harder, you know, stay at work, while while their male colleagues are having the drink outside. Some will say, Oh, no, I decided that I have a really strong personality. And I tell off everyone, and I don't care if I don't. Some nice. Some of them just said, like, I just help everyone to make sure that I'm like, you know, it's a, it's all about themselves and trying to transform themselves to manage to navigate those difficulties. And that's why again, I was interested in bringing this back to the network because this is a systemic issue. And you can't fight a systemic issue on your own, or you can but you get into a situation that we have today, which is you just have a few women at the top but the one that they're yet the second issue that they talked about was the boys club. So a lot of them were partner at partner levels in a big corporate companies and said that that they could still feel this boys club that they weren't included in. They were in part of it. And sometimes they found out that, you know, the the other leaders had been out for for some events, and they were not aware of that. So they're still best systems. Some mentioned the anti role models and it's funny because it's also the strongest female leaders. We talked about this about the fact that in their career, they've they've been really defended difficult to work with women. They were in higher level than them at the time. And that is very well researched. And that's a phenomenon that is understood. And that is completely structural, which is the resultant of, if there are not enough women at the top you are made to feel special, unique, etc. And you want to dissociate yourself from the lower class group, let's say, which are women at lower levels. And so that creates a sort of divide between lower levels, women, women and top level women. And it's not predictive. And some, some people think it's a women thing, but it's not a women thing. It's something that is just the result of numbers. And effectively, in every situation where you have groups that are dominant, and groups that dominated people will move from the dominated group, if they join, the dominant group will try to distance themselves from the dominated group. Women talk also about some women choosing respite over ambition. And so it was hard for me to accept because obviously, I feel like I only know really ambitious women around me. But that's what came out in my interviews. Some said, Well, women just don't have the ambition, they just don't want to go to the top. I don't know if this is true, or if it's a resultant of the culture that is difficult for women. And there are some research. And I think it's it's interesting to look into that, which says that in environments that are really inclusive, women and men have the same level of ambition, in environments that are not inclusive, there is a big gap of ambition. So I think it's important to take this into consideration, even if you will feel like it's a bit of a chicken and an egg situation.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:56 I had a guest on another podcast and we talked we you know, one question I had for her, because it's not an it's, I think, is a known phenomenon. That is this women tend to exit like a career, you know, especially after giving after having children, some don't return to the workforce. And the ones that return to the workforce don't might not have the same career ambition that they had before having children. And I was actually thinking, because, you know, the way even the way I just described is almost like the women made this decision. But I was also I was actually wondering if is if the environment actually is driving women away, rather than the run into the woman making this decision? I mean, you know, it's already hard enough, the environment is really not conducive, are going to do something else with my life.
Corail 22:50 Absolutely. Yeah. I totally agree with that. And I think this fan phenomenon of women exiting the workforce at mid mid level, is mainly you see it mainly in male dominated industries, such as tech, for example. And I think some women leave because yes, they, you know, they, they have this babies and suddenly maternity like, you know, is this isn't, isn't there, they're cooling and, but a lot of them just leave to go somewhere else to go into a different industry that is much more, you know, flexible, much more inclusive, much more adapted to their needs, as you know, working moms, for example. And I think to me, a way to to solve this issue is really looking at paternity leave. That's That's what that's the only that's the last way to change this, this. This phenomenon. If you if you look at that, and it's live, and you and you increase it and you make sure that men and women are both involved equally, in this early stages in early process of building a little human, anything a little human, you basically involvement and it means that they are much more concerned about later on when they come back to their career about those ideas of flexibility in working of being available to get that kid out of school and working late, you know, later at night, for example, having a different work attended than women. Because at the moment what you're seeing is companies that afford like that are inclusive and propose flexible working in the tech industry. I want to be more inclusive this way. Unfortunately, the what you see is only women take these offers, you know men don't take them. And so then it's badly seen that you're going home to too early and working in the evening at home or it's seen as you're less committed and that creates a whole dynamic. That just reinforces the bias. You know that women are not committed women don't have the same ambition etc. So I think if you make sure that men are as involved as women on the early stage of raising a child, you suddenly men more interested in changing this way of working. And to make it work for everyone. I think
Riccardo Cosentino 25:18 I have to say, I mean, it's so it's actually, I agree with you that we need to, we need the systems in place to allow men to take paternity leave. But to be honest, in Canada, we have that, and he's now making a lot of a difference. What, uh, what, you know, what I'm noticing is, is the societal pressure and the societal norms that really need to be changed. I always say, why is always the woman taking the 12 months off in Canada, you get 12 months, right, you can get up to 12 months. And and I think the policy is that it doesn't have to be the woman, right? I mean, it the paternity leave is leave of absence. And especially public sector employers have very, very accommodating terms and irrespective of that is always the worry, you know, I understand the woman has to take the time off after childbirth to recover. But you know, after four or five months, does this really have to be the woman's their home white? Why is the man cannot stay at home? And I think it's societal pressure, I think there's a big component of societal pressure.
Corail 26:23 Absolutely, I would be I would be in favor and the the podcast is thinking really radical, but I would be in favor of, you know, in some countries, If men don't take the paternity leave, they get fined. And that motivates you to actually take that time off. And I think, obviously, yeah, if you have the option, but it's not mandatory. Because we're in a society that's not there yet. It's obviously it's, it's badly seen by your colleagues, you again, you look less committed, you look and so you don't take it. So yeah, as you said, the system needs to change.
Riccardo Cosentino 27:02 So okay, so we started the conversation with the title we dissertations, which was Do woman need to play golf in order to lead major programs was the answer.
Corail 27:12 Yes, they still need to play golf to live major program 100%. Unfortunately, we're not in a perfect world yet. And at the moments, women have to work harder on their networks to get the same benefits as men. And the way to work on your network and break this boys club that we're talking about is being there being on the field. Obviously, if you hate playing golf, don't totally send to me don't do that, if it's not that bad for you just yeah, get the motivation go on the green.
Riccardo Cosentino 27:46 I think I think use golf as a figure of speech, but it's, you know, it's,
Corail 27:51 yeah, get it means get out there. And if we want to talk if we want to go back a bit more into women's networks, and how they should be formed and shaped, when we talked about them with my interviewees, I had really two different narratives about them, I had some really positive narrative narratives. And I found that they can be a way of conduit to reveal gender bias issues to yourself to others, they can be a way to receive and give support to other women. They can be a way to learn and teach etc. They can be a way to, to inspire other people, other women. But mainly and more strategically, they can be a way to have a voice. So have you know a bit of a strategic impact on the leadership team of your organization. And they can be a way to where they can define and design an inclusive workplace. So as I said, women need to think about what is the like, what is the system we want to design to create a more inclusive environment, environment, but I also found out that there are also a lot of negative views about women's network and a lot of my interviewee mentioned that there are serious issues with women networks, which are sometimes unfit for purpose. They said like it can be a manifest some sense, you know, and for them it's not conductive of anything if you're just like, or sometimes it's just unstable because it's it's on the shoulders of one volunteer and doesn't last Some said they was it could be hypocrite if it's used as lip service but your company as a marketing tool, it just don't feel like it's actually useful is just like the company trying to to show that they're more intrusive without doing the work. Sometimes they said it could be biased and that goes with the with the idea That's, if you're if you're promoting meritocracy, for example, through your network, when you know that meritocracy is not the issue there, that you know, that's not helpful. Or if you're trying to throw the network shape your team so that they fit into a mold, then you're not leveraging your diversity, right? So it's not useful, either. Some study could be pernicious or even risky. And that is because they felt like sometimes there could be a backlash, you know, men feeling like, Oh, why are we not included in this? Why? Why are you rejecting us? And that can create some tensions that are not conductive of anything positive and risky. Sometimes if you're seen as like the leader of a movement or of protests in your company, right, at some point, you know, it's not good for your career, you can be blocked just because you're too vocal or too militant. So the idea of that the research was like, How can we focus on the positive impact the women's network can have? And how can we try and reduce those negative effects. And I think, to really make those networks strategic and interesting, basically, you have, you need to almost use the rules of change management, and make it a full like enterprise. And so I think if violet listeners, if there are four things that I'd like them to remember, for their networks, is, first one, the professional women network should be led by women, and mainly designed by women, supported by change consultants, maybe to help them design the change. But they need to take ownership of this network. And some women will tell you, I Yeah, but you're just adding a lot more work on to our work. And it's, it's another assignment on top of all our assignments, and I totally agree, but I see it as a necessary evil, let's say to get to a better a better environment. And they need to create sessions where they use system thinking, I think system thinking is very important, because it's a very practical tool, it helps you you can create maps, that shows the issues of a system that you can then share with the leadership teams, you know, you can bring your map that you've worked on in a session, and you can say, look, with Matt, the issues there. And here are the intervention that we think will improve that system or it or change or resolve, at low at low cost or at low budget, you can do this and that and look how it impacts our system, the system. And I think this is a powerful tool, a tool that needs to be leveraged to induce networks. So that's step one. Step two, is that as we discussed, male leaders need to be actively involved. And feedback session must be organized to present how like how all these measures will benefit not only women, but also the organization as a whole. And it's, it creates trust. And it's it's good to communicate like what you're doing. But also it helps women having a bigger purpose than just themselves if they see themselves that, that what they're doing is benefiting the you know, the organization itself, they will themselves be much more buying it, you know, they will want to do it more. Step three, is that you need to use reverse mentoring. For the senior leaders, I think it's it's, it's really important that senior leaders get a better understanding of the battles that women are facing in the major program industry, and that they themselves become female advocates like you are Ricardo. And this is like basically giving effective training to male leaders so that they understand the issue. And they and yeah, they become allies. And the final step is that results of those networks need to be properly measured with inclusion indicators like KPIs, etc, rather than just number of memberships. You know, we don't care if you're, if your network has 15 members, where we one is like, what are the results of it? What are you producing? What is the impact? How is it measured, etc. And then you need to communicate this results like really enthusiastically, via maybe professional communication campaign, and that you need to get obviously this report of your organization for that. But I think the more effective the communication, and the more you can see effective results, the better.
Riccardo Cosentino 34:40 Well, it makes it sound so easy, just four easy steps to solve all the equity and diversity issues that we have in the industry.
Corail 34:50 I'd really want to see it, you know, try it out. Try it and test it and then we can improve on that as well. You know,
Riccardo Cosentino 35:00 I think there's a good movement. I'm optimistic, and particularly not very optimistic. But I'm optimistic that as an industry, we are trying to move in the right direction. I think the next so well, first of all, the problem is being understood, accepted that there is a problem. I mean, probably 20 years ago, there wasn't even an acceptance or recognition that we had a problem. Atleast Now we know that we have a problem because we don't have the diversity because we have established that diversity is important for business. So I think there is a will. And it's important people like you doing research about how to do it. Because you know, one thing is to, to admit that we have an issue, but then how do we solve it? And having a systematic review, and research done on the topic is going to improve the way we go about solving this issue?
Corail 35:55 I hope so. Yeah. Thank you.
Riccardo Cosentino 35:59 Okay, so I think we covered what I wanted to cover today in the podcast, I was really looking forward to this. I really, truly enjoy your dissertation. I'm not sure if listeners are interested in seeing your dissertation. Are you able to see somewhere, have you published? Are you going to publish? Or can they just reach out?
Corail 36:21 Yeah, we will definitely trying to publish it with my supervisor Chantal Cantera. Lee, who is amazing and amazing professor at Cranfield University, and who's been supporting me throughout the entire process and is pushing me to get another updated version of the reserves so that we can finally get it published in a journal. So hopefully, very soon. You'll see it, I'll share it. Yeah.
Riccardo Cosentino 36:47 Perfect. And I will provide updates to the to the listeners if and when you publish, actually, when you publish.
Corail 36:54 Thank you. And it's on it.
Riccardo Cosentino 36:57 Yeah, I mean, you're you're being it's being recorded. You're being recorded. You're going to be publishing so having we now have witnesses to well, Corail, thank you very much for joining me today. Really enjoyed our conversations. And hopefully I'll see you again on a future episode of navigating major programs.
Corail 37:18 Thank you so much Riccardo
Riccardo Cosentino 37:20 By now. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going
Hashtags: #GenderChallenges #WomensNetworks #MajorPrograms #Inclusivity #Diversity #EmpowerWomen #Leadership #EqualityAtWork #CareerAdvancement #SystemicSolutions #WomenInTech #GenderDiversity #CorporateCulture #ProfessionalNetworks #Advocacy #GenderEquality #BreakingBarriers #WomenEmpowerment #WorkplaceDynamics #GenderBalance #GenderChallenges #WomensNetworks #MajorPrograms #Inclusivity #Diversity #GenderBias #Leadership #SystemicSolutions #CareerAdvancement #WorkplaceEquality #ChangeManagement #GenderDiversity #WomenInTech #GenderEquality #ProfessionalNetworks #WorkplaceDynamics #WomenLeadership #CorporateCulture #GenderBalance #Advocacy Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 06 May 2024 | Manage Risks and Disputes in Major Programmes with Shawn Modar | S2 E7 | 00:33:55 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with fellow Oxford’s Saïd Business School alumnus, Shawn Modar, to discuss why mega projects go wrong and what can be done contractually to avoid failure. The pair delve into the role psychological contracts play in the Iron Triangle. Plus, Shawn shares his Oxford dissertation findings, including a prenuptial agreement analogy you don’t want to miss. “One of the interesting realizations that I had during this process is: Why would somebody intentionally not comply with their contract, knowing all those legal risks that are out there? And what I realized is when they're not complying with that written contract, they're actually complying with their psychological contract.” – Shawn Modar Shawn Modar has more than 23 years of experience in the engineering and construction industry, with the majority of that time being focused on construction claim analysis and dispute resolution. His primary focus is assisting clients in their efforts to substantiate or defend against claims for the recovery of time and additional costs, to avoid formal disputes, and to make informed decisions that result in equitable resolutions.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 25 Mar 2024 | The Iron Law of Megaprojects with Oomar Paurobally | Saïd Business School, University of Oxford Dissertation | S2 EP 4 | 00:33:52 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Oomar Paurobally, a fellow Oxford alumnus and leader in hospitality megaprojects in South East Asia and Korea, to discuss his dissertation and his unique perspective on the Iron Triangle. The pair cover everything from stakeholder management and the universal complexity of major programmes to the interesting outcomes that can arise from a megaproject's royal flush.
“What we found is that the more you look at an aggregate level, when you're looking at an aggregated industry level, you find that the root causes tend to be the same. So, the same root causes we learned during our programme as areas affecting major infrastructure projects were the same that were impacting our industry, which were stakeholder management processes, product management skills in itself across portfolios; the root causes were similar. But what was really interesting insight was, so what? Now what? So we know, that's a core issue. But what does it really mean to us?” – Oomar Paurobally
After a degree in law, Oomar went to Dubai with a major project constructing a multi-billion dollar resort and waterpark. He has opened hotels, resorts and restaurants across Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Now, he has pivoted his career into real estate in the tech industry.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.
Riccardo Cosentino 00:51 Hello everyone and welcome back to another episode of Navigating Major Programmes. We're here today with Oomar Paurobally. How are you doing, Oomar?
Oomar Paurobally 01:02 I'm doing great Riccardo, it's great to be here.
Riccardo Cosentino 01:04 Thank you for joining me today. Really, really excited to have you on. I believe today you are calling from Singapore. Am I correct?
Oomar Paurobally 01:13 That's right. Beautiful island of Singapore.
Riccardo Cosentino 01:15 There you go. And I'm in Toronto so I think we are covering most of the time zone around the globe today. We're here today to talk about, I mean, you attended the Master in Major Program Management with me, we were in the same cohort. And today I invited you to the podcast to talk about your research, your dissertation. But maybe before we do that, that you might introduce yourself a little bit. Tell us a little bit about your background and what did you do before Oxford, what are you doing now, and things like that.
Oomar Paurobally 01:46 Thank you so much, Riccardo. Well, pleasure to be on the podcast and invest. Here I'm standing on shoulders of giants who came before me and we're on the fourth podcast. So if you ask myself, I actually did not start in life thinking I was going into major programmes. I read law and management in my very first degree. But I was tapped on the shoulder for a very interesting project, my first major programme in Dubai, which was to join the project management team building the Atlantis in Dubai. So that was approximately 15 years ago now. And that's how I joined this world in this realm. After that. I've been plodding along in the world of construction, building hotels and resorts across Asia, Middle East and Africa. The programme was a seminal point in my life and my career because I did pivot into a different industry, into the technology industry, right after looking still looking after spaces, but in a very different way.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:42 Very interesting, your background is very different from mine, I mean, you do construction, but you did a different type of construction. So I was very intrigued by your dissertation because it looks a case study that is very different from what I used to know. What I found from the dissertation for your research even though the case study is a different day, the issues are similar because upon the the level of complexity of the problems that you were looking at, is as high as any other major programmes that I looked at. So that was why I was interested in that, I was very keen to have you on because when we think of major programmes, in my circle, we always think of the major civil project is very complex and like well, tunneling, big dams and power plants. But you'll be looking at major programme from a different perspective. And so I was very, very keen to have a different perspective on the podcast.
Oomar Paurobally 03:38 Thank you so much, Riccardo. I guess first, let me start by saying obviously, the views I'll be sharing today are mine and mine alone and do not reflect any of the views and perspectives of my previous or current employers. So now that that's out of the way, let's talk about perspective. So it's very interesting, actually, I joined the programme itself, I was asking myself that question, major programme is programmes that are currently focused on major infrastructure projects (inaudible) start, whereas I was coming from a commercial lens at this project philosophy commercializing it from day one. And the added element to this was the complexity of the programmes I was managing was due to scale. So they had already scaled. So, if you looked at each individual project I was working on, they would not make up a programme. They would fall very clearly within the realms of what we define as project management, that when you start multiplying, and you start building in different countries with different stakeholders, at the same time, then the complexities became the same complexities you would face at a major programme level. So for me, that's where the similarities were, as we started engaging into the programme.
Riccardo Cosentino 05:00 And maybe we can have a bit of a debate as I've had this debate in the past with other people. So obviously, you're saying one building is probably not a major project but when you are combining a portfolio of building projects, then that's when it becomes a major programme. So a portfolio does reach a level of complexity that brings something to the level of major programme with some (inaudible). And I don't like I never like to measure major programmes by the size, you know, either financial size or like, even one bedroom size. I always look at, it's a major programme when the complexity is high. And so I think when you have a portfolio, by their nature becomes very complex because you're now dealing with multiple stakeholdesr, multiple jurisdictions. So yeah, I, you know, to me, and I would like to get your view, is like, is it appropriate to define major programme by the level of complexity or should we have a discussion about the financial size? Well, what would be your experience during your research?
Oomar Paurobally 06:08 Well, I think just financial size of your portfolio matters, because it will determine the level of interest that there is from different stakeholders on managing a portfolio of let's say, you have 50 assets, but which are worth 10 million versus 20 assets that are worth $100 million each, it's very different. So I think the financial element plays a part, plays a role because the bigger the financial elements that you're working with, the higher the level of pressure. In my context, and it is about assets that are owned, mostly by conglomerates or high-net-worth individuals. So the pressure to perform can can be quite different, versus assets that are owned, or heavily subsidized by banks, for example, where timing becomes very important and staying within limits of initial plan execution. It's more critical.
Riccardo Cosentino 07:11 Interesting. Okay, switching gears a little bit, shall we talk about your dissertation? Well, what was your word? What was your area of research? What did you research when you were at Oxford?
Oomar Paurobally 07:21 I was looking in the hospitality industry and whether the iron law of major programme was also relevant there, which is, you know, programmes are delayed and produce under benefits over and over again. Across the industry and across different brands, we found that to be true and that as an industry, it was not immune to the iron law of major programmes.
Riccardo Cosentino 07:49 And did you find that, you know, I think we all are aware, people who listen to the podcast are aware (inaudible) of what is analysis of the root causes of the iron triangle? Did you find that it's very similar root causes of your currents of the iron triangle or you've done with different root causes in your industry?
Oomar Paurobally 08:16 Oh, that's a really interesting question, Riccardo, because what we found is that the more you look at an aggregate level, when you're looking at an aggregated industry level, you find that the root causes tend to be the same. So the same root causes we learned during our programme as areas affecting major infrastructure projects were the same that were impacting our industry, which is your stakeholder management processes. You're talking about project management skills in itself across portfolios. The root causes were similar but what was really interesting insight was, so what? Now what? So we know that's a core issue. But what does it really mean to us? And the answer, and what added to the complexity or the beauty of portfolios is it really depends. It depends on the organization you're working with. What are the different stakeholders we're working with? And for some organizations, being delayed was a good strategy. Well, it was a strategic decision to do so because unlike infrastructure projects, where you're using, again, Epic Funds to build something and you have an imperative all the time of making sure that every dollar counts when you're going into the private sector, there might be an erosion framework, and yet, you might have invested a bit too early, but it makes more sense for conglomerate to wait, better headwinds, better travel industry patterns. COVID was a fantastic example of that. It might have been the middle of construction, while opening you better wait buddy. Let that thing pass before you can even (inaudible) means having to keep certain fixed expenses.
Riccardo Cosentino 10:02 That's very, yeah, for sure. That's not something that we see in my project, you know, we build, like, right, like rapid transit system that you can never open there soon enough also, because the idea is these projects, these mega projects in the public realm, and I know I'm not subjected to the economic ups and downs, right? I mean, and then they're typically long overdue. Yeah. So I can see, I can see how the government capital plays a part in the strategic decision of the major programmes that you look at. What are the interesting findings? And finally, the deal, I mean, you always see, maybe you want to talk a little bit about your methodology for the research is something that we always talk about, but you know, Oxford has a very rigorous research methods. And we as a Master's student, we are asked to form a very, very specific research guidelines. So do you want to maybe talk a little bit about your process?
Oomar Paurobally 11:02 Sure, I guess, rigorous is a bit of an understatement. It was like it was very interesting. I took an approach over here because I was looking at an industry in general, of doing a whole literature review first. And then I went into interviews. The reason I started with a literature review approach, which is, you know, scour the web and websites like Web of Science, Scopus, where we really have, you know, the majority of academic articles are listed. It is really scour websites to find out how much information, how much literature had been written on these aspects of major programming. But the performance of major programmes in the hospitality industry there wasn't a lot I mean, when individual it's a lot, it's a lot to go through, I went to thousand plus abstracts to be read and filtered down to get to the core articles that we wanted to analyze where the approach was a literature review approach to really understand what was the status of knowledge with regards to major programmes in that industry. What was interesting is that 5000 as a number can sound like a lot, it is not when you look at it in other industries, you're talking about hundreds of thousands. So the first insight was it was an interesting dissertation because not a lot was written on the subject. And when you look at the conclusion of 90 odd articles in the selected foreword station and to really analyze it was a handful of offers. So there, the interest, the academic interest in the industry was not very high, which for me was really interesting because it really open up more opportunities for study.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:09 So you went for a qualitative versus quantitative research so you qualitatively assessed the issue, rather than quantitatively which means you basically interview, how did you select your participants in the research and you know, how big was the pool?
Oomar Paurobally 13:26 The pool was leaders in the sector, across major hotel organizations in Southeast Asia. (Inaudible) basic geographic delineation around the dissertation, which is it studies the industry from an Asian perspective, which is also where most hurdles have been built in recent years.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:54 Okay, so you interview your participant, you gather the data? And then what do you, and then I'm assuming you analyze the data using a specific model that you probably had built? Sorry, I'm going for this because I, I just realized that I'm not over, you know, I invite a lot of guests and we talk about their dissertation and give it, I always assume that people know what the process of a dissertation and I realize that they don't So, I'm not, I'm putting you for this just to give a sense of why it's important to have guests like you on the podcast to talk about your research and to actually explain the rigor and what we do. So yeah, but I was asking you, you know, once you have all the data, you actually you know, I think we all do it, we actually create a model to analyze and assess the data, right?
Oomar Paurobally 14:46 Correct. And the methodology I used was a methodology from have Mahler and key platinum book, which explains the different methodologies available when doing interviews and more specifically when writing dissertations. And the approach I took was a thematic approach, meaning you would run the interview and you would give full, obviously, full freedom, full length for the interviewees to give their point of view. But after the fact, you will look at how many times a fear would come up during the conversation without being prompted. Right. So he got really hard because you really don't want to influence the interviewee to keep on one subject, but you would let it naturally flow during the conversation. And what would happen is after a little while up to two or three questions, and as we go into our root causes, of performance or underperformance, each stakeholder start developing a fear as to why they shake (inaudible) I will then note the number of times that fear is coming up. So I would do that for all the interviewees. And at the end of the interview, I would highly tally shall be able to look at how many times project management skills or lack of knowledge of project management skills was coming up, the number of times stakeholder management was coming up. And that was the approach and the tricky part of the approach is, there's an inherent bias when you're selecting interviewees, because the higher up the corporate ladder you're going, the more the leaders would be guarding up stakeholder management, because that's where a bigger portion of their time is spent. While you're going to get the teams and within the teams then project management skills is really coming up soon. You're going to manage those different biases and try to find finely balance the interviewees you're looking for in the first place to make sure that the data doesn't go in one direction versus the other purely because of the set of interviewees that are on the pool.
Riccardo Cosentino 17:05 Thank you for explaining that. Because I think it's yeah, I think it's interesting and worth mentioning, as you said, these are experienced individuals, experienced participant, people who are, been working in the industry for a long time. So their views are very, very valid. And looking at patterns and models view of practitioners who have similar experiences, is what the research is about. And I found that a very, very interesting process because you do get a cross section of the industry or you do get a cross section of what's happening. So you talked about biases. And so did you try to balance off some of the biases by the type of participants? So you mentioned you had experienced project manager? Did you also try to balance so we'd, like, less experienced project manager to see if the (inaudible) a different views?
Oomar Paurobally 18:02 That's correct. You know, sometimes we talk about the things that work. But let me share something that did not work. My first approach was not an interviewing approach. My first approach was a survey approach. And it feels to be reserved, because I hadn't read the room correctly. You know, for context, while I was writing the dissertation, we were coming out of COVID years, and COVID had had a tremendous impact on, you see, with hospitality industry. So you can imagine how it would feel when you receive a survey telling you about, you know, what project is going wrong, the type of answers you would get shared good quality bias or influence, but there was certainly COVID looming behind the surveys, and I was trying to go for quantity and pushed it out to as many folks as possible are creating a wide region, the data that came in was just unworkable, because, you know, you get to read the room correctly for the balance correctly. So I had to pivot on the approach to get a better quality of data and to be able to get stock hurdles. So when you talk about biases, it was easier during an interview, to have a different conversation of COVID. But also, let's get COVID aside, you have X years of experience in the industry. Let's talk about those and what they taught you. It also covered of course, but you know, let's talk about your overall experience. So one way to reduce the bias was when looking at length of experience within various industries. So if somebody had joined the industry right before COVID or during COVID, I would not be interviewing them because of experience without being bothered by that (inaudible).
Riccardo Cosentino 19:47 Thank you for clarifying and thank you for your vulnerability. You're telling us that went down the wrong path that led to, but that's part of the research, right? That's exactly part of the research. It's you know, you try things and you try something different and the ending worked. Okay, so you did the literature review, you select your participant, you tailored questionnaire, you interview the participant, you gather the data, you analyze the data. And then I'm assuming you roleplay the discussion and then a conclusion. And maybe you can walk us through if you can on what were the main themes of your of your recent work. What came out as the main themes from interviewing a participant then what conclusions did you draw from the data that you collected.
Oomar Paurobally 20:35 Sure. The first elements, I guess, in a nutshell, we're very similar again to the infrastructure programs before project management came up, stakeholder management, lack or lack of stakeholder management came out. Those were the first set of answers that were coming out from the interviews, we hadn't gone to the level and we talked about biases a bit earlier, we hadn't gone to a level of, of bias yet, which I purposely bought into a question in the interviews to say, well, is poor project management a symptom? Is lack of stakeholder management a symptom of the bigger issue of the bias? And for me, this is where it became interesting, because when we looked, not only was the symptom similar, the biases are similar, I believe that's at major programme, so it's, it was an insight, which was interesting for me because there was also what when it came to the bias, first if we talk about biased strategic misrepresentation, right, so they could happen on many different levels, they could happen on the stakeholder level, not necessarily from the leaders of the programme, strategically misrepresenting this amount of time is going to build and get commitment to build. But there was a very (inaudible). So what? We knew that. You simply look at the past to know that it's going to take time and we see something we can live with. So what was interesting is our conversation of how much can, how much of the performance can we leave with before we decide to call it quits? So that was an interesting conversation, which I didn't find when talking to fellow colleagues or looking at the infrastructure. There are some fact in there. And so yeah, we know plus minus six months, that you plus two years, nobody's doing that. Versus in the commercial world yeah, it's two years, no problem as long as the conglomerate is still healthy and still working very well and the economy is right and ripe for the picking when you open. So I think that was interesting and that was different from infrastructure programmes. So, yeah, there is this strategic misrepresentation.
Riccardo Cosentino 23:08 So I think we touched upon why it's different, at the beginning you mentioned that there are, because I think it's important to dwell on the thought that yeah, when you delivered public infrastructure, it was always long overdue when the confession starts, because you know, thing takes a long time to get this project approved. And so the need for the infrastructure is already there, even before it gets built. And so then, therefore, a delay, all it creates is even more, you're already late when you start because you probably should have built that transit system 20 years ago, and so the further delays are not going to be acceptable. But in my field, we call that revenue transactions, where the asset is actually going to generate monetary revenues on the back end. And it could be yeah, I mean, there could be other reasons why a project, it could be delayed, or it's acceptable for a project to be delayed, because there are revenue consideration and cost consideration on the back end, something that doesn't really exist when you're building a public transit. I mean, it should exist, because ultimately, these are assets that generate benefits for the community. So your financial benefit should always be taken into consideration, but because the reason that exchange of money from the user or not a commensurate exchanging money for the user, that aspect, is that forgotten. And so sometimes being able to trade off delays with revenues or considering other reasons, it could be advantageous, but really, and we don't see that in the public realm.
Oomar Paurobally 24:51 Correct. I think the second element to your question of the findings were first, the first finding was a reaction of, sure what? Right? Set it to a bar set. So we've got it, it's an economic reality, which we live with. And because we were running a P&L, we manage a P&L, and as long as we're doing well, it's okay, let's live with it and move forward. So we don't dwell on it. But the second limit, which was not immediately coming across, but you would see, as we, you know, I was reading for the interviews was a collection of organizational inertia. So, for the inertia of a or I call it a (inaudible) company, that's managing the portfolio can slow down to a portfolio of projects itself. So if you're looking at a project, by definition, it's, it has a, an end date, it gets delayed, but there's an end date. If your teams are very nimble or if they're working like little organizations themselves. What's different in the hospitality industry is you, you have big organizations behind them. And what we saw is that to that nimbleness, sometimes we get lost at an individual project level, because you need to wait for the bigger organization for decision making. So organizational inertia, of bigger organization impacting individual project was also something that came up, which wouldn't exist in infrastructure programs, because we have one organization and designed for that speed and pace.
Riccardo Cosentino 26:37 Interesting, interesting. And so in your research in your conclusion, the way you're able to look at, okay, you look at so what and where you will also be able to look at now what? So what is supposed the solution or that was beyond the scope of research?
Oomar Paurobally 26:57 Yeah, look, we started to look at opportunities, right? I think I'll start with organization inertia first. I wonder who said that there was a code, that snow melts at the periphery. I won't be quoting him wrong, but it was Andy Grove of Microsoft, talking about this. And his point was that organizations can get too big before snow melts at the center and the center knows about it, it already melted everywhere else. And it sure felt that way. When I was studying the industry for a nation that where COVID had a major impact was redefining the industry. But it was also creating opportunities within the industry. So for example, Foodie Kiwi business was never hired while during COVID. And organizations that were nimble were able to take advantage of it so the term Goose Kitchens became popular. They werew opening up all over the place. Delivery services became massive and even after COVID they're still around and having taken with food for delivery services is now a thing. So what this created was a reckoning in the world of hospitality around the business opportunity that existed in that food and beverage area versus what was traditionally a very rooms focused, focused business. So a recommendation was to keep an eye on the periphery and what offers businesses coming up to adapt. Otherwise, if you look up the hotel today, it seem very different when I (inaudible) in the 1960s as it wounds through reception, and there is a (inaudible) on the right hand side. So it did give a moment of reckoning for the industry, which was quite interesting.
Riccardo Cosentino 29:11 Thank you for that perspective. Yeah. Very, very interesting. Yeah, I think we all anecdotally understand that but to hear it from professional from the hotel industry is very interesting. Okay, I think we come in towards the end of the podcast. And I have one final question before I let you go. But before I get to the final question at any other particular discovery from your research or you think you have you presented all your findings or what was there something else in your research that you want to share with the audience?
Oomar Paurobally 29:45 So the (inaudible) was interesting from the research was the importance of the country in which you're operating. So we discussed a bit earlier about complexity will be coming from jurisdiction in which you're operate and when you look at this part of the world in specific, we tend to put acronyms to things we'll say this is Southeast Asia, there's tens of countries, and the laws are very, very different. So when you are operating across them, having those acronyms in mind and thinking, oh, it's just one project under that acronym, how hard can it be? I think you can never discount the jurisdiction element. And again, that's a point of difference in I think, big infrastructure projects. But we know the country in which it's happening, if it's something that's being built between the countries, we're also very specific about those two, whereas when it's the portfolio, and it's across different countries, and different stakeholders we have in those countries being able to navigate, those jurisdictions become very, very important skill.
Riccardo Cosentino 30:55 Thank you for sharing that. Yeah. Very interesting point. It's very peculiar to your industry. Also because you have an ongoing like with mega projects, either they get handed over to somebody else, but the operation politics is well entrenched into the business, right? So it's not just about the power, it's all of the facility. It's about running afterward. Okay, before I go, and hopefully you can you can answer these questions. I don't think this triggers any confidentiality. But I think you while we were in Oxford, you were telling us almost very specific commissioning process that the hotels, group of hotels, have to go through. Can you tell us what the royal flush is?
Oomar Paurobally 31:44 Well, one very, one very specific project that (inaudible) when you're you're commissioning a property, and you want to make sure all the mechanical and engineering systems and the pipings are working well. You test all the products and amenities in a room that includes turning on all your TVs, etc. And when it comes to the flush, it's about opening every faucet there is, from the bathtub to the shower to the water closet and picking and choosing the big button and flushing and doing it all at the same time to check your equipment. There have been some interesting outcomes of (inaudible).
Riccardo Cosentino 32:32 (Inaudible) as a civil engineer that as commissioned projects, you know, that part of the commissioning (inaudible), so thank you for sharing that. And now, on that line note, I want to thank you for joining me today. It was a fascinating conversation. Thank you for sharing with us your dissertation, your process, your findings, and I wish you all the best for your new endeavor. And thank you for joining me.
Oomar Paurobally 32:55 Thank you, Riccardo, always a pleasure.
Riccardo Cosentino 32:59 That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major programme management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.
Transcribed by https://otter.ai Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 07 Oct 2024 | P3s, Projects, and People: Marni Dicker’s Blueprint for Success in Infrastructure | Master Builder Series | S2 EP18 | 00:51:33 | |
In this episode of Mastering Major Projects, Riccardo Cosentino and co-host Shormila Chatterjee sit down with Marni Dicker, a dynamic and bilingual senior executive recognized as one of Canada’s Top 100 Most Powerful Women and one of the Top 25 Most Influential Lawyers in the country. Marni’s accolades include the General Counsel Award for Business Achievement and the Premier’s Award of Excellence from the Province of Alberta for her groundbreaking work on the Calgary Courthouse Public-Private Partnership. With an impressive background in corporate law and a strategic leadership role in the Canadian Premier League, Marni shares her extraordinary journey from criminal law to becoming a transformative figure in infrastructure and business strategy. Known for her ability to deliver projects on time and within budget, she discusses the importance of diversity and inclusion in leadership and her commitment to mentoring the next generation of female leaders. "Remember, I knew nothing about construction and infrastructure engineering, and they would ask me a very substantive question. What would you do if this happened on one of your sites? And I did the following. I would certainly call external counsel who is specialized in that area, and I would ensure that we got the best advice. Basically, I was punting it down the line because I had no idea, none, how to answer their questions. What I quickly learned is that's what they liked. No one is expected to know everything you are supposed to be able to know how to use your resources, how to get the right expert advice." – Marni Dicker
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 25 Sep 2023 | Implementing IPD in Nuclear Mega Projects with Carol Tansley | Saïd Business School, University of Oxford | S1 EP 11 | 00:39:46 | |
In this week’s episode, Riccardo and guest co-host, Corail, sit down with fellow alumna, Carol Tansley to discuss her Oxford Saïd Business School dissertation on the institutional barriers to adopting integrated project delivery (IPD) on a nuclear mega project. Carol's impressive career, spanning two decades, is rooted in executing major programs for the UK Government Department for Work, HMRC, and DTI. As a recognized authority in large-scale IT and business transformations, her expertise took her to the Middle East, notably participating in the groundbreaking nuclear project in Abu Dhabi, marking the inauguration of the first nuclear power plant in the Arab world. Ninety-seven percent of nuclear major programmes go over time and over budget, so how did Carol (with no nuclear background) participate in delivering one two days early? This is a conversation you won’t want to miss. “IPD may represent a methodology that would work has been proven to work in first of a kind environments. And while we have the field conditions now to embrace that, we need people that are willing to go out and embrace these new ways of working and seek to implement them.”
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to navigate the major programes, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino brings over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University’s Day business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode, as I press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Carol Tansley was appointed Vice President X energy UK new build projects in September 2022. In this role, she oversees all x-energy's activities towards establishing the XE 100 as the prominent I temperature gas reactor technology in the United Kingdom. Prior to joining IX energy, Carol served as the operational readiness Control Center Director for the early successful Emirates nuclear energy cooperation startup of the Barakah nuclear plant in the UAE. She was also the new Newa energy company director of strategic programs. Prior to this, she served as a senior director for PwC in the UK and UAE, as well as working at Accenture delivering some of the UK is largest public sector change programs. She recently graduated with distinction from the University of Oxford, with an MSc in major program management. Carol's research focuses on causes of poor performance on nuclear mega project, and potential benefits of adopting relational contracting models.
Corail 02:05 Hello, Carol Heller, Ricardo, I'm super happy to talk to you today. And thank you so much for the opportunity to interview Carol on your podcast, Ricardo, I think we all met in Oxford during the MMPMcourse. And it was wonderful to learn about Carol's experience about the nuclear industry, which is one of the most complex industries, you can find say, I think the listener will be so happy to hear about Carol's story and what you have to say are all about the future of this industry. First of all, I was wondering if you could tell us a little bit more about your background and how you fell into the nuclear sector. I know that there is a little value at the start of this episode to talk about your career, but it would be great to hear from your words how how you got into that very complex industry.
Carol Tansley 03:05 Okay, thank you very much corral. And thank you, Riccardo. I really appreciate the opportunity. One to both be back together again, because we haven't seen each other for a little while and to to talk on your podcast. So thank you very much. And just in terms of my background, my professional career has all been in delivering major projects and programs. The first I'll call it almost 20 years was in the UK, delivering major programs for the UK Government Department for Work in pensions HMRC. What was DTI. A lot of the large transformation programs that came with large scale it development programs and the business transformation that sat around that in around 2010. I moved to work on a project in the Middle East. It was for the Ministry of Interior in Abu Dhabi, a large transformation program that we're doing now it was a joint Middle East UK project and it covered the police Abu Dhabi police that covered Civil Defense prisons borders. And I was there for a couple of years. I then went to Saudi Arabia and worked for on a big transformation program for Ministry of Labor. And it was when I'd been there for a couple of years that I was asked to join the nuclear project that they were delivering in Abu Dhabi, you may be aware that they are they've delivered the first nuclear power plant in the Arab world. It was a new to nuclear country, what they've achieved there is quite phenomenal with the vision of the leaders of that country. So they pass their legislation to become a nuclear country and to get my program moving in 2009 They broke ground if you like so poured first concrete and 2012 and they got their first unit online by loading fuel for the first unit right before COVID Hit actually And two days ahead of schedule on the 17th of February 2020. And I was privileged to be part of that program, I was asked to join that program because of my background in major program delivery, not because I had anything to do with nuclear. So it was really, it was an amazing journey, great learning curve, an amazing sector to be part of, particularly now that it is going to play such an important role in the energy transition, the drive to net zero and energy security goals for countries around the world.
Corail 05:33 Absolutely is really impressive as well that you delivered two days early this project, which is so unusual in I think, in your research somewhere, you said that there is a study that said that over 97% of nuclear major projects are delayed, that cost overruns, etc, all across the globe. So it's quite unusual. Isn't that very unusual in that industry? How on earth did you make this happen? Like how did you manage to deliver early such a complex program?
Carol Tansley 06:08 Yeah, well, you're absolutely right about what you say its nuclear mega projects, I'll call them particularly nuclear new builds are recognized as being one of the most complex type of program to deliver. In fact, there are people who say Charles Perot, for example, in his textbook says that nuclear mega projects are the hardest to deliver harder and more complex than something like the International Space Station. And you're also right in what you said that one of the datasets I looked at 97% of the nuclear new build projects had gone over time and over budget. So in terms of what happened at Baraccah, it certainly wasn't me alone, it was a huge effort by a huge number of people working together over many years to achieve this. I think a lot of it came from the vision and the determination of the leaders in Abu Dhabi, they were determined to be at the forefront of clean energy. And they saw the drive for nuclear. As a critical part of that. I think we the fact that we chose a design that was in Nth of a kind if you like, so what that means is multiple units have been delivered before. So the South Koreans Catco, who delivered the units, it was proven reactor design had been delivered before, albeit in a different environment. So that created with a very experienced team. So that was a big foundation. There were many, I'll call it first of a kind variables, as we've already said, new to nuclear country, new elements of the supply chain. But the critical thing was having a really important integration function that sat across all of the teams, including the supply chain, that worked very closely with all of the internal and external stakeholders, including the regulator, that was a critically important part of what we did, and making sure that we had a schedule that was fully scoped, that we did our best to make sure it was realistic from the start, we kept assessing our past performance as we were moving forward to make sure that the schedule took account of that. And we tried to eliminate any optimism bias in our forward forecasting. It wasn't always a smooth journey. There were a few bumps in the road along the way, as you'd expect with something that complex over so many years. But I think, as I've said already the the drive and the passion of the leadership there. And you know, quite honestly, the the work ethic of all the teams that were involved, because everybody realized quite what was at stake here that just kept driving to deliver.
Corail 08:49 Yeah, that's, that's amazing. And so I read your paper recently that you published in nuclear industry, congratulations.
Carol Tansley 08:57 Okay. Thank you very much.
Corail 09:00 And in there, you talk a lot about this, first of a kind issue in the in the nuclear industry. Can you explain to us what are the complexities associated with this first of a kind? Program?
Carol Tansley 09:17 Yeah, I think so. Yes. Thank you for the question. So, on a nuclear new build program, you have so many elements of complexity uncertainty at the beginning. So you have the technology, the reactor itself, which is obviously highly technically complex, you've got all of the support systems that sit around that they delivered in highly complex institutional frameworks, I'll call them within, you know, in any particular country in any particular location, because of all of the safety levels that you have to achieve. And all of the environmental levels that you have to achieve to make sure that you're safe in that environment that you're not disturbing that environment and all So the regulation that sits around it, so lots of stakeholders that have to be engaged in that. So all of that every time you go and deliver one of these in a new environment, you have all of that complexity. And if you are using a new reactor design, in the middle of all of that, you've got all of the technical complexity as well. So first of a kind refers to any of those variables that have never been used on the delivery of a project, whether it's a nuclear project or any project in the past. And typically, because a lot of these reactors, the nuclear power plants that have been delivered over the last sort of two decades, we haven't actually done that many of them that and they take so long that it's very difficult to keep the learning on a project that's that big and takes so long. And then if the next one happens in a totally different environment, in a different country, it's very difficult to replicate what you've had in a different environment with a different supply chain with different stakeholders. So it almost means that you permanently into eternal beginner syndrome. And I think this is why, you know, in places like China, in South Korea, they've done a really good job because they have kept building their power plants. So they have very exercised and experienced supply chains, they have stable reactor designs, they have a stable regulatory system. And all of that means that you've got a lot fewer first of a kind variables, and the fewer of those variables you have, the easier it is to deliver your project.
Riccardo Cosentino 11:35 So Carol, as Carell mentioned earlier, you you know, we met at Oxford, during the master image of program management, and a lot of your research was connected to the dissertation that you picked. And so my my I'm curious to know what why did you pick that topic? What what I mean, obviously, you were involved in the project, but why did you specifically wanted to research that topic? I mean, maybe introduced the topic, we don't actually have introduced the topic up to now.
Carol Tansley 12:08 Okay. All right. Thank you, Riccardo for the question. So my dissertation title was institutional barriers to adopting integrated project delivery on a nuclear mega project. And just to unpack that a little bit. So my experience coming as a non Nuke, shall we say, somebody with no nuclear background into the nuclear sector. One of my observations is that many people have been in that sector for many years, and very familiar with ways of working. And in some respects, not everybody, but in some respects, I find some reluctance in people to adopt new ways of thinking and different approaches to doing things. And that sort of from a theoretical point of view is looked through institutional theory. So looking at things from a regulative. So what are the rules around things, obviously, highly regulated environment in nuclear looks at the laws and the specific safety regulations. So that's one lens, looking at through normative lens. And that really is about your traditional practices, your typical work practices, the way you you do business on a daily basis, and the way people get used to it. And then the cultural cognitive piece, which is about how people perceive change, at what the mindset is generally how people look at things and think about adopting changes. So institutional theory, the institutional lens was regulative, normative and cultural cognitive. So I was interested in looking at if I brought a new idea, a new way that I thought might help to improve performance on nuclear mega projects. What would people think about that? And if they perceived barriers, which lens would they perceive it through? So that was part of it, coming back to the integrated project delivery. So this was a project delivery methodology and commercial approach that was founded, if you like, in the US in the civil construction sector, after decades of poor performance on large infrastructure projects, and what it has proven where it was adopted there, that it did improve performance. And it did this through driving inter party collaboration and using relational contracting approaches. So it wasn't the traditional contracting adversarial contracting approach. And they found that adopting integrated project delivery really did improve performance, particularly where it was a complex one off of a one of a kind project. However, I also found that that approach had never been used on a nuclear mega project. And I thought it would be really interesting to say, well, if it's improved, project performance on those kinds of projects, why I couldn't we use that in the nuclear sector. So I started to look at, you know, what, what are the facets of IPD integrated project delivery? And how do they map onto the problems that the root causes, if you like, of poor performance within nuclear mega projects, and I found there was quite a lot of symmetry there. So so what I mean by that is the root cause of poor performance, and the the items or the challenges, if you like that IPD was proven to improve. So I found a lot of overlap there. So the way I did my research was to take that case, if you like to a whole load of executives from the nuclear sector, explained to them about IPD. And get them to explain to me the challenges they'd had in delivering nuclear mega projects to sort of bring the whole concept to life, and then ask them what they foresaw as potential barriers to its adoption. So a bit of a long winded answer, but that was the the underpinning of my dissertation research.
Corail 16:03 Yeah, thank you, Carol. I thought it was fantastic. The way you showed that exactly. The issues were potentially all resolved by the IPD. And I was wondering, now, you recently came back to the UK? Also now Modular Reactor today? Are you trying to implement IPD? In the way you're going to deliver this reactors?
Carol Tansley 16:29 Well, it's a great question. And the reason or one of the reasons I was asked to join extended GE, where I work now, and you're right, it's a Advanced Small Modular Reactor company, we design and develop the reactors, as well as the fuel that powers those reactors. It was actually through my dissertation research, because I contacted one of the executives who actually works the text energy. And I was trying to explain a little bit about the basis from a research to see if you'd be interested. And as I was explaining that, so he said to me, you're not talking about IP are you. And, and I was astonished because nobody else I've spoken to, I'd heard of it. And he said, Oh, he said, were trying to implement it here because and the background to it was one of their customers in North America had wanted to have an active role in the project, and asked X energy to go away and research commercial models that would enable them to do that in a collaborative way. And in going and doing that research, they'd come across IPD, and we're then implementing it with that client. And and it actually reached a point where they decided they were going to mandate it on their projects. So it was through the research and that contact that I actually ended up coming to extend ng so again, a bit of a long winded answer, but that that is what we're trying to do. Not on all of our projects, but on some of our projects within X energy.
Corail 17:53 That's amazing. And I'm sure your research, like looking at what would be the barriers to implementing IPD on these programs is really helpful in your work today. Are there any barriers? Actually? Are there any issues that you foresee? Or do you think it's it's simply a cultural shift to make?
Carol Tansley 18:13 I think it's a number of things? Um, my, I think most of them are actually fall in the cultural cognitive arm if you like, and I think but I think what happens is people express reasons that give you potential barriers that are not real, if you see what I mean. So I get I got feedback about, you know, I don't think the regulator would like it, or, you know, I don't think we'd be able to find insurance to underpin this model, or I'm not sure the procurement rules, you know, the public sector procurement rules would allow it. But when I sort of unpicked that I found out, you know, that a lot of it stemmed from the way of thinking that people had just got used to, you know, and again, just some some normative ones that came up about, again, people not they're so familiar with the the traditional contractual models that they'd rather use that even if they don't think it's going to work, or they know it doesn't work, then pick something new that they're not familiar with. Yeah. So I think it's, you know, kind of change management issue or cultural cognitive issue if you like.
Corail 19:25 Absolutely. I think it's also super interesting that you're working on Modular Reactor now because obviously next fall, we talk a lot about how modularity improves the performance of the complex programs. And you're right there with the with the nuclear and it's fascinating because it's, it's, we've always thought of nuclear does be the reactor that takes so many years to build, and you're trying to do it completely in a new way by creating something that can be almost like the solar panels atSome points, you know, you installed.
Carol Tansley 20:01 Yeah, absolutely.
Corail 20:03 Can you tell us a little bit more about this? And this this new technology? And how you, you, you came to get interested in that field as well?
Carol Tansley 20:12 Yeah. Yes. So thank you for the question. And you're absolutely right. And what I will say is the big Giga watt reactors absolutely have their place. And as I said at the beginning, they are successful, where they can be replicated and are delivered as a series. The issue is, particularly in the West, we haven't built many reactors over the past two decades. And if you think about what I was saying earlier about trying to drive out first of a kind variables and get to Nth of a kind. So that means once typically, once you get past four, or sorry, four or fifth of a kind, you've started to drive out those first time variables, and you get, you get the benefits of replication and learning by doing that if, and that's where the series effect becomes important for performance improvement, as you see in China, as you see in South Korea. But the thinking is that these small modular reactors, the kind of modular from two perspectives, they're modular in the fact that they're small. So in our example, our XC 100 reactor is an 80 megawatt reactor. And we can modularize those so that you could have a four pack, which is the ideal size of a power plant, that gives you 380 megawatts, or if it was a remote location, you might just have one, or if you wanted 12 of them together. So the idea is that you can increase capacity based on local needs. So the modular from that perspective, they're also modularized, from the perspective of the intention is that we build them so that they're built in units, that you will effect you making a factory and then you click them together, you assemble them on the site. So they're not the traditional, huge, what they call stick build, that you build a piece at a time from the ground up actually, on a on a site. So they are two benefits of it. But also, the critical benefit is because they're smaller, and simpler to construct, you get from the first of a kind to the ends of a kind a lot faster. And therefore you gain the efficiencies of the replication, the learning by doing, which means you build them faster, they're cheaper, and you can get them on the grid a lot faster. For both the power and it, like in ours, the high temperature heat and steam to decarbonize heavy industry.
Corail 22:31 Yes, that's amazing. And I think during with the issue with we've been through recently, with power supply, etc, we could see that the nuclear industry, I think, you know, sort of regaining funding, and people were more and more thinking that this was so important for the environment and what we're trying to achieve and reduce our carbon emission, etc. So you're definitely working on on an amazing program. You just you've just been at the Nuclear week in Parliament. So I imagine you, you, you were there to talk about the trends in nuclear, did you see that this type of modular reactor are coming up in different ways, or is your industry still quite niche? With what? You know?
Carol Tansley 23:28 It's a great question. And I don't think it is considered niche anymore. I mean, you mentioned solar panels a little while ago. And obviously, one of the things that we've seen in terms of the benefits of renewables is the fact that they are easy to construct, you know, your solar panels, your wind farms. But that's where we're now getting to with nuclear. And I think there's a lot of recognition now that the scale of the challenge is so big, to help us with energy security goals, securing affordable supplies and tackling climate change, that there's a role for everybody, you know, that we've got, we need the wind, we, you know, renewables we have to have, but we need nuclear as well, to give us that reliable 24 hour a day baseload and that also can keep the grid stable alongside the renewables. And certainly from nuclear week in Parliament. You may be aware that we've now got our first minister for nuclear in the UK. He was appointed back in February, very energetic, Andrew Bowery and is very passionate about the sector very committed. And we've seen a huge increase in I would call it confidence and optimism in the in the sector this year. A lot of excitement at nuclear week this week, a lot of Parliamentarians so members of parliament and members of the House of Lords fully engaged in understanding what's happening, but an awful lot of vendor technologies there such as x energy ourselves alongside other large scale people are developing micro reactors people are developing small modular reactors as well as our advanced Modular Reactors. So I think there's recognition that we can't achieve Net Zero without nuclear. And it's got to be part of the mix. And I think we're, you know, we're starting to get the message out there. And we're starting to get a lot of traction in the UK with delivering more projects. And I think there's gonna be some announcements in the next sort of six to 12 months around that in the UK.
Riccardo Cosentino 25:25 Yeah, that's interesting. And just to give the North American perspective, like, you know, we are in Canada, Ontario, where I'm from, we also seeing a resurgence of nuclear, in parliament in Canada is now not a swear words, it used to be something you couldn't say out loud when you were in, in Parliament. And it's, you know, in the last 12 to 18 months, we see that the pendulum has swung the other way. Yeah. Now, it's all about nuclear. And it's, how fast can we do it? And, you know, something that was even pause, as you said, there's been decades since we built up a brand new reactor in the West. And now we're talking about new new reactors. Yeah. Beyond small modular, but even just standard nuclear reactors is something that has been contemplated, which is, which is refreshing?
Carol Tansley 26:23 And, yeah, yeah, I think it's good that you mentioned Canada, that because you've got a another tradition of building the CANDU reactors, I think you've built 22. All together, I mean, it's got one of the cheapest electricity prices in the world because of the amount of nuclear power that you've got in Canada. And I know that one of the things that's supporting this is regulatory harmonization between countries to try to make sure that we can bring nuclear effectively and efficiently to the market. And in terms of new builds, we've we've got four of our reactors, working with Dao, at their Seadrift site in Texas, that we're underway with constructing now. And so people are genuinely interested and, and heavy industry as well coming because they recognize that they've gotten the very hard to abate sector challenges that need nuclear to help them, you know, and these advanced technologies will also help us with hydrogen production, and with also production of clean fuels for aviation and maritime, if you look at where all of the greenhouse gases are coming from 20% is coming from electricity, but 25% comes from transportation, and 55% comes from heating, and processes, industrial processes. So I think this combination of nuclear, with the renewables is exactly where we need to go. And I think Canada is one of the countries that's at the forefront of this alongside US, UK, France, UAE and the the Asian countries.
Riccardo Cosentino 28:02 Yeah. And it's, it's interesting that, you know, because obviously, if you fully understand power, you know, nuclear provides the base load. And I think what we're seeing with the renewable is that it's great. However, the renewable puts a lot of strain on the network, and the distribution network. And so, you know, I think I was researching a couple of weeks ago, about how long does it take to get a connection into renewable touring into a renewable cluster of generation. And it takes years. And, in fact, I was actually, I saw last week that there was a the auction for the contract for difference. Were in the UK. There were no bidders for, which is now correct. Yeah. So it's because it's really I'm assuming, and among might be wrong, but I'm assuming is just difficult to get the connect the connector into into the grid?
Carol Tansley 29:03 Yeah. And I think you Yeah, yes, that is correct. And you raise a great point, because we all need the grids upgrading as well. Because the volume of electricity we're going to need, it's not as though that staying stable was a doubling of that over the next couple of decades. And we have to be able to meet that demand. And certainly, you know, we believe that nuclear is the way to achieving that to get the base load, the stable base load that we're all going to need. And it's not just about Western societies, you know, we have to remember that democratizing energy is really important for quality of life. You know, power and energy are really important for remote communities, for countries that, you know, not maybe as privileged as ours at the moment in having readily accessible electricity and we have to help those countries as well. So that that's something we're also looking at, you know, in places like Africa that we have to allow those communities to come up and enjoy the standard of living that we all enjoy through, you know, cheaper electricity.
Riccardo Cosentino 30:03 It's interesting. You mentioned that because you know, you think of you don't you don't think of Canada as a place where democratization of energy is a big issue, but it's actually a very big issue in Canada, because we have remote communities in the North. The majority of these remote communities are on diesel generators.
Corail 30:22 Yes, no, that's absolutely right. And I think, yeah, and going back to what Corail asked a few minutes ago, I think this is another reason why these small modular reactors are so so attractive, because they can be put in those remote locations and help those communities. So they don't have to have these diesel generators anymore. Yeah, absolutely. I think in France, in my home country, we've been being a nuclear force. That unfortunately, we work very hard on developing what you said, dispatch, first of a kind, very large reactor, and then I feel for a while, we didn't really maintain or build a new one. And I feel like the capability has been lost in the in the process, you know, and I'm quite worried about the future of nuclear in France, and they feel like the smaller reactor as would be so amazing, because then you can build back also the capability much more quickly. Also, you don't lose it, because every time you're building very fast, and yeah, I'd love to see our government invest a lot more into that type of type of reactor, although I completely understand that all of them are very, you know, can support the future of power in our countries.
Carol Tansley 31:42 Yeah, so and I know France is well underway with having its own small modular reactors as well. But the point you make is really good one about the supply chain. And I mean, that in terms of the people that provide the the capability to build these nuclear reactors on all levels, and one of the things that's happened across the West, because we haven't built that many, or in some cases any, that supply chain has gradually dwindled. And now we're having to stand it back up quickly. So countries are trying to work together to invest to do that. We've got now the nuclear skills task force in the UK, we've got joint agreements between the UK and France, to leverage experience and to build that supply chain and across different countries, because I think we recognize that it's a multinational challenge, and we've got to work at it collaboratively.
Corail 32:30 Yeah. On the on the personal note, would you recommend people to join this industry, like, exciting for, you know, we should encourage the younger generation T's to join in?
Carol Tansley 32:44 Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think, you know, I heard something the other day that said, if the younger generation now was in charge of nuclear, it would be everywhere. They're not the people blocking this, a lot of young people recognize the challenge that we're facing from a climate emergency point of view, and are really behind nuclear. They're some of the most passionate advocates. But I think nuclear is a fantastic sector to get into. And it's not, of course, there are engineers here. But it's not all about engineering and physics. And one of the things that we're launching, I think a bit later this year, early next year, is a campaign to attract more people into the sector. Because yes, attracting young people in to develop the pipeline for the future is really important. But that doesn't solve the situation we're in now. I heard a statistic the other day that said, we've got 91,000 People in the nuclear sector in the UK, and I believe that's across civil and defense, and that needs to grow by 40%. Over the next few years, well, you can't achieve that just with the young people coming in. As important as that are, we need to attract people in from other sectors across all disciplines. So that's what we're really working to try and encourage and I will just put a plug in, it's a fantastic sector to work in. I've had a brilliant time here. And I'm just encourage anybody to join.
Riccardo Cosentino 34:02 Second, a second day, we you know, even in Canada, it's there was a resurgence. And I think we're a bit more lucky in Canada, especially in Ontario, where, because we've been refurbishing reactors, we can look at the supply chain, and be more engaged. So we're not starting from scratch. But you know, going from a refurbishment to a new build of either traditional nuclear or more modular is going to require an injection of workforce in the in the supply chain. But as we teased the listener with your with your research, and with the dissertation, the paper that you published, and I think you covered most of the conclusion, but maybe just to reiterate, what were you find when we will what were your findings in the from the research that you conducted in terms of implementing IPD nuclear, any any insight that you can offer? Yeah, so my overall conclusions were that
Carol Tansley 35:00 You know, the the root causes of poor performance traditionally, or nuclear mega projects are very complex, you know, is technical is technological, its environmental, its organizational, its institutional. But one of the things I found was that first of a kind, projects have got the worst performance. And that might sound like a statement of the blindingly obvious. But what I found, the real conclusion I drew was it wasn't the first of a kind variables per se, it was the fact that we were choosing Commercial, contractual and project delivery models that were not resilient in a first of a kind environment. So they didn't cope well, where there was a lot of emergence and uncertainty. And that was where when I looked at IPD, integrated project delivery, I found that it did perform better in environments where there was uncertainty and emergent change. And hence, as Corail mentioned earlier, that mapping between the challenges and the root causes of poor performance on nucleon mega projects, and the challenges if you like, the benefits that IPD can bring, in terms of what I found about resistance to IPD. In the sector. I found that while people raised barriers, there was one example, the one I gave earlier with the company, I now work for, where they'd gone off and, and found that the client had actually come to them, none of those barriers emerged in practice. There were sort of theoretical barriers, not realistic barriers or barriers in reality, but of course, that was only one data point. So while I think IPD can, you know, may help to improve performance on nuclear mega projects, it still needs to be proven. And I think the final piece about the institutional barriers, one of the things I discovered was that even if the field level conditions, I'll call it change, to enable new ideas to be embraced. And I'll give an example of that in the nuclear sector. Now, the climate change emergency would be considered a change in field level conditions, because everybody's interested in nuclear again. And that might be sufficient of a driver to get people to consider new approaches. And that in itself is not sufficient. What you need is what the academics was called institutional entrepreneurs. So that means people that are willing to go out and find new ways of working to solve traditional problems in new ways and actually implement those changes. So they were the conclusions it was, first of a kind, but because we choose project delivering contractual models that don't work in first of a kind environments, IPD may represent a methodology that would work has been proven to work in first of a kind environments. And while we have the field conditions now to embrace that, we need people that are willing to go out and embrace these new ways of working and seek to implement them.
Corail 38:05 Thank you so much, Carol, that was so fascinating. So interesting. And thank you for keeping us at the top of the trends in your sector. That's a really amazing,
Carol Tansley 38:15 no, it's a pleasure talking to you and and getting your perspectives as well.
Riccardo Cosentino 38:20 Yeah, thank you very much, Carol, this this has been fascinating. I mean, I read, I read both your dissertation, the paper that you published, and I still learn something today from you. So I'm really lightening conversation and, you know, there's going to be other opportunities. I hope to have you on the po
Carol Tansley 38:44 Fantastic. Well, thank you, as I say for the opportunity. It's a pleasure seeing you both again, and to have the opportunity to talk on your podcast.
Riccardo Cosentino 38:52 That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 05 Jun 2023 | Initiating An Inclusive Industry with Hannelie Stockenstrom | Building Bridges: Women in Infrastructure | S1 EP 3 | 00:25:47 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Hannelie Stockenstrom, Senior Vice President Legal Major Projects & Canada Legal Centre Of Excellence at SNC Lavalin, for a in-depth conversation on her experience as a woman in in the male-dominated industry and her hope for the industry as a whole.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to navigate major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino I bring over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's a business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. And Ally stockin strong is an accomplished legal professional, and currently holds the position of Senior Vice President of legal for SNC Lavell ins major project division, and she's also a member of Canada Legal Center of Excellence of SNC Lavell. And in that capacity Annalee provides senior management and project team with advice in a wide variety of legal matters, including claims dispute and transactions. Anna Lee has extensive experience in major projects, national and international joint ventures, p3, and alternative contracting, and elite monitors and advises management and operations on legal trends and changes in the law and design implement a compliance program for managing risk. And the Lee was chair of SNC Lavell in Canada Edna committee from 2020 to 2022. And she's currently a member and pasture or the steering committee. Hello, welcome back to navigating major programs. And welcome back to the miniseries of building bridges. Today, I'm here with Hannelie, I've had the pleasure of working with Hannelie over the last 13 years, while SNC Lavell. And I'm really excited to ever hear and to ever review on the topic that we covered in building bridges with money Anna Lee, how you doing today? Hannelie Stokenstrom 02:14 Hi, Riccardo. I'm great. Thank you. And thank you so much for having me. Riccardo Cosentino 02:18 It's my pleasure. My pleasure. We talked about ED&I, we talked about diversity. And so I felt you be a great guest on this podcast, because I think you're a bit passionate about the topic. Hannelie Stokenstrom 02:29 I think that I am overly passionate sometimes about the topic, Ricardo, and when you get me talking about it, I can't stop talking about it as you know. Riccardo Cosentino 02:38 That's great. That's great. So why don't we why don't we just jump into the conversation? This is gonna be a conversation. And you know, let's maybe just introduce yourself a little bit, we heard your bio, but you know, what, what's your current role in infrastructure. Hannelie Stokenstrom 02:54 I'm on the services side, I'm a lawyer, as you know, from my bio, and being with SNC Lavalin, and for the last 15 years, and always as a lawyer, and currently lead the major projects legal team globally, and the Canadian regional legal team. And what we do is, we involved on the project side, we are involved from the RFQ stage, through the RFP, through the negotiation of the contracts, the putting into being the sub contracts, the joint venture agreement, and then once we get awarded the project, we are the legal resource and support during the execution of the project. And then, of course, if there are issues disputes during the course of the project, or subsequently, as the project lawyers, we remain involved in trying to resolve these disputes. But we are not the litigators, we actually have different lawyers who deal with the actual dispute resolution. So we project lawyers in the true sense of the word. Riccardo Cosentino 04:10 Okay, so you're covering, as you said, the service service component or the infrastructure industry, which is the legal services to these two projects and major projects? Did you as a lawyer, were you always an infrastructure lawyer, or do you start in a different practice? Hannelie Stokenstrom 04:28 Now I joined the law firm, both in South Africa where I qualified. And when I emigrated to Canada, I again went to a law firm, where I've always been involved in construction law, and at least the last 20 years I've been involved in construction law, but a very wide variety on the construction law side. And the early part of my career. I was actually working in litigation, but I quickly learned that I am Much more passionate about the front end work and making the deals happen and getting the projects built rather than dealing with disputes. Riccardo Cosentino 05:11 And so when you join the law firm, or you're always envisioning that stream, or you just joined programs, and you ended up following a construction stream, or were you deliberately looking for Construction Law, Hannelie Stokenstrom 05:26 I've always been passionate about construction and infrastructure. I love breaches, I think they are some of the most beautiful things in the world. And coming from South Africa, and having grown up in Africa, and seen third world countries, and the effect that either good infrastructure or bad infrastructure have on societies, infrastructure has always been a passion to me. But as I mentioned to you, I love bridges. And I originally thought that I was going to be an engineer. But I realized that it's not going to be my my future. So I actually did study a year of engineering at university. And then after that, I transferred to a commerce degree and after my Commerce degree transferred to low, so I have a little bit of that passion for engineering in me, but ultimately decided it will be on the service side as opposed to be on the engineering side. Riccardo Cosentino 06:29 That's fascinating. I've known you for 13 years, and I'm just learning about this passion of yours already comes through, but it's good to actually pinpoint that now. It comes from the day to day. So obviously, you knew you wanted to do so you knew you would end up in this something similar to this industry in this industry? And and so once you join this industry is anything What was the thing that surprised you the most about the industry? Hannelie Stokenstrom 06:57 I think some of the work from from a gender perspective, I knew that it was a male dominated industry. And it wasn't a surprise how many senior executives are still males in this industry. But the one thing that that I think probably the most surprised me, is when you look at universities, and how many women graduate in the in programs aren't whether it's on the commerce side, on the engineering side, on the architecture side. On the finance side, how low our representation still is. And it's interesting, when you look at the lower levels, the entry levels, it is we don't have so much of a problem at the entry level with respect to gender equality. But we do have we see a fall off at the mid levels. And that keeps surprising me is why do we continue to see that fall off. And the same thing with respect to other minorities and people with disabilities, we still see mostly people who are looking the same in our infrastructure industry. And that is something that it surprised me in the beginning. And it continues to surprise me that we are this such a big gap of so many talented people that we can bring into the industry, and that somehow we are still not managing to do that. Riccardo Cosentino 08:37 It's interesting about the university the the comment is, you're right nowadays, because I've seen the stats nowadays, we can actually at the entry level, we can almost have a 50/50 representation, which is phenomenal, because I actually don't believe that the universities, breakdown of male versus female is actually 50/50. So that's still a big issue. I remember even 20 years ago I was involved in a program are going to talk to high school and the kids children's school because I think that's where that's where the gender bias starts. And so as the Institution of Civil Engineers in the UK was having a big push to try and attract or diversify, you know, to explain to young kids that engineering is for everybody is not just for boys is for boys and girls. Well, I'm glad to see that we finally started to overcome that bias that ideally ages Hannelie Stokenstrom 09:35 100% and I'm reading a lot about the programs and that we are doing at schools and at universities, about why to pursue a career in STEM and how STEM careers are not just for the a certain a certain type of person So now, you don't have to look in this specific way in order to pursue a career in STEM. But I also think it's on the services side, it's really important for people to understand that there's lots of other positions within infrastructure that that you can do, you don't have to be an engineer. There's the positions in construction, in sub contracting, in the trades, in finance, in law in HR. And we need all of these in order for a program to come together, right? On a project management. Even today, in project management and project directors, we still see people more or less looking the same way, as opposed to, you know, sort of having a true diversity in there. And I'm obviously passionate about gender diversity. But for me, diversity goes much further than that. And we need to expand our minds and think about diversity everywhere. Because when when kids look at who's who they see on television, or in stories, about infrastructure, and about construction or engineering, they see somebody that looks in a certain way. So if they don't relate to that person, that's not the career choice that they're going to make. Riccardo Cosentino 11:22 Yeah, absolutely. That's so important to have representation so that people can identify with leadership, you said something very interesting earlier about how, you know, now we have almost equal representation at the entry level, but then, as the years go by, you know, there's more attrition on for more, you know, for females than there is for for male and so, I, I'd like to explore that a little bit in your mind. I mean, is it the, the environment that is basically pushing out mid level manager or female mid level managers? Or is it more your mind or more societal situation that is forcing that and is exacerbated in our industry, because the percentages are different than our representations are already skewed towards towards men keeping those positions Hannelie Stokenstrom 12:19 in our record, so I actually hope that somebody has given you and the people that you've done your program with will do a study around this, because it's something that that I think about a lot is, whether it is the environment. And whether women and other minorities feel that it's not a comfortable environment within which to work, whether it is that, for whatever reason, women are not giving the same opportunities, whether it is because they people think that that women don't want to do the same things, you know, the travel for work, or go and work in remote places, or different places in order to do these big programs in order to get a variety or varied experience, or whether it is because we don't promote them within these programs and projects. And therefore they feel there's not opportunities, and they therefore go elsewhere. I'd love to know what the real reasons are. I mean, people speculate a lot about it. And a lot of the speculation really, actually irritates me, because what you most often hear is that's the time when women decide to leave the industry in order to have a family, and then they don't come back. I think that is a very outdated way of thinking, because there's no reason for women not to have a career and a family. And we need to accommodate just as we need to accommodate a lot of other things. We need to accommodate that. And there's absolutely no reason why we can't do that. So I think that's outdated thinking, repeating myself, but I think it would be great to do a study and to better understand why. At that mid level, the you see that fall off? Riccardo Cosentino 14:19 Yeah, the biases are certainly there because I, I have caught myself. I mean, I'm at the end of the day, I'm a middle aged white man can't help it. And I have caught myself I would find myself having the biases, we all have them. And I think the point is, when he was pointed out to me, I immediately realized that that mistake, but yeah, I had the bias, like oh, you know, is that person that woman really just just had a second kid or is she really going to travel? And it was actually my wife that said, would you ask that question about a man with two children? And isn't that a woman husband at home? Why why why is he the one that has to give up? So immediately I was like was pointed out to me and I realize very bias very biased. So you know, the biases are there. And yeah, I think there is something that I think you're right. I mean, there are pushing women artists. And because it's a male dominated industry, these biases are prevalent. Yeah, I Hannelie Stokenstrom 15:15 think what you just said is very important. But it's also, we all have biases, right. And I, what is really great is once we come to terms with those biases, and we understand what our unconscious biases are, and we then aware of it that we can deal with it. That's why these unconscious bias testings and exercises that you can do is so important, so you can better understand I have biases, we all have biases. So but now I know what they are, and I can actually address them. But one of the other things I was reading or listening to a podcast a while ago, from a woman who's a civil engineer, and the podcast was about getting more women into civil engineering, and why it really is an exciting career for for anybody. And people think that a it could be boring, or people think it's absolutely just for men. And she was talking about the fact that women are not given the opportunities to grow within civil engineering, and within big projects that may be in remote areas, or you have to travel for them. And the misconception that women are not interested in traveling, and that or it may not be safe for them. Or they may be a distraction on a project that I've heard that, you know, they may that's a male dominated environment. So this woman is going to be a distraction. So these are all uphill battles that we have to fight, but it goes back to the unconscious bias. And if there is an issue, and if it's not a safe environment, or if there's going to be other issues on the project, that's the cause that we have that we have to deal with that at the root of the problem, as opposed to not giving woman the opportunity to go and do it. Right. That's not the solution. Riccardo Cosentino 17:13 No, absolutely. Absolutely. Let me let me just switch gears a little bit. And I think I know I know you've been involved with with women networks. So how important is in your mind mentorship for professional success. And you personally haven't been able to find a female female mentor within the industry. Hannelie Stokenstrom 17:34 I think mentorship is fundamentally important. In some instances, sponsorship is fundamentally important. I've been very fortunate in that I've had amazing mentors in my career, and amazing sponsors in my career. Unfortunately, none of my mentors were female, in when I grew up, both in South Africa and when I immigrated here, there weren't a lot of women that were in the infrastructure industry. And the people that most supported me were middle aged white men. And I have to give them credit, they were very supportive of me, very supportive of my career. And I was also very lucky to have parents who were very supportive and who told me, and that I could do and be anything and everywhere that I want to be. So I did have that advantage that I grew up with probably too healthy, a sense of confidence that I can do anything. And then I found the right people to support me. Women's networks are fantastic, because we get the support there from each other. And there's a there's not just women in these some of these women's networks. We have allies that join us. And those allies are equally important to the women that are in those women's networks and the support that we get from the industry in the sponsorships to do the things that we do. But within these women's networks, we have mentorship programs. And for me personally, it's not just something that I do, because I have a passion for it. But I think it is a duty that I have as women to act as mentors for young women. And I honestly I don't think they are the only ones that get a benefit from it. I get an equal benefit and satisfaction from doing it. And the reverse mentoring is incredible. Because learning from younger women and the next generation and the next generations after me is is so important because society has changed so much we need to understand how the Next Generations think we know that they have different thoughts about institutions and society and trust. So learning from them and how they think. Riccardo Cosentino 20:12 So obviously, you're passionate about infrastructure, you're passionate about construction, it is a journey that you started voluntarily. So obviously, you would encourage, I'm assuming other women to pursue a career. And I think you you cover that. But, you know, as you're thinking about future generation entering the industry, what are your hopes? What are your hopes for the industry as a whole? From a diversity standpoint? And even if you want to explore in general, what will work? What do you hope for the industry, Hannelie Stokenstrom 20:44 it's such an exciting industry, right. And it affects everything of what we do every day, how we move, how we live, from a social perspective, from every perspective of what we do, and when you look at at how infrastructure changes cities and communities, I hope that with a with a huge deficit of infrastructure that we have in the first world and in the third world, that we will truly have a diverse group of participants in the infrastructure industry, and that the money that we are contributing to infrastructure or over the world will, as part of that infrastructure funding, have infrastructure diversity, as as a goal. And that once again, that we don't just focus on on gender equality, but that we focus on equality as a whole. And that we, we, when we look at, again, the first world, I think we have a better chance of doing that. But that we also think of our roles in developing infrastructure in in the third world. And obviously, I'm passionate about Africa, because that is where I'm from. And you look at the deficit of infrastructure there. And not not just roads and transport, but energy, etc. is invest money in education, and education, again, diverse education, and that we can create a better future for all obviously, we have to think about sustainability, we have to think about climate change, and we focus so much of our our efforts in the first world, but I'm concerned that we'll never gonna get there, if we don't start putting some emphasis and focus in the third world, because that's where so much of the carbon comes from, and that's so so heavily reliant on coal, and other non clean energy sources. So I dream of a future that has a that has diverse participants. Creating a better future for the world Riccardo Cosentino 23:23 is a very noble ambition. And yeah, we shouldn't leave anybody's behind. We shouldn't leave anybody's behind. Holly, I wholeheartedly agree with that. Okay, I think we are coming to an end, I have one final question, one that I pose to all my guests on these mini series. The question is, what would you say to women who are considering a career in infrastructure, Hannelie Stokenstrom 23:47 I would say to them, absolutely. Go for it, run after it. It's an incredibly exciting career. Be confident that you can reach your dreams in it, find mentors, and qualify yourself as well as you can. But find yourself mentors, join networks where you can meet other women and go after it with every fiber of your being. Because it's such an incredibly rewarding career. Riccardo Cosentino 24:23 I can vouch for that, having had a career in this industry. And yeah, I'm I hope this message will be heard and we'll push it out to as many people as we can. Well, Hannelie, thank you very much for joining me today has been a pleasure as I've learned something new about you today. More more interesting. And yeah, again, thank you very much for joining me today. Hannelie Stokenstrom 24:47 I look forward to listening to all of your podcasts. Perfect. Riccardo Cosentino 24:51 Thank you. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and fun provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership, risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs. And I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 24 Mar 2025 | Fostering Innovation Through Collaboration on Alliance Contracts with Jane Ogilvie | 00:47:42 | |
In this Master Builders episode of Navigating Major Programmes, hosts Riccardo Cosentino and Shormila Chatterjee challenge the mindset around alliance contracts with Jane Ogilvie, the Alliance Director of Toronto’s East Harbour Transit Hub Alliance and a 20-year veteran of major projects management in her home country of Australia. Jane shares the details of this collaborative approach—one that has long been popular in certain industries Down Under but is still quite new in Canada. From method variations to adopting an alliance contract model mid-project to the future of this framework in Canada and beyond, Jane’s insights highlight the benefits of abandoning an us-versus-them mentality in favour of more collaboration between project participants. “I've worked on P3s and alliances and a lot in between, as I mentioned. And I think P3s still have their place. You know, I think you need a mix of the different styles of contracts, and you need to look at the risk profile of a project to see which one makes sense. You know, there are some types of contract where I would always say, you know, a P3 is probably a better model. And then there's ones that I'd say, obviously an alliance is a better way to go as an outcome. So as an owner, I think you need to look at that spectrum of where is the risk profile? How much of the risk can you share versus what's still a retained risk that you need to retain? As an owner, you can't push everything onto a contract.” - Jane Ogilvie Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 01 Jul 2024 | Unmanageably Difficult, Harvey Maylor on Systems Thinking | S2 EP11 | 01:00:32 | |
Riccardo Cosentino and his co-host Corail Bourrelier Fabiani welcome Harvey Maylor, their esteemed professor from the MSc Major Programme Management at Oxford, to discuss the transformative power of systems thinking in major project management. Harvey Maylor, a leading academic and practitioner, shares his profound insights on harnessing systems thinking to navigate and resolve the intricate challenges inherent in large-scale projects.
“We just make life flipping difficult. And that, for me, is a great frustration that you see really bright, really energetic people really going at a problem, but because of the way the work is organized, it's just really difficult and that their insights, intelligence, energy just gets burnt up by pointless organizational things that don't add any value to them, the organization or the end user or indeed society. ” – Harvey Maylor
Harvey Maylor combines over 25 years of industry experience with academic research to bring a unique perspective to project management. As an Associate Fellow at Saïd Business School, University of Oxford, and an Honorary Professor at the University of Warwick, Harvey focuses on project management, complexity, and performance. He advocates for practical methodologies like Agile and Lean to enhance project outcomes across various sectors.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 15 Jul 2024 | I Duped Oxford With Riccardo Cosentino | S2 EP12 | 00:08:06 | |
Welcome to a very unique episode of Navigating Major Programmes, in which Riccardo Cosentino shares his biggest insecurities and how overcoming them kickstarted the turning point of his career in major programmes. As Riccardo shares his upbringing in Italy and how he ended up at an Oxford University graduation ceremony dumbfounded by how he got there, listen very carefully—and trust us, listen to the end for a shocking conclusion. “My respect for Oxford diminished simply because I had fooled them into giving me a degree. How could the heart of world academics be so easily bamboozled by me?” – Riccardo Cosentino
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 18 Nov 2024 | Judy Wilson’s Legacy: Leadership and Legacy with Marianne Smith | Master Builder Series | S2 EP21 | 00:39:31 | |
In this special Master Builders episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino and co-host Shormila Chatterjee are joined by Marianne Smith, a distinguished partner at Blakes National Infrastructure Group, to celebrate her remarkable career and pay tribute to Judy Wilson, a trailblazer in Canada’s infrastructure industry. Judy, a world-renowned procurement lawyer and a champion for diversity, left an indelible mark on the sector before her passing. This episode honors her legacy while highlighting Marianne’s own contributions as one of Judy’s closest mentees. With over 20 years of experience in infrastructure and procurement law, Marianne has played a pivotal role in shaping public-private partnerships (P3s) across Canada. She shares her journey from working alongside Judy to becoming a leader in the field, emphasizing how mentorship and advocacy for diversity have been central to her success. "Judy was a champion of diversity. She was an ally before we had the nomenclature of what an ally is. She used her power, authority, influence. Not just selfishly, but also to promote, women, people of color, anyone who might've felt, that they didn't belong in the boardroom or around the table, talking about tough, infrastructure type issues. She really did impact so many people in that way." – Marianne Smith Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 12 Aug 2024 | The AI Revolution in Major Programmes with David Porter | S2 EP14 | 00:34:21 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino chats with fellow Oxford MMPM alumnus David Porter about the game-changing potential of artificial intelligence in construction and project management. David shares how AI can drastically improve project forecasts and decision-making, even in an industry slow to adopt new technologies. He also discusses innovative strategies from his company, Octant AI, that tackle data management challenges and boost project performance. The AI revolution is here—will you be ready? Should AI be considered a general-purpose technology (GPT)?
"So, you know, this is a huge, huge change that we are facing. And there is going to be massive disruption, you know, like, I mean, there just is. And so those who learn to use the tool, like those who learned how to use an internal combustion engine to put an airplane in the sky, those people are the people who are going to be our leaders." – David Porter
David Porter brings a wealth of experience from the construction industry, having spent his entire career in this field. As the co-founder of Octant AI, he has been at the forefront of developing AI tools that enhance project performance and decision-making. His insights into the challenges and opportunities of integrating AI into construction projects provide a compelling narrative for the future of project management.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 03 Jun 2024 | Optimistic Estimate Hypothesis With Ian Heptinstall | S2 EP9 | 01:03:23 | |
Riccardo Cosentino takes an ongoing LinkedIn debate with Ian Heptinstall live in this episode of Navigating Major Programmes for a fascinating conversation with one common goal: to elevate major programmes. The pair discuss the use of reference class forecasting, the predominance of strategic misrepresentation, and optimism bias during project estimation—both drawing on their practical and academic experiences to substantiate their points.
“One of my concerns, if we think the problem with projects is that our estimates are too light and the answer is to increase the estimates, is that it is a vicious spiral. That just means expected costs will go up and up and up over time. If we separate the three elements of time, and think maybe we missed the target, not because the target was impossible, but our methods of execution were such that it made it very hard to achieve the target. That actually gives us an opening for a virtuous cycle because there are, so called, black swans that show that the same estimates are achievable and can be done reliably. ” – Ian Heptinstall
Ian Heptinstall combines over 35 years of industry experience with academic expertise, to bring a unique perspective to CapEx & Construction Project Management and Procurement & Supply Chain. As an Associate Professor at the University of Birmingham, Ian focuses on practical methodologies like Theory of Constraints (TOC), critical chain, and collaborative procurement, which he advocates for practically improving performance in various industries.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 0:05 You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.
Riccardo Cosentino 0:53 Hello, everyone, and welcome to a new episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I'm here today with Ian Heptinstall, who is Associate Professor in Programme and Project Management at the University of Birmingham and he's joining me today from Birmingham, I assume. How are you doing, Ian?
Ian Heptinstall 1:09 Hi, Riccardo. Not quite Birmingham, I live in Cheshire. So I'm closer to Manchester or Liverpool than Birmingham.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:15 Okay.
Ian Heptinstall 1:16 But fortunately, most of my students aren't at Birmingham either, they're all over the world.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:21 And I mean, maybe just for the audience, you and I connected a few times on LinkedIn exchanging views, exchanging comments on various posts on various topics. And so I think we finally, I think you finally prompted that we could have a more productive conversation on the podcast rather than on comments on LinkedIn, which is always helpful, but probably not the most conducive way of having a conversation. And so why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself?
Ian Heptinstall 1:48 Exactly, thank you, Riccardo. I am Ian Heptinstall. I'm a late career academic, I've been working in academia at the University of Birmingham now for five years, primarily in a teaching role, although I've started to add some research elements to that. And I currently teach on an MSc program that's delivered to part-time students who study by distance learning. So my students are working in project organizations on projects all around the world. And they want to add to that master's level insight. And as we were chatting too before, our focus in the UK is that at master's level, the key component of that is critical thinking, critical analysis, critical thinking, understanding the evidence behind ideas. But before I joined academia, I had 35 years or so in practical experience. I qualified as an engineer. I started working in the chemical industry in the mid-80s, mostly in project-related roles, either managing small projects or manufacturing facilities, and managing larger projects, being a technical expert, often supporting projects. That was back in the days when project owners had a self-delivery capability, so they had their own engineering organizations. Interestingly, in the 90s, the company I worked for was known as ICI, which doesn't really exist anymore. But it was the third largest chemical company in the world, so-called bellwether of the U.K. business environment and the U.K. stock market. But during the 90s, it was one of the many organizations that started to sort of what Professor Stuart Reid calls "hollowing out," that in-house capability of employees was reduced with a view to what we can but that service in as and when we needed it. And actually, in the late 90s and early 2000s, client organizations could buy that in because the contractors and consultancies had ex-employees there who had got that 20 years of experience of how to think like a project owner and what impact that had on managing the project through its own lifecycle. So that gave me the chance to see projects from the owner's perspective and a supplier's perspective. Later in the 90s, I was involved in one of the first collaborative contracted project alliances in the U.K. that wasn't in the oil and gas industry. And now, I don't understand why all project procurement is not done collaboratively using project alliances. But that's not the topic for tonight's discussion.
Riccardo Cosentino 5:08 Yeah, that's another podcast. That's another long podcast. You and I exchanged on this a few times.
Ian Heptinstall 5:14 Yeah, definitely.
Riccardo Cosentino 5:17 So what are we talking about today, then?
Ian Heptinstall 5:20 We, as you said, we had some chats on LinkedIn about the ideas of the use of reference class forecasting, the predominance of strategic misrepresentation, optimism bias during project estimation, all wrapped up into what I've started calling the optimistic estimate hypothesis. In the debts, a proposed way that project environments work. The idea being because the data shows that most estimates, sorry, most projects fail to achieve their targets, Flyvbjerg made famous as the Iron Law of projects, was the Iron Law of mega project management, but became projects, that is about over time, over budget, under benefits, over and over again. And I think there's a significantly strong range of data that says a large proportion of projects fail to hit their own targets. So my argument wasn't with that conclusion. What I'm calling the optimistic estimate hypothesis says the reason for that is that the targets themselves were always impossible to achieve. And because they're impossible to achieve, that's why we never hit them. And therefore, the solution to that is to stop impossible targets being associated with projects when they get approved. And then the proposed intervention is using a technique known as reference class forecasting or a variation of reference class forecasting. So not always based on absolute values but relative percentage performance, which is another concern of the implementation of the method. It basically says, let's make sure that the target is at least compatible to targets we've had in the past. And on face value, I've got no issue with that. If, like me, you've come up from fairly mature project management and engineering environments, one of the estimating methods that has always been used is based on past performance.
Riccardo Cosentino 7:56 Benchmarking.
Ian Heptinstall 7:57 Yeah. It's not performance benchmarking in the true sense of the term, it's taking your own data and seeing how compatible it is. Parametric estimating is a method, so long as you've got the feedback cycles from actuals that keep your estimating databases up to date. Now maybe tying into the observation about the hollowing out of project-owning organizations, maybe that feedback loop of capturing actuals and feeding it back into estimating data was broken. I don't know, you're probably more closely associated with that than I am. Professional estimators should not be naive of real estimating data in the past. I can't see it just as being biased from professional estimators. Amateur estimators, I can understand how they would be naive and miss things, but not professionals.
Riccardo Cosentino 9:02 Look, I'm a big subscriber of your theory. I am 100% in agreement with you. In fact, I think your theory or thesis has got a lot of strength and in fact.
Ian Heptinstall 9:21 Can we clarify which one because I don't think the optimistic estimate hypothesis is valid. I'm just describing what it is. We're here for me to fix some holes in it.
Riccardo Cosentino 9:31 So, I actually think it's, I think it's actually very valid. And the reason I think it's very valid, because in my experience, I have always looked at a project, you know I've 25 years experience in this industry, and I always wondered from a purely technical standpoint, if you had unlimited access to data or if you have a lot of data and you have a lot of experience and you have a lot of experienced individuals, you can approximate an estimate. However, historically, or my experience was that all of the projects I worked on were over budget, all of them. So I could not understand how very capable, very intelligent human beings, with great experience could not estimate a closer to the actual. Because statistically speaking, I mean, if it was random, it will be 50/50. Right? You know, sometimes.
Ian Heptinstall 10:33 Why? There's many phenomena in the world that are not normally distributed. So why would we expect it if it was really random? But I don't think it is random? I think it's (inaudible).
Riccardo Cosentino 10:48 I don't think it is random either. But that's what I'm saying. It's like, if it was random, it would be 50/50. Right? So if he was really, if it was impossible to estimate something, or really, really, really difficult to estimate something, then it will be a random outcome, which will be a 50/50. But that's not a problem we have because the majority of the projects are over budget, right? It's not, or at least the mega project. Let me define it a bit, a bit better, it's not really the mega project that I have experience with.
Ian Heptinstall 11:25 Shall I give you a mega project that smashed the reference class?
Riccardo Cosentino 11:31 Yes.
Ian Heptinstall 11:33 Anyone who travels a lot long distances will know Embraer who work along with Bombardier, make the sort of medium-sized passenger jets, with Boeing and Airbus on the much bigger jet. The reference class for designing, developing and bringing to operations a new passenger jet was between 80 and 100 months. And in the new jets that have been produced the century since the turn of the millennium, many have estimated six years, but they've all taken about eight years. Embraer estimated five years and completed the project seven weeks early. So had they planned and achieved to the reference class, they'd have brought the second generation E-jets, the E2 jets to market just before COVID struck. As it is now, the E2 jets have had, for them, record sales performance and one of the most efficient in their class on the market at the moment. So they didn't follow the reference class. And it's extremely complex to about a four to $5 billion project.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:08 And I don't, okay, I think, I think, I don't, I think we were saying, I think I was trying to explain why I believe that the, how do you call it, the optimism estimate hypothesis, because it resonates with, why it resonates with me is because I think there is something systemic in the way the estimates are put together. I couldn't put my finger to it before I started reading, got myself educated on the topic. And that sounds a fairly rational explanation that, you know, strategic misrepresentation and optimism bias play a role in that. The reference class forecasting, I think I need to clarify, because I would never make an estimate out of a reference class forecaste. Like, that's not how you estimate things. And I think when you don't have the certainty, when you're talking about things where you making assumptions, you're never going to be 100% correct. So the way, personally, I think you have to do it and this is done in other industry, you triangulate, you know, you start from a bottom up, then you do a top down and then you start layering on qualitative factors and then at the end, you make a decision on what number to pick, but it's a decision based on on multiple parameters. And to me, reference forecasts, you know, I give the example many times about the mergers and acquisition industry, right? In M&A, you start with the discounted cash flow, lets you bottom up estimate of how much your company's worth and then, but whenever you do a DCF you need to make assumptions you know, you got to predict what the revenue growth over the next five years is going to be, blah, blah, blah. And so those assumptions might or might not be right. So you have one data point, then you have another data point, which is your reference class forecast. So in the finance industry, it's going to comps ratio, comps analysis, where you're looking at similar companies. You're looking at how much they're worth on the stock market and you trying to draw similarity. And that's your second data point that will be different from your bottom up. It'd be your top, right? So now you got two data points on trying to identify what a company is worth, and the worth of a company is very subjective as well. So then you got to layer in your qualitative analysis. So to me, yeah, I'm not here to debate the reference class forecast. It is an estimating tool. I'm here to debate that there is optimism bias and the risk strategic measure representation. And so what do we do about that?
Ian Heptinstall 15:56 I agree that those things exist. The optimism bias, I'm not sure. I'm still still thinking about that bit. Because if you, in reading the literature, a strong link is made to the work of Kahneman and Tversky and Daniel Kahneman's introduction of the term optimism bias and estimates. And what's interesting is if you look at, Kahneman use as an example that he was involved in developing a new educational course and textbook in Israel, and when you read it through, the bad with retrospect estimates were from the non-experts, the expert in the room knew it would take seven years and had the reference class in their head. But they were not, you know, they were in a support role. So actually, the expert estimate was quite good. It was the amateur estimate that was deemed to be optimistic. But when thinking about that, it seemed to me that when we're talking about time and money, either spent or estimated, they, an estimate will have three components. The first component is what it is feasible to do with it. The perfect position. Then there's another set of factors that relate to things outside your control, outside influences, unknowable risks and things that could emerge that have an impact on how long something will take. But there are two separate components. There's actually a third component particularly relevant when we're talking about projects, and that the whole collection of, of managerial practices of how we go about doing the thing, so that the time that we estimate and the time that it takes, I like to see us having at least those three major components. Now, the "iron law of projects" tells us that the total time estimate was less than it actually took us. I think we get much more insight, if we think okay, well, which of those three components had the biggest role to play? Was it, it being feasible or unfeasible? Was the estimate that bad it was physically impossible to do? Were there things that were unreasonable that professionals to have known about in advance? Were there the black swans, so to speak? And if there were, at least that explains to us where the issue arose? Or was it how we go about managing and implementing our projects? Are they inherently inefficient? Are they the reason that we struggle so much to deliver to our estimates? So, I'm questioning is it the feasibility of the estimate that's wrong? Or is it how we've gone about doing it? Because in the field of construction capital projects, the methods around the world are fairly consistent. You know, where I've done my straw polls over my career, I see great levels of similarity. People often, "How do you know so much because you've never been to our country before?" Colombia, you're not that different. How do you know African oil and gas industry? I've had the same conversations. Because I've said you're not as different as you think you are. But I think that third element is where the differences arise. Now, an analogy that I often use is if we think about the winning a marathon, world class athletes have no problem running a marathon in two and a half hours. Now, if I estimate that I will run my first ever marathon in two and a half hours, that estimate is not unfeasible. It's very unlikely. But it's unlikely because of the managerial aspects. Will I put the time and effort into the training? Will I do the preparation? Will I drink less and eat better food? Will I? So it's how I go about preparing for the marathon. One of my concerns if we think the problem with projects is our estimates are too light, and the answer is to increase the estimates, that's a vicious spiral. That just means expected costs will go up and up and up over time. If we separate the three elements of time and think maybe we missed the target, not because the target was impossible, but our methods of execution was such that it made it very hard to achieve the target, that actually gives us an opening for a virtuous cycle because there are so-called black swans that show that the same estimates are achievable and can be done reliably. We touched upon the area of collaborative contracting, IBD, project alliancing. This project from hundreds of real-life projects that have tipped the iron law on its head, you probably know, well know the Walker Hartley and Mills paper from 2013 from Australia, they had, 4% of projects went over budget, and about 20% went over time. So 90% were on or under budget 75% were on or under time. And all they changed was how the projects was procured.
Riccardo Cosentino 22:13 So you're not going to get an argument from me on on that topic because I do believe, I, you know, another hypothesis, I do believe that collaboration is the answer when you're dealing with complex projects. However, just going back challenging a little bit on the is it the estimate was not feasible to begin with, is it actually the execution, if we increase the budgets to begin with, are we just to even cover the poor execution. I'm paraphrasing what you're saying. But, having said that, well, yeah, and this, this is more on the, you know, when you are dealing with lump sum, turnkey contracts rather than Alliance contract, where ultimately, a client comes up with an estimate, right, they have their own estimate, they have a budget, and especially for public sector clients, those budget are, even are fully disclosed and known in ballparks. And now you have a contractor trying to win the work. And, I think we talked about this, before we came online is you know, the contractor knows that in order to win the contract will have to be near or below the client estimate. And so now, the optimism bias, the strategic misrepresentation is perpetuated in the bidding process by the contractors because they need to secure the work. Right? So in in an environment where you have lump sum turnkey fixed price, I do think it matters to start with the right budget, because that dictates the behaviors of the parties in the following steps.
Ian Heptinstall 23:57 But what is the right budget? If you want a budget that is very feasible to be achieved? If people work in a particular way, yes. But then you risk just wasting lots of money because a fixed price lump sum contract is that what it will cost you whether it's needed or not. And yeah, if there weren't these high-risk pressures on the participants to sort of play games, hide things, not be totally open and honest. And one of my concerns with the idea of strategic misrepresentation and the term deception, these people are being deceptive, no, they're playing by the rules of the game that are set in. Now, as Eli Goldratt once said, "Tell me how you measure me, and I'll tell you how I will behave. If you measure me in a dumb way, don't complain about my behavior." And I think that's what we're observing in many of the practices in the construction sector where owners are using processes and then they're complaining when they don't win, or change the rules of the game or the approach they take is to get better at this adversarial aggressive game. So we see projects where the most experienced, the most capable and the most highly-salaried individuals are those trying to control and police the contractual loopholes and administrating and nail everything down, and the lawyers, the commercial managers, the senior (inaudible). Yep. A fortune is being spent on people who are not thinking about
Riccardo Cosentino 26:00 Solving problems.
Ian Heptinstall 26:01 How do we get this hospital built quickly? How do we get this hospital built so that it's open and treating people 18 months sooner than we have in the past? Or that we can have 20 more beds, or that we can free up some money to employ so many more healthcare practitioners? It's focusing on the skills on the wrong thing. And actually, I think the industry is going to have a big problem if we get our way and collaborative contracting becomes the norm. What are we going to do with the hundreds of thousands of professionally qualified contract police? That's what a lot of people do.
Riccardo Cosentino 26:46 Ian, again, I'm not gonna argue with you, because on that you and I agree, 100, like, to me, I think you said it and I always say it, like, there are resources on projects that add no value or solving problems for the success of the project. And so redirecting the the effort to those results, or redirecting those resources, to more meaningful, yeah, as I said, a lawyer, you know, a claim against the client does not make concrete being poured faster, you know? A schedule analysis in order to substantiate a claim does not make concrete being poured faster.
Ian Heptinstall 27:29 And actually, the the issue with that is I think that the skills and the capability to manage the detail flow of work so that concrete is poured faster and worked on sooner, that sort of logistics flow management capability is also petrifying. Now, projects that are getting into techniques and methods like lean construction, are starting to work on that, or project production management are starting to bring in some of those skills and knowledge of how to how to manage the flow of work. But it's suddenly become a niche rather, whereas it should really be core. And the core skill is actually contract administering and locking up (inaudible).
Riccardo Cosentino 28:23 No value add, right? There is no value add to the ultimate goal, which is building infrastructure.
Ian Heptinstall 28:29 Back to the strategic misrepresentation, maybe.
Riccardo Cosentino 28:30 No, I actually wanted to probe you on this, because I've had a few people in the past challenging me, and you and I have exchanged messages on this topic. But you know, one of the big criticism, and this is a small parenthesis because this is not what we're talking about today, but like the cost certainty, right? You know, I have people telling me, well, you know, if you don't have a fixed price contract, you don't have cost certainty.
Ian Heptinstall 28:58 And they have got evidence that the contracted price is the final price. I have not seen that evidence. And whenever I ask experienced practitioners, they say none of the final price is always more than the tender price. So if you want cost certainty, put so much padding in there that everybody can fill their boots. But if you're in the public sector, that's almost malfeasance. Yeah, just just wasting taxpayers money just so that you can have an easy life. That's not what a professional job should be about, in my view. And I think the important point in there is focusing on reliability. Are you hitting our targets? The only thing that we can do is we take the target as sort of wherever it comes from that's the important thing and we've just got to match it. What about absolute value? Why are we not focusing on what is the absolute value? Yeah, but by the reliability school of thinking, it's better if your company makes $10 million a year, having targeted $10 million, that's actually better than making $15 million of profit in the year, because your target was 18. The 15 is rubbish, because you were 18% underneath your target, it's much better to have 100% reliability even if the profit is lower. I don't buy that. There is a role for a stretch target. The idea of smart has caused a lot of damage to performance improvement. Now, if you're looking to strive to continuously improve the performance, you don't want to put too much pressure on the individual if they miss what they're trying to achieve. Now you need to be able to manage in different ways. You need to be able to, the accountability is about how somebody goes about doing the job. Not the trivial, easy to measure accountability of numbers on a spreadsheet. I don't need to know how they're doing the job, I just need to look at some numbers. Well, if you want a simple career, become an arm's length investor or go buy a casino in Las Vegas. Because then you don't care about the individual gamblers and who makes or less. You're managing by the average statistics of the organization. On project, we want to be the individual who knows what to do. We need to be striving for what is it we do to deliver a P-10 project? Not let's make our life easy, and plan for P-90. And that's my other concern about if we blame the estimate, we're taking the focus off our leverage improvements or improvement, our leverage opportunities for improvement rather, those are how we go about doing projects. And I actually believe that if we focus first on absolute performance, reliability will get better. Yeah, that I don't whether you play golf, I (inaudible).
Riccardo Cosentino 32:45 Unsuccessfully. Yes.
Ian Heptinstall 32:47 My son is very good at playing golf. And he's got a very low handicap, certainly much lower than mine. And his focus, the focus of low handicap golfers is getting better at golf. Their focus is absolute performance. And you know what comes with it? They're much more reliable, their variability of play also goes down. But if you focus on just playing to your handicap, yeah, you will do some very different things. And you might, you might play to your handicap, but you won't do very good rounds of golf. And I think on project, we should be focusing on how can we make your project performance significantly better? Yeah, I think if I was still operating in large, mega projects, I'd be frustrated that the Starrett Brothers and Eken could build the Empire State Building and formed it in 10 days in 1929 when we can't do anything like that today, and I don't believe it's because we have safety rules these days. It's nowhere near as simple as that. If the industry had started to perform like other industries have, the Ford was making the Model T around that time, yet cars are just as affordable these days, but you get much, much, much more for your money. Construction projects cost more and take longer.
Riccardo Cosentino 34:31 Yeah, I take your point. I mean, you know, absolutely, I mean, we should be focusing on measuring performance and focusing on the performance because ultimately, that's the stuff that gets things built. It's not, an initial estimate is not what gets things built. But unfortunately, stakeholders and shareholders focus on it.
Ian Heptinstall 34:57 They want to make more money. If you've only got a business, the idea of risk comes with any entrepreneurship and business. They know all their forecasts or estimates. Yeah, if sales come in on forecasts, somebody's been playing with the numbers. Yeah, nobody can see the future. So where do you think that comes from?
Riccardo Cosentino 35:23 Again, I think cooperation and public, especially public company, by any corporation, has to deliver, has to provide indication of future performance.
Ian Heptinstall 35:37 Yeah. Let me give you an example. Because my other set of black swans that disprove the optimistic estimate hypothesis, so I've mentioned all the data on collaboratively contracted budgets, so all done. All projects are not overspending. It is possible to deliver and achieve the estimates. There's no evidence on those projects that the estimates have been done in any different way. And if they have, then that approach has helped avoid optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation. Which surely must also be a good thing. But one of my other set, and this is the Embraer example that I used earlier on, that's an example that have used the critical chain of both scheduling and execution management, which is, needs a collaborative team. But exploits that collaboration to identify issues much earlier on and overcome them. So it focuses on that doing the work. Even though from one perspective, it's just a way of scheduling and reporting. If it's done well, it helps to introduce a much higher frequency, a higher cadence of reporting and decision making at a much lower level. That is what achieves more efficient performance. So on critical chain, critical chain, scheduling and execution projects, hit their project-level commitments, very, very regularly. I know many organizations and I have talked to people in many organizations who have sort of moved from 20% projects on time in full to 95-100% in all sorts of project domains, simply from changing how they're scheduing and managing execution. They've also increased productivity as well. But if we're just looking, the reliability has gone up at the project level. What hasn't changed is the ability to predict how long individual tasks take. So that's the sort of strange dilemma, the individual tasks are nowhere near as predictable and reliable. But the overall project is, and I think if you're striving for reliable project level, cost and time is quite feasible, I think. I think it's quite feasible to live it. But if you pass the same mindset down at the detail levels of projects and try and get each individual task and activity to give an estimate, turn it into a commitment will hold you to accountable for it, that actually drives the behaviors that makes the project level achievement much worse.
Riccardo Cosentino 38:56 Yeah and why is that?
Ian Heptinstall 38:59 I think its inherent in the behavior of complex systems. Because the future is unknowable. And we all know that estimate is a fancy professional name for guests. So the important thing when you're working is to work efficiently and flag up issues that can have a consequence to the rest of the project as soon as you notice them without giving the boy who cried wolf signals that sort of says I've got a problem when it's not a real problem. And methods like critical chain, try and sort of do that damping. So individual tasks that are just taking a bit longer than normal the project to accommodate because we know that some projects, some tasks will have problems and some will go smoothly. But in advance we don't know which. So methods like critical chain and the costing equivalent for collaborative contracting, let's not worry about it. Because if we don't make those estimates into commitments, they will average each other out. That's one of the ironies of organizations that use Monte Carlo simulation to try and sort of aggregate up the numbers and produce and use the central limit theorem to get overall probability distributions at the project level. Because the the basic method of sorry, the basic algorithm for Monte Carlo assumes that the pluses balance the minuses. That's built into the maths. The trouble is, behaviorally, the managerial behaviors inhibit that, because the task estimates are commitment, what tends to happen is tasks get completed, on the due date or later. It's the managerial behaviors that inhibit a project or task saying ours finished three weeks early, the next task can start earlier. But that plus and minus is built into the maths of Monte Carlo. So when critics say well, Monte Carlo analysis is inaccurate, because the numbers never look like the analysis, and you know, a P-80, we never, we don't have 80% of the cases coming in, under or on that number. So the method must be wrong. Or actually, maybe it's giving us some insight into our managerial practices, or inhibiting the sort of pluses and the minuses. So I think that's what critical chain builds in. It allows and encourages the Task Managers to, so long as they're working in a focused way and they're reporting regularly, if it takes longer, it takes longer, because we know, there'll be other tasks in the project that go shorter than expected. And because we've removed the managerial obstacles to reporting admitting an early finish, nobody's going to come back and said, You must have added your estimate. We will reduce all of your other future estimates. We'll say, great, well done. Look who's with you. So in effect, you're embracing the inherent uncertainty, so that the central limit theorem will apply. And so that the project actually gets a tighter normal distribution. So the reason we don't get that in reality, in more common conventions, is that the management practices inhibit the pluses and the minuses averaging out. That's one hypothesis. That's the underpinning thinking.
Riccardo Cosentino 43:05 So if we link that back to the initial, at the beginning, you were talking about the three element of the hypothesis, right? Is a project over budget because of the inherent lack of feasibility of the initial estimate, poor, at the other spectrum, is the poor management, sorry the management practices we're not running these jobs properly and that's why we're late and over budget. And what was the middle one? The middle one was
Ian Heptinstall 43:34 Those are the true black swans and unknowable risks that come along with that, you know, they, that the the ground conditions on your chosen route, really were bad. Yeah, whether you do lots of geotechnical surveys before or after that is still at risk.
Riccardo Cosentino 43:57 So your, one of your hypothesis, if I'm not mistaken, is that if we focus on the unfeasibility of the estimate, if we assume that is the unfeasibility of the estimate that is creating the delays we were hiding, that allows us to hide the true reasons why the project is going bad.
Ian Heptinstall 44:20 Yeah, and it
Riccardo Cosentino 44:21 It could be the black swans or it could be poor performance.
Ian Heptinstall 44:24 Yeah, it hides it and it stops us focusing on getting our performance well. So yeah, back to my marathon running analogy. I had someone looked at some data from the London Marathon. So the P-90 duration for winning the marathon is six hours 15 minutes. And if I planned for the P-90, six hours 15, and managed to achieve it, great but no big thing counts a great winner. And to be honest, I will be dissatisfied myself. Because I know if you've, if you've put some time and effort in, it's quite feasible for average humans to hit the P-25 or the P-10 number. So it's not it's not the estimate, it's how we go about doing it. That's, that's my main concern. We've lost, we're blaming the estimate, and we're losing focus on execution. And there's so much actual strategic opportunity for executing differently. I, once we get the estimate, right, we turn the handle, turn the handle, churn out the railway easy.
Riccardo Cosentino 45:47 Okay, so now, the comments on LinkedIn are not very conducive to understand each other's points. So I think that's the conclusion I draw. And I agree with you, I 100% agree with you. My only note is that I also tried, the reason I'm a big defender of optimism bias, which is human representation is for very similar reason to yours, but I'm coming from a different perspective. You know, I am so fed up of seeing, especially in large, mega projects, sponsored by the public sector, they end up becoming political, in Canada will be a hockey puck, a political party, right? They just get tossed around. And, you know, there's a new government and an old government and you know, there's a blame game that happens. And the blame games is always around project over budget and late, right? And there is never a recognition of, you know, there's, the management of the project was very poor and that's why he's over budget. Well, you don't actually know that, Mr. Politician, or Miss Politician, you don't know that. You just, you're using that situation to your political to create political advantage. And so to me, I find that it's also disingenuous, right? It's both sides of the coin, it's two sides of the same coin, right? Where, you know, estimate could be used not to focus on the performance, but that performance being good or bad? Because a lot of time, my experience is that project leaders get blamed for project being late. And the analysis is never done why was the project late? And there's never an analysis around was it ran properly and you had a bad estimate? Or did you have a good estimate and and they were ran badly? I think I agree with you that the conversation should be about the project performance, always should be about the project performance. And I would, I, sometimes, you need a proper estimate to have a proper conversation.
Ian Heptinstall 48:01 Oh, yes, you, you definitely need to have a decent estimate that in the same way, that the iron law of projects doesn't prove that the management was bad, it doesn't prove that the estimate was bad, either.
Riccardo Cosentino 48:16 Absolutely.
Ian Heptinstall 48:17 You need to scratch below the surface. That's my concern about the optimistic estimate hypothesis is it's being used in many environments as the explanation for the iron law. And therefore we focus on the estimate. And there's promotion of reference class forecasting, which good estimates are always based on the reference class anyway. And if they're not, there's something sort of structurally strategic wrong with the organization that's delivering the projects. And that will touch upon your comment there regarding that. Where's the analysis being done? Where's the evidence being gathered from an individual project and fed back so that future projects at least don't suffer from those particular issues and problems? How's that being built in? When I started, we had such a system, this so-called double loop feedback, so that project managers on a project, the guidance was reasonably well up to date, whether it was estimates, methodologies, checklists, they were kept up to date. If you don't have that, it's very difficult for organizations to manage and continuously improve their performance. But, having said that, I see these so many execution, efficiency opportunities that I'm not sure why that's where we don't start. Yeah, there's some opportunities in that I've mentioned and discussed that there's also the idea, which also has a very strong evidence base, that projects that move into execution, before sufficient preparation has been done, the extensive data from IPA, Independent Project Analysis and the CII, Construction Industry Institute, in the U.S. Yeah, that sort of 30-year-old data, a strong correlation between the degree of preparation before execution is commenced. But how many projects today, the politicians want to talk, they talk about shovels up, get shovels on the ground. I want some shovel-ready projects. Okay. But that does mean we've spent seven to 10% of the capital value to get them to shovel-ready state. No, you can't do that. I know one of the Canadian public sector bodies has that, oh that's done on out of operating expenses. And we don't want you to spend more than 2% of the capital value, getting it to a final business case. Well, that's bonkers. Because as soon as the business case is approved, somebody's going to rush into execution. And that's going to be wasteful.
Riccardo Cosentino 51:35 Absolutely. Absolutely.
Ian Heptinstall 51:37 So I think, once we've sorted those things out, then we can start using the once we've crossed the execution and the preparation things off the list, then we can start looking at the quality of the estimates, I think.
Riccardo Cosentino 51:54 I mean, as project practitioners, I mean, researchers in the U.K., I mean, there is, unfortunately, sometimes we discuss and discuss these topics with a certain amount of preassumptions in, there are some things that I assumed are understood, right? And so my starting point is always I assume that we have capable contractors and capable supply chain. So that's typically the starting point for my analysis, which is not always true, but that I want to, I always try to start from there. So if you start from there, then obviously I've already solved that problem. And then now I want to focus on the strategic misrepresentation and optimism bias in the estimate process, right? Because my starting assumption is that we have a capable supply chain.
Ian Heptinstall 52:55 Let me give you just one example from my own experience, when I worked at a contractor. We had a probably one of our largest clients, we had a strategic relationship with actually the project owner that we did all the building services work on their projects, and they had dozens of projects every year. When we estimated, and interestingly, we put an estimate for the building services together when the conceptual design was put together. And this, although our pricing was through an agreed mechanism, this particular client had a fixed-price approach, I want to go to a main contractor, but your work will be sort of given to them on a platter, they will be told to use you etc. But we want single point of contact. That meant that when we estimated the amount of man-hours we put in on a job, it ranged from x to 2x. Simply dependent upon who we were working alongside. And that was not just competence. It wasn't even at the level of the company. Yet the people who came and the way they managed the worksite could double the demand on our resources. And that that's a significant impact. And strangely, it was the same number that I had when I was buying spray dryers in the chemical industry 20 years earlier. And one of the global manufacturers told me yeah, depending who the client is, some clients take two times the demand on our engineering hours than others with the questions they asked. They're all competent. So there's enormous differences with how you put competent people together. You can't just assume a team forms like putting a hockey team together.
Riccardo Cosentino 55:01 I said, I made that assumption and never said it was the correct assumption. But, you know, I need to simplify certain things in order to have certain conversation. But yeah, you're right. I mean, it's not the right assumption.
Ian Heptinstall 55:15 And it's a common one. And the, particularly, if you tie it with this assumption that a competitive market force will drive innovation within your supply base. It may do but it won't necessarily, particularly since main contractors are basically, variable cost organizations. They're not high-fixed cost. They're not major upfront investment that they react and increase temporarily, their variable costs only after they've won a contract. I'm not sure that that sort of market will drive innovation, you, you just need to be similar or slightly better than your fellow competitors. You don't need to be world-class, you just need to beat the other guy or gal in the room.
Riccardo Cosentino 56:12 That's the bear story, right? We have that.
Ian Heptinstall 56:15 That's it. That's exactly the bear story. And I think there's many from back in my procurement days, there's many examples where owners facilitating supply-side innovation, drove significant improvements. But if they just sat there and waited for responses to tenders, nothing would have changed. They the whole topic of so-called reverse marketing, where it's the customer who encourages suppliers to enter new supply markets, or to work in different ways. It's a known technique that I wish I saw more of it amongst major project owners in the construction space.
Riccardo Cosentino 57:07 Look, I mean, I might not have time to unpack this, but like, and it goes back to your alliance contract, right? I mean, that the reason and it's a very crude description, and you're probably gonna cringe the way I say it. But you know, when you have alliance contracting, especially the public sector clients have to be at the table, right? Now, the cost overruns are no longer somebody else's problem. They're our collective problem. And so you need to come to the table. So the, you know, for the contractor, it basically removes the unproductive resource, legal and commercial resources. And so now you have all of the resources, just focusing on problems. On the public sector, you actually create skin in the game, where now you don't longer have a command and control posture, because you have transmitted fixed price risk to somebody else, you're at the table, you need to contribute to problem solving, and you need to help, like you said, innovation. But that only happens if you have the legal and the right legal commercial framework that is associated with alliance, in my mind. I don't think you can achieve that through any other, because any other commercial contractual method, because the behaviors that those frameworks create, are not conducive to collaboration and innovation. Because exactly what you said, I mean, a contractor, a contractor will do what a contractor will do. Like it's a variable cost organization, they're not going to invest in R&D because the next project might not need the R&D you just developed for this project. And an owner wants to, as you said, there was an all-knowing how to most of the owners worldwide. And now the owner organization doesn't actually have the resources and the capability to be at the table, to be the informed or capable owner that is needed to run these projects.
Ian Heptinstall 59:10 They got to have some of it. Because I think that input depends on what the project is about. I'd like to start thinking about the inherent project and forget who employs the people that you need in your project team. So doing a project is a team sport. And you need people around that table with the sort of operating experience for what the asset will be used for. And you need that mix of expertise. And very often the owner organization is the obvious place to provide that kind of expertise. Now, I'm less convinced that the owner has to be the one with the team facilitation syncronization skill. I think that depends on the individual you've got. And that can come from any, ideally, any one of the participants. And if you're short there, you might have to bring in an additional individual or party to manage that synchronization. But that could that could come from any of them, not necessarily the owner. But which is, you know, thinking lifecycle cost, an understanding of needs, regulatory environment, the political environment, those sorts of changes will probably come from the owner. So their representatives, there's a lot of value they can add, rather than being arm's length, and hoping that the, your contractors will sort that out by themselves is, as one of my friends would say that you're taking hopium.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:01:01 The command and control posture right, I think you call it arm's length, I call it command and control posture. Anyway, I'm conscious of time. (Inaudible) Yeah, I mean, this has been a fascinating conversation that I want to thank you for, for joining me, thank you for suggesting that we do this. And honestly, I'd love to maybe, on another episode, to pick up the collaborative contracting versus lump sum debate, right? Because it's a very live debate right now in where I am in Canada, even in the U.S. a little bit. But Canada, or we are certainly now starting to enter the collaborative space and you can see, yeah, I love to have a conversation with you about that on another episode.
Ian Heptinstall 1:01:57 That sounds like a plan, Riccardo we'll work on it.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:02:01 Great. Okay. Ian, on that note, again, thank you for joining me, and I look forward to further exchanges, both on another episode or on LinkedIn.
Ian Heptinstall 1:02:14 Thanks, for the opportunity. And yes, this gets around the 125 or 1250 character limit of LinkedIn.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:02:23 Absolutely.
Ian Heptinstall 1:02:24 Thanks for the opportunity. I've enjoyed it. Thank you.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:02:26 Thank you. Bye now.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:02:29 That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major programme management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going. Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 17 Jul 2023 | Cultivating Collaboration in Major Programmes with Vicente Cunha | S1 EP 6 | 00:25:58 | |
In this episode, Riccardo Cosentino is joined by Oxford classmate, Vicente Cunha, to discuss his MSc in Major Programme Management dissertation on early completion payment as a mechanism to incentivize collaboration in major programmes. The pair dive into the importance of trust and transparency in major programmes and our industry’s struggle to implement either. Cunha explains why a shift in mindset and a touch of empathy could be a gamechanger for major programmes. Cunha is an accomplished Industrial Engineer and with over 15 years of experience in the oil and gas industry, primarily focused on delivering complex construction projects involving large oil and gas floating production units. He brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to his work, affording him a critical perspective on the integral factors behind the design, procurement and management of large construction contracts. He is particularly passionate about forging a strong alignment between in-house construction and operations teams and establishing productive and collaborative relationships with all project stakeholders, to achieve the best possible outcome.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn: Riccardo Cosentino’s LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/cosentinoriccardo/
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to navigate the major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino a brings over 20 years of major program management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxbow universities they business group, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. We sent a Konya is an accomplished industrial engineer who has an impressive MSc in major program management from the prestigious University of Oxford. He is a seasoned professional with over 15 years of experience in oil and gas industry primarily focused on delivering complex construction projects involving large oil and gas floating production units V Center brings a wealth of knowledge and expertise to his work, affording him a critical perspective on the integral factors. Beyond the design, procurement and management are large construction contracts is particularly passionate about forging a strong alignment between in house construction and operation teams, and establishing productive and collaborative relationship with all project stakeholders to achieve the best possible outcome. All right, and welcome to navigate the major programs, a new episode today with the center kuliah. Are you doing the center? Hi, Riccardo,
Vicente Cunha01:47 I'm doing great. And thanks for having me. It's a great honor to participate in Afghani measure program.
Riccardo Cosentino 01:52 It's my pleasure. And thank you for agreeing to meet with me today. Today we're going to talk about a very interesting topic that you are quite familiar with, which is early completion payments as a mechanism to incentivize collaboration in major programs. Can you tell us about this topic? And why are we exploring this topic today?
Vicente Cunha02:12 Yeah, I actually did a dissertation about that, in my master's degree in Oxford for in mega projects, the idea is to try to understand if you include one early delivery incentive in a contract, if that would make the performance of the contract to go any better than than what we actually see. And so the paper talks about long run and complex construction projects. It's not really not about like paving a few miles of an existing freeway over the next six months. Not that paving a freeway isn't hard worker cannot go wrong. But we're looking for projects with a higher degree of innovation, higher likelihood of stakeholders conflict, longer duration, expositions, uncertainty, and so on. So if you look at the traditional lump sum, fixed price, EPC contract and where contractors would compete for the lowest price to deliver a fixed scope, the dissertation starts from there. And the idea that if you have a higher degree of owner and contractor collaboration, it would have a better outcome for the project, we try to figure out that the incentive itself would booster that collaboration. The idea would be something like, let's say we have a conflict there. And I decide not to pursue what I think it's right. Because I'm looking for something else. In the end, that would be like the bonus for early delivery. That's the idea of the dissertation.
Riccardo Cosentino 03:34 Interesting. Maybe for the people following us for the first time, what's your background? What What inspired you to look at this particular topic,
Vicente Cunha03:43 I've been working in high complex, long run projects for for a while for like the last 15 years. So I work with shipbuilding, construction, oil and gas platforms. And what I found is that it's really hard to keep a project on track, my experience is about like a five year running project. And over time, we face so many difficulties that at some point, we are not talking about the target date anymore, and cost escalates and everything that's there in the literature. And it's very common in many projects. So I start thinking, what is wrong there? And how can we actually make sure that both owner and contractor are looking at the same picture and trying to do their best effort. And at some point, we had a great opportunity, stopping for a while before the project that I'm working now. And we put a group to study it and see what can we do better for for the next contract for the next project. And we came with some of the things we're going to talk about today. It's just all there in our new contract, and we are trying to figure out how to get better. And one of the thing is, is putting their incentive for early delivery. And then that's just the true question that came from my my work. Is it working or not? Is that the way to get a better outcome? I still don't have the answer in my actual works. It's just running out the incentive Is there and I can tell yet how the end of the story on my personal work is going to be. So I decided to jump ahead and try to figure out in the literature what to expect.
Riccardo Cosentino 05:10 Interesting. And so from your literature review, what were you able to find out in terms of Is there research already in place that talks about the benefits or disadvantages of alien completion bonuses?
Vicente Cunha05:24 So the answer is quite simple. It's a spoiler to the end of the dissertation here, it's not doing any good. Like what I did is I interview experienced professionals in large construction projects and different industries, different positions. And we talk about collaboration and many topics in collaboration. And I couldn't find any evidence that just included incentive would boost those practice. That's the idea of not saying that early incentive wouldn't help. That's not what it is about, it's about because there is a early incentive, would it make the other behaviors during the contract to work better, as I mentioned before, one of the parties being thinking about not pursuing some of their interests is because they're looking for something else in the end, and I couldn't find evidence that this would work. But I do find very interesting evidence and very interesting, I could confirm with the interviews, that there is a list of main contract prospects, and that you should include in your contracts, and there are some owner contractor desired behaviors, that if it's present there, the outcomes were going to be better. So I was looking for something and I find something else, that there's actually a list of things that you should be worried about, that you should do. And if you do those things, you probably will find better outcomes on a project,
Riccardo Cosentino 06:42 understand what you're saying to a certain degree. And maybe I'm putting words in your mouth. I think it's an interesting topic during the for your research, did you find out that maybe early completion, bonuses could be a positive thing for major programs, however, other mechanism, so you need to really be a package of incentives, a package of things that align behaviors, rather than just one thing that would solve major program delays and cost overruns?
Vicente Cunha07:12 Exactly. And I would add to that, it might not even be on the top of the list of the things you should have. It's definitely part of the package as opposed to but I would say there are a few other things that you should care more than just add the incentive.
Riccardo Cosentino 07:25 Okay, so maybe let's explore that, because I read your dissertation and you talk about things that you must have things that are very important and things that are less important in a particular contract. So from your research, what what are the things that must be included in any EPC contract or in any contract to increase the collaboration, and therefore, to increase the chances that a project will be completed on time and on budget,
Vicente Cunha07:50 the way that I that I frame it is there's a list of things that you should add to your contract. So we talk about things that you should research upfront, and try to include there. And then there is a list of behaviors that could work for for any given contract that you already have. Of course, if you have a contract where the previous list, let's say are there, it's going to be easy to perform those behaviors. So that list of the things that you should take care of in advance, it's quite small. So I got to six topics that I call them must have, and they are contractors, early engagement, they are clear goals and objectives alignment. And then I could say, adding a bonus could work for that topic, a fair risk balanced distribution, and select trustable and competent companies and have a strategy based on your your design, maturity, and put achievable schedule and fair price. So most of the time, you just ask for something that it's an attainable, so it's impossible to go from there. And then if you take care of those six things, and they're just six, but there is a lot of work to put those six things in place. So it's not that at all, it's just doing six things. No, there is a lot of work. There's a lot of work, I can tell because we tried to do that. And there's a lot of research that you have to do if your track of projects and historical data your companies have and try to put it in a fair balance there. And then you go to the behavior. So there are few as well. But then you should like for an owner's behavior, try to avoid like excessive penalties, avoid micromanaging in from a contractors behavior, you should try not to act opportunistically. Those are all things that in any given contract, as I said, you should be worried about and try to implement on a daily basis.
Riccardo Cosentino 09:36 So in your mind, what comes first, do you need to have a contract to incentivize behaviors? Or do you need to have the behaviors and the contract is just a guardrail, but in your mind to have a successful major program? What should be the right order?
Vicente Cunha09:53 It's hard to tell. I mean, if you don't have the basics in the contract, it's going to be very difficult to fix. sample for contracts are not to act opportunistically. So if you say to a contractor that you put a lot of requirements, you put like unattainable possible target date, and you keep pushing for him to deliver what you asked in the contract, and you keep asking, trying to give him penalties and everything that the contract allows you to do, it's really hard not to expect that he would act opportunistically, that he would avoid giving you all the information that you would use to to punish him. So in the other way, like if you have a fair contract, and then I'm putting fair here, just the expression of things that are, let's say, okay to be achieved, and you don't have any other mechanisms that I'm saying they're good for collaboration, you should be able to work without opportunistically you should be able to have a good relationship, because the contract is fair is reasonable. So even if it's not prepared for boosting collaboration, there, there shouldn't be a problem for both sides to act in a good way.
Riccardo Cosentino 10:55 Yeah, interesting. What I'm starting to find out is that many clients are now actually utilizing behavioral assessment tools when selecting contractor. So not only they want a contract a fair and it provides the right incentives and the right behaviors. Clients are actually starting to assess the collaborative behavior of the parties that they hire. And because, yes, the contract is important, and the guides, but ultimately, it people that deliver those contracts, and if the people don't have the right behaviors and attitudes, there's only so much that the contract can regulate.
Vicente Cunha11:37 Exactly, I like to do that parallel. Although I'm talking about complex and long run and very expensive projects, I like to do the parallel, if you're doing your job at your home, if you're hiring someone to fix or remodel your home, that's exactly how you would do you would hire someone that you trust that you know, you're gonna get well, and that's going to take the job to the hands, not exactly the lowest price, it's not exactly like the fastest one. It's just the one that because you you know, or because someone recommend you you would work with. But when you try to apply that to the industry to the organization's you normally would have a very difficult time on selecting preferred contractors. That's the main problem there, you are not allowed to work with your preferred partners. I even don't know in my industry, how would do some kind of assessment that you mentioned, and would hire someone based on that assessment? Because I would like to do that I prefer to work with that company than the other one. I mean, just because they have the right behavior just because they can work on a more collaborative way. They they can establish some kind of partnership they deliver. But I don't know how to do that.
Riccardo Cosentino 12:43 Yeah, so my experience is that they use this process called cognitive behavioral assessment. So whenever you have Alliance type contracts, where you are basically selecting somebody that to help you deliver the program, you as the older retain all of the risk, because in an alliance contracting and IPD type contract, the risk is with the owner, having a collaborative partner becomes paramount. So they now use cognitive behavioral assessment. And they going through behavioral assessment is done on the individuals not on the company. So individuals are actually trained and tested prior to selecting the organization that is going to deliver in the sim. I haven't been involved personally. But some colleagues that have taken part and yeah, it shifts completely the the attention of the people involved in the project. And it actually demonstrated that if you have worked in adversarial type contract or your career, it's really difficult to switch to a collaborative behavior. And so typically, the first step is to have to have individuals that have worked in collaborative environment before because they probably are more prone to be collaborative.
Vicente Cunha13:56 Yeah, exactly. So you mentioned the IPD, integrated project and the more collaborative way to work that, yeah, there's a lot of literature on the relation of contracts, I haven't experienced them. As I said, it's probably going to be shocking, and but I do believe that we should be moving to in terms of running our projects. But the idea is, how can we move there but still have like the traditional contracts? That's kind of what the dissertation is trying to do. So I take a lot of the ideas that the relational contracts have, and I try to implement them on a traditional contract because I don't see how we were going to move from the traditional because of like the lowest bids, the lowest price bid strategy that we are, I mean, many of the projects are supposed to adopt when they involve treasure money or when they have like a big organization that needs to follow that by law. So those concepts are the ones that I would pursue, and those are actually the ones that appear on my dissertation as the main concepts.
Riccardo Cosentino 14:51 It's interesting because I've been looking at EPC or we call it lump sum turnkey contracts quite a bit of a bit of a theory and I'd like to hear what you think, which is an EPC contract is really a zero sum game, where you have a winner and a loser. And because ultimately, if you're a contractor, you're given a fixed price, you have to deliver for that fixed price. The client has provided specification and they're going to enforce this specification. It's almost, if you're a contractor, you're not making money, you know, winning this zero sum game, how can you align a situation where you have a zero sum game with a collaborative approach? Do you think that's even possible? But what's more your findings in your research?
Vicente Cunha15:35 I think it's possible, but I still don't know how to do it. So they did that I always had in mind is let's talk like about risk balance, as an owner talking on an owner perspective here, I really care about the target date, the delivery date, but then when I go to a contract, because I'm so used to do the traditional, the adversarial, traditional contract, and I'm so used to always protect myself in the way I write the contract, I would say, Well, it's a fixed price. So any price escalation, it's your contractors fault. So you need to deal with that. And then what happens if like, I'm really looking for a target date, but when there is a price escalation, I say, that's your risk. And then what do we expect a contractor will do if by the time he needs to put that material order or that he needs to put that purchase order for for critical equipment? If there is a price escalation in that exactly time? So do we expect him to go ahead and assume that extra cost because he's looking for my interest in your on a target date? Or do we expect him to delay amount for two months to put that order and just assume that he's going to be able to work around it or in terms of scheduling and recover that later on. So the way I set my contract and giving him the way he should do, if I were his side, I would postpone my purchase order in one or two months. And as an owner, although I said, I'm really interested in the target date, and I have penalties for not following the target date. I mean, I won't be able to push him to put the PO on a high escalation price, because he knows the market will fluctuate and in, he'll have a better chance to put that later on. If we don't get to that. When I say I don't know, because I don't know how to get to my competence. Say, let's assume this collision risk here. Let's assume this escalation as long as the guy can prove me, the other side can prove me that by going into the higher price, he's saving time for the project. I don't have a way to do that nowadays. But I do believe it's possible. And that takes a lot of collaboration and a lot of partnerships. It's like, I wouldn't do that. If I don't trust the other sides, I might just have someone on the other side, just following like, forward me higher price PO notes, so I prove it. And that wouldn't be nice. So exactly. It takes trust, it takes like working with procured companies working with with people that to you can actually transparency and all those things. So they're not easy at all. But like from owners perspective, if I look at my organization and the experience that I could get during the interviews, nobody's willing to do that. You see, like, I care about the delivery time more than I care about the price escalation that might arise. But when I write the contract, I don't put it there. I keep like taking care of the money all the time. It's a strange,
Riccardo Cosentino 18:09 yeah, my experience of being on the contractor side is there is a lot of opportunity, and you touch upon your dissertation, a lot of opportunistic behaviors, we must be difficult for a client to understand when a contractor is truly asking for help. Or they just asking to be relieved of obligation that they've taken on? And now they don't know how to manage it? And that's where the trust comes in. But how do you build the trust to a point where you're not questioning the opportunistic behaviors all the time?
Vicente Cunha18:43 Yeah, the other question that I always ask myself and my colleagues and partners is there is kind of an idea that because you write something on a contract that you transfer the risk, or you transfer that to somebody else. So let's think about COVID. If we take any contracting like 10 years ago, nobody would say pandemic or COVID, or anything like that, because it wasn't there. But if you take any given contract nowadays, COVID is going to be there. And probably it's going to be written that contractor should take all the actions and should take the extra costs and everything to cover any new pandemics is going to rise. And of course, contracts. We won't do anything with that because like if we saw what happened into the pandemics, the cost is there the extra money that you need to put into to keep things moving, it was just an attainable it's it was possible to be taken. So I feel like from an owners perspective, just because you put it there, well COVID It's your problem. You think the problem is gone but if the problem comes you have doubled the problem because now you said it is there so you cannot work around it and find a solution because if you say it's there and the price covers that how can it not work around it but the problem is not going to go away because if happens contractor just come to you and say well, I know it's here but my press doesn't cover it. Do you expect me to put how much to cover it so that kind of mentality needs to change from both sides. I guess
Riccardo Cosentino 19:59 you If it's not easy, I mean, I think what you described is what I call risk damping, right? When you is no longer just transferring risk, you're literally trying to dump the risk to somebody else. But ultimately, clients are always responsible for the ultimate outcomes. Because the contractor at the end of the day will do what they can to defend themselves and to stay alive to stay in business. And ultimately, the price of delay will be borne by the client. I mean, you know, in your case, if you have, you know, you need to start drilling for oil. And if your platform is not ready, ultimately, your organization is going to suffer,
Vicente Cunha20:36 exactly. And then you have the lowest bidding price, which is always there in the beginning. So we talk about making contracts collaboratively. And we talk about throwing a lot of new ideas in a contract, but it's the lowest price is always there. I guess, if you're a contractor and you don't have like a portfolio at the moment, you were willing to go very low to get that next project. And then you put yourself in a position that well, it's would be great. Even if we have a track record, we have a trust for these specific projects, I'm sorry, I went too low on the beads, I won't be able to cover what I did the previous project, it was a different situation there.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:14 I guess the lowest price bidding process, really incentivize the opportunistic behaviors. So it's really difficult to reconcile that with collaboration, because ultimately, if you provide the lowest price, you probably cut some corners somewhere. And then you're always trying to recover from those early position that you've taken, making collaboration, quite difficult to be achieved, because you're always looking for opportunities, something that you might admire left on the table to begin with. I think we're coming to the end of the podcast, I think we've covered quite a few topics. So in summary, will be your conclusion from your research about collaboration and implementation of collaboration in major programs.
Vicente Cunha21:57 So as we said, I believe that's the path we should be following. So looking at IPD, looking at the concepts and behaviors that I found in my dissertation, I believe that that's where the solution to many of the problems that we that we see probably there, but there is a lot of difficult to implement it. So I would say first, if I have to give like an advice, I would say, we need to be questioning ourselves all the time. So most of the things that I'm that I'm saying here, they are not things that I manage to implement in my daily routine. It's just that I've been thinking about them all the time. And every time I came to a problem that I'm always asking that kind of question to my colleagues and my partners and say, What would you do? If you were on the other side? What do we expect the other side to do, if if we know that they can't bear this risk, they can't go that way, they're not going to lose money. So that's always keep questioning yourself on how the other part is expected to behave, what you can do up front, as we said, making a better contract. And also during the daily routine of contract relationship, what you can do to make sure that the two are trying to help and each other is aware of other side problems and other side difficult and also the problems are faces, it's very hard to solve, you better act before it, you better try to anticipate the problems and better say, Well, if you go in that way, it's not going to end well. So let's see what's making you go this way. What can I do from my side that we can fix it and and start going somewhere else from here because once we get there and things surface, it's really hard to solve.
Riccardo Cosentino 23:34 I think as an industry as a major program industry, I think we all have to start working towards more collaboration and put the effort into things that help building major programs rather than things that helps managing the contractual aspects of major programs because managing the contract doesn't get more things built. They just get more lawyers fees paid
Vicente Cunha23:58 exactly the way we we set our mindset. It's really about mindset like we've been working on that mindset for such a long time. First things we're talking here right now might just scare some of the lawyers that are listening to us. And some of our our colleagues say those guys are crazy. I would never let them deal with a project. But yeah, it's just about mindset and trying to just do small things and doing better on your next project and trying to get to more close to the relational idea, the litterature to call this really well.
Riccardo Cosentino 24:31 Yeah, I mean, he's not like the history major projects. This is full of successes. So I think different thinking is needed because clearly what we've been doing up to now exactly. Well, we say thank you very much for taking part in today's episode of navigating major programs is being a really interesting conversation. I hope maybe to have you again on the on the show in the future covering other topics.
Vicente Cunha24:56 Yeah, sure. They can always count on me and it's been a great pleasure in a very nice discussion. Thanks for having me again. See you.
Riccardo Cosentino 25:03 Thank you already sent it to you soon. Bye. That's it for this episode of navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, where we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 07 Apr 2025 | Primed for Disruption: Construction’s Internet 1.0 Moment with Patric Hellermann and Shub Bhattacharya | 01:01:06 | |
What if the construction industry is on the brink of a transformation as significant as the rise of the internet? With construction representing a massive portion of global GDP and a growing demand for infrastructure, how can innovation meet the challenge of a shrinking skilled labor force? In this episode, Patric Hellermann and Shub Bhattacharya, co-founders of Foundamental and voices behind the Practical Nerds podcast, sit down with host Riccardo Cosentino to explain why they believe construction is the next major frontier for venture capital. They discuss how venture capital acts as a flywheel—fueling innovation, enabling founders, and driving customer adoption—and why patience and compounding value are crucial in this sector. Patric and Shub highlight the importance of understanding construction’s unique complexities, explain why AI should be seen as an enabler rather than the main solution, and examine how hidden innovations and new business models, like cloud manufacturing, are reshaping the industry. “I really feel like we are in what I would describe as the equivalent of the internet 1.0 era in construction. Imagine you are somewhere, say 1994 or 1995, and someone tells you, there's an opportunity to be investing for the next decade or two in the internet. That would be a tremendous opportunity. Perhaps one of the greatest venture opportunities of a lifetime, maybe the greatest, right? I think it feels comparable. It feels very large. ” — Shub Bhattacharya Key Takeaways
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 22 May 2023 | The Importance of Allyship with Corail Bourrelier Fabiani | Building Bridges: Women in Infrastructure | S1 EP 2 | 00:27:25 | |
Is technology the answer to delivering major programmes on time? Is the infrastructure industry moving towards equality? In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo and Corail Bourrelier Fabiani discuss all this and more. Corail is an accomplished programme manager with expertise in delivering ambitious urban and cultural programmes with budgets ranging from £2 million to £5 million for clients such as the City of London Corporation, City of Paris, Sellar, and Fondation Louis Vuitton. Her experience includes managing the Paddington Square Public Art Programme and the Shard Quarter Public Art Programme in London, as well as leading the Sculpture in the City programme for four editions. Riccardo and Corail catch up after both recently graduating from Oxford’s Saïd Business School before diving into Corail’s fascinating career and her invaluable insights to improving inclusivity in infrastructure.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Transcription: You're listening to navigate major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino I bring over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's a business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see what the conversation takes us. Corail Bourrellier Fabiani is an accomplished Program Manager with expertise in delivering ambitious, urban and cultural programs for high profile public and private organizations. With a collaborative and problem solving approach she pushes the boundaries of what is achievable within complex environments. Corail has delivered projects with budget ranging from 2 to 5 million pounds for clients such as the City of London cooperation city of Paris, Cellar and fundacion Louis Vitton her experience includes managing the Paddington score public health program and the Shard quarter public health program in London as well as leading the Sculpture in the City problem for for additions in summary corroborate the bill Fabiani is a highly skilled and experienced Program Manager with an exceptional track record of delivering successful outcomes for her clients with a collaborative and problem solving approach. She's a valuable asset to any team working on ambition and cultural problems. Hello, welcome to navigating major projects. I'm here today with Correll I met Correll in my university degree at Oxford. And how are you doing today, Corail?
Corail 02:05 Hi, Riccardo. I'm doing great. Thank you for having me.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:08 It's my pleasure. It's my pleasure. As we discussed before, this podcast is about women representation in infrastructure. And I wanted to do to corral because I've learned through my years at Oxford, as she has a strong opinion about women in infrastructure. So I felt it was perfect guest for this podcast. So why don't we get right into the questions, Coraill? Let's start with a simple one. What what is your current role in infrastructure or contraction?
Corail 02:42 So I manage the delivery of large scale public art programs for both public and private organizations. And I work on fitout projects for museums.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:55 All sounds really interesting. How do you get into that and to begin with,
Corail 03:00 so basically, I I've always had abilities in the scientific subjects as a kid, like, I remember, I was like, maybe seven and they weren't like a mathematic competition in my region in France, etc. So being good in maths or in science as a child and coming from like a family of engineers, basically, I, I didn't really have a choice in my career. At 17, I told my mom, I wanted to become a makeup artist. And she said, No, she was like, there is no way first you you get a master's in engineering, you get degrees, and then you see what you want to do. And you can do whatever. And that was kind of like the idea that this this field would open doors to anything else. And so later, I found the university that was offering a type of engineering that was called urban systems engineering, which is like kind of a mix of civil engineering, structural engineering, urban design, all this kind of different elements, which felt kind of a bit more creative, you know, then just like something like more traditional. So I went for that. And out of this, I started working with people that were doing art with engineers and with architects and so it was fascinating. I worked with a really interesting man who was both an architect and an engineer, and with whom we basically developed really complex pieces of art by helping the artist design them, helping them build a fire in the fabricators to build them but also communicate with you know, the cities or the planners etc. To put them in the public space and re landscaped the areas etc, to increase integrate new pieces of art. So So that's how kind of I got into that very specifics field of the industry was your chance,
Riccardo Cosentino 05:08 So you are the crossroad of engineering and art. Is that a fair description?
Corail 05:14 Yes, absolutely. I think that's, that's really it. And that's just out of being interested in both and never being able to choose. And going with Well, I was still like, if you go into this, this engineering, infrastructure construction field, then you can also do what you're passionate about, which was art. And that's also why I moved to London, because I thought London was the place to be if you were interested in art. And that's how I started working for the city of London, but also private developers in London.
Riccardo Cosentino 05:50 Very good. So I, by the sounds of it, the next question might be a little redundant, but was it a surprise for you to build a career in infrastructure?
Corail 05:59 So it wasn't so much a surprise, I feel, I feel like it just kind of happens, you know, it's a was not also what's interesting isn't in our careers, or in our work, planning, or organizing is very important. I feel like in my personal career choices, it has been more like, you know, just following my passion, following my heart at the time or following advice I was receiving from families and friends. And so it was, it wasn't a planned, but it wasn't really a surprise, either.
Riccardo Cosentino 06:34 Okay, and so, what has been, okay, so you, you kind of plan this, you kind of follow your heart, as the industry surprised you in any way positive or negative up to now?
Corail 06:47 Yeah, I think it really, I didn't expect that we would, you know, have so much interaction with different types of people. I think when you study, when you go into scientific fields, you get this idea, because you do a lot of maths and a lot of physics, etc, that your work is going to be very technical. And my work has been a lot more about trying to convince people that, you know, this project is amazing, and it needs to happen, or, you know, trying to listen to what people want going going to meet land owners going to meet people who don't shop in the public, like, you know, next to the place where you're trying to build a network, or maybe talking to I don't know, like every type like access teams, highways, you know, a lot of internal and external stakeholders that you don't necessarily think of, and that is the real complexity, really, in your program much more than if you think like much more than the technical side, much more than managing your budget is trying to make sure that, you know, everyone is aware of what's happening. Everyone is in sync, and you don't get blocked along the way. And yeah, it has been a lot more about about that, I think.
Riccardo Cosentino 08:10 Interesting. So the next the next questions are gonna I don't know, probe you a little bit. And I know it's a difficult question, but so far, what has it been the highlight of your career? What is the most interesting project you worked on? The one that you're very, very proud of?
Corail 08:28 Well, I think like the the probably the one project I'm the most proud of would be the shard fabric, our program, because the shard is the highest skyscraper in London. It's a really beautiful building by Renzo Piano was an architect I really admire. And it's in a location where the artworks are seen by 50 million people per year. You know, it's right next to London Bridge station. It's really a prime location. It's an artist, Jeremy Lanza, who's internationally famous you find these sculptures everywhere. And it's it was really, you know, a labor of love, like trying to get all the approvals in place trying to get all the construction I worked with with the builders of the Shard on this, I worked with the engineers of the Shard but also with all the different parties that own different pieces of land around this area. And it was complex, but it felt very much like the jewel on the crown if you will like this kind of project that everybody when they arrive in in London Bridge station when they come out of the tube. That's the first thing they see right next to the shard and it's been really really interesting to get there. It's a project that in total took seven years to build. So it's a long, long project. I only arrived towards the last three years of the of the program but You know, being able to deliver it and seeing the artists being really pleased, and the clients being ecstatic as well was really something that I was proud of. And I still, I'm still very connected to that piece because I'm, I'm still really, you know, having nightmares at night of like, oh, well, if this artwork that is suspended above and the elevator falls, and then someone calls me in 10 years time and all that, like, you know, it, you you get to that level of involvement, I guess, when you're when you're working on such important projects for yourself. And yeah, I guess that's, that's the one that in 50 years time, if I have kids, it will still be there. And they can still come and have a look at it.
Riccardo Cosentino 10:47 Yeah, so I've seen our London Bridge station, and just right next to the shard, so anybody who's listening was in London, highly recommend to see these two pieces, right. One One is hanging one is on the on the ground.
Corail 11:03 Yes, it's standing. And I really recommend that people go and look at them at night, because that's when they're lit up. And they really feel like a welcoming piece for when you come out of the station, it's there for you to feel like you're welcomed, you're part of that space. And it humanizes the space so much, it really brought a different dimension to that to that square. So yeah, definitely was a was a look.
Riccardo Cosentino 11:30 Okay, thank you for that. That was fascinating. I'm always fascinated by the work that you do. So let's get into something that is even more, more close to your heart, and you feel even more passionate, which is working in a male dominated industry. So so far, your career, what would have been the challenges that you faced in a male dominated industry?
Corail 11:55 Yeah, I think you're absolutely right. That's one of the topic I'm really passionate about. And it's out of there been, like working all my life in male dominated industries. And it's it started even during my engineering studies, where we were massively outnumbered in in class, you know, it was yeah, not not far from like, 75% men and 25% women, probably something along those lines. And I think one of the challenges is, for me personally, being managing worksites, for example, is being able to communicate on an equal footing with, with men with worksite. Managers, with technicians as well being able to, you know, have a communication that is kind of free of backgrounds. So, that is liberated. And I've always had really great connection with with people, you know, I work with, but there is always this kind of thinking in my head of what is the right distance, you know, what should I should I make an effort to be nice, so that I'm accepted, and I'm listened to, or should I be really distant and really cold with the people around, so I'm respected. And there is always this kind of trade off, where if you're too nice or too kind, you're not necessarily respected. If you're too cold, like you, you are vilified, if that's the right word, but you're definitely not not appreciated in your team and not given the support that you necessarily need. So I think it's, it's difficult because it's something that is really linked to your sex. And that doesn't exist. Obviously, when you work with a woman like they those questions don't happen, and you don't worry about those things as much. So I've had to navigate this. Other challenges I faced, for example, was during COVID de COVID. Period, I was working in an in a company that was very, very heavily masculine, and the few women that were there basically started to disappear during COVID. And they were, they were thanked for their work, and they had to find themselves in really difficult positions. And that's not because they they were not good at their job. Far from it. I think all my colleagues, female colleagues and friends as well. I think were really working hard delivering, staying late when they're needed, et cetera, extremely motivated. But when it came to having to make the difficult decision of firing some people to put it bluntly, it felt like the management sorry, was easier to say goodbye to these women than to other men who maybe would have questioned it more maybe would have. I don't know what what was the reasoning behind. But that was like a really tough time where suddenly I realized, like we are fighting for equality, we're trying to get more diverse. But as soon as there is a crisis that is this big, we go back to our whole the habit. And yeah, that's something that has been difficult. I'd say one last thing is, when you're a woman, you are not necessarily given the same value as your male pair to start with, which means that if you're in a meeting, you have constantly to, or you feel like you have to prove yourself, you have to prove that you have a brain, you have to prove that you understand what's going on, you'll have to kind of fight a little bit harder to be taken seriously, when your male peer comes with, with a sort of aura that or just a simple respect from the start, if you will, so I never had issues with, you know, working with people I know really well. And, you know, they know me, they know my worst, they know what I can bring to trust me and it goes great. But when I go into a room, when I don't know the people, it's it's a lot harder to prove that I can do the job. And that can be linked with the idea we have about leadership and how it looks and it can be completely subconscious. And I come here, I look like a woman, I have a soft voice, I'm a bit shy, etc. Which means that for someone on the other side of the table, it's an extra effort to remind themselves that I can lead this project, I can manage this project as anyone else can.
Riccardo Cosentino 16:56 So maybe a follow up question, then. So you're obviously successful, you were to face all these challenges in a male dominated industry, how did you succeed? Why were you able to do to succeed? Probably knowing you, you think you haven't succeeded, but
Corail 17:13 thank you. Now I have to say, mentors have been amazing and, and sponsors and I have a to say thank you to Martin to Michel and Dan, if they if they ever listened to this podcast, because I met wonderful leaders who basically trust in me and push me and have been helping me develop by showing me how to lead and I would just, you know, follow that path. And I think that's so important to have someone who has more experience than you who knows what's happening, and who can help you develop and, and, and go somewhere you didn't even think you could yourself go into you know, and believe in you. And you will notice I didn't give any female name in there because that's, that's, that's the reality, I never had a female mentor, just because in my industry that I did, I never really had a female bus. But what I had, though, was a lot of sorority with other women and friendship with other women, whether in my teams or my clients, teams, at the City of London, the manager was in charge of sculpture in the city, which is one of my program. She, she was wonderful, and we became friends and that, you know, the sorority that we created was really helpful for me to succeed and develop and learn about about these programs and these projects. Yeah, and I guess like, obviously, you can't, you have to be honest, you're fit like you're fact, the support of your family makes a huge difference as well, obviously, because if you think about people, like when you think about women trying to envision themselves in a career in this industry, if they don't have an environment, a family environment that is there to push them and tell them like this is feasible, you like you know, did your you can you can study, you can go into science, etc. You don't necessarily think about it, it just doesn't come to your mind, I think.
Riccardo Cosentino 19:33 Yeah, yeah, support is fundamental to success. I'm glad you touched upon mentors and female mentors that that's one topic I wanted to explore. And so thank you for bringing it up. Even before I could ask you the question. So is it important to have female mentors rather than male mentors for a female or you think in your mind, it's it's As a mentor as a mentor,
Corail 20:01 so I would say I think what's important is to have female role models. And that's something that I found when we were in Oxford. In this master's, I met a lot of incredible women who do really interesting work in transport in the nuclear industry in all different fields, which are traditionally seen as masculine fields, and having them as role models, or as people that, you know, I can I can really relate to, I can connect with them. I, I see, I see how the struggles that they had to go through. And I know, I share the struggle in my career, although my career is nowhere near theirs, but I can identify myself to those role models, and I can, it opens a little light in my brain that says it's possible, you know, I can do this as well. And I think that is very important. In terms of mentorship and sponsorship, I think at the moment, what's important is having a sponsor, no matter the sex, because obviously men are men or in male in, in a male dominated industry, sorry, men are in power. So you need a man to help you or to sponsor you to to also, you know, accelerate your career, I think we're not in a situation where you can really pick and choose. And to be fair, my male sponsors and mentors have been amazing at helping me develop. So it's more about the person and the power that they have or the knowledge that they have that you don't have.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:40 Thank you for that. That's really insightful. Hopefully, people will find that helpful, because I certainly did. Okay, well, I think we come in towards the end. One very broad, sweeping question, what what are your hopes for the industry as a whole?
Corail 21:55 So we talked about diversity, obviously, I think we can't deliver good programs without having diversity in the leadership teams. Because what we prioritize what we put at the at the forefront is what matters most to us. And my experience as a woman is different as your as your experience as a man or someone else's experience. So I think diversity in the leadership teams really, when we work on very large, very impactful projects is extremely important to make sure that the priority are not our priorities, but our people that represent the society we were serving. So obviously, I hope that in the future, we'll have more and more diverse teams, and especially in the leadership position, I hope that our industry will be a lot more conscious as well, I think in the construction industry, we are talking so much at the moment about net positive, Net Zero, etc. So I think this is like obviously a major topic. And I'm really interested in that aspect of our programs and the progress we can make in that as well. And earlier offline, we were talking a little bit about technology and how technology can help us in different ways. And my hope for technology is that it will help us deliver on time. That would be wonderful. Yeah,
Riccardo Cosentino 23:29 there'll be the day on time and on budget. mega projects. Yes. Yeah. That's something to aspire it. Okay. So the final question is actually a break it down into two parts. But like, would you encourage more women to pursue a career in infrastructure? And for those women who are considering that career? What would you tell them?
Corail 23:50 Yes, I would definitely encourage more women to join this career. I think it's so interesting, because you work with so many different people, you know, I work with artists and engineers and Londoners, etc. And it's just just like, a chance to discover the world in a way. I think it's extremely interesting, although it can be intimidating yet. And I think a way to get more women into this industry is just rebrand the industry and just make it more attractive to women. And I know that the Engineering University I studied in which is called UTC in France, that recently reached 50% Women in at the entry. And I think that's, that's wonderful. And the way they've done it is really rebranding the field, just to attract more women because women have the potential to join this really, you know, this universities that are really challenging, intellectually challenging, but also fascinating, and I would I would really encourage women to to not be scared about the environment and seek out groups of women that can support them. I'm very passionate about the idea of creating women's networks. And I think we can see more and more women's networks in male dominated industries. And sometimes they're used a little bit as a how to say it as as a front, or used as a marketing tool for companies to include more women. But I think it's also the responsibility of women to decide what they want to do is to scan of network be clear and transparent about what are the opportunities that this network can bring to them, and also become more strategic about this networks and, and develop networks that can have some strategic power, let's say, to change the culture of our industry. So don't hesitate to join and try and build a strong strategic network that will support your career progression.
Riccardo Cosentino 26:06 That's excellent advice. Thank you for that career. Okay, I think I think this comes comes to the end of the podcast, I want to thank you again for agreeing to do this. You were terrific. I've really enjoyed our conversation today. And hopefully, we'll we'll have you back again for some other topics.
Corail 26:24 Thank you so much, Riccardo. It was wonderful. Thank you.
Riccardo Cosentino 26:28 Okay, bye now. Bye. That's it for this episode, don't navigate the major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major problems and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 26 Feb 2024 | The Human Pursuit of Infrastructure Delivery with Matti Siemiatycki | S2 EP 2 | 00:42:46 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Matti Siemiatyck, Professor of Geography and Planning and Director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, to discuss the rise and fall of infrastructure in Ontario and answer the big question: Does the type of delivery model dictate the outcome of mega projects? “We’ve lost track of what it means to be working collaboratively across organizations in these complex temporary organizations that are working at a huge scale with thousands of people and huge risk.” —Matti Siemiatycki, 20:42 The pair discuss the importance of data-driven debates for bettering delivery models and furthermore, the outcomes of major programmes.
Key Takeaways:
"We need to try to create these spaces where we can have divergent views and we can actually discuss these points.”—Matti Siemiatycki, 33:01
Matti Siemiatycki is a Professor of Geography and Planning and Director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto. His work focuses on delivering large-scale infrastructure projects, evidence-based infrastructure investment decisions, and the effective integration of infrastructure into the fabric of cities. His recent studies explore transit policy decisions, the value for money of public-private partnerships, the development of innovative mixed-use buildings as a form of place based infrastructure policy, and the diversity gap in the infrastructure industry workforce.
Matti Siemiatycki’s Published Work
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 0:05 You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.
Riccardo Cosentino 0:53 Hello, everyone, welcome to another episode of season two of Navigating Major Programmes. I'm here with Matti Siemiatycki who is going to introduce himself in a minute. And today we're going to talk about his latest paper and have a general discussion about the PPP model in Ontario and in Canada more broadly and delivery models in general in our industry. How are you doing, Matti?
Matti Siemiatycki 1:16 I'm great, Riccardo, thanks for having me. It's nice being with you.
Matti Siemiatycki 1:19 So as I said at the top, I mean, maybe for I know you well, but maybe it's for some of our guests, could you just tell us a little bit about yourself?
Matti Siemiatycki 1:29 Sure. I'm Matti Siemiatycki, I'm the director of The Infrastructure Institute and a professor of geography and planning at the University of Toronto. I've been studying big infrastructure projects now going on two decades, and had been at the University of Toronto since 2008. And this was a really important time to be studying infrastructure because I started studying infrastructure in around 2003, as Public-Private Partnerships were starting to really take hold in Canada and a generational wave of infrastructure started to become delivered through Public-Private Partnerships. And so through that period, at some parts of it, being on the west coast of Canada, some parts being overseas, and some parts, then returning to the University of Toronto, for most of it, I've had a pretty front row seat to the way that infrastructure is delivered, the changes that have happened, the big scaling up of investments in big projects, but also some of the challenges that have been experienced. So my work itself has been on Public-Private Partnerships on how to deliver projects on time and on budget. And most recently, I've founded and led the Infrastructure Institute where we do a lot of work looking at innovative types of partnerships, where there's deep collaboration in mixed-use buildings, for example, where a public-private sector and nonprofit may co-locate in the same building and where the definition and meaning of partnership is a true collaboration under one roof, which really stretches the definition from the infrastructure sector into housing and buildings. But the work I've done over the years then has delved deeply into how projects are delivered and some of the good, the bad and the ugly of the Public-Private Partnership model here in Canada.
Riccardo Cosentino 3:20 Yeah, I mean, I think I think I've come across you in the past and I think you and I touched or crossed paths during the Ottawa Public Inquiry where you were part of the panel, and I actually felt, think you've led that panel for the commissioner. And I've also followed some of your past work. You're an avid researcher, great publisher of articles and articles and journals, peer-reviewed journals. And in fact, today, I think we're here to talk a little bit about your latest paper about I call it a retrospective on PPPs in Canada and specifically in Ontario. And I believe that's in the context of understanding, you know, the rise and fall of PPP in this particular jurisdiction.
Matti Siemiatycki 4:08 Yeah, so we've really seen a wave and you can really, you can think of it like a wave cresting on the beach, that we had a dramatic rise of Public-Private Partnerships. They emerged in the 1990s, with a first wave that were really private sector-led and the goal was to try to outsource as much of the project delivery to the private sector. At that time, there was a view that the public sector wasn't either skilled or incentivized to deliver projects. In some cases, there was antipathy towards organized labor and unions on big construction projects. And there was a thought that if you inserted and injected private sector innovation and capital into projects that they would go better and deliver better results.
Matti Siemiatycki 4:56 That first wave did not go particularly well. There were significant challenges, in some cases, the how high the user fees were. And surprise, surprise, people don't love paying user fees. So that was experienced on Highway 407. There were other incidents where the projects weren't delivered all that well and had delays or other issues with rising costs. And so that first wave of Public-Private Partnerships didn't go particularly well. And at that moment, coming into the early 2000s, you might have thought that Public-Private Partnerships in Canada would subside and something else might replace it. But in fact, what happened was there was a real surge as the Public-Private Partnership brand and also the approach started to get re-interpreted. And what we saw, especially here in Ontario was a drive to use Public-Private Partnerships to deliver what was called value for money and in particular, on time and on budget. That past projects, big government projects, did have a problem with on time and on budget delivery. There was a lot of political frustration and community frustration and there was a view that we could rebrand and rethink Public-Private Partnerships to focus specifically on this intention of on time and on budget.
Matti Siemiatycki 6:15 And so in Ontario, what you saw was essentially a 15-year surge of a big project starting with health care, then into justice projects, and more recently into civil and transit projects where pretty much every project was going to be delivered through a Public-Private Partnership. The politicians at the time, had a strong favor for Public-Private Partnerships because they were seeing results, they were seeing that risk transfer could be achieved in the early projects, and that the evidence that they were seeing showed that they were getting projects on time and on budget.
Matti Siemiatycki 6:15 Additionally, they formed an organization in Ontario called Infrastructure Ontario, in British Columbia Partnerships BC, at the federal level, PPP Canada, to really start to encourage and incentivize, and in some cases require big projects to be delivered through Public-Private Partnerships. So there was a narrowing of the range of project models that were permitted. But more to the point, you saw this surge. And this was supported by government, but also by the private sector. The private sector really bought into this model of project delivery. It was, in some cases, quite lucrative for various advisors and firms and so big industry support for this model of project delivery. And there's this confluence, that for 15 years, this is basically the only game in town to deliver big infrastructure. And then more recently, there have been challenges with some of the, especially starting with transit projects, that have started to show cracks in the foundation of the PPP model and some questions about what's going to come next. But this is an area where there's been just so much interest, because the the stakes are high, the money is huge, and the implications for communities and for government are substantial.
Riccardo Cosentino 8:05 Yeah, that's actually I have to jump in and say that it's a fascinating retrospective, because I, as a practitioner, I was involved in exactly that journey and I think you have captured beautifully what I felt at the time, you know, I started infrastructure in Ontario in 2007. I worked for the government and then I worked for the private sector bidding and delivering these models, and I was part of this ecosystem that you described very well, of advisor and almost lobbying group, you know, to try and to keep the model going, because it was serving, it was serving a lot of purposes. And as I said, a very accurate summary word, I think anybody that has been involved as long as we have ever experienced, your report is a really good retrospective, like I said before. And you know, my impression has been, over the years, is that there's been a sort of tendency to assume that if you pick the, if you pick the right delivery model, everything will take care by itself. You know, if you pick PPP, then you know, all of a sudden, you'll have the private sector involved and or everything by magic will work quite well. And it's almost like, as long as you make that right decision, everything else is secondary and will work anyway. What's your view on that? What's your impression on that because it's quite reductionist, it's almost like a very reductionist approach to something very complex, like major infrastructure.
Matti Siemiatycki 9:33 I think it's almost human nature that we're looking for a solution that fits all problems that delivering big infrastructure is so complicated and so risky and when challenges occur, the implications are so significant financially, politically, environmentally, community-wise, that people are looking for these types of solutions that are universal that will work in all different settings. And if we want to drill down further, there's also deep interests involved that if you deliver a project, in one way, certain interests will really benefit. And if you do it a different way, there might be other interests. So there is competition and there is, there are interests involved. And I think what we found with Public-Private Partnerships is, they became the solution to many problems and at some points, even all problems that we started really forcing projects through the lens of the PPP and trying to see the Public-Private Partnership as a universalized solution to a variety of different types of infrastructure challenges, and there was a period there probably in the late 2000s, early 2000s, and '10s, were Public-Private Partnerships were essentially the only game in town that if municipalities or other orders of government wanted funding for their projects, they essentially had a one choice and it was to deliver the project as a Public-Private Partnership. The auditor general did a study, I think it was 2013, looking in Ontario, looking at the record of Public-Private Partnerships, and one of the conclusions was that pretty much every value-for-money study, looking at whether a project should be delivered through a Public-Private Partnership or another alternative, showed that the Public-Private Partnership was the best way to proceed. And you just started to see this, this wave and this pressure and the technical, aligning with the political to ensure that this became the model that was delivered and it started to foreclose other options, and it started to make all infrastructure projects kind of seem the same, that you can deliver a hospital or a school or a courthouse or bridge, or a highway or a transit project through a Public-Private Partnership and the commonality was the P3. And I think what we've learned more recently is that each project is itself unique and each asset class has variations, and that having a more open mind to the types of delivery models matching the delivery model to the project, I think is becoming more of the norm now as we come out of this, this, this wave of P3s being both politically and technically and bureaucratic, and within the bureaucracy, the only game in town.
Riccardo Cosentino 12:19 Yeah, I totally agree with that analysis and I think part of the problem is also that you allowed, having one solution that fits all the problem would allow a much fast track approach to delivery where you didn't have to think about the intricacy of each project, you didn't have to spend time, you know, analyzing and understanding the issues and then tailoring a solution to those issues, you could just apply a cookie-cutter approach that would would really fast track everything, which I think at the time was the ambition of various level of governments to, you know, push out as many projects as possible, keeping a pipeline of opportunity going. And the model kind of lent itself. And, you know, I'm very familiar with the value for money and houses of Infrastructure Ontario, having studied there and applied there. And you know, even when you actually look at what's that value for money actually doing is actually telling you that there is always going to be value for money because you're transferring risk to the private sector. And that's really what that value for money says, but it doesn't really look at the intricacy of each opportunity. I mean, yes, there is a risk matrix that was updated throughout the years. But ultimately, it was a way of justifying, in my mind, it was a way of justifying the additional cost of private finance through the transfer risk. And that, you know, as now we look back, indiscriminate transfer of risk. And now we've seen, you know, I'm fast-forwarding, now, the reason why some, the PPP model has failed is because, I believe, that indiscriminate transfer of risk or not understanding from both public and private side what actually we were signing up to in terms of risk. And, you know, we just focus on oh, this model works and we're going to make it work. And then in the end and in reality it didn't, I mean, it did work for certain asset classes for certain projects, but not for all of them.
Matti Siemiatycki 14:28 Yeah, there's so much to tease out there. I mean, the first part is how we funneled projects through P3s and into the P3 model. I mean, it was interesting at the beginning, like even throughout its lifespan, Infrastructure Ontario and its culture evolved. I mean, the early days of Infrastructure Ontario, I think when you were there were really its heady days of promoting P3s and being out there arguing in public about the value of P3s and engaged in both the technical game and the branding game of what it's what the model could do. And then over time, as the model became more embedded, but also more research started to come out, there was a bit of an opening up of and a recognition that there needed to be greater flexibility and a wider variation of ways that the P3 model was applied. But, nevertheless, the commonality was that the Public-Private Partnership approach was the same. And, you know, if you had asked me 10 years ago, what was going to lead to cracks in the model and potentially even the decline of Public-Private Partnerships, I would have said government and a change in ideology that would have gone against the public sector, the private sector financing in particular, and the high costs of private financing. And what's turned out in practice is that it's been much more of a mix of the private and the public sector, that, to your point, many of the risks that people said were transferred, actually did get transferred. And those costs are material. And those costs really added up for the private sector. And when they did over time, firms started to say, this is expensive for us, we can't keep going on losing money on these projects in this way, and having these giant liabilities that come to fruition. And so the private sector started to lose, I think they, it lost its luster with the private sector and then some of the issues that have happened, particularly with the transit projects, started to create challenges and obvious political risk for for the public sector. And you've seen the public sector too, start to step back from being enamored with Public-Private Partnerships. So it was less, it actually went down a different track than what one might have expected. As you know, if you were to see the wave crest, from not ideology, and not the public sector pulling up but actually experience, an experience on both sides of that the deal saying that this maybe isn't meeting their interests anymore.
Riccardo Cosentino 16:53 Yeah, it's true. It's true. I mean, because I think when we look at when we look at the U.K. as another jurisdiction where the PFI, PPP had a similar transition, it was, there was political, it was more political than anything else. And there was a feeling that they were paying too much or there were too much profit for the private sector. While in Canada, it was actually, you're right, it was actually the opposite. It's the private sector wasn't making enough money. But, you know, I think as you touched on the paper, there were some actors that were still finding the model profitable, and they tried, for the longest time to keep it going, even when it wasn't any longer feasible.
Riccardo Cosentino 17:36 I wanted to maybe switch gears a little bit. And so talk about project delivery more in general, and, you know, what can public and private sector do to achieve the outcomes that we expect out of major programmes, right, because ultimately, we do these major programmes too, because we want to achieve certain outcomes, and we want to improve the quality of life, and we want to do it in a timely fashion. And so I think we always talk about outcomes. And so now, you know, PPP was supposed to be the model that will generate the best outcomes for, for the stakeholders. Now, there's been a shift, and now the expectation is that maybe a different delivery model, Alliance, IPD will generate those better outcomes. But again, I personally find all of this a little reductionist when we talk about complex, complex mega projects, I mean, I refer to mega project as complex adaptive systems, right? And so when you have something that complex that can change and adapt with multiple stakeholders, I think you need to go beyond the delivery model, you need to go beyond, you know, the box that contains the delivery of the project, you know, you have thousands of people involved, you have various companies involved in in a mega project, you have internal-external stakeholders. And so, in your mind, is there a delivery model that can fit that or should we talk about all of the individual issues within the major programme in order to have the outcomes that we're looking for?
Matti Siemiatycki 19:20 One of the lessons I think we've learned in recent years is project delivery is such a human business, it is so much about people. And I think during the P3 wave, we kind of assumed that, that if you set up the right model, and you had people who were trained in Public-Private Partnerships, they would be able to deliver any type of project, whether it was a bridge or a road or a hospital or a school or transit project, that the model would provide the guardrails and you could slot in the people and I think what we're learning increasingly is that, you know, we got the public and the private part and we lost track of the partnership. That actually the way that we delivered these projects, when we were using P3s, was really, it wasn't a partnership in any genuine sense of the term, it was really a public-private contract. And it was a contracting model. And, you know, on the first day of construction, maybe people shake hands, and it looks like we're going along this together. And as soon as anything went wrong, everyone was running to their lawyers, and everyone was trying to figure out what was in the contract to enable to protect them.
Matti Siemiatycki 20:29 And what you learn about these projects, when you study them over time, is that as soon as you're going to the contract, once each party has retreated to the contract, this is trouble for a project. And I think we lost track of what it means to be working collaboratively across organizations in these complex, temporary organizations that are working at huge scale with thousands of people and big risk. And I think in many ways, what you're starting to see is whether we can start to reinvigorate the idea of whatever word you use, collaboration, alliance, whatever it is, that there's going to need to be a greater ability to work together and work, have a contract that incentivizes and encourages people to collectively find solutions to problems rather than to try to, either duke it out through the contract or ultimately to retreat to their own side and try to find a solution that way.
Matti Siemiatycki 21:29 And it starts, it's interesting, it starts even earlier upstream. The Public-Private Partnership model, what it does is it shifts so much of the responsibility not just for financing and construction to the private sector, but also facility design. And what you hear when you speak to some of the asset owners is that part of the challenge was they were also, they also felt like they were losing control of the design of their asset, that even when it came to the purpose of the building, and what its goals were, they were struggling to get those embedded into the design of the buildings or into the way that the facility could operate.
Matti Siemiatycki 22:03 And so we saw situations where schools, where the principals were losing control over, you know, over the way the facility was used, or how the fields could be used, or in some cases there, there are stories, at least, about even like the heat and how you know how they could control the heat in a country like Canada. So you started to see this, you know, that even upstream, everything was set up to be public-private and the word partnership was really lost from this. And I think, you know, at the macro level, we need to try to reinvigorate how we work together. And then the models do provide the guardrails and the structure. So it's not to say that the model is unimportant. And each model has its pros and cons. I mean, if you look back at the traditional models of procurement, those clearly struggled, too and we've had, we've had devastating problems with cost overruns and delays on traditional procurement projects. And those tend to have an incentive for everyone to try to, you know, get, go in at the lowest price and then use change orders to lever up the price of the contract. So I mean, there's gamesmanship in all of these projects, and I think you're never going to get to a model, especially one that's in place for a long period of time, where people don't figure out where the ins and outs of the model are.
Matti Siemiatycki 23:14 And so ultimately, what you need is models that are well thought out. And then people who are well-trained and understand their role in meeting the public interest. And, you know, that was ultimately one of the conclusions of the Ottawa LRT inquiry was that for everyone involved, the public interest was not necessarily at all times their top priority. And that got, and that was the commissioner's conclusion. And I think that comes, you know, that comes back to how we train people. And then also making sure that we have people with the skills and understanding of this, but really recognizing the role of adaptability and working together to deliver these big complicated projects.
Riccardo Cosentino 23:54 Yeah, I want to come back to the people in the training, but I want to pick up because I've had this discussion in previous podcasts, and even some of the articles that I wrote that, you know, PPP ultimately is a zero-sum game. And so I think, well, in order to have better outcomes, we need to find a framework that remove that zero-sum game, where there's a winner and a loser because ultimately, the winner has to be the public and the outcome is the thing that should matter the most. And so the, and although the model is important because any contractual and commercial model are important because they provide a very important framework to operate within, but I think you're absolutely right it's not the ultimate, it's not the ultimate framework because that just guides behaviors, but then you gotta have the right people with the right skills, and the right tools to generate the outcomes that the public is looking for. I mean, project outcomes is what matters at the end of the day, and with public project, the most important outcome is delivering value for the taxpayer who are paying for these projects.
Riccardo Cosentino 25:10 But, you know, I think you touched up on the skills and I think you talked about it in your paper as a conclusion. And I think I'd like to touch up on that, because, you know, my experience in the U.K. is that, you know, the government's, governments have recognized that whenever you have these mega projects, and you have people on the government side that are project managing these mega projects, they need to be what they call a capable owner or an informed owner. And so yes, you need the private sector because the private sector bring a certain type of skills and knowledge and that the public sector doesn't have but then, the public sector is there to protect the ultimate user and the taxpayer but they also have to be knowledgeable because you can't have an unbalanced relation. And so they've created this, you know, you talk about it in your paper, the Major Projects Leadership Academy, where anybody that, any public sector entity that gets money from Treasury has to have people put through these two years, part-time training, where they get educated on how to manage major project. And I think that's an absolutely outstanding concept. And I think many countries are now adopting it, but certainly not something that Canada has adopted. And since you touched up on training, I wanted to get your view on that.
Matti Siemiatycki 26:32 I think the training and capacity building is key because this is a human business. And one way to think about this would be does everyone have a project management certification? But actually, my understanding of the U.K. approach to the Major Project Leadership Academy and some of the ones that have followed it around the world is that it's more than project management, it's actually understanding the behavioral economics and the social psychology of big projects. Some of the work of Nobel Prize winner, Daniel Kahneman, interpreted through Professor Bent Flyvbjerg from Oxford and others, that you know, that these are, the understanding the, how we, as humans, see big projects, but also how they, that fits within organizations and the incentives within organizations, both Big P and Little P political incentives that we all experience is really important. Understanding how you then integrate data into those into that to vote, tell a story and shape how you use that data to inform decision-making is another area that I think is so important. Understanding the commercial relationship and partnerships, what does it mean to be a partner that is firm but fair, you know, you can, you know, you can rip someone off once, and then they're going to learn and they're not going to let you do it again. But, you know, if you're fair with them, over time, you will have people who continue to want to do business with you and want to do work in your area. And, you know, so this idea of what does that mean to be a firm but fair public sector owner, that your goal is not to, you know, and that again, also came out in the Ottawa LRT inquiry that there were instances that once the project started going poorly, the public sector really locked down and started to become really particular about how they enforce the contract and that soured the relationship. And as the relationship soured further, it became more adversarial and that posed challenges. Was that the only reason that project has struggled? No, of course not. But when we talk about how you train people to be involved in these projects, the relationship part, I think we've downplayed, as compared to the role of private finance and the role of risk transfer. So that would be another area. But, I think really setting up systems. And then the other point is that we've viewed risk transfer as being done only financially. But there are different ways that risk can not just be transferred, but also shared and then incentivized for performance through the sharing rather than the full transferring of risk. And that can ensure that the project designs meet the needs of the users and the owner more closely, and then, even during construction and operation, can ensure that the projects get delivered and operated effectively. So there's different, it's broadening out the skills of the people who are managing multi-billion dollar projects in organizations that have come together specifically for those projects. I think there's different ways that we could be educating and I think that the British model provides us a real insight into what we could be doing here at a time when we're in the midst of the biggest infrastructure building boom in decades here in Canada. We're probably one of the, we're home to one of the biggest construction waves anywhere in the world, and it'll reshape what our country looks like and how it operates for decades to come. And so, if we do this well, it will propel us, our economy, our inclusivity, environmental sustainability. And if we do it poorly, we could be stuck with some projects that become a millstone and really weigh us down for generations to come.
Riccardo Cosentino 30:22 Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And I think you touched upon some of the benefits of it also. The other economic benefit for the country is being able to export some of the skills, right? If you deliver this infrastructure and you deliver successfully, and you train, you upskill both the public and the private sector, I mean, that, that's a skill that you can export. You know, that's certainly what the U.K. has done, right? They've exported a lot of their people in other countries, helping other countries with bigger infrastructure booms. It's a very interesting, a very important concept, to want to upskill. What can the general industry do to support this transformation? Is there something that, you know, practitioner and academic could do more in order to help this transition? Because ultimately, you know, the public inquiry for Ottowa was, I think it was helpful for the industry. But you know, we had to get to that point in order to get visibility on and really peeking under the curtain. And obviously, that's, that's not the right way that there must be a better way to get there without having a crisis.
Matti Siemiatycki 31:37 Yeah, one thing that comes to mind is creating spaces for critical self-reflection. I mean, one of the aspects of P3 that made them such a juggernaut and so difficult to challenge was that everyone was on board, it was almost like this massive view that this was the best way to do it. And all of the signals and all of the ways that organizations and individuals were going to be successful was to come around this model and showcase its success and trade stories about, you know, how one P3 was better than the next one. And there wasn't all that much space for critical self-reflections. And if you were someone that was doing critical self-reflections, as an academic, that's one thing. That's our job. And we have, you know, we have a role to play. But within the industry, you didn't hear a lot of voices that were that at those times, were coming out and saying, you know what, maybe this isn't always the right way to go. Not to say that it's never the right way to go because that's also not accurate. But to say that it's it was always the right way to go, it became, that viewpoint became increasingly marginalized. And it almost like it was like you were an opponent of infrastructure and opponent of project delivery, rather than someone who was looking to have a reasoned conversation about where the sector was at. And I think we need to try to create these spaces where we can have divergent views and we can actually discuss these points. And the other issue is about evidence. I mean, Canada is notorious for having a lack of data and a lack of comparable publicly available data to actually go and assess what's happening. And so it's taken me years to try to get into the details of some of these projects and understand what's actually happening so that I can report it publicly. And so that then everyone involved, public sector, private sector, and others, have the evidence to then themselves go and make a judgement. We really struggle in this country with a lack of data. And so in the absence, the people with the loudest megaphone and the flashiest presentations, they're the ones who are able to shape the narrative and guide the story. And we struggled because of that. And I think another lesson we can learn from this is let's create some venues and some spaces where before we get to all our eggs in one basket and going down a path where you start to see the challenges we've had, that we're able to discuss what's working and what's not and learn from our own experiences.
Riccardo Cosentino 34:06 Oh, music to my ear, Matti. I mean, that's why we're having this podcast, right, is exactly for that, is to create one platform, it's a tiny little platform, but I'm trying to do my part. But I guess I want to pick up on that because again, I'm very experienced with the U.K. I'm actually a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers in the U.K. and some of that role that you just described is what the Institution of Civil Engineers does in the U.K., right? They're almost, I mean, they do provide is the, similar to professional engineers in Canada, but they have a more of a stewardship role. And, you know, when I moved to Canada, back in 2005, I noticed that in Canada, there isn't an institution like that, that can provide advice, independent advice to government that is run by engineers, is run by professionals, and they have a bit of an independent voice. I mean, they've been around for 150 years. So what do you think could be the venue? Who do you think could be the body that could play that role of, you know, independent thinker or facilitator of independent thinking?
Matti Siemiatycki 35:12 The universities are a clear spot where independent voices should be coming from. And we, we should be doing independent research on these projects. That posed a challenge. I mean, we're outsiders and it's hard to get behind the scenes and really understand what's happening in these projects. Like the paper that you've read, is the result of basically 20 years of just being around this and being in the venues where you can listen to the stories have both on-the-record and off-the-record conversations with people where you start to learn and hear. And in some cases, you can say the things that because of their professional position, they can't. And so the universities and the role of independent high-quality research, I think, is key. But the industry voices too, and the industry, like whether it's the professional engineers or the planner, or the Planning Institute, or others, I mean, there needs, their voice is important in this too. Too often, those become sort of the protector of guilds and the protector of the profession rather than a more general view on the sector and how things are going. But I think what we need again to come back to is data that's in the public realm that people can then have, each person can dissect the data, can analyze the data, and we can have debates based on evidence, because where we struggle in Canada is in the absence of data, you get debates based on ideology. And in those, in those settings, the people with the loudest megaphone and the best, able to craft the best narrative, they're going to be the ones that win. And we can't overestimate the role of politics in this, that infrastructure delivery is not just a technical pursuit. You saw in the 25 years or so that I, I mapped over in the, in this paper, the role of ideology, from seeing infrastructure and seeing the role of the private sector ideologically as just superior to the public sector, a shift to this idea of on time, and on budget being the king motivation for doing things and any model that can achieve that both for value reasons, but also to keep these projects off the front pages of the newspaper where it's hugely embarrassing. And then more recently, to the struggles of the partnership model. And, you know, the politicians now ducking and covering and looking for other approaches that really, you know, that we need evidence so that we can see what's working and what's not. And we can learn much more quickly and adapt for all of our interest.
Riccardo Cosentino 37:51 Yeah, this is great, great conversation, I'm really, really enjoying it. Well, the topics that we were covering. I think we're almost at time and but before we wrap up, I wanted to ask you, if you have any other lessons, last minute wishes that you would like to communicate, as I said that what you mentioned up to now, especially in the last bit, it's you know, is a call to action, it's a call to action to have a better conversation and a more, more data-driven conversation. But is there any other appeal that you would like to make to the industry to have, to really have better outcome for these major projects, which by the way, we know that as Professor Flyvbjerg research is like 100% that over time and over budget, so we know, we started from a hole which we need to climb out. So you know, and I think that's part of the problem. Sometimes we forget that we're starting from a point that we're probably already losing. So what, how do we lose less?
Matti Siemiatycki 38:54 I would like us to get to a point where we don't think about infrastructure delivery as losing less, but rather about creating structures where we have confidence that they're going to be delivered well, recognizing, and I think we should recognize this. And maybe we don't say this explicitly or transparently enough, it is hard to deliver big projects. They are risky, they are unpredictable, the bigger they are and especially transit projects are being done in urban environments where there's, you know, this is tough stuff. And I think we should acknowledge the risks and the skill that comes along with it. But just by acknowledging that does not excuse projects that are years late way over budget, hugely frustrating for the surrounding communities, and a potential drain on the public purse for long periods of time. I mean, I think, we now, we need to zero in and recognize that, that we can do better. And I think that's a good and important starting point because that sharpens the mind and brings people together to the table. And I think in this moment where both the public and the private sector have both recognized that what had been happening, certainly through the 2000s and into the 2010s is no longer working for them, for both of them. You're starting to see innovation. And I hope what that innovation leads towards is a reinvigoration of collaboration. You're hearing about things like the Alliance Model, there's not enough evidence or data in Canada, at least to show how those are going to work. My fear is that we'll just replace the word partnership with alliance and we'll keep doing exactly what we've been doing before of adversarial relationships just under a new title. My hope is that we really take on board what that means to be in an alliance and to be a partner with someone across the table from you, and to then have the skills in place. And to think of infrastructure delivery as a human pursuit, with all the good, the bad, and the ugly that that entails. And I think we're in a moment now where we're being forced to re-evaluate because the record has showed and the frustration of people in our communities is such, and we're building so much. So this is a moment to do better. And I hope, I hope conversations like this open a space for others to reflect on their own experiences, and we're in their role in this sector, that they themselves could do better or could share information in ways to contribute to the conversation we're having.
Riccardo Cosentino 41:23 Well, Matti, thank you for those last words. I think, you know, it's been a fantastic conversation today. I will, I will leave you, I will leave you with that last words. I want to thank you for joining me and I truly hope that this podcast is listened to. And you know, some of the things that we talked about today are picked up because ultimately what we all want is better outcome for the people that need this new infrastructure.
Matti Siemiatycki 41:51 Couldn't agree more and thanks for having me.
Riccardo Cosentino 41:54 That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn, @RiccardoCosentino.
Riccardo Cosentino 42:18 Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in Major Programme Management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going. Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 17 Jun 2024 | A WINning Perspective | S2 EP10 | 00:37:01 | |
On this week’s special episode of Navigating Major Programmes Riccardo Cossentino shares a conversation from his other podcast, A WINning Perspective: The WIN Canada Podcast. Riccardo sits down with three nominees of The Women’s Infrastructure Network (WIN) Canada WIN Awards: Divya Shah, Tamara Vrooman, and Kimberly Doran. Despite working in senior roles in a male-dominated industry not designed for them, the panelists have achieved success and professional recognition. They share valuable insights and advice for transforming the industry from dry to progressive, and pose the question: Is it a dumb question or the next revolution in the industry? Along with expanding professional networks and securing sponsorships, these three leaders in major programmes share their hopes and actionables for women, and allies, in the industry. “We're just talking about infrastructure, which is about design and about building things and about the future. Yet, we really need to design our organizations for that future. And what I find is a lot of the time we're trying to put women into roles that were not designed for us…We have to change the way that we design our organizations so that they're fit for the purpose that we want them to serve, which is to get more diverse people, including women into leadership roles, particularly in an area like infrastructure.” — Tamara Vrooman
Key Takeaways:
Divya Shah is the Managing Director at the Canada Infrastructure Bank, leading investments in trade, transportation, and critical minerals. With 18 years in project finance, Divya shapes investment strategies, oversees business development, and manages financial structuring to asset management. She began her career at Infrastructure Ontario during its early days of public-private partnerships, marking her start in transformative infrastructure projects.
Tamara Vrooman serves as the President and CEO of Vancouver International Airport, the second-largest international airport in Canada and home to the largest building in British Columbia. With a rich background in banking and finance, Tamara has financed numerous public and private infrastructure projects. Her extensive experience includes roles as the Chair of the Canada Infrastructure Bank board and Deputy Minister of Finance for British Columbia, overseeing Partnerships BC.
Kimberly Doran is the Vice President and Geotechnical Practice Lead at AtkinsRéalis. As a passionate advocate for gender parity, she co-founded and chairs the ExcELLEnce Employee Resource Group, dedicated to promoting a diverse and inclusive culture. Outside of her corporate responsibilities, Kimberly is deeply involved in her field, serving as the Finance Director for the Regina Geotechnical Group and participating in the Transportation Committee of the Saskatchewan Association of Consulting Engineers (ACEC-SK).
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 09 Oct 2023 | The Cost of Bad Leadership in Major Programmes with Riccardo Cosentino | S1 EP 12 | 00:32:45 | |
In this episode, Riccardo Cosentino takes us behind the scenes of developing the Navigating Major Programmes podcast and shares why he started this podcast—well before he was ready. Taking us through his career in infrastructure (and the brief moment he almost became restaurateur), Riccardo highlights his leadership learnings and how graduating from Oxford Saïd Business School’s MSc Major Programme Management dismantled his imposter syndrome, a necessity in becoming an effective leader. You’re going to want to grab a pen and paper for one because Riccardo shares practical leadership tips that will help you get your team’s performance to the highest level.
“Ultimately, the cost of leadership training is insignificant compared to the cost overruns or schedule overruns major programmes encounter every day.”
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to navigate the major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino I brings over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's day business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode, as I press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Hello, everyone. Welcome to a new episode of navigating major programs. Today will be my first solo podcast, I will have no guests today. So you will be listening to me rambling away hopefully won't be rambling it will be interesting, interesting topics that we cover in this podcast. I started. I started this podcast very recently, and I have no previous experience in podcasting. I'm an avid listener, but I never, never led or recorded podcasts before. Reason why I started this podcast. Mostly I wanted to elevate the conversation about major programs, I wanted to have a platform where we can think through major programs, we can think through issues associated with major programs. I also wanted to give an opportunity to some of my classmates and future classmates and past classmates to have a platform where they could present the research. As many of you know and carried out I finished a master's degree Oxford called MMPM mastering major program management. And while I was doing my dissertation, it occurred to me that many of my classmates were also doing very valuable research. But unlike a PhD, this research doesn't really get published, some of the dissertation are about the quality that can be can be published in in journals. However, a lot of the dissertations don't quite meet that threshold. However, it's very, very interesting research that should have a platform to be presented. Rather than just ending up on a shelf on somebody's on somebody's bedroom or living room. This is why I started the podcast. Starting the podcasts was very nerve racking for me. It took me it took me almost a year to find the courage to actually record the first series, the first five episodes, I actually recorded the very first episode two years ago, but then never had the never had the courage I guess, to follow through with the rest of the episodes. So I sat sat on this project for a very long time, it was very nerve wracking for me, I procrastinated, I postponed the recording until I was really what would happen is what was at Oxford graduating from my, from a master's degree. A lot of my colleagues and classmates were congratulating me for having a strong presence on LinkedIn and to for having a strong voice on LinkedIn. And they told me they were very enthusiastic about the material I
was publishing. And that kind of gave me the gave me the strength to overcome my imposter syndrome, where I didn't think anybody would listen to my podcast. So that's that's why it took me two years, I was really suffering from impostor syndrome, I didn't think I had anything valuable to say, and I really needed to get that boost from my graduation. And you know, from achieving that major milestone in my life of getting a degree from Oxford University to gain and that gave me the strength to overcome my fears, and get going with a podcast. So the journey of the podcast really started with with my LinkedIn profile, I realized that I wanted to have my own voice on LinkedIn, and realize that the conversation that people were having on LinkedIn, were not deep enough. And I wanted to bring my voice, as I said before, and so I started very slowly, I started by just updating my profile, I then developed a bit of a personal brand strategy. And I found a front sort of the path that I wanted to follow on LinkedIn. And I just started publishing my own opinions and my own views on major programs. And that wasn't an easy journey. As I said, I remember I remember when I first started using LinkedIn properly. So I've been using LinkedIn obviously from from when he started back in the late 2000s. However, I was just, I was just a passive user, I was not somebody that would engage. And I remember being on the platform and reading reading posts and having really strong views about the post, but not having the courage to actually put a comment, or publish a comment. And I remember always writing in the comment box and then deleted it and then moving on. So for me, even just engaging in the conversation was very difficult. And again, back to impostor syndrome, I was, I was afraid that my contribution was not valuable, I was afraid of saying the wrong thing I was, I wasn't sure that people would appreciate what I had to say. So I had to overcome that in order to be active on LinkedIn. And it is like everything else, it's really a journeys, it's training, you're almost have to train yourself to engage and you start small, we start with comments, liking, and then you start, you know, resharing, maybe somebody's else experienced that someone else post. And eventually you start writing your own post, and you start creating your own voice. That has been my journey on on LinkedIn. And but it started with a strategy. And maybe that's a little bit over the top, but I wanted, I wanted to our strategy, so that I knew what topics I would cover, and what will my message would be. And that's what I recommend for people that are not engaging with LinkedIn, start small start by just comment this start by engaging the conversation and then see what that takes you. And if that becomes enjoyable, start posting your material, we all have interesting things to say. And don't be trapped in imposter syndrome like I was, you definitely have something valuable to say. So say, and engaging the platform. So as some of you might be aware, I started, I started posting on LinkedIn, and almost two years ago, and at the beginning, my posts were very technical, I was actually publishing some of my papers from my master's degree. And these were very technical papers that would look at various issues of affecting major programs, complexity, organizational structure, risk, governance. And however as as I started engaging with the platform and publishing my own content, I realize that at the end of the day, major programs are delivered by people. And people require leadership. So at the end of the day, at the core of major programs, we have people so when you whenever you have people, you need to create a conducive environment for these people to deliver their best work. And that's where leadership came in. So I started realizing that yes, the technical content is important. So looking at complexity, looking at major programmes as temporary organization is very important. But at the end of the day, we need to motivate people, we need to empower people to do their best work. So I decided to shift a little bit the content, I was publishing on LinkedIn and started to publish leadership pieces and leadership pieces started with me, I started sharing my my stories. And I started sharing my experiences, my mistakes, because I think in order to have successful major programs, we need to have strong leadership, and we need to have a conducive environment that brings out the best or the people of the people working on
major programs. The other thing that I realized when I started publishing on LinkedIn is that major programs are very unique and diverse and requires specific training. And different jurisdictions are a different level of maturity. And the UK specifically, is very well advanced in understanding the complexity and the difficulties, surrondings major programs if they develop the training to form and grow future major program leaders. The perfect example is the master that I did, which is the major the master in major pprogramme management, which was really created out of a different program called major program Leadership Academy, a program that was developed for the UK Government to train all of the people within the UK government that had responsibility for delivery of major programs. Oxford developed this for Cabinet Office in the UK and then decided to commercialize it through the SAID business school and make it available as a Master, Master of Science in major program management. So part of that master degree is obviously leadership is one of the core modules of that master. And it looks at leadership as a way of empowering people in a way to overcome the significant challenges that major programs have in terms of being on time and on budget. I mean, when we think of major programs, we always think of the failures, we all are aware of, of different projects across the globe, that were late and over budget, and they were not meeting the benefits expectation that the government sponsor was hoping to achieve. And so having a very specific education, that train people are looking at major program through a different lens, not looking at measure progress through the lens of a project, because projects are different from major project. And by the way, they the way that we define major projects is any any capital program, bigger than a billion pound dollars, I mean, it's almost semantic, but something big, bigger than your typical, how's your innovation project or, you know, small highway projects. Because leadership is at the center of successful major programs, I wanted to have a personal journey in my leadership career, or in the way I've approached leadership in my career. And so I started looking at what were my biggest leadership mistakes, because obviously, you can learn a lot from your own mistakes, and you should learn a lot from your mistakes. So I started looking at what were my leadership mistakes. But I guess before we talk about my leadership mistakes, it's important that we understand my personal journey and infrastructure and how I personally burnt out early in my career, because I was taking too much on. And I was obviously, as I said before, I always suffer from imposter syndrome. And therefore, the imposter syndrome led me to have a really, really high work ethics, sometimes not healthy, because as an imposter, when you suffer from imposter syndrome, you feel that you never doing enough. And you always try not to get discovered as an imposter. So you're always overworking yourself. So as I said, back in early my career back in 2003, you know, three years after university, I was working on a very high profile project on the West Coast Main Line in the UK, I was working, you know, 10/12 hours a day. This was railway work. So it involved a lot of nights and weekends, because obviously, that work, the work on the railway happens when the railways know running. So for about a year, I was working 10 hours a day, I went out on a Friday, I would not work because I would then work out to the night or during blockades. I was working, you know, seven days a week for about four or five weeks at a time in order to complete a very challenging project. And, you know, this caused me to burn out. Eventually I actually quit my job and was so burnt out that not only I quit my job, I actually left the UK, went back home to my own country, Italy, hoping that would help me find a better work life balance. But ultimately, I think I was so burnt out that I needed a change of not professional job, and scenery in a sense that I needed, I really needed to cut all ties with a situation that really put me in a difficult position in a position where I wasn't happy anymore. And sadly, that was not the only time I burnt out. I mean, back if we now fast forward from 2003 to 2015 or 2014/15. I then again burned out in a different way. And I was this time my burnt out had a different impact. Back in 2003 i was the most junior person on the project. So my burnout just affected me. But in 2015. My burnt
out because I was a leader and I was managing a team. My burnout ended up affecting other people. So not only I was driving myself to the ground in 2015 to a point where almost again, instead of leaving the job and the country I wanted to leave the job and the profession, that's how serious this burnout was. But as I was saying, because I was a leader, because I was a managing theme, it was not only just me suffering from the burnout, but I was transferring my burnout, I was learning how other people, and I cause these other people to either have been unhappy or one particular individual actually drove their individual to quit the organization. That was, there was a key turning point for me. In the end, you know, since I'm here today, talking about my past, I didn't leave the industry, I decided to stay in industry. But then I started the journey that created a change in the way that I approach the day to day. And I started this growth journey that I'm still continuing today. I mean, it's, you know, leadership growth is not something that you do for a period of time is a continuous improvement process. And, you know, it's been eight years since I started it about revolve as a leader, becoming a senior leader, and managing bigger teams and trying not to repeat the mistakes that I made in the past. Most of the time, I'm successful, at not repeating those mistakes, but we're all human. And, you know, sometimes, when stress gets to me, I fall back into my old patterns. So back in 2015, when I was almost completely burnt out, you know, and I decided that I wanted to leave the industry, I always try to learn from my mistakes. So the mistakes I made in 2003, was that I was too hasty in my decision making process. You know, I quit my job left the country. And that was probably too radical of a move. And I've learned from that I learned that maybe you need to ponder, you need to clear your head, trying to make decision after you've had some time to recover from the burnout rather than making a decision while you are in the burn out. And so somehow, I ended up picking up a passion, which was cooking and restaurants and I developed this idea that I would quit infrastructure and become a chef, and or a restaurant owner or restaurant or entrapreneur. However, in order not to repeat the mistakes I made in 2003, I decided to keep my job and take evening classes at the local college, George Brown College in Toronto, and I joined the culinary school in the evening. So as I was burning out on my, on my day to day job on infrastructure, I was taking on more responsibility at night trying to learn how to become a chef and now trying to learn how to become a restauranteur or entrepreneur. So I spent several months training and, you know, I started to realize that maybe that was not the answer. You know, the restaurant industry is a really difficult industry very competitive. You know, I think the stats is the one in three restaurants and your restaurant fail. So I started to realize that maybe the grass wasn't greener on the other side. So instead of parcking my job in I decided that I needed to reshape the way I was approaching my career and infrastructure. And I kept my passion for food and my passion for cooking. But that's as a hobby rather than as a career. That's what it should be for me. And instead, I started focusing on how do I make my career and infrastructure more meaningful? What do I have to change in terms of my approach, to the day to day work, my approach to the people I work with, and my approach to life in general. So that was my journey in applying what I learned in 2003. And trying to reshape my career in a way that would allow me not to burn out on a regular basis. One of the reason I am doing this podcast is also to share my personal experiences and my learning. So I have some advice for young professional that are either starting a career in infrastructure, or they are, you know, the beginning of their career, early years of their career. And, you know, my advice is, you know, first of all trying to understand if you suffer from imposter syndrome, because for me, a lot of my burned out a lot of my troubles were caused by the fact that I never felt that I was good enough. And therefore I was trying always extra hard, because I felt I had to compensate for my weaknesses. So always trying to have self assessment, and sense checking, a reality testing of what you actually bring to the table. You might be bringing in more than you think. So always, always trying to balance your perception of your work with
the feedback that you are getting from other people. So if you're getting really positive feedback from your peers and from your former leaders take that for what it is, I mean, one of the mistakes I used to make and probably still make nowadays, in to a lesser degree is discounting the positive feedback I was receiving from from, from my peers and my leaders, I always felt that it was, it was just lip service, that didn't really mean it, and that my contribution wasn't really good enough. And they were just being polite. You know, that if I could wind back the clock, I would try to avoid that mistake, trying to get out of the imposter syndrome rut and trying to have, you know, the other advice I give to young professional try to have work life balance. I know it's a generic words that we say to our work life balance, but ultimately, if you are burned out, you're gonna burn other people out, you're not going to be effective as a leader, and you're not going to be able to accomplish what you need to accomplish. So to have a leader that has a good work, life balance not only sets the right example, but also sets the right environment for a productive team. Yeah, I mean, the other piece of advice I give to people is trying to understand early on what what a leader is, again, when I was young and naive, I felt that being a leader was delivering what I was asked to deliver at all costs. I was you know, they I never envisioned that. My team was there to support me, and to work with me in delivering my objectives as my my work objective or the objective that my leader have given me. And I always felt that my team was dispensable. And always felt that we need to work hard. And if you know, we, we shouldn't worry about the consequences. And always as i said of the biggest mistake was probably feeling that my team was dispensable and I could be headed out and there will be no, no repercussion, for me or for the work I was doing. So I've learned a lot from my mistakes, or like I said before, and you know, my misunderstanding where the leader is or supposed to be, is now being rectified. As far as I can rectify, I mean, I'm still I'm still not an expert in leadership, I'm still learning I'm going to continue to learn until forever. What I do now know is what a leader should look like any leader is somebody that empowers people. And I've done I've done a lot of growing up over the last few years, and I've done it using tools available to every professional. So I focus a lot on on emotional intelligence, because ultimately, you're dealing with people. So you're dealing with different personality, and you need to be able to understand through emotional intelligence, how people react to your actions. And so, in my mind today, an effective leader must have three major things. An effective leader needs to be self aware, willing to admit when they're wrong, and never be too prideful to learn. An effective leader needs to be observant. The leader needs to create trust within the team, by developing a deep understanding of individuals and their motivation. And then finally, I believe a leader today needs to be authentic, consistently showing up with the same values in every situation and environment. And the reason a leader must have these characteristics is because again, major programs are delivered by people. And in order to get the best out of the people you have, you need to have a high level of emotional intelligence. And these three things I've just talked about, are at the core of emotional intelligence. But ultimately, you know, we're all human beings. And I think we can all relate. Let me give you the example a sports analogy. You know, if you go into if you go into a changing room at halftime, and you're losing badly against an opponent, and all you get from your leader is the coach is aggressive feedback on how poorly you're performing, you might not get the right motivation to get out there in the second period or for a period to do a better job. So it is important for a leader to motivate their team to empower their team to make sure that the team performed to the highest level possible. And you only can achieve that when the team trust you believes you and is willing to follow it you, because ultimately, a single individual is never going to be able to deliver major programs, a major program will be delivered by a team of people. And the team of people need to be motivated, needs to be empowered needs to be supported, and needs to be feeling indispensable for the task on hand. And leadership is fundamental to success of any endeavor, but
specifically very important for the success of major programs. And ultimately, without strong leadership at every level, because the leadership is not something that just happens on the top. Right, it's almost stratified leadership, we have different layers of of a team. And each layer needs to have an amount of leadership. This is almost like a pyramid. It's paramount, that organization invest in leadership training, because if you only invest in the leadership training or leadership development of the top leader, so the point of the of the pyramid, you then end up with a really strong leader at the top, but a lot of weak links underneath. So the leadership training has to happen at every level of the organization at every level of our major programs. Now that we're looking at major programs, it I mean, it has been proven that leadership training leads to better results. I think the tons of literature out there that prove how effective leadership brings effective results and good results and therefore a positive return on investment. So I think, anecdotally, I can say that an investment in leadership will yield a very high return on investment, which could translate in the world of major programs, programs being delivered on time and on budget. You know, I think at the end of the day, we're here to talk about major programs. And we want to have successful major programs. And the way you measure success in major programs is your time and on budget delivery. And ultimately, the cost of leadership training is insignificant compared to the cost overruns, or the schedule overruns and major programs encounter every day. So if you're interested in learning more about my journey, and see what what I did in the past to grow as a leader, I mean, obviously, I've posted several article that talk about my story. And my experiences, I also published three reading list. A lot of the not all of them, but a lot of the books in my on my reading lists are about leadership. So if you are looking to start your own leadership journey to continue you leadership journey and you want find some inspiration, maybe the reading list is a good starting point. I'm also going to publish more about my personal journey. But as I said, my personal journey is ongoing is not finished. So as I reflect on where I got to, I tend to write about it. So there are more articles coming out in coming weeks, that talks about different parts of leadership, different aspects of leadership. And, you know, the guiding thread for me is emotional intelligence. And, you know, I've self assess myself. I also done a 360 asking other people to assess my emotional intelligence. Some of that will be published in an article coming soon, depending on timing it might be or when this podcast is posted, my already been posted. And yeah, I mean, please also reach out if you want to have a conversation about my personal journey, I'd be more than happy to engage in conversation or one on one. So as as I, as I conclude this podcast, which is my very first solo podcast, this is in itself is part of my leadership journey. This is part of me conquering some of my fears, some of my fear, of not being be good enough, some of my public speaking fears. And it's been, you know, it's been an interesting journey. For me being able to actually be here, talking to a microphone and a blank wall is certainly something that I dreaded, dreaded for many, many years. I never felt that I was going to be able to do it. And however, because of every other leadership training every other thing that I've done over the last few years, I'm now in a position where step by Step I conquered all my fears, and to a point where I can now actually sit here, and hopefully give you an interesting solo podcast. So the same way I, I overcome my fears, and I started my journey in being a thought leader in major programs, I think everybody can do it, it's not something that is going to happen overnight, I encourage everybody to start somewhere, that's typically the most difficult part, showing up is typically the most difficult part. So start and and go from there, I mean, you will be extremely rewarding, like it is for me, where I have now against all my expectation now published over 10 episodes of my on my podcast. And it all started with me liking a LinkedIn post two and a half years ago. So trust the process, don't get overwhelmed by the outcome, just focus on the small steps that you can undertake, and you probably gonna have the same positive experience of growth they've ever had. And, you know, I'm hoping that you're gonna continue
to follow this. This is a no always gonna have solo podcasts are gonna resume having guests, but I will have solo podcasts because for me is a way of sharing my stories. And there's also a way for me to grow personally and to overcome some of my fears. And with that, I hope you gonna join me soon on the next episode of navigate virtual programs. And please follow me on LinkedIn where I'm regularly posting content that you hopefully find interesting stimulating. That's it for this episode, we'll navigate the major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 27 Jan 2025 | Building Value for Society with Chantal Sorel | Master Builders | S3 EP2 | 00:41:20 | |
In this Master Builders episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino and co-host Shormila Chatterjee sit down with previous colleague and friend Chantal Sorel, a seasoned leader whose 30-year career spans architecture, project management, and executive roles across industries including infrastructure, mining, and social infrastructure. With extensive international experience and a commitment to delivering value through challenging projects, Chantal reflects on her journey and shares lessons from managing high-stakes initiatives like the McGill University Health Centre. Chantal discusses the importance of breaking barriers as a woman in construction, fostering ethical collaboration, and adapting project management practices to meet evolving challenges. Her insights highlight the critical role of leadership, strategy, and societal impact in shaping the future of the industry. "Project management is about maximizing the result with the resources you have. That’s it. My definition of project management is maximizing the result with the resources you have and using them in the best combination—the right capacity and to the right objective and the needs that you have to fulfill, and not detracting from that. And this is what it is about. So for me, it’s always been a passion. I said I’m a builder. And of course, I’ve practiced infrastructure all my career because, for me, it was a way to deliver value, value for society. I’m a bit of an idealist, but I think that society needs value, and we’re there to deliver value." – Chantal Sorel Key Takeaways
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 19 Jun 2023 | When Labels Limit with Divya Shah | Building Bridges: Women in Infrastructure | S1 EP 4 | 00:22:54 | |
In this very special episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo is joined by Divya Shah, a prominent name in Canada's infrastructure network through her work as a project finance professional focusing on investment and infrastructure—and Riccardo’s wife. In their conversation, Riccardo and Divya discuss her unique perspective on the intersection of private and public sectors for effective decision making and leadership, along with her experience as a woman in infrastructure as a whole.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Use this link to find advice, guidance and sponsorship at the Women In Infrastructure website
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 0:05 You're listening to navigate major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino I bring over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's a business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Over the last 15 years Divya Shah has built a name for herself in Canada's infrastructure network through her work as a project finance professional focusing on investment in infrastructure. Her extensive resume includes a wide variety of capital markets roles such as public private partnerships, refinancing, mergers and acquisition, real estate investment, private lending and credit. In today's episodes of navigating major programs, Riccardo Cosentino and Divya discuss a unique perspective on the intersection of private and public sectors for effective decision-making leadership along with your experience as a woman in infrastructure as a whole. Hello, everyone, and thank you for joining us today on navigating major programs. I'm here today with Divya Shah, how're you doing?
Divya Shah 1:37 I'm doing really great. Thank you for having me here. Riccardo
Riccardo Cosentino 1:41 it's great to have you here. Great to have you here. Why don't we jump right into it? And why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself? What is your current role in infrastructure?
Divya Shah 1:51 That's a great place to start. So as of today, I am with the Canada infrastructure bank. I'm a managing director here. I've been at the bank for now five years, and I head up all our initiatives from an investment perspective in the trade and transportation sector. This includes everything from investing and structuring investments in ports, airports. It includes passenger rail, intercity rail, it includes freight, so short line and mainline, essentially anything that helps moves goods and people, between cities and between countries to help improve GDP, improve operational efficiencies, and allows for enabling of movement and economic growth.
Riccardo Cosentino 2:38 sounds really interesting. How do you how do you get into it? How do you do? Actually, let's go backwards? How did you get into infrastructure first?
Divya Shah 2:47 Oh, that's such a long story. I would say, from a factual perspective, I got into infrastructure almost 15 to 17 years ago in 2006. And opportunity came by my desk to interview for a analyst position at a newly formed company called Infrastructure Ontario. I was rushed leave out from an MBA school and was really not interested or actually didn't even know about the world of infrastructure. Infrastructure construction building was so far from my world of finance that I laughed when that opportunity came to my desk. And I will say, I'm glad I went for the interview, I had to be coaxed to go for the interview. But I'm so glad I went for the interview, because my life has not been the same. And so I joined this newly formed provincial agency called Infrastructure Ontario, it was set up to procure large infrastructure projects, primarily hospitals in those days, for the province of Ontario. It was not a policy shop, it was an execution shop. And the whole idea there was they were looking at this new model called public private partnerships, which was, you know, created out in the UK. And there was a little bit of dabbling out in BC, but it was never done in Ontario. And they were looking for finance professionals. They were looking for technical professionals. And we all came together. I think we were I was a part of the first 100 people at the company. And it was fascinating because it was not just about infrastructure. It was about creating something new, not from scratch, but made in Ontario from scratch, and it was a really a lot of fun.
Riccardo Cosentino 4:35 I guess that's where you and I met.
Divya Shah 4:37 That's where we met. You know, I mean, you know, didn't think I would find a husband here in this industry, but c'est la vie 15 years later,
Riccardo Cosentino 4:46 but okay, so it sounds like it was a little bit of a surprise for you to end up in infrastructure. What was your career aspiration before you bumped into infrastructure and area? What was it What was your dream job? What kind of career were you pursuing?
Divya Shah 5:03 Well, like I think, with anyone who goes through MBA school, bright eyed, my aspiration was to be a banker, banker doing pure finance, like raising money for a corporation, and, you know, mergers and acquisitions. And those were the things that you learned about an MBA school and, and this is the part that I find really interesting, right? Going to MBA school, nobody mentioned the words project finance, real property, public private partnerships, this is not even a spectrum of things that you talk about. So, yeah, I wanted to be a banker and not in infrastructure, who is I think, for me, the definition of infrastructure was lame it was roads and things that, you know, people with that who wanted to be the hybrid of finance did not even dabble in, so, yeah, quite, quite far from where I am today.
Riccardo Cosentino 6:01 Okay, so if that was your expectation, there was uhm, pressure of infrastructure. What was a surprise you the most about the industry?
Divya Shah 6:09 You know, what, how much I love it. I will say that, for me, looking back, I don't think I would want to do anything else. And what's really interesting in the job that I do right now, is I do investment. I'm actually a banker, but I am a banker for infrastructure investments. So way I'm doing what I really wanted, but in a very different industry. So going back to your question, what surprised me a lot, yeah, I, I will say I can't believe how much I enjoyed it, and enjoy it not enjoyed. And I will say it's, it's the tangible nature, it's, you know, in the world of finance, a lot of times you, you don't see the end product of what you are doing other than in the balance sheet or bottom line. Whereas in infrastructure, you actually see the tangible worth of what you have, you know, spend some time or money or energy in and you can see a hospital, you can see the roads, you can see the benefits, it brings to a public perspective, you know, had Ontario not built all the hospitals we built back in 2000s, I have no clue what we would have looked at and what we would have done during COVID. So you can really see the difference. And for me, that was really cool. The other things that really surprised me was how complex and how many stakeholders you have to think about, you have to think and direct and indirect. So, you know, we always think about you have the public side, which is all the layers of government, you have the private side, which is the lenders, the equity, the builders, the operators, but then you have the public side and their perception. And I always am amused because you think that that everybody understands that building large infrastructure, public infrastructure projects takes so long, everybody understands the long lead item of it. But then the public just gets impatient. And the questions always from the public are well, we gave you money like five years ago, and how come we haven't seen all of it been distributed deployed? And how come we're not seeing so much infrastructure being built immediately. And I find thinking about those stakeholders and trying to find Win Win is probably one of the most rewarding parts of what we do. And I don't know how you feel about it.
Riccardo Cosentino 8:33 Well, yeah, I'm a little different. I always envisioned the a career infrastructure. I'm a civil engineer, I went I end up building surveyor before I became a civil engineer. So I've always, always been fascinated by civil infrastructure. My anecdote is, I remember as a child, driving on the highways of Italy, going through the upper 90s, we had the mountain in the center of Italy. And we were going through this humongous viaducts This spans across tunnels between the mountains. And I remember looking at it and thinking, how did they build this? I mean, you literally have pylons coming out the ground with a road coming out of the mountain with a tunnel. And I always wonder how the building is. That's where my curiosity started. And as everything else I had to figure it out. And so I went and got a degree that tells me how you build viaducts in the middle of the mountains. Okay, so you talked about what was surprised you by the industry? I think you told us about the highlights. Actually, I don't think you told us what would have been the highlight so your career so far?
Divya Shah 9:44 So I'll try to pick a few because I think I've been really lucky as a human to be a part of the industry just as it was starting to boom like crazy and the things I would pick out as project highlights would be my first one. Last one, where I was still super young, super inexperienced. But boy, it was such a good ride. That has to be the Niagara health system. The reason why I pick it is because it was one of those projects where it was very early days. And it was right in the middle of the credit crisis. It is the only project I know of where our lenders called a MAC clause, which is a material adverse clause, because of the credit crisis and lack of availability of fun funding and financing available. And that led to, you know, six months of intense negotiations between us and the private sector. But what was really cool is, after that, it led to a number of different changes, and improvements that we made to our processes and our contracts. And you know, it for me, it really, it really helped me understand the crux and the fundamentals of project finance, of capital markets, of what each player brings to the table what they really want out of the transaction, I would say it was it, if my learning curve was very steep, this is the project that just like killed it for me from a learning perspective. There on I would say the other funky like, so I like a lot of funky projects. And, you know, being an infrastructure, Ontario, we got to do a lot of firsts. So I will say that the second highlight of my career, I think, is helping build the Panama athletes village. And you know, we looked all over the world, and typically building Olympic villages or building things like that are pretty complex, because they can go bad really, really quickly. So we had to find a way that we had to build really fast on time on budget. But also make sure that, you know, we were not we were successful in selling these as condos and not taking back, you know, immense amount of real estate risks. So I think we found a hybrid combination of real estate, and infrastructure dbf, fixed priced, kind of a hybrid contract, which was really cool. That also allowed us to think about how we would evaluate and incentivize and align the interests of developers and contractors and lenders. So that really helped me, you know, merge two different infrastructure industries together, I think, which has been really helpful for me, as we move forward on thinking about revenue deals. And then I would say most recently, the highlight for me or an almost, you know, what I see as a change in how I view infrastructure is the work that we did in the development and feasibility studies. For the via HFR project. You know, I usually am never involved in the early stages of planning, design feasibility, you know, what is in alignment, and what's the root option, these are things that were always decided for us finance years, we finance and we execute. So this was completely different, like we were involved very early to look at from a fundamentals perspective, whether this would be a good business case for the CIB, to invest in and, and that that led to a whole journey of creating a project for the market in an industry that is quite mature. So for me, it was really neat to be a part of the world in a very early stage, because I've seen it from, you know, procurement, construction operations, but never the development side. So this was very cool for me.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:41 Very interesting. Yeah, I mean, obviously, I know, I know, all the steps in your career. So all of this sounds quite familiar. But let's maybe let's change gears a little bit. I mean, you know, you are we are working in a male dominated the industry, you know, you are one of the few females, that is part of the industry, what challenges have you faced so what challenges do you face in a male dominated industry?
Divya Shah 14:07 I mean, I always find this question, really interesting, but also really difficult in one way, but what I start saying is the following, you know, I mean, construction and infrastructure has always been a male dominated industry. And you, me as a female, my, my best example is, when I go into a meeting, and I look around, and I see only men, my heart thinks every time that happens, and I just had a conversation the other day on International Women's Day, in fact, about with another colleague of mine, who is much elder to me, or mentored me, and, and we were comparing notes where, you know, 15 years early for her, she always this was just her experience. And her question back to me is, you know, Divya, do you see a difference in meetings when you go into the meetings and she was surprised when I said no, the meetings are still male dominated, you go in, maybe there's another female, from a legal perspective, or from a finance perspective, but 90% of the times, it's always male dominated and, and you know what, like you over time you, you grow a thick skin, you work really hard, and you can cut out the noise. But it is always shocking. And I still, unconsciously always look around the room. And notice, notice that and I would say, you know, from a challenges perspective, because it's been male dominated for, you know, hundreds of years, there are, I would say, there are biases and their labeling. And I think these two are the biggest challenges that I faced, you know, very often the work that we have to do is conflict driven, itis negotiation, its disputes, which means there's a lot of discussion, and there's a lot of conversations that you have to have, sometimes in a very challenging manner, because you are a, you're doing due diligence. And I find, you know, it's very easy for someone to label a woman as being aggressive, or a woman being, you know, too emotional, too sensitive. And I find those labels are what then pigeonhole us into not being more successful, or as successful as our male counterparts. And, you know, we've sat across tables where I've seen people who are as emotional as I am, and as a female, you get labeled, but as a male, you'll never get labeled emotional or sensitive, or, you know, in fact, being aggressive for a male is actually a positive, not a negative attribute. So, for me, I think those are the ones that impact me the most. And then I would say, the only other thing is, you know, because, again, it's been inherently male dominated industry, to find champions and sponsors, is difficult on its own. So you know, you have to find ways to create that, but on its own, you know, usually you prefer like-minded people, so you gravitate towards what you know what you understand. So, unfortunately, you have a men who prefer or find it easier to sponsor other men. And so I think those are combinations, a lot of that is changing. But I would say not fast enough, and not with enough gusto and not enough bandwidth.
Riccardo Cosentino 17:39 Okay, so you talked about many things here. So I'm gonna try to unpack a couple of there. But you mentioned mentors and champions and allies in the industry, which are very important. have you actually been able to find a female mentor in this male dominated industry? And if yes, was it? Was it helpful?
Divya Shah 18:02 Absolutely. So I'm really lucky, I live in Canada, and very early in our industry back in 2008, almost, so I joined infrastructure, Ontario in 2006, two years after, there was a group that was created that was called the women and infrastructure. And this was literally created by two lawyers who were the story goes sitting at a bar and looking around and thinking, Okay, we're the only two lawyers around female lawyers around and, you know, this industry is growing, and we need to find more like us together. And that lead to what's called the women in infrastructure. And it's a hugely successful group. I've been a part of it for 15 years as a committee member for over 10 years. And I have found that that's the place where we have connected and we have found women from either equity players, capital markets, legal services, government services. And you know, the idea there is to come together to support mentor, champion and sponsor, it's also a group that brings around awareness of things that are happening in the industry or to help promote more women in industry. You know, it could even be simple things like how do you improve your resume and provide support from a, you know, a reference perspective, if I'm looking for a job? So I would say yeah, I am super lucky to be a part of this group and to be around to see this group grow, because now we have factions across the country and in the US, and I would say, this is the group that has helped me find confidence in myself. It has helped me find job opportunities, as I've been moving in my career, and, you know, it's been a constant source of advice, guidance and sponsorship.
Riccardo Cosentino 19:59 Okay, so you We talked about the highlights and the lowlights of your career and infrastructure, the lowlights being, you know, one of the few female in the boardroom, the labels against the put on women for forbid themselves and for negotiating, the way they negotiate or the behave the way they behave, with the highlights being the woman in infrastructure network and the support that that provides to women in infrastructure. So given all of those factors, would you help encourage more women to pursue a career in infrastructure?
Divya Shah 20:36 Absolutely. I would say be like me Be curious. Even if you only care about finance, the world of project finance in our space is just phenomenal. And if you think of the big things that we're talking about today, especially climate change, climate change, infrastructure is a very big part of climate change. You know, everything about decarbonization, carbon sequestration, transmission lines, all of these things are all infrastructure. And, boy, it's a great time to be where we are. And so I would encourage everyone around to think about this space, not as how I did not having any knowledge, which was it's lame, and it could be boring, and how long the deals would take. But we're changing the world one project at a time. And that's really cool.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:30 I'm glad that a non-engineer feels as passionate about infrastructure as engineers. Okay, I think that's all we have time for today. Thank you very much for joining me in in this podcast. Hopefully, we'll be able to have you back on maybe some of the topics that we were going to cover in future podcasts.
Divya Shah 21:48 Thank you, Ricardo. And this has been a real pleasure and wish you all the best on your podcast series. I look forward to hearing more of your LinkedIn articles because they've been really helpful. Thank you.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:57 Thank you. Bye now. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going
Transcribed by https://otter.ai Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 19 Apr 2023 | Navigating Major Programmes | Trailer | 00:02:09 | |
Have you ever wondered why 80 percent of major programmes are late and over budget? Are you skeptical about the pace of adoption of technology in the infrastructure industry? Is your leadership as a major programme professional different from leadership of other professions? Welcome to the Navigating Major Programmes podcast and welcome to the elevated conversation surrounding our industry.
This podcast will take a deep dive into the world of infrastructure and major programme management, speaking to the industry’s leading experts, answering your disconcerting questions and dismantling the common misconceptions that the majority of our industry still holds.
Hello, my name is Riccardo Cosentio and I am the senior vice president of business development at SNC Lavalin O&M and Capital, leading the growth strategy for the company across Canada, the USA, and the UK. I have successfully led several major programs, pursuits. I also serve on the board of five Canadian major project companies overseeing the delivery of major Design Build Finance and Maintain projects, including the Champlain Bridge, the Eglinton Crosstown, and the Ottawa Confederation line, among others. This podcast is for anyone who's interested in how large-scale construction projects are planned, managed, and delivered, and the challenges that come with it.
In each episode, we'll delve into the key topics and challenges that arise in major programmes. We'll explore topics such as programme design, delivery, governance, risk management, and stakeholder engagement, as well as the critical importance of leadership in major programmes and highlight best practices for developing leadership skills and strategies for programme success.
We'll also discuss the unique nature of major programmes as temporary organizations, and the implications of complexity in programme management. We'll cover topics such as managing programme interfaces, coordinating the work of multiple stakeholders, and developing effective governance structures to ensure programme success.
As we explore the latest trends and emerging issues in major programme management, our conversation will cover everything from new technologies and digital tools, the impact of geopolitical and economic factors, and the changing expectations of stakeholders and society. And we won't forget to address important ED&I issues such as the underrepresentation of women in infrastructure and the challenges that marginalized communities face in accessing and participating in major programmes.
So join me for "Navigating Major Programmes,” the podcast that is set to elevate the conversation surrounding major programmes. I look forward to exploring the fascinating and complex world of infrastructure together.
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 26 Aug 2024 | Complex Projects: A New Approach | The Science of Complexity | S2 EP15 | 00:28:11 | |
Host Riccardo Cosentino explores untapped knowledge in project management, drawing from his Oxford insights. This episode of Navigating Major Programmes delves into integrating social sciences and complex adaptive systems, addressing how minor changes can lead to significant impacts due to project complexity. Join Riccardo as he navigates through the complexities of project management, offering innovative solutions to embrace and manage these challenges effectively in a new mini series: The Science of Complexity. Could your approach to project management be outdated? "I am convinced that, although we have achieved many incredible things already as project leaders and managers, there's something missing, something that's already out there in the world's knowledge that we're not using well enough." – Riccardo Cosentino
Steps for improving the management and understanding of complex, large-scale infrastructure projects:
Mentioned Links: The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization (Recommended Reading) How Understanding Systems Thinking Changed My Career (Riccardo’s LinkedIn Article) Organizing for Work (Recommended Reading) Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Published Works (Recommended Incerto Reading) Digital Construction Ontologies
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 21 Oct 2024 | Strategic Connections: Annie Goodchild’s Blueprint for Stakeholder Success | S2 EP19 | 01:16:49 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Annie Goodchild, a passionate advocate for inclusivity in major projects. As a trans, non-binary professional in the infrastructure industry, Annie shares insights on industry resilience, stakeholder management, and the value of diverse perspectives in shaping successful projects. The duo discusses all this, plus the role of public inquiries in major projects. Annie Goodchild brings a wealth of experience in communications and stakeholder outreach, driving strategic initiatives for complex infrastructure projects across Canada. As the Director of Communications and Stakeholder Outreach at Kiewit, they currently lead efforts on Ottawa’s Confederation Line extensions, focusing on building essential relationships for project success. Known for their commitment to teamwork, learning, and connection, Annie believes that true progress happens when everyone moves forward together. “We are the eyes and ears in many ways of how the project's going to do everywhere else, but in the very boardroom that it's executed from, and that those outside forces, the climate around the boardroom affects the boardroom more than sometimes they'd like. So let us help. Let us be in the room. Let us share our understanding of what's coming and help us plan a mitigation around any problems we might see, because that's our ultimate benefit to the major project." – Annie Goodchild
Key Takeaways:
Mentioned Links:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 22 Apr 2024 | AI Adoption in Major Programmes with Lawrence Rowland | S2 EP 6 | 01:25:04 | |
Are LLMs stochastic parrots or reflection of our own intelligence? In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Lawrence Rowland for an extremely candid conversation surrounding the adoption of artificial intelligence, in major programmes and beyond. AI skeptics and AI enthusiasts alike, this episode was recorded for you.
“None of us are keeping up, none of us know what the hell is going on. So, if you can kind of just relax and enjoy it happening, you will also help everyone else so much more. Enjoy it. And enjoy what [AI] is telling us about us.” –Lawrence Rowland
Lawrence began as an engineer on large capital projects with WSP and Motts, before moving onto Bechtel and Booz Allen. He spent ten years in project and portfolio management with CPC and Pcubed, before transitioning to data analytics and AI for projects, working originally for Projecting Success, and now for React AI. He now helps project services firms find relevant immediate AI applications for their business.
Key Takeaways:
Mentioned Links:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 29 Jul 2024 | Concept to Concrete: Digital Twins in Major Programmes | S2 EP13 | 01:05:23 | |
Welcome to a special collaboration episode of the Navigating Major Programmes podcast featuring Henry Fenby-Taylor from the Digital Twin Fan Club. Joining them is Associate Professor Jenn MacArthur from Toronto Metropolitan University to discuss digital twins in major projects. They delve into complex programme management, emerging digital trends, AI's transformative power, and essential leadership for billion-dollar projects. The trio also explores the nuances of building information management (BIM), digital twins' practical uses, and sustainable practices shaping future cities.
“But what if you could actually transfer learning from previous buildings into that one, from previous genericized systems into a new system. And you built in this online learning capability, that your twin was actually capable of learning what was typical for the building as the data came in. And then adapting those algorithms to be able to tune them to that building, with very, very little human intervention.” – Jenn MacArthur
Key Takeaways:
Jenn MacArthur is an Associate Professor at Toronto Metropolitan University, specializing in mechanical engineering and sustainable infrastructure. Her career spans from energy and water management in India to leadership roles in design engineering and construction in Canada. In academia, she focuses on Building Information Management (BIM), AI, and digital twins, aiming to optimize building operations and energy use through advanced technology applications. Henry Fenby-Taylor is the CEO of Athenophilia, where he assists clients on their digital transformation journey, creating software applications, digital twins, and information management capabilities. He also hosts the Digital Twin Fan Club podcast, exploring topics related to digital twins, AI, and the broader infrastructure industry. Henry is engaged in driving innovation and managing change within organizations, working closely with stakeholders to accelerate change and drive innovation.
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 24 Feb 2025 | The Human Side of Major Projects with Melissa Di Marco | Master Builders | 00:42:52 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino and co-host Shormila Chatterjee sit down with Melissa DeMarco, a seasoned construction and infrastructure leader with a PhD in construction management. With over 15 years of industry experience, Melissa has led projects across industrial, institutional, mining, and infrastructure sectors. Currently a partner at Accuracy, a boutique consulting firm, she has played a pivotal role in expanding the company’s infrastructure and energy practice in Canada and globally. She delves into her academic journey, including her groundbreaking PhD research on global project networks, which allowed her to work with major industry leaders and analyze the mindset shifts required for success in complex, multi-location projects. "People think of construction as a hard science, but then I think the angle that you took, which is sort of the same angle that I studied on, it's a social science, because ultimately there's so many people, and as soon as you have an aggregation of so many people, it then becomes a social environment, rather than a hardcore technical environment." – Melissa DeMarco Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 31 Jul 2023 | Practical Major Programme Leadership with Jim Bernard | S1 EP 7 | 00:38:29 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Oxford Saïd Business School alumni Riccardo and guest host Corail, interview fellow alumnus, Jim Bernard. Jim specializes in real estate investment programme design, structured finance, risk conceptualization and strategic partnership formation. With an impressive track record spanning over 25 years, Jim has accumulated more than 4 billion dollars in real estate investment experience. Now, as a partner at consultancy and as a major programme advisor, Jim is focusing on disrupting traditional approaches to major programme management—making him an exceptional expert to share his insights on this podcast.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05
You're listening to navigate major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino I brings over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's day business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major prpgrams. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode, as I press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. James Michael Barnard, commonly known as Jim is a highly accomplished professional specializing in real estate investment program design, structure finance, risk leadership, and strategic partnership formation. With an impressive track record spanning over 25 years, Jim has accumulated more than $4 billion in real estate investment experience. Currently, Jim serves as a partner at Two Roads Group, a consultancy he co founded with a focus on disrupting traditional approaches to measure program management by employing novel and empirically supported methods for risk mitigation, decision making and stakeholder engagement. He also serves as a major program management advisor for AI cumulus. Additionally, Jim is the founder of the Regal, a privately held investment company that concentrates on sustainable real estate assets. Outside of his professional pursuits, Jim actively engages in community service as a member of the town Castine Planning Board, and serves as a director on the SMU Cox School of Business alumni board. He is also an accomplished diver and a skilled jazz pianist. Hello, everyone. Welcome back to another episode of navigating major programs. I'm here today with my co host, a guest appearance from Corail with my esteemed colleague and friend Jim Barnard, who has graciously agreed to join the podcast today and talk to us about his new venture and his new approach in helping major programs. How are we doing, guys? How are you doing, Jim?
Jim 02:37
Great. Thank you. Thanks for having me.
Corail 02:39
Hi, Riccardo
Jim 02:40
Carail.
Corail 02:41
I'm doing great. Thank you for having me again. And I'm excited to hear more about Jim today.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:47
And by the way, today, we were joining the podcast. I'm in Toronto. Jim is in Maine, and Correll is in London. So you got a truly international episode?
Corail 02:57
Yes, very much.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:59
So why don't we Why don't we jump right into it? Corail, I think you're gonna help me co host today's episode, the new format for us. But you being a guest on this show before? So I think you're you're almost almost part of the family. Why don't you take it away?
Corail 03:18
Hi, Jim. I hope you're well and nice to see to see you and hear you. I wanted to ask Can you please introduce yourself to our listeners today and tell us a little bit about your career?
Jim 03:32
Sure, It'd be my pleasure. My name is Jim Barnard. I'm fortunate to have been a classmate with your two esteemed hosts here at the University of Oxford and major program management program at Syed business school. How I came to the program. Let's see. I was a CFO for real estate, sustainable real estate investment development company in Austin, Texas for about five years before I applied to Oxford. My background had always been in real estate. I'd done it since I graduated from university. At the time, we were struggling with some fairly common major program themes, complexity or projects are getting more difficult, more intricate, larger, we are having challenges scaling. So interestingly, I was sitting in a conference room trying to sketch out a risk curve with my team in the finance department to try to figure out where he has some significant exposure and one of my co workers looked at the whiteboard and said, you know, there's a whole program at the University of Oxford that takes on these questions directly. So I I bet him that if he would write a recommendation I would make the application under no circumstances did neither one of us think that we would be or that I would be admitted to the program. But here we are two years later having survived it and fortunately, having had the chance to work with great people like the two of you You learn a whole lot about managing major programs.
Corail 05:03
Yeah, congratulation. Jimmy did I think wonderful in the program, and he was really interesting, you know, to hear about your experience throughout and your background. I was wondering like, I think we both know Ricardo and I, that you started in entrepreneurial adventure after the program. Can you tell us a bit more about what led you to start your own business after the program? And why are you particularly interested in consulting in the fields of major programs?
Jim 05:39
Well, in the interest of full disclosure, I have to admit that I haven't started this alone. In fact, you both probably know very well, some of the people that are investing in the, in the consultancy with me. And that alone is a privilege. So the opportunity to work together with like minded colleagues, who've enjoyed similar professional backgrounds, or have had similar professional backgrounds was probably one of the primary reasons why I decided to start this consulting practice. But really, the, I guess the motivation came out of, believe it or not the global financial crisis in 2008. A couple of us back in Austin, with this real estate development company that I mentioned, we basically, we'd all lost our jobs, you know, the industry was kind of in shambles. So at that point, we decided we would get together kind of start at ground zero. And I think maybe we had 200, or we had $2 million in assets at the time. And 10 years later, we were up to $250 million in assets. So to kind of get back to some of the scaling challenges I mentioned earlier. But that experience of of one having an industry job, and then losing it quickly, in rather chaotic circumstances. And then having built up the other company, over that period of time sort of gave me a sense that one, security in major companies undertaking major programs is not always as secure as you might think it is. And two, there's not necessarily as much risk in starting in your own venture, as you may think there is so the chaos of that prior period of my career gave me the confidence to start this new consulting practice with the folks I mentioned previously. So yeah, that's that's kind of where it all came from. In terms of goals for the program, I mean, the whole podcast is focused on major program risk and making major programs function more effectively. Certainly, in my career, and in the careers of the colleagues that have joined me in the group, we've seen plenty of complexity. And we've seen plenty of four major program performance. So the idea behind the group, at least for me, was to be able to use a lot of what we learned at Oxford, and try to address these issues at meaningful points of intervention. So being able to offer that to a variety of clients at a variety of different industries was appealing, and seems rewarding.
Corail 08:16
Yeah, that's amazing. That sounds super interesting. Can you tell us a little bit more about what you're offering in this consultancy, then? And you know, how you feel like you're apart from other consultancy, what puts you about?
Jim 08:33
Sure, broadly speaking, I think what separates our consulting practice from maybe some of the other ones out there would be our combination of gray hair and battle scars, domain expertise on the on the one hand, having worked in all of these areas professionally, as of, you know, my, my colleagues in the practice, but also the academic basis. So one of I had an MBA before going to still do MBA before going to Oxford. So I was familiar with the professional graduate school, curriculum and approach, particularly United States. Oxford is obviously very different. But one of the things within Oxford that truly distinguishes it, particularly MMPM, is the research background. So we not only had to justify our opinions professionally, but we had to support them academically as well. So when we form TRG, both
of those aspects became mutually supportive and critical to the practice. So we we tried to bring a whole lot of domain expertise in a variety of different fields and circumstances and marry it with the best academic research that we can find. And then do some of our own research. So hopefully, we can keep the practice as progressive as possible and as helpful as possible.
Corail 09:59
Yeah, I do. Like, the fact that you're trying to combine this academic side of the field with your practice, you know, and the kind of practical aspects of of being a major program leader everyday. So I wanted to ask with what you've learned in Oxford and what you're doing in your current consultancy. What do you think will be the main area of improvement for major programs in the future?
Jim 10:32
It's an interesting question, because I think it's geographically dependent to some extent. And by that, I mean, the whole concept of program management is really not understood even conceptually, on this side of the Atlantic. In the UK, major program research is been around for quite a while, I mean, clearly, the program's been around for quite a while. But the subject itself certainly goes back a long way. And the UK Government has adopted over the years many major program management practices. So in that area in the UK, in particular, major program management is understood as a discipline, as well as its value is understood. And they've UK Government in particular, and obviously Oxford have invested a lot and refining the subject and practice. In the US, it's very different. The concept of program management really hasn't entered the collective experience, I guess, major programs are still heavily engineering based. Project management is a very familiar term. And certainly there are enough people who engage in project management, they get very frustrated by some of the program management aspects that says so much it's beyond their purview, it's just the project managers are as they should be laser focused on delivery, on time on budget, and aren't necessarily positioned to deal with the externalities that can influence that delivery schedule. So one of the bigger challenges, I think we have at least bidding projects in the US is making the case for program management being part of any large mega project, there's definitely a sense that improvements need to be made, particularly when you start talking about less quantifiable aspects like stakeholder engagement, kind of broader community outreach, communication, change management, I mean, a lot of these very established business practices that are at least familiar in the consulting world, per se, but may not have made it into the major program management world. So the big opportunity, and I guess challenge, at least again, in the US, is sharing this field and the insights that it can provide with some of the larger project constituencies, and really, you know, help the programs perform better than they have been traditionally.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:09
You mentioned the United States, but I'm in Canada. And I think what you describe is really a North America phenomenon, where major program management is just not viewed as a discipline in itself. Would you ask a guest why they is in North America? How come I always say Canada is at least five to 10 years behind what the UK is. I haven't quite been able to explain why North America is behind. One of the policies I have is just the way major projects are funded, not founders centrally, like the UK, there and therefore create doesn't create a center of knowledge that the UK has with Treasury. But do you have any view on that?
13:54
That's a really good point, the centralization of a lot of the biggest projects in the UK. I think you're onto something there. I mean, that that would explain why there's been so much investment, at least in part, why there's been so much investment and trying to understand kind of the major program management phenomenon. In the US, we obviously, I guess in as in a lot of other places have a robust private sector. That very active builds a whole bunch of different things. And then we have the public sector, which is probably more focused on what you'd consider traditional infrastructure, and then your private public partnerships for for large events and stadiums and that type of thing. The US is a complex network, and pardon me for overusing complex, but I'll probably be using it a lot in this conversation. It's a rather complex overlap of jurisdictions. So for example, the federal government came out with the infrastructure plan, build back better, massive amount of money, but unlike in the UK, in the US, the federal government's role is basically to distribut and administer of money, they're not particularly involved in any of the actual construction, or conducting major programs that can happen at the state level that can happen at the local level that can happen in public private partnerships. So you definitely have a very fragmented market for pursuing any of these types of projects. So then the private side. And of course, this is financed completely differently as well. Why it hasn't made it far enough along, or as far along as in the UK? Maybe it is because there's not as much of a central actor, as there is over there. But it's an interesting research question. Maybe we can get convince some of our colleagues at Oxford to take it up.
Corail 15:48
Yes, talking about research, and I know you, you are really fond of everything. Academic related, following on what you just said, Jim. I think it's really interesting for our listeners, who are leaders in major programs to get your knowledge in a bit of sense of your knowledge in the research into major program. And I know that you're fond of many frameworks that help improve major programs. And I was wondering if there was, like one framework out of your time in Oxford that you saw was particularly useful to improve the performance of major program? And could you share that with our listeners,
Jim 16:32
I'm happy to share some of the conclusions I've come to and some of the frameworks I've found more useful than others. Of course, the big challenge is always empirically establishing a framework or trying to apply a framework that's been super successful in one area to another area and see, see how it goes. So there are a whole bunch out there, I think a lot of them are more applicable to certain circumstances than others. However, the framework I use for my dissertation in particular is called the Galbraith Star model. It's, it's been around forever, primarily applied to ongoing businesses, not necessarily major programs. But we had a professor at Oxford, introduce it to us, and show how it could be usefully applied to major programs in particular sort of extend its range beyond your your typical business consulting practice. So I found that one fairly useful on primarily because it's, it's sort of simple to conceptualize, it's got a are, for those who don't know, it's a five pointed star, it's got several aspects of an organization that all need to be organized in order for the organization to kind of hit its goals or realize that strategy. And in that instance, certainly applies in a major program context as well. It's also somewhat easy to understand for for people that are used to working in more traditional business environments, or sort of more traditionally practicing project management. So things like identifying a strategy or the goal of a major program, and then making sure that you've got a management structure that supports that strategy. And you'll get decision processes that help information flow among the
people within the structure. The other two areas, which interestingly seem to get next to no attention are people. So the which would open up areas of psychology and and behavioral economics, and then reward structures. So how do we actually keep our people who are working on the project who are compensated in a variety of different ways, whether they're the general contractor or subcontractor, the developer, or the municipality or a government official, and everybody's sort of rewarded in different ways? So the question is, are all of those areas sort of aligned in the same direction, so you can accomplish the goals of the major program? So I guess the one of the questions is what is, you know, the perfect alignment for a major program and some of the research I did, unfortunately, was inconclusive in that area. It doesn't seem that there's a single right way to organize a major program, but provided all of those areas are aligned, I think you've certainly got a much better shot of finishing one successfully,
Riccardo Cosentino 19:26
if I may jump in and follow up because that framework was a very interesting framework. I was fascinated by that class and having worked in major programs for a big chunk of my career. And I think the for me, the lightbulb moment was major program is a temporary organization. So although the Gobrecht star can be applied to major program, you have to do it through the lens that these are temporary organization. And I think that was a nuance of major program that never occurred to me So as you're designing your organization, you have to keep in mind that you have challenges and opportunities that come with a temporary organization. So, in your view, how much does that influence the way you're designing a major program organization, the fact that is a temporary one. The deal did your research touched upon that?
Jim 20:23
It did. In fact, I, in some sense, one could look at the defining difference of a major program, relative to a permanent organization, is the fact that it's temporary. But when you unpack that a little bit, and you start to think about what Temporary means, offer that a lot of the permanent organizations and the permanent organization mindset is far too focused on longevity, when we actually don't see companies last as long as some of the major programs that we work on. So even though a major program may be temporary, you know, a beginning and an end, people can work on a single major program for the majority of their career. So they are so long lived, that they're, they're temporary aspects, maybe more of a perception necessarily than a mental chronological reality. And similarly, on the corporate side, where people are looking at, you know, perpetual existence of a corporation that very rarely happens. Most companies could probably benefit from thinking, and again, this is my opinion. So for all the people who own companies out there who think that I'm a fool, they're certainly welcome to that perspective. But I think companies would probably benefit more by acknowledging volatility and change and sort of the temporary lifespan of whatever a single strategy is, and maybe the major program world would would benefit a little bit from looking at their projects more organically, because they certainly do evolve over time and less from my on a sort of linear project management standpoint, where point A will never be revisited after we complete it or pass it, because we're temporary. So we're gonna do ABCDE. Whereas you're really not you're going A, B, C, D, B, C, A, D, and then kind of spiraling apps. barleys, not the right word. But hopefully your project doesn't spiral but evolving forward in a nonlinear framework. So I guess it's a long winded way of saying, yes, they're temporary, but maybe not as temporary as it's helpful to consider them being, particularly since these projects are supposed to really impact communities for generations, even if their actual construction or development is somewhat
limited. And again, could be decades but somewhat limited. I think the perception behind their concepts. And what they're supposed to do for a society is far longer than even most permanent organizations. I mean, the investment we're making in any of these things is really supposed to be generational.
Riccardo Cosentino 23:14
Thank you. That was interesting. Exchange, and certainly helped me revisit some of my view about major projects or temporary organization.
Jim 23:25
One of the things that was glaringly obvious in my dissertation mean, there was very little that was glaringly obvious in my dissertation, it was largely failed to support the management frameworks that I had formed based on the literature. But, interestingly, of the Galbraith principles of the five points of the star, people and rewards barely showed up at all. So there was, if you think of programs, as we have discussed, having a beginning and an end, whether that's an appropriate perspective or not, they certainly do go through phases from concept of you know, what, what qualifies as completion, although I'll offer that the never really complete, but that whole aspect of people aspects and the reward aspect, explicitly tied towards stakeholders that are involved in the program, kind of a much broader perspective of who was actually involved, and then rewarding people for their involvement in the success of the program, like completely lacking. It didn't show up at all. I mean, maybe towards the later part of a project, did you start to see some considerations about people and how they were going to use the output of the of the program. But really, in the beginning, it was all strategy and structure related. I mean, it just didn't even show up. The programs are so Mayopiccally focused on, on this strategy thing that they never really, at least in my research, exhibited any consideration for people and rewards. So you got another area of research that's probably worth considering there.
Riccardo Cosentino 25:16
That's interesting. So your your research show that major programs don't take the time to design a compensation structure and a reward structure to align the interests of the project with the interest of the leadership and in
Jim 25:36
really, it really anybody I mean, there's there's certainly incentive based compensation mechanisms at the corporate level, you know, risk base, you come across this all the time, whether you're delivering a turnkey project, or you know, cost plus, or g max, or whatever the structure happens to be relative to the contractor. But in my experience, particularly if it's a major program within an organization, so we worked on a program, or I did with a, another friend of mine, where a company was digitalizing, their entire, basically production stream. So it was within almost exclusively within an organization, although obviously, it touched on some external partners as well. But there was no bonus incentive, there was no reward structure, there was no career path, you know, sort of advancement on to greater challenges or responsibility for implementing the program successfully. I mean, it was literally like, your job is to do it. And good luck. We'll be back in touch if things go wrong. So that to me, that, to me seems like an opportunity to to pull people in the same direction. One acknowledge more broadly, the breadth of the stakeholders that are influenced and then within the program, aligning some of those reward incentives,
which may or may not need to be monetary, but aligning those reward incentives within the program to see it completed successfully.
Riccardo Cosentino 27:09
Yeah, can it can resonate any makes sense? That's certainly my anecdotal experience. And when you're when you think of a major program, do you think, you know, stakeholders have a lot of influence on the success of their major programs, I've never seen in the few, one of the few major programs I've been involved with, and alignment of the project leadership to the stakeholders. So you know, you could have situation where you could have engagement with stakeholders, and measuring and getting the feedback on how the project is delivering against their needs, and aligning the compensation of the leadership to the stakeholder needs, because we know from our study that stakeholders can derail a major program. And then stakeholder management is key. So there should be a metric that should be aligned.
Jim 27:59
Sure, we're in there also a tremendous asset to a program to the coordination takes a huge amount of resources. And it can be very frustrating, particularly from a project management standpoint, where there's a, there's a tendency to to go, go, go, go go. So any sort of these, these stakeholder intervention points, I think, have probably traditionally been viewed as a burden for the program. Whereas leveraging resources of a community, and this comes up a lot in my native state of Maine, particularly with some offshore wind programs, recognizing the support and resources that the local community can provide is a pretty big step. We've got these offshore wind communities obviously touch a lot of sea based industries, fishermen, marine biologists, obviously, the electricity company, but also shipping, manufacturing base quality jobs within the state of Maine. I mean, these are huge opportunities that touch so many different aspects of society. And that can be positively influenced by them. But you kind of have to start with that first perspective that there are a lot of people involved that have a lot to contribute. So engage them early and often and I you should have a better program.
Riccardo Cosentino 29:24
Music to my ears. Correll, over to you again, with your series of questions.
Corail 29:33
I wanted to go back to a more personal question now. What do you love most about your work and about setting up a consultancy in major in the major program industry? I think what would be interesting is to know more about you and what what does it take to be a major program leader?
Jim 29:56
More about me professionally, personally, what attracts me to Do it what a, and we could go down a rabbit hole here.
Corail 30:04
I'd be interested to know more about you personally, and, you know, understanding better. What do you love about your job? What drives you to this field? And yeah, what's what is your passion?
Jim 30:22
So big, big question, obviously limited time in a podcast format. So I'll try to be as specific as possible. But what what drew me to the real estate industry in particular, despite my best efforts to avoid getting into what had been a family business for years, was how multifaceted is probably an overused description, but how many areas real estate touched any sort of construction project, which sort of, you know, goes back to the broader stakeholder engagement perspective, but also the number of disciplines who are are had to be involved in any successful project, from architecture, to engineering, to finance to delivery to sales, I mean, there, there's not a lot of pigeon holing within real estate, people have to be somewhat familiar with a great number of things in order to have a project delivered successfully. So, you know, personally, I like the breadth of knowledge and the breadth of engagement and the opportunity to use a whole bunch of different skills without diving maybe sufficiently deeply in any of them. My background, certainly, as I mentioned, finance, and there's that's sort of a obvious area one could focus on. But what I've discovered over my career is that any subject, such as finance, is really, again, back more to being about the constituents, stakeholders involved in the finance process. So I can run spreadsheets all day long, I can make him say whatever you want, I can regress to the mean, I can calculate internal rates of return. But what really matters is the people within the transaction, and what they what is their perspective, if I'm a lender going into a project, what Yes, I want my money paid back. Yes, I want interest to to be generated on the loan. I mean, all of these things are fairly cut and dry. But what does that actually mean for the loan officer, the person that you're working with on a day to day basis? And how does your program fit within the larger context of the organization that's lending you the money. So even within something that seems like it would be as as specific and cut and dried as finance is really a far broader and more interesting opportunity to connect with people that have a vested interest in the project? I think that is one of the things that's most appealing about being at least for me, personally, being in a consulting practice or forming a consulting practice, are, I'll say, the second most interesting thing is the breadth of engagement and the number of different subjects and aspects of major programs that you get to touch and sort of have to acknowledge at a minimum to deliver services to your clients. But hands down, the most rewarding thing is the people I get to work with. So and Oxford definitely raised that bar in terms of professionalism and capability of the people on the teams. So does that answer the question people and diversity of subjects? Maybe
Riccardo Cosentino 33:28
you sold that to me? So Oh, good.
Jim 33:32
No good. Should I point you to our website, because we're always looking for new clients? You
Riccardo Cosentino 33:36
should you should what's, what's the website?
33:38
The company is called Two Rodes Group. Website is www.tworoadsgrp.com. As you mentioned, we've got partners in Dublin and London and here in the States. So I won't get into the story of the name. I'm not that I'm not romantic enough to do justice to it. But yeah.
Riccardo Cosentino 34:03
Now you have to now.
Jim 34:08
So, Robert Frost, former Poet Laureate of the United States and find New Englander wrote a poem called two roads. And the ending stanza is two roads diverged in a yellow wood and I took the one less traveled by and that has made all the difference. So when we start to think about major programs and adjusting the perspective, we tried to bring in that road less traveled, the the opportunity to make all the difference by looking at traditional forms of delivering major programs and offering some alternatives that hopefully will make a material difference.
Corail 34:45
That's amazing. Thank you, Jim.
Riccardo Cosentino 34:48
Very nice. And by the way, the link to your website will be in the show notes and in the episode description so the listener can can find the details if you I couldn't read it down quickly enough. Okay. I think we're coming towards the the end of the podcast currently, if you don't mind, I'll ask the final question to Jim. And so, Jim, in your mind, what would be the dream major program? What will? What would that look like?
Jim 35:20
There has so the absolute dream program under sort of all circumstances, for me would be impact related, particularly related to climate change in the natural environment, having grown up in Maine and actually sitting in Maine now looking at the ocean, I think, maybe Maine culture is somewhat uniquely attuned to or dependent upon the natural world. So given all the climate related challenges that everybody acknowledges that we have now, unfortunately, any project that influences a basically preservation of the natural world is to me hugely meaningful. So whether there's delivering clean energy, whether it's considering different ways of funding, climate related initiatives, reef preservation, I'm being a little coy because we just bid on a project recently that had some of these characteristics. But since it hasn't been awarded yet, I can't get into too many details, but basically, the opportunity to use the inherent transformational aspects of a major program to to improve any of a number of situations, particularly around climate change.
Riccardo Cosentino 36:32
Very nice. Okay, I think we come to the end of the podcast, Correll, any, any, any final thoughts from you?
Corail 36:43
I just, I'm thinking that if every leader, were interesting in the same topics as you, Jim, we wouldn't situation we are today. So I hope you're an inspiration for all our listeners. And thank you for your time.
Riccardo Cosentino 36:59
Thank you very much, Corail for CO hosting the podcast with me. Thank you, Jim, for joining us in this conversation, always stimulating conversation with you and Corail. Any final thoughts from you, Jim.
Jim 37:14
It's, it's an exciting world. Major programs are definitely a topic not only were studying, but fascinating to work in. So I encourage everybody who's got the chance to consider the topic and get involved.
Riccardo Cosentino 37:27
And on that, thank you very much for joining us this week, and we'll talk to you soon. Bye now. Thank you. That's it. For this episode, we'll navigate the major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, where we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 09 Sep 2024 | From Banking to Building with Vickie Turnbull | Master Builders Series | S2 EP16 | 00:47:08 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Vickie Turnbull, a trailblazer in infrastructure finance with over 35 years of experience in the banking industry. Vickie shares her unique journey from corporate banking to becoming a key figure in infrastructure finance, shedding light on her extensive work with leading Canadian banks like TD Securities and RBC. Now, in what she calls "Vickie 2.0," she remains deeply involved in the sector, leveraging her expertise in advisory roles and as a board member for Infrastructure Ontario. Vickie also dives into her commitment to mentorship and advocacy for women in infrastructure, reflecting on her role in founding the Women's Infrastructure Network (WIN) and Women in Energy Canada (WIECAN). She emphasizes the importance of diversity and inclusion in infrastructure and discusses how these networks have evolved to support and empower women in the industry. "I think that's one of the things I really love about the whole infrastructure space is it takes a village to get these transactions done. I think that's been part of the fun part for me is that I have so many different people that I talk through as I'm working on a transaction. Right? And you've got all these people that you can interact with. And again, you get that whole diversity. People are looking at things from various different ways. And at the end of the day, we've got these fabulous assets that are getting built for the use of Canadians and replacing, you know, things that really needed to be replaced. There's a lot more that still needs to be done. So I'm a part of it, but I don't see myself, like I, it's hard and I don't know whether that's just how I think through things, how I look at it, but I do really, like, it does take a village to get these things done and I couldn't do it alone on my own. Absolutely not." – Vickie Turnbull Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 08 Apr 2024 | Do Major Programmes Need To Be Resilient? With Daniel Armanios | S2 EP 5 | 01:00:18 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Daniel Armanios, BT Professor of Major Programme Management and Chair of Major Programme Management at University of Oxford, Saïd Business School. The pair discuss the importance of research, the type of valuable research and the post evaluation of major programmes. "And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously you want it within the program but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places. I've been really thinking about this a lot because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?" – Daniel Armanios Daniel’s research and teaching integrates civil engineering and organizational sociology to better understand how organizations coordinate to build, manage, and maintain infrastructure systems. His findings inform efforts to advance sustainable development, entrepreneurship, and innovation, while also alleviating systemic and persistent inequities within such systems. Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 11 Mar 2024 | Private Capital in Infrastructure PPPs with Sherena Hussain | S2 EP 3 | 00:46:21 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Sherena Hussain, lawyer, global thought leader in infrastructure and advisor to new partnership and sustainable finance models, to tackle the complex question: is private capital successful in major programmes?
“The research and the industry and the research is beginning to align in the sense that we need to begin to do things differently. Now is the time to start to challenge the paradigm and do better.” – Sherena Hussain
Key Takeaways:
Sherena Hussain’s Published Work
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 0:05 You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.
Riccardo Cosentino 0:53 Hello, everyone. Welcome to a new episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I'm here today with Sherena Hussain. How are you doing, Sherena?
Sherena Hussain 1:01 I'm doing well. Thanks. How are you?
Riccardo Cosentino 1:04 I'm very good. I'm very good. I'm so glad we're on this podcast together. Thank you for agreeing to join me. I've known you for a long time. But maybe for the guests that may not have seen you on CBC or seen your work on LinkedIn, can you introduce yourself briefly?
Sherena Hussain 1:21 Oh, wonderful. Well, thank you for that. Well, my name, as you mentioned, is Shereena. Hussein. I'm a lawyer as well as an academic. In addition to being in the infrastructure space for many years, it's so interesting that Riccardo, you and I, we go back, way back, to the Infrastructure Ontario days where I was a summer associate and I was able to work alongside some of your teams. And since then, my career has taken me in different directions. Practicing as a lawyer at McCarthy Tétrault moving into academia, including affiliations with the Schulich School of Business, and also dovetailing into a variety of different international work, including affiliations with the G7 and the G20, trying to pair private capital to sustainable infrastructure projects all around the world. And now more specifically, trying to connect different types of research to actual problems that we have in the infrastructure community, more specifically, how do we make those projects bankable but also sustainable economically as well as environmentally speaking?
Riccardo Cosentino 2:26 Okay, very interesting. So you, obviously, our path connected in the past and having this still do because I'm also still involved with private capital. I work for AtkinsRéalis doing investments into infrastructure. I have not been able to attend your courses at Schulich. But I certainly have seen them or your affiliation with the university. I mean, today, we want to talk about, obviously, private capital, but we want to also talk about major programming in general, and the challenges that major programme bring in terms of on-time delivery, on-budget delivery, and the complexity of major programmes and the multitude of stakeholders that they involve. So it's a very, very complex ecosystem. And I think I would just want to explore with you what you've picked up over the years in terms of what is the function of private capital and how can private capital at times help and at times doesn't help major programmes?
Sherena Hussain 3:34 Yes, and first and foremost, I'm so happy that you're having this podcast series, because often we don't talk about this enough, and really being able to step back, see how well we're doing as an industry, but also, where are the rules or the ways that we can otherwise find solutions? How do we improve or at least create a dialogue around that? And with my research, and it's actually in fact, one of the reasons why I ended up doing a dovetail into academia, was really coming to the reflection point of whether or not we can do things better. And you know, as well as I do, and most of your listeners know that there has been a considerable amount of challenges that are almost endemic to major projects and the idea that items are over budget, they're never on time and then there's fallacies on how we plan and how we execute. And you can just look for the headlines from time to time, in which case, we always end up scratching our head and asking ourself, how did this happen? And that was one of the major questions that led me to move into academia and also conduct research with a bit of a slant towards private capital, but less so from a pure financial perspective, but rather looking at the role of private capital at the intersection of law, risk, as well as how that infuses some of the planning processes. So that intersectionality is quite challenging to wrap your head around, let alone do research. What I found really telling is that in the process, being able to step away from just each project stage and each project clause or project agreement, which as a lawyer, you can appreciate that's something that matters very much to what we do. But being able to step back and look at, well, how do these items interact with one another? In the context of say, are these projects able to attract private capital? What influence does this have on how the parties behave over the duration of long-term project agreements, some instance upwards of 30 years? How does that then influence the different stakeholders outside of the agreements? And then how then does different decision-makers reflect upon that whether at the front end and when they're coming out with some of the projected benefits, but also, as they try to communicate what went well, and try to then encourage other jurisdictions to follow suit. And it's that latter piece, which some of my research has gained a lot of traction, because looking at, say, Canada, we are regarded around the world, as some of the leaders when it comes to preparing infrastructure projects using different delivery models. I know some of your listeners might not recognize that. But as someone who then goes around the world, and interacts with say, senior government officials that are looking to bring on board different types of sustainable infrastructure, they always ask, what is Canada doing? How can we learn from Canada? What are some of your practitioners' best practices? And how then do we follow suit? So when you put that into the context of things like private law, risk, and all the different, the contextual features that come into play with how we put in place major projects, we're not just making a decision as a one-off, we are influencing effectively global infrastructure. And that's where some of the research on private capital is anyways, both fascinating, but also daunting because it does have a ripple effect in terms of how practitioners may then take them into account, and then replicate that in other places around the world.
Riccardo Cosentino 7:21 Wow, there's so much to unpack in that. Certainly, yeah, the role of private capital. And I think we, what we're seeing right now in Canada, and what we're seeing in the UK, is how the role of private capital has started to shift in certain type of infrastructure. Again, I don't want to overgeneralize, because, you know, there's a lot of places where a lot of assets where private capital is still using is still the domino form of financing. But in more traditional public infrastructure, we've seen a bit of a decline in the use of that type of capital, as a tool of achieving outcomes, because I think that that's important, I think it's important to define that in Canada, the use of private capital was with the purpose of creating different incentives and creating different outcomes for major projects, rather than using private capitals, as a source or as a gap filler for project funding or project financing. So I actually would like to ask you, what's your view in terms of how effective is private capital being, it's a loaded question, but how effective is private capital being in achieving different or I would say, better outcomes for project delivery or major projects in general?
Sherena Hussain 8:55 That is a loaded question. I'll try to address this from the perspective of both research but also practice considering that I really have a foot in both worlds. Let me step back and understand well, what are the motivations to then introduce private capital? In many ways, those are your benchmarkers for success in terms of did it achieve that or did it not? And when we stop and think about the theory behind the use of private capital in mega projects, many of the key items include things like is it a way to then align incentives between different parties? Is it an opportunity and then to incentivize certain behavior so that you achieve value for money in terms of how best different parties are able to manage risk, as an example, or some of the the windfall profits can then be better managed by virtue of using private capital. You have the benefit of leverage to then induce different types of returns to then bring different forms of maybe longer-term private capital providers to the table which otherwise may have not been available. And then again, can you align the incentives with what the public sector also wants to achieve? One of the key challenges, though, that exists with just that theoretical approach to then benchmark, how well does private capital work or does not work is that just so much more (inaudible) with or without private capital. And this, you move beyond the theory, and then you look at, say, the process to then create a market that then entices private capital. The processes involved in terms of structuring different tender documents, getting some degree of negotiation, and also making your way through the process of financial close and then when the real fun begins, when the capital comes into different projects, that's when you see things like leadership and personalities come into the conversation. We also see the role of which different capital markets come into play. And inevitably, there's a political climate that, for the most, part does overlay whether or not private capital is available, but also how well it's priced and if that price outweighs some of the benefits that come with private capital. We're now entering a period in which case interest rates are much higher than they have been in at least the past six to seven years. That, in and of itself, introduces a different paradigm for just private capital and a cost-benefit analysis that might come into play. But also in that period, at least here in Canada, we're also seeing a morph in terms of what kind of delivery models have we introduced and how much private capital have they also been deployed. And that makes it somewhat difficult to then apply, say, our theoretical approaches for whether private capital is successful or not because there have been things outside of that traditional analysis that have occurred as well. So from a research perspective, it's difficult to say causation versus correlation. But what it ultimately means from, say, a decision maker's perspective is, well, if private capital was successful five years ago in a specific industry, does it mean I can replicate the exact same set of circumstances for another industry today? And the short answer is no, you have to then reevaluate, is it the right solution? And if it is, how much private capital? Which source? At what period of time? And all these different variables to then being able to then achieve some of those benefits like, are we aligning incentives over the long haul? Who takes on some of the most problematic risks that comes into play? And I will say that, Riccardo, is one in which we're entering a new frontier when we start to think about the role of private capital of mega projects, because not only has the ecosystem changed, but also much of the research is catching up to now being able to pull some holes in those assumptions. And the practitioner community is even recognizing that yes, we need to stop and think about is this the right set of contexts or circumstances for us to determine is it the right use? Is it not? And then be able to benchmark after the fact of whether it's successful or not.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:18 Again, a lot to unpack. As you said, it was a loaded question, I think you answered it beautifully. For certain, the landscape has changed. And I like how you refer to practitioners. And so, by the way, for the non-academic listeners, we, I am a practitioner, as people in the industry are the practitioners. And so we have our own views. And I have to say that, without taking away much from practitioner, I do believe that the practitioner view's a little biased. So relying, of course, a practitioner will, a private sector practitioner will always push for private capital, and get that generates a return on the capital that is deployed. And so I think relying on practitioner to provide views on the use of private capital is a little biased but I think it's a necessary point of view. I think you touched upon the ability to assess the outcomes of these mega projects and the influence of private capital or public capital to the mega projects. However, I think it can be challenging because the horizons are very long and the datasets are limited when you have such horizons, right? When you have a project that could last five, seven, 10 years, you might actually not know the outcome of that project, probably couple of years after the contraction has been completed. And that could be 12 years from now. So it's really difficult to have, to assess the benefits of the impact that certain decision, like the decision of using private capital, can have on the outcomes. And that's why I touched upon the bias because obviously if you, if the people making the assessment are biased and you have incomplete data and long span horizons, the verdict, so to speak, might be highly biased and geared towards certain preferences of the industry or the person that is making that assessment. But nevertheless, it's important that we do assess, and we do try to understand, what private capital can do, or other tools in the toolbox, for that matter, that are used to tackle the challenges of major programmes, right? Major programmes are very complex, they have a history, if you're starting a major programme, you should know that you probably going to be late and over budget. And if you think that your major programme is not going to do that, then you probably don't understand major programmes because the history, the data is out there. Having Professor Filberg is, I can't remember the stat but probably 90% of major programmes are late and over budget. So in any case, major programmes are complex. And we need the tools to deal with this complexity. And so private capital is one of the tools but in your mind are their other tools and is the choice of tools, an important choice? And if I can add one more element, is the choice of tools fixed or the tools actually change along the lifecycle of a major project?
Sherena Hussain 16:54 This is an excellent question. And I like to use the analogy of tools in a toolbox, but also whether or not it's an individual who's picking up that tool? Do they know what to pick up at any given time? And for what project are they trying to use this tool for? So think of, say a home renovation, in which case, today, you might use a variety of different tools, supplies for a particular problem. But think about, say three years from now. And you might have to reconsider, oh, do I need to replace? Do I need three player? Which tool from the toolbox do I need now? If we use that and then apply that sort of question-answering queue to then major projects, then we have to think about at what point are we thinking about the problem? Are we thinking in terms of, say, delivery models? And often that's where we get the analogy of tool in a toolbox? Are we thinking of one form of risk transfer versus another? And this is where we often gravitate towards and say, well, this type of a public-private partnership or alliancing model, this is one tool from our toolbox. That's a very simplistic approach. Because yes, we ask that question. But we also have to ask ourselves, who's in fact using these tools? Do we have the institutional capabilities in order to then be able to leverage these tools in order to achieve an outcome? Go one step further, are we actually addressing the right project at any given time? Do we have to up-scope or descope it? And if we start thinking about that perspective or going beyond just a micro project approach, which is typically how much of the private capital research is focused on, it really goes down to a project level or a subset of different portfolio data. But once we try to introduce it into an institutional context, that's when we see a variety of different theories that ultimately can gravitate towards things like the systems in which case private capital then operates in. And that's why I think there are different solutions that are available that thinks about, well, it's not just what's in the toolbox. But there are also solutions such as how do we upskill? Or what capacity are we building? What about, say, things like critical thinking skills and problem definitions? That's another tool which, there are different intellectual models that exist and we can train and teach for that we can conduct research in that, that also then has an impact on the use and or success of different types of private capital. And I can give you an example of how I'm currently grappling with this from a research but also in terms of application and by the way, this particular public-private partnership agency wants to then attract private capital to do so. In that process, we're looking at okay, which delivery model works, let's prepare the project. And we can go through a lot of those more micro-level analyses. But what is critical is the fact that private capital may or may not be attracted to that and particularly at the right risk-return profile. And that's when you step up and start looking at the norms, the processes, the people, the broader institutional ecosystem that comes into play, that all has to work together. So much so that the term private capital, which might be politically advantageous in those markets are not really used much anymore. It's called blended capital, how well can you de-risk private capital to then bring them into a market, so you have a balance between public capital, and private capital and different types as well like the nonprofit sector? And that's where we're seeing an inflection point in how, not only the research but the practitioner community in certain regions where private capital is just not available, is trying to evolve in order to address, can we get some of the benefits, but also knowing that some markets just do not exist today.
Riccardo Cosentino 20:56 Yeah, I like how you describe major projects, and you look at all of the facets, the delivery model, that type of contract used is one facet. But you know, I think we study, we study major projects, as temporary organizations and being an organization, you need to consider multiple facets, you need to consider, as you said, exactly what you said is the people, the processes, the culture that gets to sits in the middle, how these people compensated, what kind of bureaucracy do you have, and all of these should exist in a harmony that allows the system, so the major programme, to deliver the appropriate outcomes. And yeah, there are situations where certain tools will work and other tools won't and vice versa. So, alignment, as you said, the private capital is very good at aligning incentives and providing risk transfer. But, you know, does that really apply to every single project? I mean, I can think of one industry that never really used private capital to its full extent, which is the nuclear industry there's no way you can find privately financed nuclear power plant because of because of the risk. So you really need to understand I think, my law professor, during my master said, what problem are you trying to solve? And then from that, once you've established the problem you're trying to solve, you find the right contract to help you solve that problem, right? If the problem is I want to transfer the most amount of risk, then you've got to find a contract like a PPP or like a project finance solution where you're transferring the majority of the contract, but that comes with cost, as you pointed out, or the private capital might not be available so the risk transfer might not be, might not be the right mechanism for that particular project. So, I think we've been conditioned over the last few years, over the last 10 years, that there is our delivery model that will accomplish the best outcomes. But I think that's very reductionist because you really need to look at the system that you're dealing with and that is much more multifaceted than just, oh, this contract versus that contract.
Sherena Hussain 23:22 Absolutely. And when you start to explore that, you also then have the opportunity to then look at systems solutions to system challenges. And from one end, to be able to have that conversation is quite challenging, because some would say, well, that's just outside my zone of influence, or that's outside my industry, or you just have to wait for something to happen but we need this built today. That elements of not so much public, or public or political considerations, but also more broadly about the role in which organizations and different disciplines can then interact with one another is also something to be challenged. We often think about, well, one company only does X, they rely upon a consortium to come together and provide a solution, say in major programmes. So to be able to then offer a system space solution, then a similar sort of coming together of disciplines looking at some of the solutions they have, what are the problem they have to solve knowing that it isn't going to be a simple answer to a relatively challenging problem also requires even within the public sector and even, you know, at least even drop the distinction between public and private, a systems-based approach to thinking about what's the problem we're trying to achieve and what are some of the solutions that exist, ultimately are ways in which we can at least beginning to scratch the surface and look at can we actually get to the root of some of these problems and then start to implement some of say, the innovations that come forward. I am mindful that there are certain delivery models out there that are masking themselves with some of those broader solutions that say, well, we might be doing things like alliancing, which on its surface suggests that we're doing exactly that. But as we've discussed so far, it's, in some ways, it goes beyond just a project and a delivery model. It's looking at, do we have the right skills? Do we have the right capabilities? Are we pricing risk accordingly? And what about things like norms, culture, that do you have to be addressed? They could be addressed within a delivery model. But what's been clear in the research and the theoretical framework is that we have to go beyond that. And that does require an evolution within the industry, but also within different types of interactions and yeah, I would even say, broaden what the industry means in order to start moving that envelope across the board, to then being able to say we're now developing system space solutions to system space problems in mega projects.
Riccardo Cosentino 26:08 Okay, I want to pause a little bit on system approach. Because I think you and I are familiar, and probably a lot of the listeners, are familiar with system thinking. But it is a discipline that it's certainly underutilized in, certainly in Canada, as far as I know, because I've not come across system thinking until I ended up in the U.K. where it's a concept that even there is not broadly used, but it's I think a bit more understood and at least the benefits of system thinking and approaching issues from a system perspective is something that is being embraced more and more especially in civil engineering in mega project, because when you have a lot of complexity, you need to think of different types of relations between agents within the various system. And you might even have a system or systems to make things even more complicated.
Riccardo Cosentino 27:14 But the system approach is, it's important because I'm always trying to explain it to known to people who have never come acrossed system thinking that the example I always give is the butterfly effect, right? Whenever, we always know we've always heard some in, when a butterfly flaps the wings in Australia, you might have a tornado in North America. And that's basically how I explained system thinking where there is no direct cause and effect, which is perceived by as more causality that happens in a way that we don't quite understand. And so we need to really understand all of the elements to trying to understand our all of the elements, in our case, for major programmes, stakeholders, interact with each other because only when we understand those interactions, we can start seeing patterns of actions that occur within the system. And we always have a tendency as human beings to reduce the complexity, and always thinking of linear cause and effect, when in reality, we're talking about circular cause and effect. And in fact, it is not even cause and effect it is just circularity of relations. So sorry, I wanted to take just a few minutes just to get all the listeners on the same page, when we talk when we say systems and system thinking and system approach. What do we mean? And I guess, you and I have discussed this in the past, but what are? What are the advantages of having a system approach? I think you touched on some of them already, but in your mind, what are the advantages of system thinking and system approach to major projects?
Sherena Hussain 29:08 Yes, and when we stop and think about, why should we entertain such levels of complexity amongst not just one system, but multiple systems of systems, and one area is it offers the ability to think through how different say, stakeholders, actions, activities, risk, capital sources, all interact or can be affected by a certain course of action. And for the most part in our daily lives we don't think necessarily like that. For the reason you mentioned before we're, it tends to have a reduction as an (inaudible) from simplicity and how we undertake our affairs. However, if you're willing to then step back and do that mapping exercise, that identification often will yield you the ability to see some of the assumptions that have possibly been made. In different circumstances, you might have to test those assumptions. An excellent example that I grapple with daily right now is in the context of decarbonizing transport, meaning try to reduce CO2 emissions from transport through other propulsion technologies like battery electric, like hydrogens, like anything else in between. I can tell you, Riccardo, but often they say, well, you just need someone to get a vehicle, put in a charger, and you're on the road and everything is great. Well, if that were true, then we'd probably have a lot more, you know, different types of vehicles on the road, but we don't. And then once you start mapping that out, you realize, well, you interact with utility, that electricity has to come from somewhere, there's a supply chain that comes with, say, critical minerals that go into the components to the vehicle to the charger. There's also different individuals and regular regulatory frameworks that are impacted such as safety, such as the individuals who have to maintain like the mechanics, do they feel safe touching these vehicles? Do they need to be trained? What about our ecosystem for upskilling and reskilling the trades. So once you start looking at systems and unpacking that, you're able to not only identify who your stakeholders are, but some of the embedded assumptions into our projects. And once you have that insights, then you can make decisions such as you know what we need to bring in certain stakeholders earlier, or you know what, maybe the utility is a source of low-cost financing to this project, because they might have a vested interest in greater adoption of certain types of electricity sources through electrification. So that's another, those are some of the benefits that comes with systems theory, and systems thinking. But I also want to throw the caveat out there is that it's not a one-size-fits-all all approach. Often, you have to do this on an ongoing basis for the same project, but also on a project-by-project basis. And that's where the application of this type of thinking, in some ways is very challenging in the mega project space, because there's always a tension about, can we get economies of scale, and how we can then replicate some of these across some of the say, smaller projects that just do not have the capital in place, or the budget in place to do this on an ongoing basis. So that is ultimately something that comes into place. Do we have solutions available to then make it a more timely and cost-effective to apply systems thinking? I would say yes, but we just haven't figured it out yet. Or we can at least try and see how we do that. And I'm sure, Riccardo, you've seen in some of your work in your masters that there are solutions around the world to do that. So some of these benefits could be realized.
Riccardo Cosentino 33:02 Yeah, for sure. I do think that understanding, okay, I'm going to reduce the complexity a little bit. And in my mind, one thing that projects don't do and I'm going to be very specific, is stakeholder analysis and the effect of stakeholders onto even onto the day-to-day delivery, right? We, you know, even when we start in delivery project, and we're on-site, there's a little bit of work done in stakeholder management, but not to the extent that is required, and that has detrimental effects on delivery. And I think sitting down and understanding and do and apply system thinking the second you apply system thinking you have to think of the stakeholders because, you know, if you're an on-site delivering a project, all you are looking at is your Gantt chart, right, your schedule, and you know, that by the way, that's a whole new podcast on the fallacy of a linear schedule for a complex mega project is you know, I don't even know where to start with that, where you you have all these activities and somehow something as complex as a major project you end up with, with a delivery day, like to the day you can tell when the project is going to be done. But which is a fallacy, because the second you start actually looking from a system perspective, you understand that there's so many moving parts, so many relations, you don't understand that how you can predict to that level of accuracy is beyond me. As I said, that's a different podcast. I think it's important though, that we start using these approaches because we drive in blind, like I think there's a lot of project director, project managers out there that are driving blind because they're using, they're using tools that are designed for things with little complexity and the tools that we're using for high complexity, issues of say high complexity projects are not good enough. And that basically, doesn't basically makes the project director being oblivious to what's ahead. And so we're getting more in the specific now of project delivery. But you know, if you step back, you know, even in the planning phase, applying systems thinking during the planning phase, or during the early phases of the project, to understand what the challenges are going to be making the project more resilient. Because ultimately, I think that's also what system thinking allows you to do. It allows you to do how the project might fail over the long term. And I'm not just talking about the delivery phase, I'm talking about the planning phase, you know, a lot of projects don't get the funding, they get shelved, and but applying system thinking upfront, allows you to understand what could go wrong, you know, there's a change in government that happens. Doesn't mean that the project needs to stop if there's a change in government, you could set it up in a way that is politically agnostic on who's the leader, right? So these tools are very, very helpful, but I don't think they are understood or even why they're not utilizing, I don't think they're even understood.
Sherena Hussain 36:36 And that's where I find that that could be an opportunity. An example of one of those tools, just carrying on on the example of stakeholder management is one that I teach to my master's students. And also, when I engage with senior government officials, and that is a power interest matrix, it's a very simple two by two matrix. On one axis, you have power, another axis, you have interests, and then you plot your stakeholders. What's really telling is that if a stakeholder for example, has high power, high interest in your mega project, say, during the planning stage, well, you have to make sure they're consulted and they're involved in that project. If you have a stakeholder that has low interest, but high power, you want to make sure that they're amendable. But they have, for the most part, as long as they're disinterested, they're not going to exercise their power. That analysis continues throughout the duration of our mega projects through all its stages, because a stakeholder might shift in their power or their interest. So say the mega project experiences a significant delay that then affects one of those stakeholders. So their interests, even though they're very powerful, but low interest now increases. So they're by far one of your most problematic issues to your project in getting, say, consensus to get this project back on track. If you're not thinking about stakeholder management, then that is going to just emerge and potentially not be foreseen, and you're behind the eight ball. Whereas before, if you had a constant view of your stakeholders, and even if it's say, looking in quarterly, looking in and reflecting monthly, then you're in a better situation to get ahead of those situations and develop solutions before it minds for that. What I'm very clear to all my students is that this is not just for, you know, the stakeholder management consultants, this is everyone's job, everyone should be thinking about stakeholders, because whether you're involved in say, claims management, or if you're involved with project coordination from, say, a public sector perspective, you're still dealing with stakeholders, from your vantage point, you should be managing that as well, such that we can at least be applying some of these systems based solutions to then avoid the common pitfalls that typically come with major projects.
Riccardo Cosentino 39:01 Yeah, you make me smile when you say the stakeholder consultant because yeah, that's my experience too, right? You don't just make a project you typically have and it's typically a comms firm or somebody that just when in reality, stakeholder management is at the core, right, the project director should have direct visibility and influence on that and should be spending quite a bit of his or her time on stakeholder management because, as you said, it's evolving, right? I really liked your two by two matrix because you have to continue reviewing it, because the situation change and somebody that didn't really matter early on in the project may become very influential. And if you haven't mapped it out at the beginning, guess what? You're going to be completely blindsided because if you haven't done the exercise at the beginning of the project, to understand who these parties are and what their role are, when they see intuitions shift and somebody now becomes irrelevant if you hadn't mapped it to begin with, you'll never even going to know what's going to hit you.
Sherena Hussain 40:07 And this is where you might you must know the term, and your listeners too, the term social license, that we need a social license to build mega projects. We need a social license to be able to introduce X, Y, and Z. Well, yes, but what does that actually mean? How do we develop a social license? How do we maintain it? How do we grow that? Often, if based upon our conversation, we're pretty much saying it's on the basis of applying systems thinking, systems theories to stakeholders. And that's how you're able to cultivate the social license. And it's not just the jobs for the comms department or the consultant. It's everyone's job when we're dealing with major projects, because we all have a zone of influence in what we're doing. And that all has some form of impact, like the butterfly on how that mega project unfolds at the end of the day.
Riccardo Cosentino 41:04 Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. stakeholder management has become a new pet peeve. Okay, I think we're coming towards the end of today's podcast, but you know, before, before we wrap up, I just wanted to ask you what, do you have any hope for the industry do you, as a bit of a broad, sweeping question that, you know, you've been in the industry for a long time and I ask this question to most of my guests, it's, you know, are you positive are you negative about major programme as an industry, in Canada and or around the world?
Sherena Hussain 41:51 I would say I'm optimistic for a variety of different reasons. If we looked at purely from a public policy economics perspective, infrastructure is critical to the success of any society. Canada's no difference. So there will always be a role for mega projects. A lot of decisions that we have to make today are informed by things that maybe we didn't think about 10, 20 years ago, such as climate risk, how does this affects some of our mega projects. It's not just bringing a consultant who tells you to do X, Y, and Zed that requires an application of systems thinking. And the theory is across all facets of a mega project's lifecycle, not just in project development. So I think that is going to be one of the biggest drivers paired with the fact that across some of the major industries that require either a renewal, or the investment of different types of infrastructure, leveraging technology, again, highly complicated. That's another realm for where we will see the need to apply different forms of system thinking and systems solutions that we've talked about today. So with that in mind, we either have the opportunity to continue doing what we've been doing before and possibly just fail or not be able to achieve the outcomes, or reflecting upon in our daily lives, we have to deal with more systems-based thinking, because our lives are getting more complicated. Why not start thinking about how that applies to mega projects and major programmes. And I think that is an opportunity that I'm bit excited for, in the sense that the research and the industry is beginning to align. And so in the sense that we need to begin to do things differently. How quickly we're able to mobilize? I'd say I'm also optimistic because you have a podcast like this talking about it. So to the extent that your listeners are decision-makers as well, they're being influenced by the fact that now it's time to challenge the paradigm and think about how we do things better.
Riccardo Cosentino 43:52 You make me blush I'm doing I'm trying to do my part. I'm trying to do my part and then with this podcast for sure, because it's I am a little bit more negative than you I think it is, it is a monumental challenge. For decades, we've been trying to improve major programmes and major programme delivery and the progress is slow. But at least we are definitely moving in the right direction. But you know, when you see when you see outcomes of major programmes on a day-to-day, I won't name projects but you start to think you know, how long is it going to ask is going to take for us to have a situation where it's not a given that a major programme will be late and over budget. But although I have a little bit of a negative outlook, here I am trying to do my part to change and I, you know, as people like you and that are helping these change by bringing different perspective from different parts of the industry. So on that, I want to thank you for taking the time today. It's been a fantastic conversation. Hopefully, we won't let pass another war 15 years from the next time we talk to each other. But yeah, thank you very much, Sherena, for for joining me today.
Sherena Hussain 45:24 My pleasure. Thanks for having me.
Riccardo Cosentino 45:27 That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major programme management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 04 Dec 2023 | Here’s What I’ve Learned About Our Industry with Riccardo Cosentino | S1 EP 16 | 00:12:46 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down to reflect on the conversations during the first season of Navigating Major Programmes and what he’s learned about the industry because of them. Plus, Riccardo shares why he started a podcast in the first place and his final thoughts before taking a brief break ahead of an exciting season two. “The opportunity to sit down and interact with individuals who have spent six months researching a specific major programme topic and engaging into a debate about their findings and their conclusions has been very, very inspiring for me. To a point where all my initial concerns and fears of starting a podcast have now completely vanished and I’m really looking forward to building upon the first season of Navigating Major Programmes and bringing even more in-depth topics in season two.” —Riccardo Cosentino
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:00 If you're listening to navigate the major programs, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino I bring over 20 years of major programme management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford universities Said business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major problem management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Hello, and welcome to a new episode on navigating major programs. This episode will be the final episode in Season One. And in this episode, I will try to recap the topics that we covered in the first 15 podcasts. I will try to also recap the guests that join the podcast and the themes that we covered in the 15 episodes. But before I go into that, I think it's important that I also tried to recap and remind ourselves why I started the podcast in the first place. I started this podcast for two reasons. The first one was a personal reason which was wanted to overcome my fear of public speaking, I wanted to practice the skills of interacting with guests and to record myself and listen to myself and overcome this cringe that we all have in listening ourselves speaking. And it was very important to me, it was very important for my journey to always become a better leader, I really wanted to put myself out of my comfort zone. But the second reason which is to be more addressed stick is I wanted to create a platform for individuals that don't normally have access to these type of platforms such as podcasts and blogs. The idea really started from when I was finishing my dissertation at Oxford. And I realized that I just spent six months researching a topic using very rigorous academic research methods. And most likely the now the dissertation will probably end up on my bookshelf. And I also realized that in my class, there were another 60 People who had created similar research of similar standards. And also then I realized that because I was part of cohort 12, at Oxford for the master major program management, there were approximately 700 People who had written dissertation who had research, major program topics, and most of them probably never talked about the research. So those were the two main reasons why I started the podcast. But as you probably realize the first five episodes of the podcast was actually a mini series called Building Bridges. And the reason I started with a mini series is because I was very scared of getting the podcast off the ground, I had a huge amount of impostor syndrome. And so together with with my personal brand coach, we decided to actually create a mini series so that it wouldn't be too daunting. It wouldn't be a full podcast, and it was going to be a bit more manageable with a limited number of episodes in a very limited topic, which was the experience of women in working a male dominated industry. However, as I was launching the miniseries, and by the way, the miniseries took me two years to launch because I recorded the first podcast in 2020. And I ended up launching it in 2023. So I should have been more than two years, it took me more than two years to launch the podcast. But when I ended up doing it, when I started recording the second and third episode, I got really galvanized and decided to bite the bullet and to actually launch the full podcast. And that's how we ended up having navigated major programs together with building bridges, women in infrastructure. I also picked the woman infrastructure topic because I'm a big ally to women. And I think our industry needs more women. And so I felt this was a topic very close to me, and probably a very easy place to start since I was quite confident about the topic. So in building bridges, we started with Mariska Pinto and she came in talk to us about being the only woman in the room and the challenges have been in a male dominated environment at the beginning of our career. We then had Corrail Bourrelier Fabiani, who has now become a regular guest as well as co host of the podcast where she discussed the importance of allyship. Then I decided to have an old colleague of mine, Hannelie Stockenstrom, who is being a big role model for me and also represented somebody in an advanced stage of our career, and somebody that is really passionate about infrastructure. Then in episode four, we had Divya Shah joining us and talking about how labels put limits on what women can achieve and how labels are detrimental to the advancement of women. And then finally, in Episode Five, we had my ex colleague Shormila Chatterjee, that came to talk to us about gender bias and their experience with gender bias, being an engineer, managing engineers, and getting pushback from these engineers because she was a female. Overall, the biggest lesson learned for the miniseries is that ally ship is very, very important. All women described how in a male dominated environment, some sort of allyship is necessary, because there just aren't enough women at the top. So if women want to try to make at the top in a male dominated industry, they need the support of men. Once I concluded building bridges, women in infrastructure I launched right into navigating major programs. As I mentioned before, the podcast was meant to give a platform to some of my classmates who had done extensive research on major program topics and didn't really have a platform to present their findings. So I started with several guests. And we followed three major themes. We talked about collaborative contracts, we talked about leadership in general leadership in major programs. And then we talked about technology and technology in major programs. There was also one episode where I invited back Corail to talk about her dissertation, which was linked to building bridges. But we were able to do a deep dive into a very interesting topic, which was, Do women need to play golf in order to lead major programs, and Corail was able to articulate the importance of women networks and how fundamental women networks are for the success of women and major projects in general. In the collaborative contracts stream, we talk to Carol Tansley, about the use of IPD in nuclear mega projects. We also talk to Rachel Patel, about the use of integrated project delivery or IPD in the healthcare sector in Ontario for mega hospitals. And we looked at the strand for challenges of integrated project delivery in the Ontario context. Then we also talk to Vicenta Cunha about the use of collaborative contracting in the procurement of oil rigs and in general ships and the use of schedule incentive for the completion of mega project on time. And then finally, in the collaborative contract stream, I had a bit of a role reversal, where I invited my classmate and podcast guest, Jim, to actually be the host and interview me so that I could present my research about the use of collaborative contracting in PPPs. Overall, the collaborative contract streams told us that although these forms of contract are not widely used, they're not new. And they can provide a very good alternative to standard contracting models used for large complex programs. And in fact, they may actually be a better contracting model for complex programs. We also had a leadership stream, which had three episodes. And in these free episodes, we had Jim Barnard coming in to talk to us about his dissertation, which was centered around practical major program leadership. Then I had my very first solo podcast where I talked about the cost of bad leadership in major programs. And then finally, we had Dr. Diana Nada, who came in talk to us about our PhD dissertation on the psychology of major programs. The biggest takeaway from this leadership focus episode is that major programs are delivered by people and people are at the center of their success. So we can have a show or a podcast about major programs without talking about the people in the major programs. And then finally, we had a stream about technology. We had my classmate, Kimberley Heraux, coming in and talking about intelligent technology, major programs. And then I did a collaboration with the digital twin fan club where Henry-Fenby Taylor and Neal Thompson, from the digital twin fan club came in and had a discussion with me about the challenges of adopting technology, major programs, and how can technology help major programs moving forward? I think the most important takeaway from the technology stream is actually a quote from Neil Thompson, where he says they think, "Oh, we're going to be able to predict the future are actually the value of these things isn't about being able to predict the future is about being able to adapt as quickly as possible to change circumstances". As we come to an end, which is a one on navigating major programs, I want to take the time to reflect on how inspiring the last 15 episodes have been, for me, the opportunity to sit down and interact with individuals who have spent six months researching a specific major program topic, and engaging into a into a debate about their findings. And their conclusion has been very, very inspiring for me to a point where all of my initial concerns and fears of starting a podcast have now completely vanished. And I'm really, really looking forward about building upon the first season of navigating major programs, and bringing even more in depth topic in season two. My plan is to take them off for December and January off, I will be producing the new episode in January. And I'm hoping to be able to launch Season Two sometime in February 2024. In the meanwhile, you can still listen to the podcasts that are available where you get your podcasts. And I will also interact through my navigate imager programs LinkedIn page, which is now available in case you want to find other material related to the podcast. So for now, thank you very much for joining me over the last several months. I hope you found these podcasts interesting. And I hope that you're going to join me again for season two. Until then, I wish you happy holidays and prosper New Year. We'll see you soon in 2024. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, where we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going. Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 13 Jan 2025 | Embracing Innovation and Elevating Major Programmes in 2025 and Beyond | S3 EP1 | 00:08:55 | |
Welcome back to Navigating Major Programmes and welcome to season 3 of our podcast! In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino launches the third season by reflecting on the podcast’s journey and setting the stage for an exciting year ahead. From embracing the challenges of imposter syndrome to exploring transformative industry trends, Riccardo shares his vision for 2025 and how the podcast will continue to elevate the conversation around major programmes.
“I believe this is the year where technologies like AI, machine learning, and predictive analytics are no longer just the ‘next big thing’ but are truly embraced on a mass scale across the industry. It’s no longer about being curious about these technologies; it’s about fully accepting and harnessing their potential to drive real change. And that change will define the future of how we operate—from project management to risk assessment and, especially, preventive maintenance.” – Riccardo Cosentino
Key Takeaways
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 12 Feb 2024 | The Conversation Our Industry Needs To Have with Riccardo Cosentino | S2 EP 1 | 00:07:39 | |
Thank you for tuning in for the first episode of Navigating Major Programmes’ second season. You can expect new conversations with Riccardo Cosentino and his guests bi-weekly, everywhere you listen to podcasts.
“In this podcast, I really wanted to create a platform for research-based conversation. And the reason for that is because the majority of the conferences in our industry are privately sponsored and therefore, the content is, to a certain degree, is privately controlled.” – Riccardo Cosentino
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Transcript:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 10 Feb 2025 | Breaking The Bottleneck with Ali Mafi | S3 EP3 | 00:39:55 | |
Riccardo Cosentino welcomes Ali Mafi, an industry veteran whose career spans construction, automotive, and consultancy. Ali shares his journey from site engineer at Heathrow Airport’s Terminal 4 to leading transformative project management practices at Balfour Beatty, where he introduced innovative methodologies like critical chain management and lean principles. Drawing comparisons with the automotive sector, Ali emphasizes how better project monitoring, bottleneck identification, and accountability can improve outcomes in construction. "My definition of project management is knowing the impact of every task on the end date, every day. If you don’t know that, you cannot manage the project. You’re managing tasks, or you’re managing resources, but you’re not managing the project." – Ali Mafi Key Takeaways
Links Mentioned
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 20 May 2024 | High Risk: Social Acceptance of Electric Aviation with Brandon de León | S2 EP8 | 01:01:28 | |
In this week’s episode, Riccardo Cosentino and guest co-host, Corail Bourrelier Fabiani, sit down with fellow alumnus Brandon de León to discuss his Oxford Saïd Business School dissertation on electric aviation. Brandon emphasizes the importance of public perception in adopting new technologies and explores the potential of electric aviation to transform urban mobility. The discussion covers technical advancements, regulatory challenges, and the necessary societal embrace for successful integration of electric aircraft into daily transportation. Brandon's insights highlight the intersection of technology, society, and the future of urban air mobility. “But what really validated my research was that social acceptance came up as an interesting issue already, before the first vehicle flies. And like I mentioned before, the next plans are also around big events, the World Expo in Osaka. Next year in 2025, this was to be flights. And in 2028 in Los Angeles for the Olympics there. Other companies from the US are also planning to fly. So yeah, social acceptance is already showing itself as a key risk.” – Brandon de León
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 0:05 You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.
Riccardo Cosentino 0:54 Hello, everyone. Welcome to a new episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I'm here today with my co-host, Corail, and we have a special guest, a good old friend of ours joining us today on the podcast. I will pass the mic to Corail who's gonna co-host the podcast today and help me asking questions to this really great guest that has agreed to join us today. How are you doing, Corail?
Corail 1:19 Hi, Riccardo, I'm doing really good. Thank you for having me co-hosting this great episode. And I'm excited to talk to Brandon. So maybe a little bit of background, we met doing a major programme management master in Oxford. And during that two years of our lives we met Brandon who was a superstar in our cohort because at the time, he was working for Tesla. And he was talking to us about this really exciting industry and how he's been part of the founders of Tesla. And he's been part of the team that made it a great company that we know today or the big adventure. And then he moved on to work for Rizwan and developing this into a great new enterprise that goes beyond Tesla by working on all different types of trucks and other things that I don't know enough about. But so I'm really excited to hear the story of Brandon. And I think Brandon, it would be great to start with you maybe introducing yourself telling us a little bit about how you ended up in the electric car industry and what drove you to that really expanding field. And yeah, to know a bit more about your background.
Brandon de León 2:37 Wow, what an introduction. Thank you guys so much for having me here on the podcast with you. It's been incredible to see what you guys have produced after the Master's course and hard to follow what you shared Corail. But I think, generally speaking, it's been an amazing learning experience. The Oxford Masters in Major Program Management, learned a lot from you guys, as well as the content. So happy to be here and share a little bit of what I've been working on and some of my background. It's been about 12 years since I've been in the electric car space, but maybe just a step back and give a little personal context about how I even ended up in that. I, my voice betrays me, I'm from the States originally, even though I'm coming to you from Holland today, I'm living in Rotterdam and working in Amsterdam. I grew up on the east coast of the U.S. mainly in Georgia in Florida. And then that's where I connected with Tesla. And what brought me down to Florida originally was my pursuit of International Business Studies. I wanted to study that because I had grown up hearing about how my parents met in Germany, in the army, and so early on, I was ingrained with these ideas of a world beyond the bubble that I lived in. So even though I grew up in small town, Georgia, I knew that I wanted to go and at least traveled to these places maybe even work in these places, if that were possible. And so in high school, when I discovered international business classes, I couldn't get enough. I also learned in those classes that there's a lot of ways society progresses, and probably the fastest mechanism to make that happen is commerce. So you know, regulation and government takes a long time. Nonprofits are phenomenal. But also some of them have limited impact. So it wasn't really clear what the best path was. But having parents that had done service for the country, as it were, and then pursued their careers and more local service type of roles and social worker and studying pre-med and things like that, I knew that I wanted to find a way to make the world a better place in my own little way. Right? So international business was my chosen vessel that brought me to Miami to study undergrad. And then in university there I had a chance to actually work in a company that I had admired for what I would consider a great engineering design and that was BMW their local retailer in the south Florida area. I persuaded them to let me take an entry level job that they didn't have at the time. But I was really eager to get out of the department store I was working at, and to go work in the company that I admired so much down the street and regularly saw the employees from that office. And so thanks to some persuasion and friendliness on their side, I was able to take a very administrative basic role. And I spent two years with BMW, but I realized that 18, 19, 20, there wasn't a lot of career options for someone that young, in the automotive retail space, at least not the traditional automotive, even with really innovative products like BMW. So I went on the search for career path, and I ended up in a bank and I thought, wow, this is terrific, financial district, maybe I peaked early, there's a career advancement ladder, it's all planned out, pension, etc, all the trappings of a great career, but then my interest in engineering and technology kind of clashed at a certain point, because new payment technologies came out into the market. And some people will be familiar with these dongles that you'd plug into an iPhone, which is relatively new back then. And you could swipe credit cards, and it was a revolution for small merchants and mom and pop shops, and I thought, this is wonderful, it's gonna be great for getting them better cash flow, they'll grow faster, it'll really helped a lot of small businesses out. But banking is a very conservative culture and does not run to embrace new technology. So at the time, we were working on a laptop that had an operating system that was three generations old, because the security patches were all well-developed and stuff, there was a clash there. And I figured, okay, I need to find a career path that's also aligned with my interest in technology or automotive or something along those lines. And after a lot of soul searching, and job board searching, I came across Tesla, and they were starting a store locally in South Florida. And through a lot of discussions for different roles. I ended up joining the launch team for the Model S, which was the car that really established the brand as a large volume producer of vehicles. And of course, its focus was electric cars. So that was 2012. I joined right after the vehicle launched. And it's been a wild ride since then. But at that time, because of my international orientation, I thought the wildest dream I have right now is that Tesla will do great. And then we'll get the chance to go and launch in other countries. And maybe I can be part of that. Happily, I had that chance. So although I started in California, and then after we launched the vehicle there, and I gained a lot of experience integrating, delivering the vehicles, the first vehicles and integrating it directly into the lives of people and families across California, I had the chance to bring that back to the East Coast. And then there was an opportunity to join a different department back at headquarters in California. And I jumped at that, because I knew if international opportunities emerge, there'll be people from there, they're good to go. And so that was a strategic step, it was not clear that it would work out. But happily, I was in the right place at the right time, there was an assignment to go help the team in Canada kind of get find their feet, if you will. And then after doing that a couple of times going out to Toronto, and doing what I would call international, but doesn't necessarily appear to be very international experiences going from California to Canada, I also had the chance to join a very small team of four or five that came out to Europe for a few months to do the same, essentially to help train the first model as launch teams here. And that was quite a privilege. When I came home to San Francisco, I thought oh, wow, this is it. Everything I could dream has happened. This is fantastic. What do I do now? And I didn't have to wait long for an answer because being at the headquarters in the beehive of activity, there was an opportunity that was presented to me to come over and help build critical partnership networks because we were starting to deliver vehicles but didn't really have solutions in place for if people were driving from the Netherlands or Norway down to Spain for holiday, what happens if they run out of charge or if the car breaks, and we had a very small footprint in Europe, within three weeks, I was on a one-way flight back to Europe. And I haven't looked back since. So that's a little bit about me in a very long-winded way and how I've gotten here to you.
Corail 8:58 No, that was fantastic. Brandon, thank you so much for sharing your passion. It's really fascinating how you're constantly growing, reinventing yourself, but yet you seem to have such a drive. And that brings me to something a little picture that you shared of yourself recently that was you, yourself. I don't know how old you were maybe five or six. And you were in this beautiful little plane. And I think we talked about how you progressed from different career paths, but always with a certain drive and in that journey now I feel like you also have great interest into the future of electric aviation. And you decided to write your dissertation on this specific topic, and the social acceptance of electric aviation. Can you tell us a little bit more about this interest of yours and how you came to write about this in your dissertation in Oxford?
Brandon de León 10:00 Yeah, sure. Thanks for reminding me of that picture. It's my haircut was terrible. But yeah, I was very young. And that was, it was a fun picture of me as a very small child in this mock-up of what must have been like a pretend F-16 for children at an Air Force stand at some air show in the U.S. So that was quite a throwback. Thanks for that. The, that picture I think really reflects my interest from the earliest of memories. And I call it transport now because it seems more appropriate. But it's really cars, planes, things that move fast. They're exciting, or have always been exciting to me. And I know that's sometimes cliche and certainly not exclusive to me. But that's where my fascinations were as a kid and that really hasn't died. But my career being mainly in automotive and electric automotive for more recent decade or so, maybe it's worth sharing, it's quick middle steps. So after about 10 years at Tesla, scaling the core product and ecosystems around it in North America and Europe, I thought, okay, what do I, the recipe is pretty much set at Tesla. So we have gigafactories opening, launched four or five different vehicle programs, how can I best use all this wonderful experience? And in 2021, I joined a company called Rivian, which essentially, is, for those who don't know, it a lot like Tesla in that it's a new company that makes cars. But their plan was to electrify totally new vehicle types, still ground vehicles, right? So trucks, which are hugely popular in North America, also SUVs, which are growing in popularity globally. Perhaps, if you look at the Tesla Model Y, the best selling car globally, right now in 2023, I think it was. And then for me sitting in Europe, perhaps most importantly, commercial vans, so they have or we have a huge order with Amazon for 100,000 delivery vans. And that was super exciting to me, because being in Europe, I know that trucks are not a big deal here. SUVs are typically on the smaller side or middle size, definitely not the large American scale. But I knew that if they produced the vans, then we would have a tremendous success on our hands. And that's gone really well. We've delivered over 16,000 vans now it's super exciting to see that happening. So essentially, why join Rivian was to extend electrification. So when looking for a dissertation topic, during our master's degree, I really wanted to take that opportunity to explore the other side of my fascination. One, because there wouldn't be any conflict of interest. So it was a lot cleaner to not do electric vehicles. And then the other side is there was a really interesting ecosystem emerging that was ripe for research. And that's electric aviation. It obviously aligns with my fascinations, but also super timely.
Brandon de León 12:32 So when I started looking into how can I use a dissertation to add some value, however minuscule to what's going on in this ecosystem that fascinated me so much, I started to reach out to people and one of the people I reached out to was someone I would consider a founding father, a modern time founding father in electric aviation. And he had spent three or four decades at NASA researching electric propulsion. And it really caught on towards the 2010s. And we'll get into that later. But essentially, I was asking people like him who are highly technical, unlike me, who's a non engineer, how can a non-engineer contribute to the conversation into the development of this space, and in our discussions that came out that acceptance is really interesting, because it is a known concern. But it's kind of a fuzzy topic, a fluffy topic, it's ambiguous, people aren't really quite sure what to make of it, how to define it, how to grapple with it. And there's not a unified message around it. That's, that seems ripe for Social Sciences dissertation. And that's what led me into it because there weren't any other spaces that weren't mostly other parts, or aspects of the ecosystem today, are highly technical, or regulation-oriented. And this was a space where someone coming from social sciences point of view could really add value. So that's what led me into it, happy to document it more. But that's the background and how I got there.
Corail 13:51 I think it's so interesting that you're bringing, as you say, a non-engineer background into a field that is highly engineering-heavy. And we see in Oxford, we talk a lot about the work of Kahneman, for example, and how it mixes psychology and economy and what amazing ideas that created and I feel you coming from a different background is also generating discussion that we don't think the regular engineer doesn't necessarily think about. And I think it's quite beautiful. You talked about the social interest of your parents early on that kind of inspired you. And it's interesting that you went into social acceptance and which encompasses I think many things but also the how people receive what we're producing. Right? And I wanted to ask you a bit more about this because when I think about social acceptance of electric vehicles or electric planes, as of, I don't know, kind of French bias, (inaudible) we talk about how planes are terrible for the environment and we are always thinking about shaming each other in France for how much we travel? I know my aunt for example, is constantly telling me you shouldn't take the plane so often, etc. And so for me, I only see positive outcome, right, for electrifying planes. So why did you, how did you identify social acceptance as a risk? How is it perceived in the industry?
Brandon de León 15:19 Yes, it's a great question. And actually, thanks for the chance to add more background because it's not, it wasn't something I was able to include in the dissertation itself, I had to really shrink down that context and generally referred to the study as a study into the acceptance of electric aviation without giving a lot of detail and color. So essentially, in order to understand that better, it's helpful to describe the 2010s and the emergence of the ideas around electric aviation and how it was going to look and feel what the vision was, and who was articulating it. So although there have been decades of research at NASA, in particular from the guy, Mark Moore, is the gentleman I talked to and brainstormed with around ideas, potentially, that could be useful to the ecosystem. So there was quite a lot of work done on the physics and the engineering aspect. But what was interesting is that it didn't come from a lot of technology seemed to come from the defense side, right, where you have the internet, GPS, other things that are developed for military or defense purposes, and then they become commercialized. This is a rare instance where, even though NASA had done prior work, and really help manifest the technology, or the idea around how to use it, it was actually technology, commercial minds, technology and commercial minds that were leading the development of this vision, a particular vision of electric aviation, and they called it urban air mobility, mostly. There were many different names and the names of all the increase since then, in the early 2010s, essentially, you had Google printing tons of money and so just to pick, cherry-pick a specific example, this is not the origin story for the whole ecosystem, but it's a major part of the background. So Google is just minting money, right? And Larry Page starts to make bets. And they're called Alphabet. Now, there's a play on words there. But essentially, Silicon Valley companies that make it that big start to then have to find new avenues to create growth. And these are the bets that they're making. And one of them was autonomous vehicles, right? And today, that's Waymo. And another one that was backed by Larry Page in particular was a company called Kitty Hawk. And it had different names, as in its predecessor phases, but essentially, they were making a two/four passenger air vehicle, and it was all electric. And it looked like nothing you've ever seen before. If I had to describe the inspiration, I think that in many cases, these air vehicles developed by the organization he was backing, or Google was backing. I guess it's more him than Google to be honest, on the on the electric aviation side. And other pioneers of electric aviation in the same timeframe, they kind of looked like scaled up drones, toys, essentially, they're called multicopters in that format. But essentially, the vision was that these were going to be flying taxis. And they were going to be in cities. Now I'm not old enough to remember this in person. But I've read stories about how Delta and United used to have these phenomenal helicopter services where you could catch a helicopter from the top of the Pan Am building in downtown Manhattan, or Midtown and then fly over to JFK, or whatever airport. And that was the heyday of aviation, right when it was really a VIP experience. And this wasn't just New York City, this was San Francisco, tons of other cities have this helicopter service. And it's not really the case anymore outside of a couple non-airline, independent helicopter services in, let's say, New York City for example. And enter Uber, another emerging tech company, who was really ambitious and wanting to really reinvent mobility, not just on the ground, but they also saw an opportunity to play a role in this airspace as well, if you will. And so they took what they knew about ride-hailing and the app and the data that they had seen, all the trips people were taking around urban areas like L.A. and New York and probably better than anyone they fully understood and had the data and the data orientation that a Silicon Valley company would do to understand how there's a huge amount of traffic between this origin and destination. And so airport, if we look back at this helicopter services presents an interesting option. And so they started to, they started a sub-organization or department called Uber Elevate, and they issued a white paper, I think it was 2016, maybe 2017. But the white paper basically articulated a really grand vision for all these air vehicles doing thousands of movements in urban areas a year. So it's a whole new kind of flying, not the wing and tube that we're used to going between over long distances or medium range distances.
Brandon de León 19:49 This was a whole different layer of air transport that hadn't been seen before, because presumably, existing small airplanes were, with the capacity of a ground taxi, four, five, six seats or whatever, were too noisy, not comfortable and outdated designs and they couldn't vertically take off. And that's a big difference too is that these new vehicles were supposed to take off and land like a helicopter. So that then unlocked a lot of opportunities to land in urban areas without a massive airfield and runway. And so that was the lower end division in that Uber Elevate white paper. These days, that evolution of that vision has evolved quite a lot and become a lot more mild. To give you one example, there were images circulating around the time of that white paper, where you would imagine a high-rise tower and different levels that would have open bays that the small car-sized air vehicle could fly into horizontally and land or land at a top and then the elevator would move it around. But essentially, it was beehive for these. And that's where social acceptance really became a question. Because if you have that many vehicles flying around in the airspace that's not really used today and they're potentially making a lot of noise because helicopters are super noisy. And that's the best benchmark that we have, even if they're electric and quieter, they're not going to be in silent, then how are people going to react to the noise? How are people going to react to the visual pollution or obstruction to whatever view they have, if you enjoy the city view of Manhattan, it's now going to have a lot of air vehicles in it. If you enjoy the Coastal View, perhaps you'll see a lot of vehicles above the beach, that sort of thing. Social acceptance was early on identified as a risk, something that needed to be dealt with. But how to deal with that wasn't really clear.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:29 Brandon, I have a quick follow-up on that. Because it's very interesting how this was a dissertation. So was the final project for the master's degree or for a master in major program management. Can you articulate how you end up picking an industry as a major programme? I'm assuming, I'm paraphrasing a little bit because your study is not about one particular project, one particular company, it's really just societal, and how society is going to who's going to embrace this new technology or not. And so when you were discussing with your supervisor about this topic, how was it received from the academic side because we're all educated, and we're all told my major project is a project about 1 billion dollar/pounds, whatever. But I'm not a believer in that metric. To me, it's, major programmes are about complexity and I think your dissertation fits perfectly that definition, but you must have had some back and forth with your supervisor, or even with some other academics.
Brandon de León 22:38 Yeah, it's a great question. And I really thought this was a risk to my dissertation to be fair open to the point of marking, I didn't know if it was going to be received well, that how to articulate this as a mega project or giga project, as I called it. But basically, I think that if we look at the way we presented this content in the course, just to give the listeners an idea, that for most of history, or let's say the last century, there has been increasing focus on these growing, the projects of growing scale and complexity, and cost getting into the billions getting into this, they totally changed traffic patterns in the city or they, if there are huge new bridge or something like that and it's just visually imposing huge civil infrastructure or digital systems that cost a ton or aerospace programs like an A380 Airbus, which is just a mega behemoth of an airplane, right? And if the complexity is clear, super tangible. But I think that's the school of thought that are when we had the great fortune of I think straddling two eras of the faculty at Oxford. And the first chair that we encountered was Bent Flyvbjerg. And he literally wrote the book on this stuff. And so far as the Oxford Handbook for Major or Mega Project Management, and in that, through that lens, or what he helped us understand, it was this more centralized type of project. And then later, we actually had another generation of leadership for the faculty come in with the new chair, Daniel Armanios, and he was very interesting in that he introduced the concept of it not necessarily having to be a centralized, that's a singular entity, the mega project could be distributed, decentralized, even. Right? And so after reading both of their research, I'd actually found that Flyvbjerg and contemporary said, coined the phrase of an array of projects. And I thought that fits this. This is actually exactly what I need to articulate how this is a large, complex project, although it's effectively being built in a decentralized manner and actually, quite extremely decentralized manner. There are over 800 different organizations that have released a concept for an electric aviation or electric air vehicle of some kind or another. There's this nonprofit that tracks the industry and most of the funding is with a handful and most ofthe technical progress is at a handful, but the reality is that there is a massive number of companies that intend to enter this space. And essentially, by building these vehicles, they're having to also engage regulators and build the regulatory envelope for this to actually happen. And then also go out and entertain cities and get them on side. They even let it fly. So ultimately, what they're all building towards is a central vision, even though it's moderated a bit since the over white paper in the beehive towers in the city, what they're actually when you step back and look at it all, what's actually being constructed, is something quite central. And that is a layer of air transportation, a new air transportation system that doesn't exist today. Because electrics, there's no charging out there. It's also and this is the part I didn't really get to yet is that a lot of the companies want to get towards autonomy. Some people might know already, there's a pilot shortage historically, pilots are now being paid very well, after having years and years of declining. That's not the case anymore. There's a vast shortage of pilots today. But also, if you're looking at technically looking at these vehicles through a technical lens, from a physics point of view, the energy density in lithium ion batteries or automotive grade, especially. But even research batteries, they're still limited compared to typical combustion fuels, hydrocarbon fuels, in so much in how much energy they can carry per kilogram. And if you're in aerospace where every gram matters, it's critical that you lighten the vehicle, because it's a trade-off for payload and revenue. And so although electric vehicles have started to scale up the production of lithium-ion batteries and automotive grade electric batteries have really gotten cheaper and better energy density so they're improving every day, in labs across the world they're still just crossing the threshold where they're useful in the air and just unlocking short-range missions. So this is a new, this is a new transport layer that is just becoming feasible in the late 2010s and still in development. So that's where I basically come back to your point, which is it's not a central program, it's definitely super distributed and decentralized, but they're all building in essentially a common vision of electric air transport that doesn't exist today.
Riccardo Cosentino 27:21 Okay, one more question that on that note, and then I'll pass it back to Corail. As an industry, I mean, where would you position it in the developmental phases of an industry? And maybe, if you could make a comparison, we always go back to the internet, right? So every time there's a new revolutionary technology, we always say, yeah, think of the internet in 1995 or finger the internet in the 2000. On that basis, so with that in mind, where would you place this industry in the developmental arch?
Brandon de León 27:59 Yeah, maybe if I could go a few years before the internet just for a comparison that rings harder in my mind is mobile phones. I think we're at the place, there's a famous study from McKinsey that I'll get the number wrong slightly. But I think that they hint here McKinsey did a study for AT&T, I think it was where they predicted in the early 90s roundabout then that the maximum total addressable market for mobile phones is 900,000 Americans. I think we're at that stage with electric aviation. And I don't mean that in the, to poke fun at our friends at McKinsey, I know we all have some, anyway, consulting generally. But I think that it is impossible to anticipate the actual scale that this will be deployed at over time. And I say that because if you look at this technology, the business model for many companies is not clear yet. So I think that's, once the technology is ready, we're at the point where the technology is only just becoming certified. And even with helping hands from governments that are eager to be technology leaders in Q4, right about Q4 last year, the first electric vertical takeoff and landing vehicle certified anywhere in the world was certified in China. And just this month, the first one was transacted to a Japanese customer from another company in China for demonstration flights at the upcoming expo, World Expo in Osaka. Nothing's actually, there's no revenue yet. Unless you talk about small revenue regimes from Defense Departments and things like that to help with the testing and helping R&D funds. So we're really pre-commercialization. And that's precisely why I wanted to jump in for the dissertation into this space. And I thought it was really rich picking for that study-wise because what we hear in the program and all the things we've learned about mega project management and so on, is that when did they go wrong, if not in execution mostly in the planning phases in the earliest phases. So this was a huge opportunity to talk to people across the G7 really across OEMs, regulators, infrastructure companies and so on. Even NGOs. And to get a sense for okay, where's everyone's head at individually and collectively. What's the sense for how they're all thinking about this particular aspect? Social acceptance of a new technology? Yeah. And so that's, I think lends itself to the study, but super early is the answer to the question in a couple of words.
Riccardo Cosentino 30:19 Thank you.
Corail 30:20 Brandon, that's really interesting. And to go back to your dissertation, I think you were planning to interview 10 leaders and you ended up with 29 interviews. I think it shows the real interest that it sparked amongst the leader in that industry. And do you feel like they got interested because this is a topic that they didn't necessarily so much sought about? And they wanted to discuss more with you? Or was it very much a risk that was very present in their minds? And you just found that they had already thought about a lot of solutions to raising social acceptance?
Brandon de León 30:59 Yeah, it's a fair question. You're absolutely right. My ambition was 10. I accidentally overshot that by three times. I paid for that on the back end, when it came to actually giving the proper level of attention to the data analysis and cleaning the data from the interviews. Yeah, that was, it was quite a heavy fall. But it was really a pleasure to, because once I started to talk to people in the space, Dr. Mark Moore and I had engaged over LinkedIn, of course, and email and then had a call. But I think that really, I realized early on, and one of the things that I picked up on from one of the faculty members, Dr. Harvey Mahler, was that observation can actually be a part of your research. And I thought, let me, let me go to at least one event where these people gather and just see what's the level of discourse? Is this really a risk? Or is it just something that I see in their social media content or things like that, and I was really lucky, because there were three major industry events, if I can call them that, that were happening right around the time I was doing my dissertation and or the early stages of it. And so I went to London to eVTOL Insights London Conference and it was very much inside baseball, you had the top leaders from the companies that were trying to develop and certify these air vehicles. But you also had the leading regulators, globally for aerospace were there, it was really interesting to just, fascinating to hear the conversation between them. But what I picked up on was that acceptance came up, it was, in some cases a footnote. In other cases, it was a panel topic. But it was never, there was only such a limited depth that could be accomplished in that format. And having chatted with Dr. Mark Moore, having seen that in person in London, but also at Revolution Aero, which is another major event in Dublin, I realized that there, there's not a lot of exploration of this topic, if this is essentially the limit of it. And there are other podcasts in the industry too, that I've listened to where it maybe it gets explored a little bit more, but usually, it's pretty, pretty limited how much people can talk about this, because the overwhelming focus right now is to use every dollar of investment. And right now there's over $15 billion, I think it's over 18 at last count, invested in this space, mainly in the vehicle developers, that will in the future produce these electric air vehicles, essentially, the ones that are just planning to actually produce the vehicles, a lot of them aren't necessarily interested in acceptance, that's something they consider a responsibility of the operator to go out and develop acceptance wherever they plan to operate the vehicles. The operator meaning like airline, essentially. And then the other case, some vehicle developers or pureplay operators, they see the acceptance risk a lot more clearly. And in some cases, they've experienced it before with their traditional air vehicles.
Brandon de León 33:42 So I think, for me, it became clearer and clearer that this was both interesting for me, and potentially helpful for them to have a longer form conversation, the average interview was something like 45 minutes to an hour, someone as long as two hours a couple of them, when as long as two hours, I made the coding quite a long process. But it was super insightful for me. And I felt really privileged. As I was reaching out to people, the reception I was getting was quite strong. I thought 10 was going to be the high end and also a significant enough sample that would make the research worthwhile and meaningful. But then actually, I started to realize that if there's greater interest, I'm happy to expand that to a larger number, especially if it allows me to get perspectives from multiple people representing the different sides of the ecosystem. So like I mentioned, regulators, not just in Europe, but also in North America. And also OEMs, not just in Europe, but from North America as well. So a lot of the funding sits in North America right now. And depending on who you ask the technological leaders, some of them are in Germany, some of them are also in California and Silicon Valley, and so on. So I didn't want to represent just one small pocket of the ecosystem because again, it's a larger array globally. If I could do a better job of capturing those points of view from a European point of view as well as an American point of view, I wanted to do that. And so that ended up getting me to nearly 30 interviews pretty quickly. That's how it grew so fast.
Corail 33:44 I think it's fantastic. And there must have been so much work to just code this amount of interview, I just cannot imagine in the limited amount of time we have to do this dissertation. It's a lot. So congratulations.
Brandon de León 35:26 Thank you.
Corail 35:27 So can you share with us then how so I wanted to ask you, Brandon, how did this leader define the risk? And what were the solution that they were putting forward?
Brandon de León 35:39 It's a great question. I think maybe the step back as a precursor, or the best example of what they were trying to do before was helicopter services from decades ago. And if you live in New York City, or Sao Paulo, or Hong Kong, helicopter services are not an infrequent site. So there are places in the world where it's still quite common. It's just that in the U.S. we, being American, that's sort of my bias, those services had dwindled. After there was a famous incident in New York City at the top of the Pan Am building, I think it was bad weather that affected the helicopter landing. Long story short, one helicopter did a particularly bad job landing, and crashed onto the rooftop. And when it did, a propeller went this way. Another one fell to the ground, I believe it was or some debris fell to the ground and killed the young lady. The other one might have injured someone when it flew into a nearby building. This was, I didn't read the entire history of this industry, the helicopter service industry. But what I can tell you is that if you look at the old timetables and the brochures, being a historical geek and an aviation geek have done more than my fair share that there are very clearly helicopter services advertised in most, in a lot of major metropolitan areas from these mainstream airline names we all know and love today, or despise today, depending on what you think of it. But anyways, the reality is that those services dwindling, I think, in part happened, because there were restrictions put in place, when you had an incident like that it captured the attention of the public around, probably not just that city, probably not just the U.S., perhaps major cities around the world, especially as news could spread wherever the American newspapers are read. So I think that that put a little bit of ice on helicopter services. And so today, if you look at Blade, which is an operator that works does fly from Manhattan over to JFK, for example, to do the airport shuttle type use case, I believe they take off on the perimeter of Manhattan, they're not, they're just off on those waterfront, they're not on top of some building in the middle of the city. So things have definitely changed. And so when it came to acceptance and how they view it, one was, there was this precedent for things going wrong. And if things go wrong, it can really pause an industry. So making sure perceptions are warmed up to the idea of this happening again, because what they're talking about doing is literally lending in many different places across downtown Manhattan, for example of the island of Manhattan, actually being able to pop down on different buildings, but also perhaps green spaces or whatever, wherever they can place what they call a vertiport, which looks a lot to normal person, like a heliport, small helipad with a V instead of an H. There are other things there. The industry insiders will tell you, there's a lot more to it. And there is charging equipment and storage and things like that. But all that to say what the vision was in 2016-17, when Uber was hosting these huge industry segments with 72 experts one year and hundreds the next year to try and really build steam around this vision of urban air mobility. They knew they had an uphill battle. And then on top of that helicopters are famously extremely noisy. That's part of why they have limited routes that they can fly. The other part, of course, is safety and things like that there. If you look at London, I think there's one main helicopter route through the whole of London that goes, basically follows the river, for the most part. And then I think the only operational heliport inside core London, that's not a hospital for an air ambulance is essentially on the reverse side, too. So helicopters are really limited in where they could go, partly because of the noise, but other you know, fears, safety and things like that. And so that's essentially, what captivated the interests of the industry participants most was how do we reduce noise through technical innovation, better propeller design, electric motors are inherently quiet, they're not jet engines. Even if you hear things build as for marketing purposes, and electric jet, it's quite different. It's more of a fan. So I think that they saw an opportunity with electric propulsion to be much quieter, and also more safer, ironically, because you can put many more electric motors and propellers. So if one goes down, you're not worried about that you can still safely land the vehicle and then yes, I think basically centered around noise primarily because the industry insiders knew that, fundamentally, the vehicle was safer, more resilient, more robust, more redundant, if you will, with different electric motors and propellers, a higher number, some have six, some have eight, some have 12 propellers built into the vehicle design. So if one fails, it's really not a major issue for most of the format's of these electric air vehicles. But getting people to warm up to the idea of it was a real risk the way they see it.
Riccardo Cosentino 40:29 So Brandon, obviously, this is a podcast about your dissertation. And you wouldn't, you wouldn't have a dissertation without a conclusion and some findings. What were your key findings?
Brandon de León 40:40 It's a good, I think that so if I, my research question largely centered around how do these executives from all over the ecosystem, all sides of it, essentially define social acceptance? Who and what do they think drives it? And then also, effectively how they plan to approach it? Right? So how do they think that they can maximize social acceptance and minimize social rejection? And the primary finding I found in the case of the first question was, there is no single definition for acceptance. People describe it differently. You'll hear things like regulatory acceptance, social acceptance, of course, public acceptance, community acceptance, market acceptance. So it depends on the mentality of the person and what they're responsible for, and what they're interested in. So if you're looking holistically, you could argue that it's social acceptance, but some of them, a lot of them necessarily focus in on the stakeholders that are closest to the activities that are proposed. And first and foremost, these vehicles have to be certified in a very rigorous process, the organization's have to, as well. So regulators are front of mind. And then market acceptance, of course, they think there has to be some demand, whatever their chosen business model, whether it's airport shuttles or other things. So they look at it through those different lenses. But when you're at a conference, those are sometimes thrown around as synonyms. And people innately understand the acceptance, that means other people being okay with this, but who they're concerned with. And the degree of embrace is something that I found varies quite broadly. And I think what's interesting is, even with that said, it's kind of there's a structure, there's always a question of who are they talking about we're concerned with, and then what's the degree of embrace, and that was a common thread, and their different phraseology, if I can call it that. And then so far as who and what drives it, if you look at a template stakeholder map, this is a lot of the literature around stakeholder management is written by Dr. Friedman. And Dr. Friedman has multiple books on the topic, he's the most cited guy in the field. And I tried to stick to these bedrock, most cited folks in these different disciplines because I felt like you said, this is quite an ambiguous space I'm diving into, I need to anchor myself to really key literature here. And so there's a beautiful map of stakeholders, and he breaks them into primary and secondary. So we call primary stakeholders, essentially, everyone who's in the value chain, plus government and community. So the people, we're directly interfacing with whatever you're doing, plus the people helping you produce it, and finance essentially. So most of the industry is focused on primary stakeholders. And I think operators are a little bit more aware of the secondary stakeholders, but through the interviews, the 29 different executives, we touched on every one of them got covered at least once. So although there was an overwhelming focus on primary stakeholders, naturally, there was an awareness of an interest in getting all stakeholders on board. And so they defined it very differently. But when you ask them who they needed to actually get to accept, it was pretty comprehensive. So no surprise, these people were executives in this industry, or in adjacent industries that made them relevant for joining these jobs for decades, right? They have, I think, on average, almost two decades of experience, many have masters and doctorates. They've done this before, or at least led businesses before and are aware of the spectrum of stakeholders that they need to talk to. What I had hoped to get into, and maybe this is because I was just coming out of academia with that hat on was the nuts and bolts of human thinking and decision making around taking this vehicle or this airport shuttle or not. We didn't quite get into that. I think that what I quickly understood was that the level of discourse didn't go that deep yet. And so I was asking you about which bias do you think plays a role in the decision to take this air shuttle or not to the airport? And after a couple of interviews, I realized, okay, let me bring it back up a level and further define, really who's involved and who's being mentioned the most, who's most important or seen as most important? And that's about as far as I could go in that space. There was a fourth question, I omitted it earlier, but essentially it was to what degree is acceptance a risk and simple to say most of them surprisingly, there was a lot of actual alignment here, social acceptance was considered a risk but also a high risk, I think partly because of the helicopter service example, in Manhattan. And also just generally helicopter services being so restricted over decades that they, everyone in this space has seen, made it really clear that they need to do a lot of work on the side. But what was interesting to me is a few of them went further and said it was existential to the industry. And again, thinking back to that Manhattan rooftop, you can imagine why they might think that because if public opinion turns against the industry, there's no writers, there's no financing. And then it's not a great day for the participants in the industry. So that one was pretty clear. And then the other one was sort of how to maximize social acceptance. And that was really fascinating for me to hear. Because again, I was talking to people on all sides, there were some people who were in marketing, communications, leadership roles. There were other people that were in, essentially engineering leadership roles. What was fascinating is that, essentially, they all largely saw the demonstration flights as a major win that were happening. There were limited demonstration flights happening by a couple of companies that were making sure that they were being seen as leaders in this space, and then also taking advantage of being first mover at certain major events. So for example, last was it, I forget the month, I think it was June, I was able to go to the Paris Air Show. And there was a company from Germany called Volocopter, who was led by a former Airbus executive. And they were flying their two seater prototype called the VoloCity. And this is the one that's supposed to appear during the Olympic Games this year and do some flights over Paris as well. On this day, it was flying over the airfield Le Bourget in north of Paris, which is in aviation history, it's a fascinating place tons of history, museums there, Charles Lindbergh landed there when he did this transatlantic flight. Anyways, long story short, to see this electric multicopter. Aircraft take off and fly over the airfield was really cool for me, because of my research. But also, it was stunning, because even though I have worked for decade-plus in electric vehicles, and I know just how quiet electric transport can be, I was shocked that I couldn't hear it, it was inaudible, from a very short distance away. Doesn't make any sense in the mind. It doesn't compute, it should be audible. It's not once it's maybe a football field away, in my personal sense. And so I think that what, what they were getting on to is what I experienced at Tesla, which is the technology, if it's really good, is convincing on its own, all you have to do is show people allow them to drive an electric car allow them to go to an air show and see this thing flying. And understand that it's, it feels silent from most places. And I think they're definitely onto something with that. Others went further to say we need to do education campaigns, I think that generally the spirit is roughly the same. But when asked to diagnose the state of acceptance building, most of them agreed that not much has been done or not enough has been done there. Some companies have gone on like 60 minutes and other major news shows for a segment to talk about flying cars, or flying taxis and these sorts of things. Because it's interesting and cool that there's some new innovative air vehicle. But other than that, and social media content, which really only gets to their followers, few had gone out of those. And more is happening now happy to talk about that in a minute. But essentially, that those were the four areas that I asked about, and was able to get concrete answers and learn what their perspectives were.
Corail 48:32 That's great. Brandon, I wanted to ask you, like you said that a lot of them flagged this risk as a critical risk. And yet one of your one of your notes in your dissertation is that yeah, there is very little that is done about it. And as you're saying it's starting to increase, and we have the Olympic Games coming in Paris, and potentially, I'd love you to talk more about this and what will happen during the games. But first, why do you think so little is done if it's seen as this important risk that needs to be managed early on?
Brandon de León 49:07 Yeah, it's a fair one. And also, it was the thing that perplex me coming out of the dissertation. Obviously, in the month since doing the dissertation. I've had more time to digest it and think about it. And to factor in more of their point of view, I think. But essentially, and also last week I was able to join one last conference in my roadshow, if you will, to see what had changed since I had done the conferences about a year ago. And I think the short answer, if I were to speak for them, what they would say is that acceptance is important, valuable, meaningful and critical when we get to commercialization. But right now, the reality is that most companies don't have enough money to make it to commercialization. They're staring down their coffers and they don't see enough financial runway and funding left to potentially even get through certification. Some of them have just enough to get there. But it's very clear that almost all them if not all of them are going to have to go back and raise more funds. So when the funds are that precious, they're looking at how do we maximize every dollar, or euro or pound, right? And in those cases, essentially the critical milestone they need to get to to show that they have a viable product and business insofar as at least producing these vehicles, if not, to operate themselves to sell to someone else to operate, is to get certification, or to show meaningful certification path progress, and it's no small task. So just to give you a taste, they have to prove that they can, they're certified design organization, that they have a production method that can make exact copies over and over again, and this has to be signed off by the regulator, this is not something they can self certify, like in much of the automotive space, which is also highly regulated, it's still a fraction of the regulation level of aviation. And then even once they get the design, organization approval, and the production organization approval, and I might be getting my words a little bit wrong here. So aviation experts don't scare me. But essentially, they also have to be able to get an approval that they have processes in place that are certified for maintenance, repair, and overhaul, just to name a few. There's other things that they actually have to get certified for. But essentially, getting those things, those ducks in a row is billions of dollars. And again, if the whole industry has, let's call it 18 billion and counting, and there's over 800 players, you can imagine most of them aren't going to make that. And even the ones that have raised money, they've burned billions in many cases already. There are major, let's say, some of the companies that have raised the most funds in Europe, for example, have about 12 months of runway, but they still have more than 12 months to get to certification potentially. So I think that they're resource-constrained and focused on the core next milestone but, to your point, I think it's also because it's a fuzzy topic. It's not really clear who's responsible for it and then who should be spending money on it, and if one company alone can do it. And there's other interesting things that I uncovered into the research in the financial filings of some of the companies that have gone public through IPOs, or specs in recent years. Some of them consider developing public acceptance as a potential risk to their first mover advantage, because it'll benefit the whole industry and their competitors too, in that subset, right or in that collective. So while they see it as a good thing to do, from a social point of view. And maybe even from a business point of view, they can appreciate that it would be helpful to reduce some friction in the future. I think they're betting that it's overcomable. And they're biasing towards maintaining a first mover advantage if they can do. Our research from literature and social sciences would argue that maybe that's not the best balance, happy to talk about that more. But essentially, they're taking a pretty big bet there that they're going to launch. And then be able to build awareness, convert people to believers, and interested customers, at least as fast as they can produce vehicles and put them into servers and build capacity. So I think that's where it's a bit of a risk is that if they don't start to build awareness, early, the lag, there's a time lag between building awareness and first awareness and actually being willing to use a service. Not everyone's an innovator, early adopter. And I think they're counting on the fact that they're going to have a slow ramp. So they're not going to be over capacity. They're going to have more than enough innovators and early adopters that are willing to take their services, or use these vehicles. And they rather maintain the first mover advantage, largely not everyone, but most people seem to be acting in that way.
Corail 53:40 Okay, I guess I have one final question. I'm really intrigued about what you're thinking about the opportunity that the Olympic Games are representing in Paris for this industry? Are you excited to see something in the air at that time? Please, tell me what are your thoughts on the games coming?
Brandon de León 54:01 Oh, yes, sorry. I missed that point entirely. Thanks for making sure I answered. So I think, yeah, it's a fantastic point. Because, for better or for worse, you can hate or love the Olympics, right? There's a lot of debate around that. But I think that the reality is major sporting events of other types, and just major events generally, whether it's a Swiftie concert, or whatever, that is a prime opportunity to build awareness and plant those seeds if you can get your product in front of that audience. It's massive for any business, right? This is why in the U.S., you see companies paying millions and millions and millions for 30 seconds during the Super Bowl, which is our American Football Championship, right? Every year. And it's the same thing is at play here. And so, the Paris Olympics are very interesting because Paris as of late, especially, has been a city that is very intent, with the city leadership on improving quality of life, introducing better transport, a lot more biking paths and making it just easier to use, to a more livable city, let's say it that way., I'm living here in the Netherlands bicycles are a way of life. And the people who are pushing the bicycle culture and infrastructure and urban planning from the Netherlands point of view at the universities and Amsterdam and other places, Paris is one of their favorite cases to point to. I think more people this week or this month, it was reported, more people were biking than driving in Paris for the first time in known history since I guess the advent of automotive. So I think it's really exciting time in Paris, but also Paris is also known for and France, too, for being unabashed in protecting their culture and also making sure that their perspectives are respected. And so you see a lot of this in sort of the way from the space I work in. Now with SUVs, one of the things I've noticed and seen is a policy around SUVs, where I think it's a proposal or it's gone into effect now, where SUVs will pay more for parking in the city. So what happens and where this comes into play with the Olympics is that for years, people have been in the industry targeting the Paris Olympics as a launch point some other some companies that were planning on doing flights at the Paris Olympics in this summer in 2024 realize they weren't going to make it in time technically, to be ready to fly. But this particular company called Volocopter, that I've mentioned before, out of Germany, they're very keen on demonstrating again, they were the ones that flew the Paris Air Show last time, and they've since done a massive amount of flights in the U.S. going around different cities and stuff on a roadshow. So they're very eager to build awareness, which results from this researcher's point of view, of course, and they see the Olympics as an iconic moment, because they're European company. They're very much proud of that. And also, if you look at the history of Airbus, Airbus was a European project, Pan European right parts come from all over Europe to build those planes. And this is maybe a second coming of Airbus in so many ways, in this new air transport world. And so it's super symbolic to be able to fly at Paris, in front of the crowds of Olympic spectators, not just at Paris airshow where you have a lot of aviation, aware or interested or geeky type folks, or people who work in the industry. It's a home field advantage when you're flying above that crowd. But when you put it in front of the Olympic audience, that's a whole nother level of magnitude and exposure and media coverage. And so that can do wonders for the company and change its fundraising prospects, it's runway and its ability to develop future products and launch into other markets and really, potentially accelerated and develop its first mover advantage, too. So it's huge. What's interesting is in September, the Paris city council acting on complaints from citizens about this plan of that air vehicle flying there now, I would say negotiations is not very clear what conversations are happening. But it was brought into question whether they're actually going to be allowed to fly over the city, whether or not they can get certified in time to do it. And that last check, I believe the CEO was reported as saying that they might not launch in July as originally hoped if the certification doesn't come on time. But they're hoping at least to be able to do it in August for the Paralympics. So there's a nonzero chance that they don't get to fly. That could happen. And that would be for them, I think they would class that as a really big disappointment, a missed opportunity, and so on. And also an opportunity for Europe and Paris, the show itself as a showcase for innovation in the space and air transport. So I think it's really interesting when you look at these big events, because they present such an opportunity. It's clear to the commercial side that they're chasing it. But what really validated my research was that social acceptance came up as an interesting issue already, before the first vehicle flies. And like I mentioned before, the next plans are also around big events, the World Expo in Osaka. Next year in 2025, this was to be flights. And in 2028 in Los Angeles for the Olympics there. Other companies from the US are also planning to fly. So yeah, social acceptance is already showing itself as a key risk.
Corail 58:58 Yeah, that's crazy. It's kind of a live case study. For your (inaudible). The images you put in your executive summary of this electric planes flying were incredible. I have to admit, I didn't even know that it was already existing. and they were already flying planes, electric flying planes. So that was great. And I will be in Paris this summer, and I crossed all my fingers, that social acceptance is not blocking this line from playing because I want to be there and look at them.
Brandon de León 59:34 Same here.
Corail 59:35 Well, thank you so much, Brandon. I think I don't know Riccardo, if you have a closing question, or, but I think...
Riccardo Cosentino 59:42 No, that's no, I think no, I'll leave it with you. Close.
Corail 59:46 Yeah. I think Brandon, that was fantastic. We learned so much. Although I read your entire dissertation. It was super interesting and fascinating. And I feel that you gave us even more explanations and stories in thepodcast. So thank you so much for being generous with all your knowledge. And yeah, I wish you the best in your career, really.
Brandon de León 1:00:07 Thank you guys. Thanks for having me.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:00:08 Thank you, Brandon. And thank you, Corail, for co-hosting the episode today. It's always an honor having you as my co-host, and there'll be hopefully more opportunities. And Brandon it's always a pleasure chatting with you.
Brandon de León 1:00:21 Likewise. Take care, guys.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:00:22 Thank you. Bye now.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:00:26 That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major programme management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going. Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 11 Sep 2023 | Can PPPs incorporate collaborative contracting? | With Riccardo Cosentino and Jim Bernard | S1 EP 10 | 00:38:27 | |
In this week’s episode, Riccardo switches chairs and guest host, Jim Barnard, asks all the questions. Riccardo shares insights from his Oxford Saïd Business School dissertation on the use of collaborative contracting into major programmes, specifically PPP structures. Riccardo and Jim delve into the complications and complexities of risk management, adversarial situations, stakeholders and shareholders and private financing.
“When you have collaborative contracting, you almost waive your legal rights or your rights to pursue legal remedies. And so, all of the parties are around the table. There are many advantages of collaborative contracting, but the simplest one is, instead of hiring lawyers to sort out disputes, you’re redeploying those resources to actually solving project problems.”
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to navigate the major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino brings over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Said business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now, it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode, as I press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see what the conversation takes us. Hello, and welcome to a new episode of navigating major programs. Today we're going to be doing things a little bit differently. My friend, and one point guest of the show as agreed kindly to be hosting this podcast. And we'll do a role reversal where I'm going to be doing the presenting and Jim Barnard is going to co-host the show. And today we're going to talk about a topic that is very close to my heart, which is the use of collaborative contracting into major programs, especially into PPP structures. I've done a full dissertation at Oxford as part of my master, major program management, and I decided that it'd be good to walk you through my findings and my conclusion. Anyway, let me introduce the host for today. Jim Bernard. How you doing? Jim? Jim 02:00 I'm great. Riccardo, thanks for having me. Big fan of the podcast, obviously had the chance to be on a previously so very much appreciate the opportunity to be host this time. Riccardo Cosentino 02:11 So today, as I said, I'll be a be doing the talking. And you'll be doing the asking. Maybe I can start? I'll jump right into it unless you have a specific question for me. And maybe I can give a bit of a bit of an overview of my research thesis and some of my findings and some of my conclusions. Jim 02:34
2 Transcribed by https://otter.ai Yes, summary will be great, a perfect place to start. But some of our folks listening may not be completely familiar with even the concept of collaboration. And I know having read your dissertation that you get into some fairly technical and detailed topics relative to finance and how structures are set up and that type of thing. So for those of us either less familiar or kind of new to the topic, if you don't mind, let's start as basic as possible. Riccardo Cosentino 03:03 Okay, well, let's start with, let's start with what prompted me to research this specific topic, the probably a good place to start here. I you know, I'm a professional the work in public private partnership over the last 20 years. So again, a lot of knowledge about the topic, I have structured and finance many transactions that use non recourse financing. And a couple of years ago, my company decided to exit the what we call the lump sum turnkey business, which is the type of contracting where a private sector entity commits to deliver a project on time and on budget and every any cost overruns. And at any cost, and any time overruns are absorbed by the entity that has committed to deliver the project. So my company has been losing a lot of money with the stock form a contract. So in 2018, we decided to exited. However, this type of contract is the cornerstone of non recourse financing, recourse financing is financing that doesn't, doesn't lean on the asset of the parent company, but the only leans on the asset of the other special purpose vehicle that is delivering the project, Jim 04:26 basically. Project. Riccardo Cosentino 04:29 Yes. Right. So it's basically the future revenues, that that's the only recourse available to lenders debt and equity lenders is access to, to project revenues rather than corporate revenue associated with the entity that is delivered project. Jim 04:49 Right. Riccardo Cosentino 04:50 And because my company exited this business lumpsum turnkey, indirectly we also exited the construction portion of public private partnerships were where entities or companies, contractors are hired to deliver the project under the structure. However, we still wanted to stay involved in contracting. So what we started researching is different types of contracts and collaborative contracting, came up alliances IPD all forms of contract that they include a large component of collaboration. In this type of contracts, the risk is not transferred to the product to the contracting entity is the risk of on time completion and on budget completion stays within the project sponsor. There is a Pain Gain sharing mechanism, where the contracting entity, the contractor that is delivering the project puts their fee risk, but they're not taking on the cost of around burden that is typical of lump sum turnkey. So once we started researching this, the question that I was asked many, many times, being the expert in public private partnership is can we convince clients and lenders to use collaborative contracting within the non recourse PPP structure? And intuitively, I didn't think it was possible, I did some preliminary
3 Transcribed by https://otter.ai research as part of my job. But I couldn't really find conclusive answers of why collaboratively contracting could or could not be used within a PPP structure, Jim 06:45 where I take a step back down, how did you do your preliminary research was at a qualitative research, quantitative research and kind of benefits of both detriments of both How did you choose what method did you use and how did you choose it. Riccardo Cosentino 06:58 So during what while I was still working, so before I use an academic method, I, I just looked at the commercial parameters, I just look at the commercial framework and in the legal framework, and I just tried to see if the economic principle of the commercial principle would support these type of commercial and legal structure, right. And based on my understanding of the commercial principle, non recourse financing, where risk has to be transferred, and where lenders that especially debt lenders, needs to be kept whole in the PPP structure, the only entity that can keep the lenders or is the contractor delivering the work? I mean, no, it's not the only way. But it's the most economical way. And the cheapest way of implementing a project finance structure is to have the contractor guaranteeing the delivery of the project by putting up the balance sheet and by taking on the cost of Iran in a lump sum turnkey model, Jim 08:07 but the fee, the fees at that point are fixed, right. So you're really talking all downside, fixed upside in that structure. I mean, it sounds not just unpalatable, but somewhat dangerous for the contractor to get into that arrangement. Riccardo Cosentino 08:23 It is and they think he has worked in the past to a certain degree where Contractor have been able to manage that risk the took on. But I think over the last 15 years, the market got so competitive, that contractors have been racing to the bottom sometimes fixing the cost of the project to a level too low to actual deliver and then end up absorbing all of the losses at the back end or the contraction period. I mean, that's definitely what happened to our company we overcommitted in order to win the contract, and then we ended up with a lot of the losses. However, there are instances where the model works. It's just you know, I think you the model can work if you have a healthy competitive process, if you have an unhealthy race to the bottom is probably dangerous, dangerous territory Jim 09:23 that can open up even getting into different ways of gaming. Bidding processes itself is a massive topic, I'm sure that gets into behavioral economics and how people bid and upsides and downsides and psychology and all this other stuff. So we probably want to table that for a future episode because we could spend hours just on that aspect of it. I'm sure. So, but I guess the conclusion is at some point in the market, the bids got so tight in the market, the fees got compressed, so low that the people who are winning the bids were just really behind the eight ball at the beginning. I mean, it was it was almost I want to say it was, you know, failure was baked into the to the process. But it sounds like you're in a really tight spot straight out of the gate.
4 Transcribed by https://otter.ai Riccardo Cosentino 10:13 That's correct. And it's not unlikely It's not unlike the, you know, bid low claim high model that we studied in, at Oxford, right, I think there was a case about how the it's, we live in an industry where there's a lot of, you know, contractors make their money through the claims. And then and I think that's where the PPP market got to where, you know, companies bid low in order to secure the contract, and then then trying to deal with the consequences afterwards, Jim 10:46 by claim process, you're talking going to court litigation, Riccardo Cosentino 10:50 eventually. Yeah, that's where he ends up. I mean, you can try and settle. I mean, there are settlement along the way that you can do there are but you know, ultimately, yeah, you go to court, and, you know, 20 to 30 cents on the dollars if you're lucky when you play. Jim 11:05 So that whole system sounded like from the day that they decided to race to the bottom of the whole system seems like it's building upon a weak foundation to start. And it's crumbling from there. I mean, if you're going to court to deal with inevitable complexity of a major program seems like something started wrong. I mean, it's not in it's not within the project itself, which obviously has its own complexity from a cost standpoint, engineering standpoint, and construction execution stakeholders, and then we have this whole network of influencers within any major program. But this is like on top of that, this is a whole kind of external integration challenge. That, before you even get to the complexity of the project, you're kind of off off center to begin with that fair. Riccardo Cosentino 11:58 That's, that's very fair. And, and but that's probably not something caused by the PPP structure or the non recourse financing structure is more caused by, you know, public sector entity, especially being subjected to optimism bias and strategic misrepresentation in order to get these projects off the ground. And I think we PPP that problem is accentuated by the fact that there's a bit of heuristics, which is the private sector can do it better. So we don't have to develop the project to you know, 50% 60% design, in order to get to get bids in, we're gonna put out a 5% design, the private sector will take a developer give us a fixed price. And, and we'll go from there, which breeds a situation where you have contractor committing to a fixed price contract with only 15 20% design done. Because that's the nature of PPP where, you know, the government or the public sector doesn't want to develop the project, because they don't want to stifle the innovation that the private sector could bring. But on the other hand, they don't really give a lot of opportunity to the private sector, to develop the design, to you know, 60 70%, which is what you need to have certainty, and then an ability to commit to a fixed price. Jim 13:28 So are sort of back to that master, the opposite of the master builder heuristic. We're not planning long and or planning slow and building quickly, we're planning quickly and just accumulating delays and cost overruns.
5 Transcribed by https://otter.ai Riccardo Cosentino 13:41 Absolutely, absolutely. And then, you know, and you know, we seen this, because these projects are so long. And by the time that all the problems actually materialize, it's probably six, seven years down the line. So nobody worries about that at the beginning, and you will worry about that at the end. And you always people somehow scratch their heads is that how do we get here, but pretty simple how we got here. Jim 14:07 So not to not to necessarily prompt a sales pitch for collaborative contracting. But how do you see or how what did your research determine the benefits of collaborative contracting? We're, and then how likely is it that it's going to become part of part of the industry? Riccardo Cosentino 14:31 So my research was wasn't so much about collaborative contracting. So I took I took the benefit of collaborative contracting as a given and I said, you know, if collaborative contracting is such a good way of delivering projects, How come is not used in PPP structures? What are the limiting factors that don't allow the implementation of collaborative contracting into PPP P. So my starting premises was collaborative contracting is good. It is the way forward, and how do we how do we roll it out in different parts of the industry? Jim 15:12 Can we explore that just for a second? What is it about collaborative contract? And what benefits? Do you believe that delivers to the industry? Riccardo Cosentino 15:21 Well look, to me, just the fundamental principle that when you have collaborative contracting, you almost you're almost waive your legal rights or your rights to pursue legal remedies. And so all of the parties are around the table. So the, you know, there are many advantages of collaborative contract contracting, but the simplest one is, instead of hiring lawyer to sorting out disputes, you redeploying those resources to actually solving project problems. So if you think of the litigation costs in these major, major programs, if you just take those costs, and you were to use that financial resource to actually solve actual problems on the project, I mean, it doesn't take a lot of research to know that anecdotally, that that's a good thing. Developed with all due respect to our attorney friends out there, your role may not best to be solving problems after the fact. Right? I mean, that's kind of the idea. Yeah, I mean, look, I mean, a claim against the client doesn't get concrete poured faster. Right. Okay. Fair point. You know, a few extra engineers and a few extra project resources could get that concrete poured faster, or figure out a way to pour the concrete faster. Jim 16:56 Yeah, have the magic communications better to when you're not having to run it through attorneys and legal filings? Riccardo Cosentino 17:02
6 Transcribed by https://otter.ai Yeah, I mean, I use I use that example. Because it's, you know, we just talked about claims we just talked about, you know, ended up in court. So that's, that's the thing that comes to mind. But, you know, in general, I think we can all agree that a non antagonistic environment is more conducive to better working relation and better outputs. It's just anecdotally, we intuitively we can all see that Jim 17:34 Sure. Riccardo Cosentino 17:35 That we all want to work in a collaborative space, because, you know, when you bring the intellect or multiple people together, and you foster that, you definitely want to get a better outcome. Jim 17:47 Right, more rewarding to Riccardo Cosentino 17:48 Yes. So that's, that's why I've took that I took it as a dogma, I said, collaborative contracting, is the right way forward, Jim 17:58 okay. Riccardo Cosentino 17:59 So, okay, so why can we use that in PPP structures. And so, this is where it gets a little bit technical. Where, you know, PPP are really know nothing more than non recourse financing or project financing. That was it was a financing mechanism that was developed in the 70s. for oil exploration in the North Sea, there weren't enough oil and gas company, there wasn't a big enough oil and gas company to absorb the risk of oil exploration in the North Sea. So, they came together and came up with the structure, which basically insulate the parent companies for the loss from the losses of the project. And so, you know, if you take all exploration, and you lend him money into oil exploration Norh sea lenders can only go after the asset to the oil platform or the future revenues associated with the asset. And that basically insulate the parent company for wo po things go really wrong, Jim 19:11 but is there is there a completion guarantee built into this? I mean, the contractor can't just walk away without recourse, can they? Riccardo Cosentino 19:18 So, sorry, what I was describing is the is the is the structure or the client level? Yes. Jim 19:25 Got it. Riccardo Cosentino 19:26
7 Transcribed by https://otter.ai So at the at the contractor level, yeah, absolutely the contractor. So that's what I was saying that in these non recourse structures, the completion guarantee comes from the contractor. So ultimately, the back so although the project itself is non recourse, the contractor does put up guarantees because ultimately the guarantees are in favor of the project sponsor and the project lenders right debt that lenders, right? So the equity lenders is typically the developers, obviously they take equity risk, so They have high amounts of risk or high amount of returns. So the first one, they get wiped out if the project doesn't do well. However, the debt lender has less, you know, these are big institution, they don't like risk, they want to be insulated. So if the project was in to reach substantial completion, the contractor would keep the lenders whole up to a point. And there's this is, this is why collaborative contracting is not quite easy to implement in the structure, because the debt lenders always looking to recover the money, right? And if the risk hasn't been transferred to a contractor, where the lender is going to recover the money for right, Jim 20:47 where does it go, because it doesn't leave the project, just because nobody raised their hand to take it, it's not going away. Riccardo Cosentino 20:55 So it's a Series is brought by non recourse financing PPP, these a zero sum games, where either the contractor loses money, or the client loses money. And so that that creates the adversarial situation, especially if you haven't bid the job properly, you're going to be losing money, you're going after somebody because nobody likes to lose money, you're going to go after the client, and then the adversarial scenario sets in. Jim 21:24 So the most important relationship, the most important relationship between the client and the contractor for the project success is immediately set up on a weak foundation, like, yes. Okay. That explains anything. Riccardo Cosentino 21:40 And it will be, you know, is not impossibly, you could implement a collaborative contract between the client and the contractor. However, the lenders need to get repaid, and the lender is only going to get repaid when you reach substantial completion, you start extracting oil, you start selling the oil, and that generates the revenues that are then used to repay the debt lenders, right? Yeah, so we could implement collaborative contract between the contractor and the project developer. However, in case of cost overruns, the developer would pick up those costs. And because obviously, the lenders are still, you know, they still have debt service that you have to repay. And so somebody's got to pick up their costs. And if he's not, there is not the contractor for a lump sum turnkey, then is the developer. And however, that is not then becomes a more expensive structure, got a sense that you now have to put the equity in. So now, it's very, very technical. Jim 22:55 So maybe complex is that is that a good way to put it?
8 Transcribed by https://otter.ai Riccardo Cosentino 22:59 Is the well yes, complex, as actually complicated. It's very mechanical, there's no complex, it's the Jim 23:07 Swiss watch. It's not the flock of birds, Riccardo Cosentino 23:11 which is basically, you know, when you inject equity, you know, when lenders lend you manage for a project, that lenders lend you money for a project, they want to know that they're going to get paid back, right? And so they are going to look at the cost overruns. And they're going to look at who's going to absorb the cost overruns. And so if the contractor is not going to pick up the cost overruns, because you now have a relational contract in place, then the sponsor will, however, the sponsor has no recourse, there is no recourse to anybody above, right, typically, the contractor provides a parent company guarantee, and as the recourse to the parent company, but a developer because there's no recourse is not providing that they're there for they have to actually inject all of the equity upfront, right to cover potential cost overruns. So you now have cash injected into the project, even though you might not need it, which makes it very, very expensive. Jim 24:08 But you also have the benefit of big contingency. Riccardo Cosentino 24:11 Absolutely. Absolutely. So, again, it's not is not impossible, this is just gets to the conclusion of my dissertation, which is it's possible to have relational contracting, it's going to be more expensive. However, the flip side, if we believe that collaborative Contracting is the way forward, you're going to be more likely to finish on time and on budget, through collaboration that adversarial relations. Jim 24:38 It's a funny, it's a funny perspective, to me having been involved in some complex projects, and it seems a little bit short sighted that somebody would really object to a 200 basis points or 2% increase in their cost of capital. Over massive cost overruns in the back end, huge attorney He's fees, delays, which we know costs money, I mean, time is actually money in a major program. So it's always just shocked me how everybody wants to bid to be as low as possible. Everybody wants to make sure that that interest rate is just as thin as they can possibly get it without giving any consideration to the fact that you're not saving anything. Because when you set up the program, that way, you're just guaranteed you're going to be over budget far more than you would ever save, and then add the litigation on top of it that delays everything else. I mean, it just seems short sighted to me, Riccardo Cosentino 25:35 unfortunately. So I'm, I specialize in public sector infrastructure. So I deal mostly with municipal, state and federal government projects. And unfortunately, in the public sector, you have to demonstrate value for money. And, you know, I think PPP is, it's particularly, the value for money analysis makes things even worse, because what you end up now with is, private sector financing is more expensive in the public sector financing a public, they know, the United States government can borrow at a cheaper
9 Transcribed by https://otter.ai rate than any other corporation. So if you have a federal project, you're now adding, you know, 100 150 bips to the cost to the cost of that because you have the private sector taken. So you now have a value for money analysis that already starts with you being in a hole. Because you now they Yeah, are going to do it for a PPP are going to use private finance, but it's more expensive. So how do I balance the value for money? How do I justify that this is good value for money. And, you know, that's where you are starting play with risk transfer, you start quantify, the more risk you transfer, the more able you're going to be to show value for money, the lower the cost, the better because then again, you're going to be able to show value for money. And as I said, The problem is that you're starting in a hole, right, because you already have to demonstrate why are using private finance. And then, and then compound, the problem is, the way you justify private finance is by transferring risk, that are going to transfer more risks to the private sector are going to pay them more, you know, are going to pay their higher cost of capital. But that will bring me benefit because I have transferred to them the risk of completion. Jim 27:37 So you've got a, you've got a problematic paradigm may not be the it's a bit overused word, but you've got a problematic equation at the front end, which is creating some pretty significant adverse consequences at the backend. Before you even get in to start talking about planning fallacy and strategic misrepresentation. I mean, it, it sounds like the entrenched thought process behind how projects should be evaluated, needs some work. And a fundamental understanding of the flaws in value for money might help. Because we know the results. I mean, there's plenty of data out there that shows I mean, independent of structure, how badly these projects perform. It's astronomical. But but it seems like there's still some pretty heavy resistance to changing a perspective or methodology on the front end to try to make up for some of that stuff. Is that fair? Riccardo Cosentino 28:35 Yeah. I mean, you're also dealing with politicians right at this point. So it makes things even more complex. I think it's important that we talk about the I have other theory evidence, I guess it's further area research, maybe for my PhD. But in my mind, PPP is our Chem, there is a role for PPP. So when you have low complexity projects, where you can actually define what you want, and you have very few stakeholders. It's not it's not a bad model. So in Canada, various jurisdictions have had a lot of success with hospital building, procuring them and building them using the PPP structure and as being as being positive as being a positive experience for all stakeholders. And this bill because it's a box, right, you building a building, and it's any, you know, you can define what you want, and contractors are fairly experienced. And you know, it's a it's a Vertical Box. I think we're a falls apart where the PPP falls apart is when you have linear project and you start having more complexity in terms of many more stakeholders Many more moving parts in terms of you know, if you're building a railway, you now need to choose the technology, you go for different jurisdictions. And so the PPP, so having the private sector lenders into a PPP structure creates more complexity, because he adds an additional stakeholder and shareholder into the project. And it makes things a bit more complex, especially when you when you hit in problems. Jim 30:30
10 Transcribed by https://otter.ai So there's a every program has got a certain complexity threshold, that it cannot pass, it sounds like so if it's going to be, or if it's simple, from an engineering design perspective, single site, you know, square piece of property, whatever it can tolerate, and maybe even benefit from a certain addition of complexity on top of, you know, in this case, the private sector provides access to resources that maybe the public sector doesn't have or can't appropriate. So the project can kind of hit that threshold. Whereas a complex project, just in the engineering and design side, may already be at that threshold or past it. So adding another layer of financing complexity sounds disastrous, Riccardo Cosentino 31:18 that's certainly the anecdotal evidence I have that especially so the way we differentiate is linear versus vertical. Right? When you have a linear project, yeah, the complexity is too high. And the benefit is, because you remember, the argument of bringing private sector lenders is that you have additional oversight, you have an additional layer of oversight, you're going to use, the private sector lender is going to keep all the other stakeholder honest. So we're going to keep, let's say, the hospital owner honest, in terms of change order, they're not going to be able to halfway through the process, that issue change order change in their mind, or what the scope of the project is, right? There's, you know, with the with the design, build, finance, maintain and operate, you're actually maintaining the hospital for 30 years. So you have now forced the Minister of Health to ring fence, the money required to maintain the project for 30 years, because you're sending up a contract upfront, right. And if you if you know, public sector, you know that the first thing the public sector cuts is operating budgets, right, so the PPP brings benefits. So the additional layer of complexity brought in by the private sector lenders is counterbalanced by all these other benefits that a private sector lender brings in on a linear project where the complexity is much higher, the benefits are outweighed by the negative of adding additional complexity to something that cannot absorb it like you describe it very well. Jim 32:50 So what conclusions did you draw from the research? I mean, PPP, the resistance to PPP, collaborative contracting, and PPP sounds fairly high. Yet the benefits seem fairly easy to argue. And certainly, anecdotally, we've got enough evidence where things don't work that you'd like to think a fresh approach might be warmly received. But what are the impediments? What are the realistic options as they are today, relative to how successfully Riccardo Cosentino 33:19 I you know, can be my conclusion was pretty straightforward. It's actually it's the money issue, right? I mean, it's you, you could have collaborative contracting, it means equity has to take more risk. And therefore the project is going to be a little more expensive to finance because equity is taking more risk. However, if truly collaborative Contracting is the way forward and can actually deliver better on time and on budget outcomes, then the additional cost of the private finance, to have collaborated contracting is, is insignificant. I haven't quantified it. But you know, you know, several basis points, compared to hundreds of millions of cost overruns. Yeah, I think if we were to do a back of the envelope, we'll probably come to the conclusion that it's the cost benefit analysis, justify the additional cost of financing, Jim 34:20
11 Transcribed by https://otter.ai what's there, there's some and I'm going to get it wrong, but there's some colloquialism about stepping over dollars to pick up pennies kind of Riccardo Cosentino 34:30 Pound Foolish Pennywise Pound Jim 34:32 Foolish Yeah, the British the British version of the same sentiment. I keep having to remind myself that we went to went to graduate school in the UK, but Riccardo Cosentino 34:42 yeah, so that's, you know, it'd be interesting it'd be a be interesting. The problem is PPP is a political beast. I mean, the reason PPP was created, it's a political tool. Jim 34:55 I mean, it to your point, it serves a purpose. It is a tool that has An application. But they the other colloquial, I mean God, there's so many colloquialisms we could use. But if all you've got as a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail. I could go on, I'll spare the listeners, too many mixed metaphors and bad analogies. But the it sounds like your research is, or the conclusion is, it's got its place, it can be very effective. But don't over rely on and the industry really should be open to a candid and evidence supported discussion about alternatives. Riccardo Cosentino 35:32 And it's admitting that to private finance, add an additional layer of complexity. And then the private Jim is that most practitioners don't understand complexity don't understand my major program is complex systems. So it's not understood that you can't keep adding complexity and, and not not having negative outcome. Right, the more complexity you add, the more likely you have to have negative outcome, and adding a private sector lender is adding. So if you if you understand that, then you can manage and mitigate it. But if you don't even understand that private sector lending is additional complexity, then then you find Jim 36:17 that that may be the message or the beginning of the next research project or the next mission, understanding the level of complexity and how major programs are, in fact, complex adaptive systems, maybe we can take that step to your point, everything else will start to improve as well. Riccardo Cosentino 36:35 So maybe we should start published, shared that complexity tool that we used complexity assessment tool, Jim 36:46 I'm sure Harvey Mahler would be thrilled if you would post a link to his research on complexity. Well, this has been fascinating. Riccardo, I certainly appreciate it. I've learned a lot. I really enjoyed reading your research. I do think that there are opportunity. I mean, we've got enough evidence that the PPP is
12 Transcribed by https://otter.ai don't work that well outside of some pretty specific application. So I think the work that you've done will certainly push that conversation forward. And I, you know, I appreciate the opportunity to talk with you about it. Riccardo Cosentino 37:21 Thank you very much, Jim. And thanks for hosting the episode today. And hopefully, I'll have you back over guest in the foreseeable future. Jim 37:28 That'd be great. I'd certainly appreciate the chance. Thank you. Riccardo Cosentino 37:32 Thank you. That's it. For this episode, we'll navigate the major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, where we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership, risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate major problems. And I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 14 Aug 2023 | Intelligent Technology in Major Projects with Kimberley Héraux |Saïd Business School, University of Oxford | S1 EP 8 | 00:38:47 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Oxford Saïd Business School alumnus Riccardo sits down with fellow alumna, Kimberley Heraux, to discuss her dissertation on the use of intelligent technology in major projects. The pair discuss everything from the role contractual agreements play in the success of intelligent technologies, to treating the implementation of AI as a complex programme itself.
Héraux is an experienced program manager with a demonstrated history of delivering complex projects and programs in the higher education sector and in private industry. Her experience includes but isn’t limited to: Enterprise Software Deployments, Data Center, IT Infrastructure, Cybersecurity, Integration and ITIL.
“If you treat the implementation of intelligent technology into a major programme as a complex program itself,” says Héraux “We can shift the mindset to have two Galbraith's Star Models.”
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05
You're listening to navigate major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino brings over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's day business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode, as I press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Kimberly echo is best known for a drive to deliver organizational transformation through major technology initiatives. She is currently serving as a program leader on an industry defining technology major program by the US fortune 50 company. Kimberly is passionate about technology, elevating team culture and firmly believes in the indomitability of the collaborative AI performance project team. Kimberly holds a Master's of Science major program management from the University of Oxford in the United Kingdom, and a Bachelor of Science in international business from the California State University, Northridge. When she isn't busy running major technology initiatives, you can find Kimberly running on Southern California's beaches and wine tasting. Hello, welcome back to another episode of navigate the bigger programs. Today we're here with Kimberly servo. And today we're going to discuss intelligent technology in construction mega projects. Hi, Kimberly, how you doing today?
Kimberley Heraux 01:56
Very well. Ricardo, thank you so much for having me on. This is very exciting. I've also been very curious about you know about some of the research that's been done in this space. So very happy to join the conversation.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:10
Oh, I'm glad. I'm glad you're on today. It's it's a very interesting topic. I know you wrote a dissertation about this topic for your master Oxford. How did you decide to write a dissertation about intelligent technologies in megaprojects?
Kimberley Heraux 02:27
Well, so my background, I built a career managing complex, IT projects, information technology projects. And if you think about artificial intelligence, it is technology. You know, you're we're increasing, we're seeing an increase in the use of AI in all types of technology. So naturally, when it came to selecting a dissertation topic, for for my Oxford, MMPM, I naturally gravitated to, well, gee, what will start to happen when we see mega projects, adopt systems that are increasingly outfitted with artificial intelligence. So that's how that's how I came up with that topic. You know, because I really find myself being interested in being able to deliver results and through technology that sort of that what has excited me all along my career, you know, is being able to deliver IT solutions that really make a difference to the bottom line of the organization. So I had, you know, a couple of a couple of experiences early in my career, one of which I like to cite and tell people, that's how I caught the bug of you know, getting excited about implementing IT systems where we, you know, we had a project where essentially, I was able to see the direct impact of properly implemented IT solution on the business where essentially, I was working for a manufacturer whose shipping process was very sensitive. And essentially, at the end of the project, we had cut down the time that it took to ship the product by over 60%. So shipping times were now a third of what they were. So that's when I caught the bug of my goodness, you know, technology can really, really make a difference in an organization's performance. So that's a tie in for you.
Riccardo Cosentino 04:27
That would be an amazing achievement if we could increase the productivity of mega project by 60%. But okay, maybe we're getting ahead of ourselves we're getting ahead of ourselves.
Kimberley Heraux 04:40
I think it would be a very different world and Oxford would be very very proud of us
Riccardo Cosentino 04:48
so before we get into into the into the discussion, maybe we need to do a little bit of scene setting and just frame what what we mean by intelligent technologies because I think in today's world, I mean, we have so many, so many words and so much jargon around AI and intelligent technology that I think it's, it's important that we frame what we mean in this particular setting.
Kimberley Heraux 05:15
Very good. Yes, we can do that. So what I mean by intelligent technologies is, in the context of my research, it refers to artificial intelligence and the suite of technologies that complement or contribute to it. So what I mean by that is, so you take sensors, for instance, that are able to gather data, that can into a database that can then be used, you know, where AI algorithms analyze that data for you. So that would be a technology that contributes to, you know, artificial intelligence capabilities. Other technologies that complement AI, maybe things like modeling tools that allow you to, you know, gather interesting disciplinary data, because as you'll find out, when you talk about artificial intelligence, there's, you know, you know, data is a big part of that picture. So intelligent technologies is meant to refer to AI specifically. So algorithms that you know, pick up patterns in your data and help you leverage the patterns, or the discoveries that you make from those patterns, and the technologies that contribute to you being able to gather that data. And I should say, Ricardo, that if you actually search
out there, I think all technology is increasingly being outfitted with AI. So when I mentioned modeling tools, realize that modeling tools in and of themselves, are using AI to help you run simulations to help you optimize things and whatnot. So these technologies that contribute to AI, and this, you know, this definition that I'm giving you, it's almost like there, there are a lot of gray lines, you know, but it's just think about intelligent technologies is AI primarily, and a bunch of associated technologies that are helping contribute to, to the AI algorithms being able to perform what they're what they're good at doing.
Riccardo Cosentino 07:16
Will you say my bit? Well, yes, absolutely. When you say modeling tools, just for everybody's benefit did, can you mention a couple of sort of brands that you're referring to for modeling tool? What would be would like an AutoCAD be a modeling tool, or or a modeling tool? Or from the financial side?
Kimberley Heraux 07:38
Yeah, very, very, very good question. So in the context of the research that I did, I focused on, I focused on the construction industry. And I use construction very, very loosely as basically mega projects that build things, you know, whether it'd be civil infrastructure, commercial buildings, etc. If you're building something that was essentially again, the term was used very loosely to cover a wide scope in my research. So when it comes to when I say modeling tool, so in construction people are used to when it comes to facilities. They're used to hearing about building information modeling. So that's the one that I focus on in my research. But really, the comments that I make in my research are applicable to any any tool that you use that allows you to create a virtual model of what it is that you're building. So I think you Ricardo recently posted something on the the Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, which I'm jealous that you recently visited. I think that you know, if you actually study that case, that I think they use the modeling tool called what what was it like Katia, you know, it was used for free rides, so they adopted that. So that's what I'm referring to when I say modeling tools.
Riccardo Cosentino 08:53
Okay. No, thank you. That's an important clarification for everyone. So we have a good frame of reference. Okay, why don't we jump into the into the discussion and I'm gonna kick you off with a you know, with a will probably a broad questions, but one that is worth is worth starting from, which is what is the primary value of intelligent technology in construction projects or what why have you been able to find out in your research?
Kimberley Heraux 09:20
So what I found in my research is that the primary value of intelligent technologies in the construction space specifically or in construction, mega projects, rather, is primarily these technologies help mega projects with risk reduction. And I in my research, I divide the technologies into two primary classes. The first class of intelligent technologies will allow you to unleash the power of AI on mega project data. So once you've done that, basically what you're able to do is to analyze the patterns In that data and make more accurate predictions based on those patterns. So it's analogous to the navigation system that you use when you're when you're driving somewhere, right? So you tell the navigation system, here's where I want to go, here's the approximate time that I want to arrive there. And it basically charts the course for you on how to get there by the time that you set right? Then halfway through your journey, something happens, traffic increases and whatnot. And it sends you a warning saying, hey,
you know, something just happened. You're now your projected, you know, arrival time is now x, here are your options, would you like to reroute? So there's a class of intelligent technologies that allow you to do that with a mega project. And it's very, very valuable, because with the power of AI, the accuracy of those predictions, has improved drastically. Okay, so that's very exciting. So that's one class of technologies. The other class of technologies are more along the lines of the modeling tools that we were talking about earlier. And these information technologies really allow a megaproject organization to improve the information flow. So if you adopt, there's a set of authors that I ran into, they wrote an article in 1978, which seems like ages ago, but it was, you know, it's one of those. It's one of those classics, it's called "Information processing as an integrating concept and organizational design". And their key point was that you can look at an organization as primarily an information processing system that runs into internal and external uncertainties. And generally speaking, the more complex the endeavor that this organization is working on, the more information you'll need to help you manage through and navigate through. So if you look at a mega project through that lens of it's an information processing system, any technology that allows you to improve the flow of information between parties to create better alignment between parties, will actually yield productivity increases, which impact the megaprojects performance. So that was, the other key thing that I picked upon is that as I as I researched, is that really, it seems that there's that second class of intelligent technologies, really, if they're implemented correctly, and that's a caveat, they should help to increase productivity simply because the various parties on the mega project have better alignment. So that was very, uh, you know, those were exciting, exciting things that I uncovered. And, again, going back to my days of, you know, cutting down the the shipping time by, you know, to a third of what it used to be I mean, that's, that's what started to click for me, I'm like, Oh, my gosh, you know, these technologies really hold a lot of promise. So I got excited, all over again, getting ready for this conversation today, because I'm like, Oh, yeah. You know, definitely saw some exciting things out there in this space.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:32
Well, first of all, I'm impressed that there's a paper from 1978, that deals with a topic that is so relevant today. Now, the 78. Math is, you know, 40 45 years ago. And so that is that it was really nicely put the way you, I'm gonna put the name of that paper in the show notes, because I think our show, so I want to go and read it. But I think I've all the listeners would want to go and check it out. And yeah, I'm fascinated by the concept that, yeah, I mean, it's complexity that the way you deal with complexity is by and by having information flow, and these tools and these technology help in flowing information and distributed information, allowing a reduction in complexity. And I think that's, that's, that's a key. That's a key point. And I think we know from our studies that mega projects are complex adaptive systems. So whatever we can do to reduce the complexity. Drive to where a business is a better outcome of major projects.
Kimberley Heraux 14:47
Yeah, I'll give you a bonus one, I'll give you a bonus. You just threw out the word adaptive. So in my world in the world of IT projects, especially software systems, you know that the term agile became very, very popular. And if you had to ask me for my humble opinion on what Agile is, what Agile does, if you look at the practices is essentially really replaces a lot of processes that used to be very paper heavy, document the specs and then send them over and have them built. It replaces that with face to face interaction. So now you've got the product owner who's got the vision of what needs to be built,
constantly checking in with the team, face to face interaction, to resolve the complexities, to basically be able to pivot when we have to adapt, you know, so adaptive change, because agile actually welcomes change. It says, Hey, product owner, if your business case has changed, and you need for us to make an adjustment in how the product is being built, we welcome that. So and and, you know, in some of the discussions that we had at Oxford, there are hints that the construction industry find some of that appealing, because you can't predict everything, right. And sometimes the nature of the program has to adapt to whatever external or internal pressures or you know, happenings. And so that idea, that idea is very appealing. So again, but if you look at Agile processes to me, they improve that information flow, they improve, you know, the ability of parties to quickly align. So when you have a change, like you have a design change, everybody has an easier time aligning to that change, because everybody's you know, that information flow, you know, you've enabled that know, through the use of, you know, if you use intelligent technologies to help you improve that information flow, at the end of the day, you have a much better time adapting without losing productive time. You know, because it's like, oh, somebody forgot to tell Riccardo about that change? How many times that hat does that happen, right? One stakeholder that found out late because of whatever, right? But if you've got if you've got rigorous processes, and that's the other thing I should mention is that these technologies are relatively complex to implement. You have to and you know, that the information processing technologies, you know, what I call coordination tools, in my, in my research, it's not just the technology you have, you also have to spend time coming up with putting in the processes and the internal standards to help you leverage the technology. Because it's not it's not magic, you know, there's a there's a science to implementing these things.
Riccardo Cosentino 17:36
While you're almost prompting me to my next question. That's a nice segueway, which is, you know, what, you know, you mentioned some of the challenges, but what what are the challenges? What challenges into the successful adoption of intelligent technology in the construction industry? Or, or, you know, the, the part of the industry that you researched?
Kimberley Heraux 17:58
Yes, well, I'll give you I'll give you a quote from my research, and you might, you might chuckle at this a little bit. So definitely, like challenges that hinder successful adoption of intelligent technologies in construction, are construction industry practices themselves. So one author described the construction industry as being overly obsessed with time and progress, with a blatant disregard for proven program management practices. Right. So it's, it's almost like what you picture what I pictured as I as I was reading this piece is that there is such a focus on delivering and delivering fast because as you mentioned, there's a focus on you know, the lowest bidder, you're trying to do it for the lowest price possible. So and time is money typically right? So you tried to deliver fast and and you some of the things that get de prioritized are some practices that if you actually took the time to put them up, put them in place some practices and solutions like intelligent technologies that if you put them in place up front, they will help you get there fast, right but um, but so, you know, construction industry practices, definitely a hindrance, you know, other practices such as, you know, a focus on lower lowest bidder policies. They tend to drive the the, you know, if you think about it, if that's, that's the focus, then what ends up suffering is, you know, there's no no time to really think about putting in a centralized information system for the mega project organization. Oftentimes, there's really no one party that's
watching out for, you know, putting in a centralized or well thought out system at the core of The mega project is what it boils down to. And when you when you have no ownership, you end up with a hodgepodge. You know, some things might work well, and other things might be disconnected and cause you problems, which is where the productivity or the mega project, performance takes a hit.
Riccardo Cosentino 20:16
So Kimberly, in your, in your research, I'm keen to bring out to for the listeners the topic of collaborative contracting, integrated project delivery. Because as we studied at Oxford, we know that integrated project delivery was was it was a contracting tool that was developed to increase collaboration and information flow between parties. You know, I think the fact that the literature too, says that the BIM models were being used, but various parties to the contract were not inputting the right data into the BIM models, because of the contractual relations between them was not conducive to that. And it'd be interesting to understand from from your research, what what are the links between in between collaboration and information flow and collaborative contracting in major projects? Well, what were you able to find out?
Kimberley Heraux 21:20
So what I found out is that collaborative contracting, such as integrated program, program delivery, help improve the flow of data in mega projects. And what this means is that, you know, the participants who work in these contracts settings, the the the mega project managers that, that I interviewed specifically cited, that those types of arrangements definitely bring down some of the barriers between the various mega project actors, data silos, and that what that does is it it creates one set of data that is more transparent for use by the mega project. Okay, and that's good news for AI, because you just unleash those powerful AI algorithms on your good data, and you should be able to get some insights, you know, referring back to my navigation example earlier, right. So the accuracy of the predictions that you're going to be able to, to make based on that data, improve your ability to reduce risks on the mega project. What I found further, I think, in one, one of the pieces that I read, there was one author that proposed specifically, that contractual structures for construction, mega projects, should not only use more collateral continue to encourage more collaborative agreements, such as IPD. But they also they go a step further and say, you know, we should really take a look at, including specifications in those contracts that specify the contributions that each party will have to make to a centralized system, which is exciting, because if you know, if that's the case, I mean, you already have certain countries like the UK, the US, you know, requiring the use of modeling tools like Building Information Management, in BIM, you know, in mega projects, so you can leverage that, right, and say, That's a good foundation. Now, let's go a step further and specify for each of our mega project parties, you know, specify what the expectations are, as far as what your you're expecting them to contribute to the centralized system. So definitely, you know, it would seem if I had to summarize it for you, the mega for the the contractual agreement, helps to set up a structure that, you know, a mega project, organizational structure that encourages the use of intelligent technologies. So that's, that's the, that's the tie in there.
Riccardo Cosentino 24:04
It's interesting that you mentioned specification of these standards, I think that the British are certainly ahead of most jurisdiction. There are British standards that are trying to address this. There's, you know, obviously the beam push for implementing BIM at various levels. But unfortunately, my
jurisdiction Canada, I think we're still very far from from where the UK is. And it's left to single projects a single owner to specify and push the data. The data standards, which creates problems in itself because there's no modularity and there's no transferability of of processes from one project to another, unless you have the same client unless you have the same advisors pushing for the same specification, so there's still a lot of fragmentation, certainly in Canada, when it comes to data standards, however, the UK is much more advanced from what I understand.
Kimberley Heraux 25:19
Yes. And you know what the other thing that I found, too, I mean, we were talking earlier about challenges from industry practice, in general, of course, you know, every country differs, but in general, you know, the research basically cites the power dynamics in mega project organizations. And, you know, specifically point out that it makes it very difficult for actors, like the client to mandate which IT systems the parties should use. So if you think about that, I mean, if you actually zoom out and think about that, if you're an organization, that you Your aim is to deliver a certain outcome or a certain product, but you've got a medley of systems to manage the information and to, you know, to help you manage the journey to actually to delivery. I mean, it's a tremendous obstacle, you know, to being able to achieve the outcomes that you're after. I mean, it can you imagine if IBM had, you know, disparate systems between its divisions, and it's working on a, you know, cross functional cross division project, you can imagine how difficult it would be for them to pull it off. Well, that's what you have, essentially, in a mega project organization is you have each party coming to the table with their set of practices, their set of systems, and of course, they're focused on delivering on time and for the lowest cost. And so putting in a set of systems or processes is sort of lower on their priority list. But in the end, I think that one of the end results is the mega project performance takes a hit
Riccardo Cosentino 26:59
is interesting, because I think, yeah, one of you key findings was that we should be treating the adoption of intelligent technology. And I'm assuming, probably broaden it to say treating the adoption of of systems and information flow in major project as a complex IT project within the mega project organization. So based on your experience, fears, implementing major IT projects, when would you set up the IT system within a major project? And is there a specific time that is more beneficial, thinking that a major project has got a lifespan of maybe, you know, 10 years, and there are different phases in a major project, which have different requirements, you know, when you're in the development phase of a major project, you don't have the same number of people, you don't have the same number of stakeholders. But there are a lot of decisions that are made early on, that affect the future of the project, are we when the major project relies on the system is during the implementation phase, but that's typically four or five, or even six years after the big project was kicked off to the for the development phase. So in your mind, when, when when would be the best time to implement the IT strategy for a major project?
Kimberley Heraux 28:31
So I'm gonna, I'm gonna go about answering that question in a roundabout way and tell you about my findings when I interviewed IT system implementers, as part of my research, because what I did was I asked them, I said, What, in your opinion, are some of the key attributes of an organization that succeeds at adopting complex technology? So if an organization is going to succeed at adopting
complex, innovative technologies, what are the attributes of that organization? And they quickly pointed out two things that are very important one is you have to have vision of what it is that you're after. Right? So if you're going to tackle innovative system implementation, you have to have a clear vision of what you want out of it. And the second aspect is that you cannot have a quick fix mentality, right? So you have to think about a deeply come up with a plan, and then execute that plan, and put the systems in place. And those things allow the organization not only to implement the innovative technologies, but to adopt them and to get the benefits out of all of the blood, sweat and tears that you put in putting in a unit that you put in installing these systems. So given that, you know context, my opinion, is that for a mega project, and you're right, I did I did. To point out that mega projects really should think about the implementation of technologies as a complex IT implementation at the core of the mega project. And in order for you to drive adoption of those intelligent technologies, in my mind, what you would have to do, given that most mega projects are very time centric, I mean, there's a big focus on time is you'd have to almost, you know, at the beginning of the mega project, take a look at what systems will yield, they have the most promise of helping you manage mega project performance of helping you adapt, right, and then create a strategy for implementing those systems really fast, right? And it's, it's, it happens at the beginning, it's, it's part of, I mean, if you think about setting up an organization, it's part of the setup of the organization, you're setting up processes, you're setting up these complex intelligent technology systems to help support the processes that you've put in place, you're setting up, you know, your governance, your governance, body, etc. So it's part of setting up the organization with the caveat that, you know, you have to do it really fast. So you almost have to, in my mind, you have to have a SWAT team type of mentality, that's going to take a look at, okay, these are the technologies that we think we will get the most mileage out of, how do we get them adopted, you know, successfully by all of our by all of our all of our partners, right and and you basically manage like a complex IT system with all of the things that come with it, you know, you have a plan, you have a schedule, you put in the technology, you deliver the training that's necessary, you make sure that people have access, you know, to information necessary on how to use you know, you might, you might have to have continuous education on some, some some parts of it. And so that's, that's what I think is that it belongs at the beginning of the mega project organization coming together.
Riccardo Cosentino 32:13
So, I think when we look at your dissertation, we have to mention the Galbraith star, because you you use your Galbraith star which is which is a framework that we studied in in Oxford, to look at the use of technology through, the throught that framework be interesting to get your insight in, in that methodology that you used.
Kimberley Heraux 32:39
Right. So the Galbraith star is a well known organizational design framework. And, you know, as you know, Oxford focuses on the mega project organization itself being a temporary organization, but it's got all of the attributes of a complex organization. So, the Galbraith Star model has five components. Strategy, right? So what is your strategy for achieving the outcome that you're after the structure of the organization, the processes of the organization, the rewards that are associated to so that's incentivizing your your teams to, to, you know, to deliver or to to certain behaviors that are beneficial to the megaprojects goals. And then the people aspect so these intelligent technologies fall into the processes box. And what's interesting about the model is it encourages you it basically it has you
analyze the tensions between the various boxes. So again, strategy structure processes, rewards people. So, if you're going to put a new intelligent technology based set of intelligent technologies within your processes box, the model what I take a look at in my research is what does that require of the mega project organizational goals an organization's structure? And what does that mean for the megaproject organizations? People like what what are the adjustments that have to be made primarily on on those in those two components if you will, of the structure and the people? And so, you know, what I found is that really what would be what came to light is that this if you treat the implementation of intelligent technologies within the mega project as a complex program in and of its own, then really it ends up with its own star right. So you have to have you know, because the it ends up with you know, the it the implementation of intelligent technologies at the core of a mega project, you're going to find yourself asking questions in each of those five domains. Right. So what's the strategy for the intelligent technologies? What structure do we need to put in place in order to enable adoption? What are some of the processes and standards internally that need to accompany those, those intelligent technologies? How do we want to reward our megaproject parties for you know, how do we want to incentivize them to use the intelligent technologies rather? And you know, what, what do we need to do to equip our people that the teams on the mega project to leverage those technologies? Does that make sense that that answer your question, guys,
Riccardo Cosentino 35:43
It does Thank you. And it's, I think, Oh, my God, you just started another line of thinking, but I think you're gonna have to, you're gonna have to rephrase that we were starting to run out of time. But you know, the concept that, you know, you have a Galbraith star within a Galbraith star, I mean, we could really, we could really spend a little time discussing that.
Kimberley Heraux 36:02
And the point there is that really, you know, it really does need if you're going to leverage these technologies, you really do need to treat it as a complex program within the mega project. And so if you think about it that way, it makes a lot of sense that it does require investment, it requires strategizing, it requires all the things that come with a major IT program.
Riccardo Cosentino 36:25
Fascinating. Fascinating, I think we could be we could be talking about this for a long time. Anyway, I think we are coming to the end of the allocated time for for this show. I am trying to keep it to like 30 40 minutes, it fits nicely into the, into the daily schedule, or most of the people listening. But before we go, if a listener was interested in reading your dissertation, would they be able to find this somewhere? Have you published Are you would you be interested in people reaching out to you? If they wanted to know more about your dissertation?
Kimberley Heraux 37:06
Yes, absolutely. If they're interested in reading it, then I can give you my information where they can reach out to me and I will gladly supply them with a copy.
Riccardo Cosentino 37:15
I will put that in the show notes so that people can, can can reach out. And with that, I want to thank you Kimberly, for a great conversation today. I certainly you looked at a topic that will definitely help us navigate the major programs. And you provided us actually a really nice analogy with the navigating tool I swear we didn't plan that but you talk about navigating tool in navigating major programs. Thank you for that.
Kimberley Heraux 37:43
Yes. Thank you. Thank you for having me. This was this was such a pleasure. Thank you.
Riccardo Cosentino 37:50
Thank you very much, and we'll chat soon. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 20 Nov 2023 | Integrated Project Delivery: Strengths and Challenges With Rachael Patel | S1 EP 15 | 00:38:01 | |
In this episode, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with fellow Oxford alumni, Rachael Patel, to discuss integrated project delivery (IPD). With a background as a registered nurse, Rachael brings her unique expertise to her current role in the health sector specializing in strategic planning and execution of health services, research and infrastructure projects in North America. The pair discuss the impediments and challenges of adoption of the IPD model, specifically how it relates to private and public healthcare major infrastructure projects and the procurement process. “You add an integrated project delivery, where the idea is risk sharing and then you use that same methodology to calculate value for money, IPD will never win because IPDs base core base is sharing risk. It’s two issues in our procurement, it’s the idea of what value for money is and how we calculate money.”– Rachael Patel
Key Takeaways:
Links Mentioned:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:00 If you're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of major programme management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford Universities they business group, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Racheal Patel is an Associate Vice President and senior project manager at a global architecture and engineering firm. She's a registered nurse, and also the Master of Science in major program management from the University of Oxford, and a Master of nursing from the University of Toronto. Racheal is a skilled leader in the health sector specializing in strategic planning and execution of health services, research and infrastructure projects in Canada and the United States. Her expertise includes guiding organization for the initial strategic planning phase, through detailed planning and design to the implementation of transformative and innovative capital projects. Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of navigating major programs. I'm here today with Richard Patel. I met Racheal at Oxford University when we were completing together our mastering major program management. And I asked Racheal today to join us on the podcast to discuss her dissertation, which is quite interesting and very relevant to the topics that we've been discussing on navigating major programs. How're you doing, Racheal?
Racheal Patel 02:00 I'm good Ricardo. And thanks for having me here. I'm excited to have a platform to talk about my dissertation and you providing that platform to talk about major programs. So thank you very much for having me.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:14 It's my pleasure. So maybe since I've tucked up your dissertation a little bit, well, what was the topic of your dissertation? Yeah, so my topic was actually looking at the challenges of adopting integrated project delivery in health infrastructure here specifically in Ontario. And I kind of was interested in this because here in Ontario, as you know, we've been in a transactional type of model for some time, and I wanted to see could we push the boundary and look at other project delivery models that would achieve the the goals of infrastructure for healthcare in a different manner? Interesting. And you talk about transactional contracting, and you talk about IPD, can you maybe explain for some of our listeners the difference or what was in the context of your, your research, what those terms mean?
Racheal Patel 03:20 So when we when I say transactional, it's more of a contractual obligation. So it's what we see today, like a p3, you know, alternative delivery model where you have a relationship based on some terms and conditions. Relational, it's a similar idea in that more, they're not similar, but it's a similar idea, in that it's a relationship based model where you're working together as a team, there's no one, you know, a buyer and a seller you are, I guess, in a way, a group or collaborative, all working towards the same goal and you have incentives and so forth, in a nutshell, that it's different. We in transactional, as you know, you have contractual requirements, you're obligated to meet certain things, whereas in relational, it's really about the relationships and the collaboration and the people and people organizations that come together to deliver. So it's, it's harder, sorry, relational is more softer compared to transactional in my non legal way of trying to explain.
Riccardo Cosentino 04:41 So another way of putting that is an is one that of an example that I use in the past is that transactional contracting or is more of a zero sum game where there is a party, a winning party in the losing party. We're in relational contracting. We're all on the same table, we all have one common goal, one common incentive. And all of the incentives are aligned providing a more collaborative environment.
Racheal Patel 05:11 Yeah, yeah, that's probably more eloquent and articulate in the way I'm trying to explain it. That yeah, like, with relational, and specifically with IPD, you have everyone coming together with a common goal objective, and you're all measured on that same group of objectives or metrics metrics. And I would say transactional is a very much risk transfer moving risk to one party to hold that and your obligation to meet those risks, that transfer of that risk. But yes, I would say what you what you said is more eloquent than how I'm trying to explain it.
Riccardo Cosentino 05:54 No, yours is more is more detailed and more accurate by this very broad strokes. But maybe maybe for again, for our listeners, I know, in your research, you know, part of your literature review you you actually had a bit of a dive into IPD, which means integrated project delivery. And I actually cover some of that in my dissertation. So in a previous podcast, where I talked about IPD, Alliance and collaborative contracting, maybe just for those listeners that didn't listen to that podcast. Can you talk a little bit about the origin of IPD? Yeah, no problem. So IPD, which is integrated project delivery is the definition. It's kind of vetted by the American Institute of Architects, or specifically the California Council that came up with this notion of IPD. Being that it's a project delivery model that integrates people, businesses, and legal structures into a process that drives collaboration, while it optimizes efficiencies in the design and the construction phases of a project. So what that really means is that your you know, you're kind of like a temporary project organization, or a temporary organization all set to one vision, a shared vision, purpose, and a goal. And you're all working together, in, in what we work in organizations to achieve that. And each part like, you know, you have a joint management decision making where you come together. It's not one party oversight on one, you have key party members within your organization that sit together make decisions, for the best project outcome, you agree on the targets and goals. So what what are we trying to like? What is our project mission values, but what are we trying to achieve with this, you bring everyone to the table. So it's early engagement of parties, like in our current models, or in some of the models, we're all used to, you know, you have owner, you know, their designers are the design team, and then they work together, then you bring in somebody else later in the game, whereas in this one, everyone's sitting at the table on day one, working together to achieve the vision. The other thing with integrated project delivery is that you're sharing the risks and rewards. So it's not self interest driven. It's more we work together, and we share the risk of the solutions we put together or the rewards of the solutions like we work together to do that. So it's a pain share gain kind of model, where if we all do it together, and we're successful, we profit in it together. If we made some bad judgments, we all suffer together in a nutshell. And then the other thing that's different than probably an alliance model, is that our life, reduce liability exposure. So there's no blame game, you know, you're waiving claim and liability between each other. I mean, I'm sure there are legal mechanisms that if it's willful, or negligent, like in that way, that it's purposeful, there's repercussions. But basically, what you're trying to do is create an environment that has trust or respect. And in order to do that, you don't have legal mechanisms that will point to someone and say, Well, you did this, now you're a blame because you all are all on the same page or sharing that reward or the risk or making the decisions. Yeah, that's why I was That's why I was talking about a zero sum game, because I think what you described it, you know, I think the legal recourse creates a situation where there's going to be a winner and a loser in case things go wrong. I mean, at the end of the day, I mean, my my experience is that yeah, a contract. If a project goes well a contrast is on the shelves and nobody looks at it, but is when things start to go wrong, that you take out the contract. Look what the contract says and you pursue your legal remedies. I think what what you did ascribe to the IPD. And to a certain extent, even the Alliance model, or any relational contract allows for that. You know, if the project starts going badly, you don't reach for the contract to start appointing blame, but you actually have to sit at the table and come up with with a solution from the project team, rather than from the contract.
Racheal Patel 10:25 Yeah, like it's very much in this type of model. It's working together, you know, and in my experience, too, on the other types of contracts, if a project goes well, right, yeah, you're never gonna, you're never going to open it up and blame game. But I think, as the complexities of health infrastructure continues, and I'm talking health infrastructure, like continues to grow, I think we're more heading down the line. And I've seen it going down the line where that contract is open, and that blame game starts. Whereas an IP D, and what I like what I've seen in the industry, and those that have used it, you don't see those levels of escalation, or you don't hear about yourself as an escalation, because everyone that's in this delivery in this project are working together to achieve the same thing. So if, you know if blame is shared, everyone shares I mean, if blame is to be shared, everyone shares that blame. And so that that's the difference in this model, for sure.
Riccardo Cosentino 11:28 Okay, so I think I think we've set the scene and we talked about IPD. So hopefully, people listening who are not familiar with a Marvel getting a sense. So like to take you back to your dissertation. And, you know, ask, I'd like to ask you, what were the key findings of your, of your, of your research.
Racheal Patel 11:52 So my, just to kind of give your listeners a little bit of context. So what I was trying to understand in this in this research is, what are the impediments or the challenges of adoption of this model? And so when I looked at, when I looked at, you know, how, how I would identify them, I interviewed individuals in Ontario, both in the public and the private end of health infrastructure, that are decision makers in the process and have been involved. And, you know, we looked at different categories. So is our market even ready to accept a model? Right? Like, are we are we in Ontario, even willing to say, hey, let's look at different project delivery models? You know, what's the impact of culture and environment? The legal ramifications, financial procurement, because we work through a different procurement body? And is there any impact of our regulatory authorities on how we go through it? And so I think, overarching, like one of the biggest findings, and the resounding is, the individuals that I interviewed, were all were like, We need a different model. So it was a resounding yes. The marketplace is saying we need to look at different ways to deliver these infrastructure projects. Because the complexities, the cost they're increasing. And the current models we have, while they deliver an amount saying that P3 are not good, but they do deliver. But for what we're delivering, it's not the best solution. And from a culture and environment, I think, you know, with integrated project delivery, it's about trust and collaboration. And our environment has a huge impact on trust, how we work together and so forth. So I think, I don't think are the culture we work in or in the environment. Everyone's like, it's going to be difficult to apply this model. And I think from a procurement perspective, one of the biggest, you know, ideas that came out was, you know, our procurement, the way we procure projects, that whole process, not necessarily, the broader procurement of the BPS has to change but we have to look at it in a different way to apply this type of model. I think those were some of the key big findings.
Riccardo Cosentino 14:22 Okay, so I think in your, your dissertation, you you talk about some of the challenges and some of the findings and I think procurement challenges is the one that I found quite interesting. And you talk about how the how the the process to secure funding for the developing new or new health infrastructure. creates challenges in adopting IPD. And also you look at the the value for money analysis used when procuring new infrastructure now that could be a barrier for the for the deployment of integrated project delivery. And so I'm very curious to draw upon your knowledge of what the MO Ministry of Health process is, and why is it detrimental?
Racheal Patel 15:18 So, I mean, it comes back to so the Ministry of Health process, if we look at, you know, how hospitals kind of work within our system, the hospitals are within, you know, the Ministry of Health. And it's not that they're regulated by the Ministry of Health, because each hospitals, independent corporations, they have their own board of directors, but they're tied to a lot of the operational funding the capital funding come through the Ministry of Health, so you have to work with them in order to get funding for whether it's a renovation or a new build. And so the capital, the health capital planning process, and I know they've changed it in in the last year, or they've added some different nomenclature of stages. But basically, it's separated into two different stages, in that you have your early planning, that talks about, you know, what is the infrastructure proposal how you're going to address it. And that then is requires approval to proceed further into the actual development of the health infrastructure structure project you want to actually implement. And so there's two different approval process within the government through the Treasury Board that your project has to go through. And then during that those approval processes, set dollar amount, whatever that is, whatever is established for that project, and that includes, you know, transaction fees. And so all the other fees that are held, that number is carried across the process. And that kind of is you're upset value or your total value of the project. But when you look at the process, the duration of this process is so long, and you know, healthcare projects can take 10, to, you know, 13 years to get through this process, where you actually go to a part where you go to RFP and start to bid and build, that there's such an evolution, the way we deliver healthcare, because it's rapidly changing with technology operations, and so forth, and different models of care, that what you first envisioned in your project, maybe you're one and where you ended up, when you're about to go to bed could change, but that number doesn't change. And so it's not agile enough to respond to the market.
Riccardo Cosentino 17:36 I guess another challenge is that when you know, because of the planning process, you develop a design and a solution. And you develop it to probably award 5% design completion. And so you lock in in certain certain things with your, with your master planning, you block schematic as you go through the approval process. And obviously, you wouldn't be able to have an IPD contractor on board, that early on to start that collaboration is that one of the findings, one of the challenges,
Racheal Patel 18:11 it is a challenge, but I think if you look at the way the US where IPDS is predominantly used for healthcare, you can have your business case written and your idea written, but then you know, when you get into blocks, or schematics, you engage that contractor into the process, right. And then together with the designer, the owner, the and the contractor in some of their sub trades, you start to build or design and plan for that future facility. So in the US, they do do that. Here in Ontario, we have a very process driven stream that contractors are not engaged and their value is not added until they get the bid documents. And so could the contractor come in earlier in the process? I believe it could. But that means you're procuring certain things earlier in order to have those conversations at the table. And they would have to be integrated into this. I don't see it being a barrier. I think it's a shift in mindset and how we approach it. And if this is the what we have to do with the ministry's process and Treasury board's approval for release of funding, then I think we have to look at, you know, when does a contract or when does the sub trades When did those key individuals get involved?
Riccardo Cosentino 19:33 Well, yeah, because what we have is a very linear process, you know, you have all these stages and you know, you can only is a Stage Gate approach. Well, I think without with IBD, you want a more fluid, more fluid approach that creates collaboration and interaction as early as possible because that's where that's where the value is created. And that's where optimization has appearance is it's at the early stages of the project.
Racheal Patel 20:02 Right. And it's also where the innovation happens, right? Like with the optimization, but it's innovation and maybe how we address mechanical I mean, you look at healthcare, mechanical, maybe 45, to, if not 50, but close to 50% of the value of our healthcare project is the engineering systems that run, not a name, excluding the equipment that you know, that it's put into the organization. But when you have such a heavy value of your costs sitting, like and you don't have those players that are going to build it at the table, it's a huge detriment, right. And we ended up having issues going down. And I think that's the benefit of this process of IPD. Everyone comes to the table early in design, so you can work out those solutions and the problems, say, you know, what's the best approach for, you know, air handling? What's the best approach for, you know, feature flexibility of data and so forth? I mean, I'm not an engineering to talk technical, but, you know, I've worked in situations where you have everyone at the table, and you can create something more efficient in its operation, but also in the price.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:11 Yes. Yeah. You know, enough to be dangerous. That's the mean. So, touched upon value for money. So let's, let's jump on to that. Because I think that's the other that, you know, and I worked for infrastructure, Ontario, and I know the value for money methodology. But, again, I think in your findings, you describe it beautifully. Why is problematic, so I won't steal your thunder. I leave, I leave you to explain why the VFM methodology is problematic.
Racheal Patel 21:52 Yeah, so So you, I get in trouble and not you. Alright. So I do believe that the value for money calculation that we use in Ontario is problematic, because the way we calculate value for money is that, and, again, I've listened and not at Infrastructure Ontario. So I can't say that with certainty. But my understanding of it is that when so let me take a step back when the idea of I think it's the idea of value for money first is problematic. When we think of value for money, we think of lowest price in Ontario. But when you look at what really value for money, it's the best, it's the best solution based on financial and non financial objectives. That's what value for money is value for money is not finding the cheapest bid. And I think, in Ontario, and I'm not just talking p3, but in Ontario, whether it's through supply chain procurement, so if we always look for this lowest price, because we believe that that is value for money, that itself is problematic for IPD. Because in IPD, its value for money is based on a number of other things, right? Value for money is on the team, it's on. It's not on a fixed price, it's how the team works together, right? Like, that's, you know, when you procure IPD, you're not procuring a fixed price, what you're procuring is the team that comes to the table that will work with you to develop the solution for what you're coming together for, you know, their qualifications, their experience, how they work together, their behaviors, that is what you're evaluating how you choose a team. It's not like, here's my lowest bid. And so I think that's one of the biggest challenges in Ontario is that we had this idea of low bid is the right solution. And then sorry, go
Riccardo Cosentino 21:52 yeah, I was gonna I was gonna, you seem reluctant to come to the punch line. So I was gonna I was for you, in case you're too scared.
Racheal Patel 24:00 Scared, so but I just wanted to say, you know, like, so when you get to value for money calculation, and the way we do it is that it's about transferring the risk, right? So when you look at the value for money calculation, and how, you know, how one thing is, like one procurement model, p3 is better. It's because they're seeing the risk allocation, the transfers of the risk to the private sector is value for money for the public sector, because they're not burdened by that risk. And so that's kind of the premise. And I don't think that's correct, because you're measuring, you know, p3, the risk transference and against a traditional model where there isn't a risk transfer. So that's kind of the issue with the value for money calculation. Now you add an integrated project delivery, where the idea is risk sharing, and then you use that same methodology to calculate value for money IPD will never win because it's IPDs base core base is sharing risk. Because, you know, the definition is if you share a risk, you share solutions, right? Like you're working together to problem solve, as opposed to transferring that problem to somebody else doesn't get to the punch. Thank you. I'm not afraid to say it. But I just wanted to kind of, you know, I think it's two issues in our procurement, it's the idea of what value for money is and how we calculate money.
Riccardo Cosentino 25:26 Okay, so I think I think that paints a pretty good picture of what what are the, in my mind, I mean, I'm your research talks about other challenges. And I think there's there's most the softer type challenges, which is, you know, resources, availability of resources, and culture and environment, which you talked at the beginning, but I'm a commercial person. So I always gravitate toward the heard liabilities and the heard numbers. So not that's not the sort of stuff but you know, the soft stuff is important. And yeah, I agree with you, I mean, value for money as to be and it to be to give credit to Infrastructure Ontario for for new projects. Now, on the civil side, they are starting to use more collaborative model, the studying to assess cognitive they do cognitive behavioral assessments for all the people that work on those project, because at the end of the day, there needs to be a culture of fit of everybody's at the table, because otherwise, you're not going to achieve the collaboration that you need.
Racheal Patel 26:29 100%. And, you know, I, I've spoken to people at Metrolinx, as well about the different ways they're trying to approach project delivery, civil projects are so complex, I would say probably even more so than a hospital delivery. You know, I think the hospital itself is a complex, but what Civil Works does, that's even more complex, but they're willing to try different models. And so if our partners here at Metrolinx, or other organizations are looking at different models, why can't we apply that? That's kind of also why I'm driving this idea. Like, let's look outside the box of what we've traditionally done here, Ontario.
Riccardo Cosentino 27:06 Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Okay. So jumping on, I wanted to maybe ask you more of a broader question, which, if you have actually had the chance to look at some case studies when you were doing your research, and if there's anything that that jumped out, you might you might have not actually looked at case study, because I know your literature literature review was a bit broader than that. But any, any anything that jumped out and key successes that jumped out,
Racheal Patel 27:34 you know, IPD, in general, is permanently used in the US, but I think other countries are looking at it. So when I was doing this study, specifically, I was trying to find public hospitals or public systems that have applied integrated project delivery. The one organization I found was an I'm going to pronounce this wrong, because there is a lot over one of the letters, but it's in Norway, is the Songa project. And so the Norwegian government decided they've had enough with cost overruns, scheduled delays, adversarial relationships. And they actually implemented integrated project delivery in the redevelopment of hospitals, specifically one in this specific region and can't remember the name, but I can get you the reference or anybody that wants to know it after. And so they applied integrated project delivery, because they wanted more of a collaboration and a different approach to public infrastructure, it's probably the closest thing that you would see to a true definition of integrated project delivery, with the exception is that there is no multi party contract. So in integrated project delivery, all the individuals are under a multi party contracts, you all signed together. And so in this public project, that was the only key characteristics of a true IPD. That wasn't in there. But all of the risk sharing the reduced liability, not waiver of liability was there, you know, the the key concepts were there, with the exception of the multi party agreement. So that was probably the only one. There's still in the middle of the build stages. And if you do look it up. It's multi phase project. It's very complex redevelopment in this system. But they've just started issuing case studies or publishing case studies are starting to talk to the public or the global public about this specific example. And it's successful because they have delivered and they've achieved what they've wanted to they've had innovations through the process. But it's the first example of public system using integrated project delivery for health infrastructure.
Riccardo Cosentino 29:43 Interesting. Okay, I'll try. I'll try to get the details. We'll put in the shownotes. Search it up. Okay, so I guess, as maybe as a final question, probably quite a challenging question but are going to have Is there any way? What will be your recommendation to Ontario policymakers? entities like MOH, or Infrastructure Ontario? To what what would they have to do to embrace IPD for future projects? How can they navigate these challenges? Effectively? does. I think, I think if I can paraphrase. I mean, there's a there's a need for a shift for a fundamental shift in the policy, because as you describe the fact that hospitals are risk averse, and they can't really absorb too much or cost overruns, or, you know, as lower risk. But that's a funding issue. Right? That's a policy issue there. I mean, at the end of the day, hospital are a creature of the Ministry of Health, right. So ultimately, the governance could allow could be put in place to allow a hospital to to have a different approach a different commercial approach. So it is it is within the gift of the policymaker and the politicians.
Racheal Patel 33:45 Yeah. And 100%. And I think, you know, when you're paraphrasing it better than I wrote it, I think, but I'm trying to put, you know, 60 pages into small answer. But if you look at you know, just even the allocation of how hospitals have funding for resources to do infrastructure. In the study, a lot of individuals brought up that thing that goes, there's not even enough money to do the current projects that we have with the lack of funding, you know, because they get a certain percentage of ancillary funding in order to pay their staff. But in this situation, when we do IPD, you're going to have a plethora of individuals and experts and stuff that have to sit in the hospital organization to do this. And a hospital isn't an infrastructure professional, right? They bring in the resources to do what they need to but they're they're there to deliver service and care to their community. And so they need to bring all these specialists in but if our if our ancillary costs are how until your cost is given and or funding is given to the hospitals to have the resources doesn't meet the need of these comp, this type of project delivery, you're never going to be able to add execute it. Right now, it supports more of the transactional. So yeah, to your point that also has to be done from a ministry level saying we need to look at how money is given the allocation of funding for these types.
Riccardo Cosentino 35:15 Okay, so I mean, if I gonna, I'm going to try to summarize I mean, I think my three takeaways is having the there needs to be a change in changing culture, and environment. In order to bring a different type of behaviors to the table, there needs to be a change in the way that risk is allocated, or better, we need to find a better way to share risk. We need to we will need to change some of the policies associated with procurement and project development. And if all this was to happen, then potentially we could have a rich IPD market in Ontario. Yeah, I think you separated and I think maybe IPD, just in its and probably negate everything I just said about why I'm passionate about IPD. But I, I, I think this would be true for any relational type of contracting like Alliance, Alliance, as well as IPD. They have similarities as we talked about earlier. But what you've summarize are critical for our marketplace to allow for different models. And I think that's kind of the crux of the issue is that we have a marketplace that's set up for one specific type of delivery model. And if we need to look outside the box, we need to look at these issues. Okay, now, you said it better than me, well,
Racheal Patel 36:44 play off of you.
Riccardo Cosentino 36:47 Okay, I think I think that's all we have time for today. Thank you very much for joining me today. Racheal. This was a fascinating conversation about our own province, our own in our own country. So thank you for joining me and all the best for your future endeavors.
Racheal Patel 37:02 Thanks, Riccardo and thank you for the platform to talk about this right now.
Riccardo Cosentino 37:08 That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 02 Dec 2024 | Late and Over Budget: Alan Mosca on How AI is Transforming Risk Management |S2 EP22 | 00:44:09 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Alan Mosca, CTO and Co-Founder of nPlan, to explore the intersection of artificial intelligence and project management. Alan shares his journey, from founding nPlan in 2017 to transforming how major programmes forecast and mitigate project risks using AI-powered tools. Alan dives deep into the technicalities of nPlan’s innovative approach to project scheduling, risk assessment, and portfolio management. Through real-world applications and fascinating anecdotes, he discusses how AI can turn vast amounts of project data into actionable insights, paving the way for more proactive and informed decision-making in the infrastructure and construction sectors.
“You think about like you're starting a business, right? You start from what's a problem that you want to solve. And so we started from the end effectively. Problem that we want to solve is: why is it that when humans say that they're going to build something or do a project it then almost invariably takes twice as long and four times the amount of money than you said it was going to take.” – Alan Mosca
Key Takeaways:
If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox. https://lovethepodcast.com/NavigatingMajorProgrammesPod
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 04 Nov 2024 | The Importance of Thought Leadership with Mikaila Kukurudza | S2 EP20 | 00:47:30 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Mikaila Kukurudza to explore the significance of thought leadership—and some of the biggest mistakes professionals make on LinkedIn. Mikaila Kukurudza, founder of Colada Marketing Ltd., has been instrumental in helping both people and brands tell their stories, including working with Riccardo over the last three years. If you’ve come across any of Riccardo’s LinkedIn articles, chances are, Mikaila is the pen behind them. Is hiring a ghostwriter unethical? Why does personal branding matter for the infrastructure industry—and beyond? And how do social media platforms shape major programs? Riccardo and Mikaila dive into all this and more. “You already have a personal brand, whether you like it or not. It’s just a matter of whether you’re going to define and refine it into something you’re happy with. For anyone listening—even if you’re not actively posting on LinkedIn—you already have a personal brand. It’s up to you to shape it into how you want to be represented online.” — Mikaila Kukurudza
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 23 Oct 2023 | Adapting As Fast As We Can with Digital Twin Fan Club | S1 EP 13 | 01:01:23 | |
In this episode, Riccardo sits down with two of the voices behind the Digital Twin Fun Club podcast, Henry Fenby-Taylor and Neil Thompson. The trio speaks accuracy versus bias and how technology (digital twins specifically) can help mitigate risk within the complex world of infrastructure.
“I think people generally have the wrong expectation of technology. They think ‘Oh, we’re going to be able to predict the future.’ Actually the value of these things isn’t about being able to predict the future, it’s about being able to adapt as quickly as possible to changing circumstances.” –Neil Thompson
Key Takeaways:
Links Mentioned:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:00 If you're listening to navigate the major programs, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino I bring over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Moxa universities they business group, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major problem management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Hello, everyone. Welcome to another episode of navigating major programs. Today I'm joined by two guests from the digital twin fun club. Gonna let them introduce themselves.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 01:04 Hi, I'm Henry Fenby Taylor, host of the digital twin fan club, podcast and editor and coordinator and I also run my own digital transformation and communications consultancy. Hi,
Neil Thompson01:18 Hi everyone. I'm Neil Thompson. I'm a digital fanclub cleaner owner and co founder, I guess, their day job I work at AtkinsRéalis, and I do things around digital transformation. I also have some other hats around the industry, my chair, the built environment for the Institute of Engineering Technology, also lucky enough to have gained an Honorary Associate Professor of the Bartlett School of sustainable construction, all things. Construction economics related. So I'm really interested to have this conversation because I've, I've been listening to some episodes and really fascinated in this sort of world between digital tools and how we incentivize people to do things is fascinating. So I'm looking forward to the conversation.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:08 Yeah, me too. Definitely. I'd well if we're comparing hats. I'm also on the construction industry councils. Net Zero climate change panel, and then CIC 2050, board member of a core member of zero construct as well. So I have a very strong interest in net zero in this space as well. Which is a key economic question, isn't it? Really? Yes. Especially today with the especially in the UK, especially today with a big news from last week? Ya know, um, you know, I'm Riccardo Cosentino I think the listeners know me, and I think today, I'm really keen to explore, you know, how can digital tools, digital twin help us navigate the major programs? I have cheeky and cheesy really trying to make a comparison there. I think digital twin and digital tools today are like the Google Maps of for navigating major problems, while in the old days, we used to just have maps. And so I think it's, it's an important intersection. As project complexity gets bigger and bigger. So to the tool that we need to manage that complexity need to need to be adopted. And, you know, that's, that's my contribution to this podcast.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 03:35 Absolutely. Yeah, absolutely. I think it's a very key issue. So we always start with what is a digital twin, I feel that there is often uncertainty, or lack of clarity around that. And I feel like adding some definitions to that will give us some simplicity. And then people can know what we're talking about. I've got my own definitions, but I'll let you go first, Neil.
Neil Thompson04:03 Oh, cheeky. I, so I got a, I have two views of digital twins. One is sort of the variation of, you know, we need to represent physical assets in a digital way. And hence the digital twin. And we use a series of technologies to achieve that. My other end of the telescope definition of it is we're connecting critical national infrastructure to the internet at different levels of maturity. So one end of the end of maturity is existing things that work today. There's things that we're planning for the future. And then there's things that we're building in between and all those things have some sort of interface with the internet, which may sound a bit strange saying it that way, but it's it's for me, it's just connecting these things together digitally with
Henry Fenby-Taylor 04:59 jazz I can't believe I've got to say jazz first and about gas. So my definition of a digital twin is that it is a system where there is a real thing that we are trying to manage or look after. And it could be designed simulate, construct, operate, you know, or it could be at the highest level of strategy, there's a thing that we need to manage. And so many things are complex, obviously, major programs are very complex, organizationally, technically, what they're trying to do, very complex. And so we need a better understanding of that real thing by measuring digitally understanding in a system that can tell us what is really happening with that system. Not only do we have good interfaces, so it's not just about having a nice dashboard. But it's about empowering people to make better decisions on the coalface of their job, right? From the very, most operational on the tools level, all the way up to strategic direction, measuring key performance indicators. And I think it's that connection by Neil says that Internet of infrastructure, it's bringing things together in a way that's not been done before. Because it's quite a complex sector is it's a complex supply chain, the word you could take an aspect of major programs, indeed, infrastructure in general, and probably apply the word complex to it quite safely. So I think, to move us on, I think that's a great definition. We've done our definitions of digital twins. So we know what we're talking about.
Riccardo Cosentino 06:50 Maybe there are five, yeah, if I may just stick to one. Because I mean, North America, where I'm from in, Canada's specially I think there's still a lack of understanding. And I think since we're defining, I think it'd be helpful and probably going to open a can of worms, since I've listened to your podcast in the past. But what's the difference between a BIM and a digital twin?
Henry Fenby-Taylor 07:17 Well, good question. Now, I have the true answer. But it's not very simple, which is that digital twins didn't come from the built environment, but didn't come from construction that didn't come from infrastructure, they came from NASA, originally, the original concept for we have a shuttle in space, and we keep building physical mock ups of this thing. So why don't we go to digital one, and then not only can we plan, model it and send up into space, and manage it remotely, we can create a better system for the design for the whole system for design, construction use. And so because it came from that route, it's difficult for the built environment, because we had a thing for that, when the digital twins came to us that design simulate side was an is already being done by them. So, I am not fussy about where you call your digital twin, because it could be your managing your factory line and your system. So you are trying to make maximize efficiency in say, building a building, or in the design. But I am not precious about it. If people want to say, you know, BIM is over here, in the design phase, and digital twin is over there. That's their choice. It is because of its origins, slightly complex, but effectively, a digital twin can cover the whole remit. And be, have been as part of it.
Neil Thompson08:57 Yeah, and we, at the end of the day, it's better to make a mistake in cyberspace than it is to do it in physical space. So just thinking about the Navigating of major programs, let's not go wrong in real life. It's really hard to fix. It's really hard to see. And unless Yeah, I'm with Henry on that one. It's, you know, let's, let's go and make a Digital Sandbox and work out and make a plan there is build, build the plan and execute that plan. And then and obviously, we in the world of major programs are very complex, involve lots of people and generally go for a really long period of time. So things change, where the environment changes, economic circumstances change. So my frustration with all of this is to is in two parts. One is I think people generally have a wrong expectation of technology. They think, Oh, we're going to be able to predict the future. Actually, the value of these things isn't isn't about being be able to predict the future is about being able to adapt as quickly as possible to change in circumstances. And that's where we need to get people on board is this
Henry Fenby-Taylor 10:09 is this from the I think you've got me to read Tim Harford's book adapt. That was yes. And that was very influential for my thinking on digital twins, where you are, again, you're trying to empower people through technology, not trying to take decisions away or automate things away. You're trying to give people the ability to react to changing circumstances. And, you know, just things like the teams are making major programs change massively, constantly. So you have a constant onboarding, and off boarding of knowledge and expertise. And it can be really difficult to capture that. So creating systems that mirror they were originally called digital twins, originally called information, model mirrors, that mirror what's happening, just allows people to get up to speed quicker allows people to make better decisions faster.
Riccardo Cosentino 11:05 I really liked that. It was one of the definition of a major programs, which I absolutely having a spot on the major programs are complex adaptive systems, to only they are complex, but they change. And so you're now dealing with, you know, an I think an equivalent to a complex adaptive system is is a flock of birds 1000s of birds flying to the sky, and somehow they do they unison, but it feels like they're doing Unison but they don't. And so that's, that's an equivalent of a complex adaptive system.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 11:40 I'm going to ask myself an interesting question on that. Does the does any individual bird know what the flock is doing? Or are they just responding to some fairly simple rules at a quite an immediate, you know, that the flock is created by birds with a similar drive all that with, say, a common goal, you know, they're all going to migrate all reacting to each other using very similar rules. And it is sort of organic emergent system creates, emerges, an emergent system emerges. And I think that's the beauty of major programs is that they work at all?
Neil Thompson12:24 You've heard no. I've got, let's go on a journey. Right? So probably when I was growing, so what No, just just one point, I used to work for really big, you know, construction companies. And the thing that always used to strike me we've we've all was you can stand still on a building site and look around, and it doesn't look like much is happening. But the job gets done. The how people come together at that scale is really interesting, because sometimes you can't, you can't stand there and physically sit. So there's a thing here and digital systems like this, the only way that you can have visibility of it because people are behind things. They're in the office, they didn't there's so much stuff happening, not one person can stand on a platform and look at everything. So that's that's something I find interesting. So it's back to what you said about the flock of birds. So this is this is something I've always wanted to the types of listen that listeners you have Ricardo and those in the space of finance and designing contracts. This is this is something that I've always the pitch that I've always wanted to make in from a digital perspective, because I feel like we're two worlds that don't communicate that much. There's this sort of capability of technology and those that design contracts and sort of somewhat oblivious of each other, but have a vital role to play. So one is back to your flock of birds. So think about an economics, right, we have we think of the price mechanism. So we infer the quality of something through its price. But I think we've sort of reached a point now where the price mechanism is somewhat defunct, we just because it's expensive doesn't necessarily mean it's the best. And there's a great I don't if you know who Benedict Evans is. Ben is Evans is sort of a commentator on technology trends over time. He gave a presentation in 2021. And if you have show notes, I can provide you a link, he this slides that he created was about sentiment of search on for consumers over time. And it has two lines, it has a line for the sentiment for the best and sentiment for the cheapest and in 2004 Everyone went on the internet and search for the cheapest then up to about 2008 It was the number one sentiment on the internet. And then this line called the best I want to find the best not the cheapest took over and it's just skyrocketed since. So this sort of price mechanism thing our flock of birds and like the internet as a proxy for Okay, people turned up and use it to find the cheapest thing they quickly found. out there, we'll find the cheapest thing actually isn't the best outcome, searching the internet and using the information that we have stored in the internet about products, reviews, quality, consistency, what have you means that instead of searching, give me other no trainers for cheapest. It's given me, what is the best for the use that I need? And modern internet searches. And just think about when you go and buy things. How regularly do you go, I'm just gonna go get the cheapest thing is interesting. So the world of consumer products has changed. And I think we're in we're in that point of 2008. Those that have been designing contracts have kind of the kid themselves to say they've been after quality, but they it by accident, I think I don't think it's through sort of any malicious intent or just the way because of the lack of information, we can only go by the price mechanism. But now with with the systems, they are digital twins and what have you, we can ask better questions of our data. So instead of sort of being rushed for time, the best thing that we can do is just just just give us your best price. And we'll go with that. We're now in the space of well performance, and what is what is best for the outcome. So you can't do that at that technology. So this is back to my analogy of standing there on a building site. Just because you can stand there physically see, it doesn't mean that you've got a true picture of performance, you have to have a digital understanding of the landscape to, to get underneath the surface of how well that's going.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 16:23 Adding to that I feel the contract. Artifact contracts themselves are legal documents, they do not flex, much over time, but generally, you know, they won't flex at all. So there is a real pressure when you are trying to procure to get the best deal. And to somehow know everything in advance before you start. And I think we all know that with the best will in the world. That can't happen. And the emergence of new paradigms of delivery through software and technology, where things are much more incremental, has challenged at dynamic of, here's your contract, you've got 12 months, here's the money go away, make me the thing, whether it's software, or an apple, and 12 months is definitely not long enough for an apple unless it's a really little one. But that it doesn't work. It fundamentally doesn't work. And you can't design a contract to make it work. You can design a contract to protect and to enforce and to give powers and all these sorts of things. But without that data that Neil's talking about, you are relying on judgment and or good practice goodwill, and then ultimately, litigation and, you know, take people to call. And there are much better mechanisms in between that, that we can introduce now that we can put into contracts that will make them operate better and give the outcomes people are looking for by adding that adding this measurement, this quality, as Neil calls it throughout.
Riccardo Cosentino 18:22 Yeah, and I think if we think of contracts for major programs, and I think it goes back to adaptability and being able to manage a complex adaptive system, and then the contracts that we have the typical lump sum turnkey, Neil's very familiar with his word, you know, they don't provide the flexibility that you know, you're supposed to give a fixed price today for something that is going to complete a seven, eight years from now, and assume that you can predict everything that is going to happen. I think the digital tools and digital twin will help you manage some of that, but the contract are certainly not set up to allow for adaptability, new contracts or they're not new, but like Alliance type contracting, collaborative contracting can help because they allow a better discussion instead of having an upfront discussion. It allows a discussion throughout the contract. And you're allowed to change some parameters, but it's ultimately it's it needs to we need to have an understanding that major programs adapt, have to adapt to changing circumstances. I mean, I mean, look, I just I just do what's happening now. Right? I mean, that's a perfect example of a contract that needs to be adapted.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 19:41 Yeah, absolutely. There's so many different factors at play here. It's political, its social. Its cost of living. It's all of these factors that come together. So yeah, I do think that creating these data insights on understanding can create better contracts. But it can also reduce risk and make projects more insurable. I've spoken to a number of insurance providers over the years and how they assess risk and cost risk and choose whether or not to cover a risk is the in this sort of artisanal, it's a skill, it's something you developed. And you have to, you know, you have to use your personal judgment to make those decisions with better data with better insight into what's happening, because you can use great data about what has happened past tense, and that can inform future decisions. But if you can drive those drive those insights all the way into the project, then you can really overcome some risks by understanding what's actually happening.
Neil Thompson20:55 Either of you read or know about Daniel Kahneman? I think it's his latest book noise. Oh, yeah. Yeah. So I think this is this is interesting, because if if the decision of a judge on its own, is, you know, there's two types of noisiness, there's the noisiness of the decision that you make, and then the noisiness of the process that you use to make that decision. Yes. And I think the same is here for contracts, right? They are inherently noisy, because it's based upon people's best opinion. Even when you get into the world of managing programs of any size, and people putting together Gantt charts and programs in Primavera P6, those are driven, they drive the decisions about how well that project is going. But they're sort of artifacts of people's opinions of where you roughly, it's not, it's not a scientific measure of, of quality progress and where you are, there isn't a device out there that can go and take a picture. To turn that into progress. It is the pm turns up to their team, how we're doing this week, where do you actually think we are against some sort of measure the measures usually is zero, 25% 50% 75%, or 100%. And you just scale that up, then the embedded noise of as you scale those for every layer, you know, the PM, probably gives that to a package manager, the package manager gives that sub project director, that project director is a dope Project Director of one area of maybe five Directorates, and then they come together and when the time it gets to the client, I mean, they're so far away from reality from a data perspective is, it's, it's quite scary. And if we think about the context of the application of AI, so in my, in my view of sort of the digital team world being a platform for this, the issue that we have is a little bit like the problem that we have with generative AI from chat GPT, if you ask it to make you an outline document for something, it's written from a Western or even more specific, more of like a Californian point of view, you'd have a point of view from that particular set of data. Now, if we're going to try and do the same in steering, the, you know, navigating major programs is you're going to set AI loose on a load of data that is just made up, right? How can that provide you any value, all it will say is, okay, instead of me asking the opinion of one P6 user, I can ask the opinion of all P6 users in history, but they're just, they're just artifacts of compound opinions. And we need to we need to break that somehow. So those those plans are built in a way that are relevant to the evidence that we have in datasets are collected from real life, not these intermediate trees in between this sort of management layers
Henry Fenby-Taylor 23:58 75% Complete. It's thinking about that that noise, analogy, accuracy, you know, you're trying to hit a target. And there is the big target at the end on time on budget, or even under budget under time. And high quality, great feedback. And that's a big target over there. But everybody is no such as hitting these small weekly daily targets that they have to hit. And we need better data. Yes. The data that we have has this bias in it. So if you are aiming for a target and consistently missing it in the same way, so you've got a bullseye in front of you and it's it's always hitting in the bottom right then you know that your your targeting is off. And this is the opportunity but it is the work that needs to be done because we have these targets we've not been computing them. So when you do compute them And you just scale this bias massively. And so, accuracy versus bias, but then you have the issue of of the noise as well, in the fact of, you know, different people act differently under different circumstances. So we need to align how people aim for targets, as well. And that's, that's data is also about not only what you measure, but how you ask for it, how you get it, and what it's for.
Neil Thompson25:31 It's interesting you say about two people. So my, in my research, in my dissertation, there was a question about risk preferences. And what I found systematically across the I think there's like 110, people that I managed to get the opinion of people systematically had a different risk appetite to their organization. So it's interesting, you ask them questions that sort of sets the risk appetite of the organization that they work for. And you ask a slightly different set of questions that sets the risk appetite of the individual. And there's always a huge, huge gap. It doesn't mean that organizations are less risky than people, it's, it's actually a bit more noisier than that. But it's interesting if organizations are just a collection of people that come together, that gap between the organization being risk averse, and the individual being risky for examples and in interesting thing, because that person's decisions, makes a huge impact on the macro risk appetite of the organization. And this, and this is what took me from your last episode, Ricardo was this the the stuff around behavioral economics. And I think the interesting thing, for me, is, the way that we design incentivization, at the broadest level is sort of is the same sort of difference between macroeconomics and microeconomics, or of macroeconomics. Back in the days before the internet and being able to collect data, they had to make some massive assumptions about how economies work. So they created macroeconomics, they made all these assumptions about how, you know, GDP, and all these sort of government level measurements. And, and then the behavioral economics comes around and said, well, actually, you know, people aren't having a generous, they all behave differently, they all come together in different ways. And there's a gap, and we're in this, we're in this space now, where we've never had the technology to be able to do the human, granular level thing. It's just too difficult to measure. But we're entering that world. Now we're in this, despite where you want to call it through marketing, call it digital twins or whatever. But we are in the world of being a like, the technology is now there. Five years ago, maybe even sooner, the technology wasn't available to us to manage information at this scale.
Riccardo Cosentino 27:54 So I, you know, I just wanted you because it's something that I've been listening attentively, potentially. And it sounds to me that the digital twin to BIM call it whatever we want to call it, but and then I, and I think I know this anecdotally that I was really developed, the BIM model, especially with developers, a collaborative tool is a way of bringing, or bringing people with different disciplines in the in the in the building. So you have many contractor and designer, your your architects and bring them all together around one single model, so that they can collaborate and solve problems together rather than have. So I have a parallel problem solving approach rather than a sequence, problem solving approach, which was the old days where, you know, one, one engineer would finish the work, pass it to the next one was the next one. And so you, you end up with a problem at the end, and you got to go back to the beginning to fix it while would be am, I assume you can sit around the table, if everybody's got the technology, if you ever set it up properly, to actually address problems as they arise together. And in
Neil Thompson29:05 to this established techniques. So in so in Stanford's, they teach virtual designing construction, and they have a whole module on weather called concurrent engineering, which what this is, this is all about, because in order to understand, if you're going to get a load of decision makers together every week, there's coordination that happens, the other side of that, in terms of all the information that you've got to make sure that let's take a building of a bridge, you know, is your design of your bridge in the same part of the world as mine is over all the other coordinates, right? That's the most basic thing, because believe it or not, before that they could be in completely different places that could be in different units. You know, that's why things have went wrong previously, because someone's in the Imperial zones in in metric, and they don't align. So there's all these sort of basic things about concurrent engineering about just pure coordination. Are we all looking at the same thing? As your does your thing, that was my thing. There's the m&e bit with the structure. And all those sorts of things. The the interesting outcome of that, from my perspective, and this is the really, and this is what I, if I had to make any point to this, this group of listeners is technology lowers the barrier of entry, and enables anyone to have a high level of capability, right? So, and the danger of that is, we essentially subsidize a sub optimal design process. So what we shouldn't be doing is design over here, and digital twin over there. And they, they sort of come together eventually. But they are the two of the same thing, let's not create a BIM process over there to check the design, to show that the design doesn't work. All that does is makes designers lazy, and a bit of someone else can worry about the coordination. If it's going to work later. It's making sure that we create these tools within the design process. Because that's where we get into this waterfall issue of finding out the problems later before it's too late to fix it, because we didn't do all the smart stuff. As a first step, we did the smart stuff at the ends check, right? Let's not have the exam at the end of the year, let's have continuous assessment of what we're doing.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 31:19 I have an interesting analogy. This goes back to an old digital twin Franklin podcast with Neil and Alan Waha, about how is the construction sector, like the music sector when we were talking about digital and now you need a digital first process before you can even move into that space. But I conjured the amusing mental image by writing a post on it recently that actually, what a lot of programs and systems look like now is we ask a group of people to make a symphony together. They make this wonderful symphony and they record it. And they will show it to you though you can listen to it. But that you can't have that you only are allowed the sheet music at the end. So you've gone through this whole process of thinking, and realizing. But because we are bound by certain deliverables and certain processes, that will know that we couldn't possibly give you the recording. Here's the sheet music now you can get somebody else to go play that even though we've already done it made secure proof of my knowledge you nail
Neil Thompson32:28 that is beautiful, because what will you get on to and this is the internet. And this is the interesting thing about contract design is if you give anybody the sheet music, it will sound differently. If you gave a machine a sheet music, it will sound robotic, it will it will play it precisely to time. The nuance about why a symphony sounds great played live is because it has all these human inaccuracies come together that makes it sound the way it does me can't hear any of us. That's why the London Symphony Orchestra is different to the San Francisco Symphony Orchestra. Right? So the the issue here is is how do we that that sort of that organic stuff that happens between the lines of the contract is finding better ways of incentivizing people beyond that. And it's it's interest because we're in this world of these discussions about buying based on value. So most most of consultancies are in the world of like, selling people per the hour isn't good in terms of growth, because we have to acquire companies all the time and said more and more people. And that's not sustainable, because there's only a finite number of people on Earth. So it's that that growth model comes to an end naturally. So there's this conversation about value. But then when we look at the contracts that we have, yes, the unitary production value is a person in over an hour or whatever. But the other side of it is then also the all that we're competing for, is the essentially been exposed to the risk of getting it wrong. Like that's the thing. That's that is why so people say, oh, you know, some technology firms going to come along and eat up, you know, take over construction or take over engineering design, the reality is, it's probably not going to happen, because they're not willing to take on the risk of getting it wrong. And people like myself, and we're kind of we are like we we bring these systems together to take on that risk. The day that a technology company goes, Yeah, we're going to provide the technology, the service, and we'll take the risk on for getting it wrong, then we are in trouble. But I can't see shareholders, big or small startups, big technology firms. Name name a big name a big design vendor beginning with A or B, that, you know, imagine them turning around to their shareholders and say we're going to design bridges and we're going to take on the the the liability of the design of those bridges. The shareholders are going to sign off on that because they said because they will say no, we buy the shares and sit on your board because you do this business. If I want to take on the risk of building bridges. I'm gonna go and buy shares in engineering firms, not software firms. So that's, that's another dimension. Here's beyond the contract is the incentive of the people that own the mean, own the capital. Right.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 35:10 It's, it's interesting, because I want to address your earlier points. But I feel like that's quite a western approach. I feel that, you know, I mean, Samsung was effectively government sponsored, is effectively government sponsored, lots of history there. And it doesn't actually make a lot of profit, but it makes a lot of stuff. And it employs a lot of people. And a tradition in Toyota is that the eldest son, and his son, who is adopted, even if he's 50 years old, goes and starts a new business, and they look to diversify. And then they can potentially in some of these things fail, some of these things work. And you would, you would follow this sort of route, if you could own all the risk. And I think that's part of it. The reason that the construction sector is structured the way it is, because a lot of people inside the sector complain, that is the fragmentation. That's what's causes the problem. But the reason it's structured that way is to mitigate risk. Because that allows things to go wrong, that allows certain projects to fail, it allows certain products to fail, without the whole thing coming down. If you try and do it all together, you still can't control of the risks, you still can't control the cost of materials, because then you know, where do you stop? Where would you stop, if you wanted to do an end to end infrastructure company, you would need to own the quarries, you would need to own the logistics companies, you would need a stake in the logistics in the infrastructure, you would you know, and then you need all of the designers. I mean, it would be amazing. But this going all the way back to the symphony analogy, you can't write a major programs Symphony on your own, it is not, you know, a symphony is X number of instruments, you know, it needs that overall vision, and the composer can bring that, and then the conductor can turn that into something magical. But the in our analogy, the the violinist is also part of the composition team, as is that the percussion, you know, everybody has this part to play. So that is where the extra complexity comes in. And you can't just bring all of that stuff together, it needs to be in these disciplines for you know, being able to kind of mitigate this risk. But it's it's there in that we all want a symphony that basically has a handover, and that's when Rockstar architects often continue to get amazing commissions and go huge, they have a budget and over time. But they'll get the work because they there, you will feel the hand of the composer and there's that beauty to it. But if you're dealing with infrastructure services, you know, maybe I do want a pretty station every now and again. But ultimately, we're looking for that service delivery, we're looking for that efficiency. So we aren't going to have one composer that we can work better to ensure that, you know, to go back to this analogy, because I'm just going to keep using it because I really love this analogy. Everybody does their own composing, having been given a brief terms up to a meeting, and everybody plays their music all at once. And it's the first time anybody's heard it. And that's that's the negotiation process. Because that sounds awful. Everybody's you know, might not be in the same tempo might not be in the same key, you know, all these different issues. I'm not a music writer, by the way, I'm just, you know, I love this analogy. And I love going deep on these things. So this view of a symphony, this view of a major programmers, it's an organic, human interaction, by following digital processes, whether we call them digital twins or not, you know, like concurrent engineering, we can listen to the music and we can get together and we can make sure that we are in harmony earlier. Because there's so often that, you know, I've seen this on so many projects where, you know, different disciplines that we're managing will do a certain amount of work to a certain level with no regard to other people. And that means that you create all these problems, and that can be resolved, but it requires a very talented composer to make that happen. So that says,
Riccardo Cosentino 39:35 Let me let me take on that analogy, because I think is phenomenal. And we've actually done some work with an orchestra coming in and showing us teamwork through the eyes of an orchestra.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 39:47 So really, yeah, so did not know that's not a plan. That was fascinating. But you know, ultimately, the way that an orchestra works, they're actually listening to each other live so you know the reader sheet music and Neil, you are musician, but they read a sheet music. But ultimately, there's live feedback that you receive for the other members of the orchestra and you adapt your play, and you also adapt to the to the conductor. And so I think if I, if I take the analogy further, if you have an orchestra of 10,000 people, there is no way that you can do that without the aid of a digital tool or something that helps you manage the volume of people and the volume of feedback that you have in an organization that big. So we now get into a scale of things where the human itself is not like a conductor won't be able to conduct 10,000 people, I can do 5060 you now start having 1000 10,000 You're gonna end multiple conductors, how do they are multiple conductor to to each other, but they're only handing over sheet music? Yes.
Neil Thompson40:51 So you're, you're, you're onto something that I, here's a thought experiment, okay.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 40:59 I'm here for it
Neil Thompson41:00 building things we've been doing for a very long time. Arguably, there are other professions that are up for the competition of the longer the oldest profession, but building things soldier and coordinating things, we probably build things before we decided to protect them. So I'd go as far to say that coordinating people to build things is probably the, as a human endeavor, we've done the longest than other things apart from you know, childbirth, and all those sorts of things, right? It's one of them. It's probably the top five in the top five things we've been doing since the beginning of time, right? So my thought experiment is is is are we actually the most advanced industry in terms of trying to coordinate ourselves commercially, because we've been through that journey. And the reason the reason why I say that is the thing that fascinates me is how industries sort of consolidate, and diffuse and consolidate and diffuse over time. And what's happening with the digital implementation of the entertainment industry, I think it's an interesting thing, because in the music industry, you've got Spotify, and Apple music, itunes or whatever. There's some other ones, but they're like the two main players, right? Your Pepsi, coke, or those two. And if anything is probably just Spotify, I'd imagine the level of users I don't meet many people that aren't on Spotify. But anyway, so there's there's a high degree of consolidation in that space, which I think's interested in compared to movies and TV, where I'm almost to the point of thinking, there's all these subscriptions out there. You were if you wanted to have access to everything, you've got to subscribe to about 10 different services. And I think that markets on the route of being sort of broken and ripe for consolidation, I think we've, we've got this conundrum of are we going to be the symphony of 10,000 people that needs coordinating? Or is do we need sort of bring it together breaking apart? Do any coming together? I have failing to get it to work from a digital perspective and how the tools will help us do it is these will break down into sort of larger, larger coordinated integrator units then then where we are right now we are labor is devised through speciality too much it's too fragmented, too. There's too many specific jobs to do. You think about the role of the master building the architects over time and how that's been broken down to just what it is today. Sorry, to the any architecture people listening, but it's, it's reality, the role of the master builder of the architect is, is no more I mean, in the UK, we have the quantity surveyor, and it's a slightly different thing in the States, where the architect does still sort of hold on to that role. But yeah, we've sort of broken up our professions so much and atomize them that they've become impossible to coordinate to the point of probably need to reconsolidate them and that that's comes full circle to how technology enables contracts.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 44:02 Absolutely, that a specialism it is a it gives you certainty, you know, if you have a chartered architect or a chartered engineer, you are expecting certain levels of capability and responsibility and and they will behave in certain ways. So, you've got that kind of certainty, but then in the actual implementation of that, that's that's when it all kind of falls apart by the wayside, not what apart it does work, you know, these things get built, and the risk is managed, and, and all of these things. So I agree with you, I do think it'd be interesting to see from scratch if we started or what, what roles would we have, and what specialisms would we need? Because I don't think they'd be in the current hierarchy as it stands. But then, as I want to move over to new products and services and finding new ways of doing things because, you know, here are the professional disciplines, it's, you know, what you're gonna get from them, in a sense, because they are chartered, and you know, they are insured, and you know, they have these businesses and you know what you're gonna get. But when you're trying to do new things, or new ways of doing things, these, the digital twin, as Neil said, he knows the platform for change, because now we know what's happening, we can see what's happening. And we can implement new processes, we can implement new measures, and we can know we can really manage that dynamic. But that area is actually quite consolidated. You know, there's a few design tools and these organizations, you know, like Autodesk, and Bentley, are growing through procurement. And they are also doing cloud storage effectively, you know, with some with some amazing bells and whistles, and they are doing these coordination pieces. But how do you get the new tools in there the things that are we have developed this, this tool, this innovative thing that can improve how you do things? How does that get in there, because we have this professional unit on one side and a technology unit on the other, and they're very separate, and they shouldn't be.
Neil Thompson46:20 So this is the interesting thing that's happened in that sector is, they've, as I said, the technology sector in general is they've gone from selling boxes and CDs of software, they've moved into the clouds. And through application programming, programming interfaces, APIs, have shifted from selling boxes of CDs through to essentially I mean, there's the analogy, but the press of the button of the function that you want to use, essentially, charging on a draw circle, press the circle button, the API call for the circle, and I get micro charged. So instead of paying my two or 3000 pounds a year for my, my Revit license, I then start paying maybe a cent for every button click. And that's sort of the spectrum. And I wonder, I wonder if it's the same thing for us. Ricardo, we are we still selling boxes of software? In this world of these big infrastructure projects? Were actually shouldn't we be looking at more micro contracts, and the micro contracts can't be implemented physically, as in on paper, or between people, it can only be administered with technology? Would we end up in a world where we just have 1000s of tiny contracts that build up into this sort of nexus of an agreement that would build infrastructure versus trying to draw a big circle around it and say,
Riccardo Cosentino 47:51 I think micro contracts? Yes. I think every time you introduce an interface, you're introducing complexity. So a fasn, or micro contracts is a 1000s of interfaces. Now, you that definitely would not advocate for their big advocate to reduce complexity. That's why I'm also that's also why I'm saying remove private finance from from PFI, don't do PFI remove the private finance because that adds a layer of complexity that major programs struggle to deal with. And that's, that's my previous episode, if you're interested. But just to take it back. You know, we we talked about the the analogy of the, the orchestra. And ultimately, I think we're at an inflection point. And I like your journey through time, you know, what we've been building major programs since the pyramids and even before, so clearly, they can be built without digital tools. However, if you want to build it, without digital tools, you need to accept that you might have some slaves building it for you. And I think that's, that's where we are for major programs. You know, we can continue doing it well, how we've been doing it for the last 100 years, but you know, society is changing. The needs of society is changing the needs of the people working in the major programs are different. So you need to adopt the major programs. And I think the only way you're going to do it, is by adopting new processes and new technologies and you know, digital twin, I think captures most of those.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 49:26 So, I think the digital approach is very important, but it is not. On our last our last podcast in the digital twin fanclub last podcast, we were discussing that at board level, I mean, I know major programs have boards, there is often a person for this. So if there is a technology aspect, then it's the Chief Technology Officers role to take responsibility for that. Whereas what we actually talking about is achieving our goals and performance. And these are, you know, you would not have a chief pencil officer or a chief paper officer. And for the same reason you shouldn't have at work, you should have a chief technology officer, but they should, they are not the ones who are responsible for if anything vaguely digital comes up, we just pass it over to them. It it is addressing all of these issues. So we have our own technology stacks that we use in the built environment, but we also have these professional disciplines and to not apply them together is to basically take the costs of both and try and smush them together to make benefits, that doesn't work.
Neil Thompson50:49 So I think Ben Flyvbjerg book has to get big things done. backs up my my theory of big programs are not just big programs to deliver. One of the best books written in forever brilliant. My point here is, these big, these big programs aren't just infrastructure programs that IT programs. And they have to be treated as such. So I don't agree with the OS passing over to the technology person yours. Because what you're technically saying is you shouldn't have a CIO either, because the IT infrastructure just sort itself out this, I think it's it's in our world is this project technology, stuff that we do to get the project done. And then there's IT infrastructure for the enterprise. And those two things are kept at arm's length from each other. And I think the journey that we need to go on is bringing them together. So it's not about not having a Chief Technology Officer, it's about actually understanding that the IT infrastructure is so complex, for major programs that your major program is an IT projects, and they are run, they are ran in slightly different ways. And you require that management structure because a project director that is very good at coordinating a site of builders is a very different skill set to getting IT infrastructure that you can't mix them up, but they require to be in the same room at certain points. So that's, that's that's a challenge. I just, I did want to change one thing about the micro contracts whilst whilst I've got the microphone. So imagine being Paul McCartney, back in the, in the 60s, and you're you're the CEO of Spotify, and you get the you get the opportunity, you go back in time, you get the opportunity to go to Paul McCartney and say, Do you know in the future, we're going to charge everybody per stream, per listen of your song, he'd say the same thing. I said, Well, how someone's going to run around with like a cone and listen out, for when you're listening to it and charge the money. They've got no digital payments, then there's no internet, there's nothing. So they're just thinking, you're someone's gonna go around on a bike and knock on the door. And I heard you listen to The Beatles, I take 50 pay off you. It's not that as it's I think there is an aspect of technology is going to enable us to have those types of, of management. Yes, there's complexity. But technology lowers the risk to be able to absorb the risk of the complexity. So just there's just my challenge on that one.
Riccardo Cosentino 53:27 I think we're seeing the same thing. I mean, it's it's major programs are getting more and more complex, because not just the complexity of what you're designing and building but also the environment they operate, right. It's political, social, political. So you need to help to manage that complexity. And I think you're right. I mean, it's digital is what is going to help you and we don't even know how it's going to help us today. Because we don't know what tomorrow is bringing.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 53:57 Yeah, but but similarly to almost to back you up to be the peacemaker, as is my want. You didn't You didn't, Spotify was not built overnight, you know, and you needed that infrastructure. So you need that. And again, I'm gonna use the word digital twin, but that way of measuring progress of measuring quality, you can't, you couldn't do micro contracts, you couldn't slap a micro contract system. Without that, that supporting technology, that measurement, that understanding of how things are actually working. So it certainly feels absolutely right, that there is an IT infrastructure aspect to running these, these these major programs. And if you don't, if you choose not to make those decisions, someone is going to have to make those decisions or those decisions don't get made and for my experience of major programs, you can end up with these huge transaction costs is very basic. What might seem very basic interface isn't going to be Share my costings, I'm going to share my project plan I'm going to share my designs, becomes something that requires a superstar, to solve somebody who is an amazing integrator of systems, and done some of that. So you get very good at working out how different systems work and behave them, connecting them all up and getting the people to connect, and connect up, etc. But without that, underpinning technology, without implementing these tools, making these decisions, knowing that you need to make those decisions, you are just setting yourself up for all sorts of costs of just hours, you know, I have seen projects where to share data would add a day, every every two weeks, to a technicians time, per team. And when you scale that up, it's just it's just a huge amount of waste that you could have avoided by knowing that you needed to make that decision early in the program. And making it might not be the best solution. And that's often a problem, I think, in the built environment, you know, always looking for, what's the perfect solve all answer, what we can get as close as we can to that. And then we need to be pragmatic and move on with our lives. But for all that is holy, in the whole, please don't just not make the decision and let that problem cascade into the supply chain. Because you will end up with lots of bits of paper, and lots of waste. And lots of people are hanging around waiting for other people to do things.
Riccardo Cosentino 56:40 Yeah, I think I think if you want to use an analogy from NASA, since we talk about digital twin, you know, if you want faster, better, cheaper, you got to figure out and different way of doing things. Because otherwise, if you just do it the way we've been doing it, you're not going to achieve that, as I said, I mean, we innovation has always brought us forward and allowed us to do things better, faster and cheaper throughout the centuries. And I think this is another inflection point where we need to, we need to look at how do we get?
Henry Fenby-Taylor 57:11 Yeah, and there are some innovative new companies, I'm thinking about the, you know, everybody loves throwing the Toyota example out there, and the Kanban process, etc. And lots of American car companies were invited to Toyota and went and saw how they did things. But they weren't able to implement those processes. And perhaps they're being implemented now. But certainly at the time, there were cultural issues, there were expectations, you know, people's jobs, this is my job, and you're changing my job. And this, this applies to car companies, individual consultancies and construction companies, but also to the disciplines to the engineer to the architect, etc. So there are organizations out there that are delivering new models. And we have to give those a chance, in my view, otherwise, you know, it's not broken enough to fix is the danger. But it is pretty broken.
Riccardo Cosentino 58:15 On there, we all agree, I think,
Neil Thompson58:19 yeah, I guess in summary, you know, I know I didn't agree with Henry, but this is me agreeing with Henry about the technology role. I technology leadership is for all of us. Tonight, as your leadership, you know, it, especially in the context of navigating major programs is an awful lot of people do assume that somebody else is going to give them a tour at some point. And as a stereotypical, you know, someone from the IT department is going to install a new toy on my laptop, when I wake up Monday morning, and I'll be inconvenienced by it, and I'm open about it. And then I've got my new toy and I crack on it doesn't, it doesn't work like that you have to you have to engage with what technology is doing and understand it as part of, you know, we're talking to people that design commercial environments. And that's hard enough on its own. And unfortunately, there's another dimension to that, which is technology leadership. And if you want to be a good designer of commercial environments, you do have to do some homework on where technology is at and how does it impact the planning? And yeah, yeah, it's like concluding point for you.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 59:33 Fantastic concluding point. Really, we're gonna lead exciting to see that there's lots actually happening around the world there is increasing amount of connected decision making taking place. And I'm here for
Riccardo Cosentino 59:48 So are we are really going to leave Neal with the last point, Henry?
Henry Fenby-Taylor 59:52 Yeah, well, I just I started talking because I just couldn't possibly let that I think that was just my podcasting impulse is that always To finish it off, so my final point is, I totally agree with him. Does that mean that I got the last word, but you've got the last point.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:00:11 I want to thank you both. terrific discussion today. I truly enjoyed it. honored to have you on my podcast. And yeah, hopefully this is this is something that we're going to continue.
Neil Thompson1:00:23 Yeah, absolutely. Thank you.
Henry Fenby-Taylor 1:00:25 Thanks for having us. Really good.
Riccardo Cosentino 1:00:27 Thank you. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we'll we'll continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 16 Dec 2024 | Here’s What I’ve Learned About Our Industry So Far with Riccardo Cosentino | S2 EP23 | 00:11:24 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino wraps up season two by revisiting the key themes and groundbreaking insights that defined the season. From the transformative power of AI in project management to the essential role of human collaboration, Riccardo explores how major programmes are evolving and shares his vision for the future. This season featured distinguished guests who brought fresh perspectives on technology, leadership, stakeholder management, and public perception. Riccardo reflects on these conversations, highlighting how AI-driven tools, digital twins, and predictive analytics are revolutionizing infrastructure projects while emphasizing the enduring importance of empathy, trust, and inclusivity. “While AI and technology are reshaping how we plan and execute major programmes, it’s important to remember that success in infrastructure isn’t just about the tools we use—it’s about the people who bring these projects to life. As we navigated the complexities of infrastructure, we often touched on the human element that underpins successful project delivery.” – Riccardo Cosentino
Key Takeaways
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 03 Jul 2023 | Meeting Gender Bias with Shormila Chatterjee | Building Bridges: Women in Infrastructure | S1 EP 5 | 00:27:31 | |
In episode five of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Shormila Chatterjee, Acting Director at Government of Canada Infrastructure on the high-speed rail project. With 14 years of Canada-wide expertise in large-scale public private partnership (PPP) projects, Shormila has led various aspects of several high profile P3 pursuits and design engineering projects in Canada. She also actively contributes to Women in Infrastructure Network's Ottawa Chapter and serves as a board member of PAL Ottawa. In today’s conversation, Riccardo and Shormila go beyond the resume to speak about the adversity (and highlights) of Shormila’s career in infrastructure, including meeting ageism and gender bias at the decision making tables.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to navigate major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino I bring over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's a business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see what the conversation takes us. Shormila Chatterjee, the acting director of infrastructure Canada, is an ally accomplished infrastructure professional with 14 years of experience in both the public and private sectors focused on social and public infrastructure is evident in our work on the high frequency rail project, a major initiative in Canada. Prior to her current role, she served as primary contact for prominent clients like the City of Ottawa, and Public Services and Procurement Canada, while at SNC Lavalin Shormila. The ability to establish strong relations with public sector counterparts enabled her to effectively address challenges throughout the project lifecycle achieving favorable outcomes. In addition to a professional achievements Shormila actively contributes to the woman and infrastructure network Ottawa chapter, and serves as a board member of the Powell Ottawa. Air involvement with this organization reflects our dedication to supporting undeserved communities, particularly senior arts workers. In other words, show millas commitment to delivery and inclusivity is evident in our effort to create equal opportunities and cultivate inclusive work environments. Hello, welcome to another episode of navigating major programs. Today I'm here with Shormila. Are you doing? Sure Mila,
Shormila Chatterjee 02:15 I'm good. Thanks, Ricardo. How are you?
Riccardo Cosentino 02:17 Not too bad, not too bad. Thank you for joining us. It's a pleasure to have you on the program. You and I go back a few years. So why don't we get right into it? You know, I think the audience has heard your bio. So why don't we just start with what what is your current role in infrastructure?
Shormila Chatterjee 02:36 Sure. Thanks. Thanks so much for having me Riccardo. So I'm currently actually currently right now I'm on maternity leave. But I'm essentially an acting director at infrastructure Canada on the high frequency rail project, which he had mentioned is one of the largest infrastructure projects in Canada, the in that's going to connect Toronto to Quebec City in the in the next couple of years, which is really exciting.
Riccardo Cosentino 02:59 I guess it's on point. I mean, this is a podcast about women in infrastructure. So I think it's really important that you're actually on maternity leave. These are the things that happen. So I'm glad that I'm actually having a guest that is taking taking a leave of absence in order to take care of a newborn baby think it's very important. So how did you first get into the industry?
Shormila Chatterjee 03:24 Well, I think like most people, it's by accident. But I started in mining and metallurgy at SNC levelin, when I'm fresh out of school, and the infrastructure division was based out of Vancouver at the time, and they wanted to set up a Toronto office to respond to, you know, the creation of Metrolinx and restructure Ontario, kind of this new Ontario business. So they created a group and we're just looking for people and I happen to hear about it and wanted to join because it sounded really interesting. The projects that I was working on, while interesting, were in very remote places. So I was looking for something that had this mix of being able to apply my technical skills, but also be in more urban environments. So then I was one of the first few employees and the infrastructure that was called transportation at the time, but the infrastructure group in essence is the Toronto office.
Riccardo Cosentino 04:16 And was it always your plan to build a career in infrastructure? Or did you stumble upon it?
Shormila Chatterjee 04:22 Yeah, so I sort of stumbled upon it I think for me i i did civil engineering in school and that's quite a wide like you I guess ready Riccardo but like it's a wide pretty wide of things that you can do with civil engineering. I wanted to actually eventually move back to India because I had went to high school in India and moved back to India and and work there but then I had stumbled on infrastructure here in Canada and ended up wanting to stay and such an active industry. So I Yeah, sort of fell in love with it by accident.
Riccardo Cosentino 04:54 You fell in love during your undergraduate degree or as you started your career. And
Shormila Chatterjee 05:02 yeah, I would say as I sit here, what what I love, I think of engineering and has, which is what I continue to love in my job now is that engineering and also infrastructure and particularly projects is a team sport. And for me, that's what gets me up in the morning. Like, I'm not a sort of dog eat dog type of person. Like, I like that we're all in this together, and we're all trying to achieve a common goal. And I love working with people who, you know, have that same sort of drive to, to move the needle forward every day. And that's what I really love about sort of engineering is, you know, we're all writing the bell curve together. And now in projects, we're all trying to, to, to build something meaningful together. And that's what i i Like I said, that's, that's the thing that makes me most excited about my job.
Riccardo Cosentino 05:53 And how do you choose SNC Lavell? And as an employer?
Shormila Chatterjee 05:56 That's a good question. I it was they had, I think I had applied to them as a summer student between third and fourth year and got a job. And then they actually called me the week before my finals in my fourth year and offered me a job right into school. So I didn't look anywhere else. I have to say, so it kind of relieved that stress. And it was great, you know, working in mining, especially, I think if I had not stayed in infrastructure mining was a great career for a young engineer. It was very autonomous. I got to work in a gold mine in Nevada and work in projects in Madagascar, and Pakistan. So like, it was really interesting. But like I said, you know, very remote locations, but a good good start to my career for sure.
Riccardo Cosentino 06:44 The Madagascar that's good project is one that I touched. Yeah. touched on i My early mind in my early days, and I see. Yeah, a bit of a marquee project. He was a nickel mine
Shormila Chatterjee 06:57 was a nickel mine. Yeah, yeah.
Riccardo Cosentino 06:59 Very interesting. Very interesting project. Yeah. Okay. So that's a good segue into the next question, which is, what were the some of the highlights of your career so far?
Shormila Chatterjee 07:11 Yeah, I've been quite lucky. I mean, for me, I think it's obviously the Confederation Line project is one that stands out, I was lucky to be from, you know, the bid phase where it's was was where we met over 10 years ago now, but the bid all the way to the first few years of execution. You know, I remember being in city council when the mayor announced us to prepare for proponent and he was quite emotional when he did that. And just, you know, like, seeing people move their families from across the world to work on this project was really exciting. So, you know, say what you will about Confederation Line, but it's definitely changed the city's makeup and I think, created the sense of, you know, this, you know, this desire for an expansive LRT network in Ottawa, which is exciting. So, I really liked working on that project. And then also, like, I've learned a lot from the ones that we, we didn't always win. So some of the, you know, the Close, but no cigar projects we I learned a lot from as well. So but yeah, the Confederation Line definitely stands out.
Riccardo Cosentino 08:16 Yeah, I mean, we both we've both worked on that you worked on it a bit longer than me. But yeah, I don't think you were involved in the, in the public inquiry.
Shormila Chatterjee 08:26 I was not, I got to take my daughter, I'm the first day that the train opened the mascot, so that was me.
Riccardo Cosentino 08:37 Right. Yeah, I think I think that project is actually it's a very interesting one. Because even though there were a few things that went wrong, you can learn a lot from things that go wrong. And for me, you know, it's been a very, very interesting journey. See it from really from RFQ to today, we've been engaging through the public inquiry, and really learning how complex major projects are. And sometimes it's easy to criticize them without actually understanding what the challenges are. And it's not that simple. And so, yeah, I think I think, yeah, the could, we could write a book about Confederation Line and hopefully one day we will.
Shormila Chatterjee 09:21 Yeah, no, absolutely. Really interesting experience.
Riccardo Cosentino 09:26 So okay, let's let's jump into the into the part of the conversation that is related to working in a male dominated environment. I know you I've known you for many years. I know that you know, on the surface you fit right in. But the interesting to know what what, what has been your experience and challenges in working in such an industry?
Shormila Chatterjee 09:50 Yeah, so I was kind of thinking about that. And I realized that I feel like I faced more resistance later, as I progress later on in my career than when I did when I was a junior, I think when I was a junior engineer, I had, I've always had great managers, I have to say, but I never really felt the the sort of apprehension of being in a room or unwelcome in a room as I did. Oh, I think pretty much when I started around the time when I actually started working with you, is when I realized because I was in the same at the same table as decision makers, and I think the challenge with projects is, you start usually with a new team. And not everybody knows each other. And, you know, on day one, I was sort of doing a bit of a Rolodex in my head that almost pretty much on day one without fail, at least one man who is probably 10 to 15 years older than me, was I was like, What is she doing and through and sort of met me with some resistance, but and then, by the end of the project, we're sending each other Christmas cards. So it was like, but I, I would say that that was my challenge is sort of, I mean, I don't think I even wore my iron ring until, you know, pretty much seven, eight years into my career, because I didn't really need it before. But I felt like I needed that as like a sort of at least the minimum ticket to entry. Well, I must have done something right to, you know, have that or it's it was really a token. But I felt that, you know, it's been more in my recent history that I had felt that at that sort of leadership or decision making tables where the resistance was called, and then, you know, I don't consider myself usually the smartest person in the room. But I'm definitely probably one of the hardest working and hopefully you can attest to that. But so eventually realizing that, you know, we're all in it. And you know, trying to reach the same goal. Like I said before, it was what got us through it. But that's really what I feel like when I faced a lot of resistance.
Riccardo Cosentino 11:57 Do you recall or do you? Do you mind sharing? If you do recall some other examples where that how that resistance manifested?
Shormila Chatterjee 12:08 Yeah, I mean, I think I've I've had, you know, one person explicitly asked for me to be removed from a project because they didn't know if I was capable or competent, without having actually asked or known about my history. And I think especially being on the kind of commercial financial side, dealing with engineers or construction folks, they sometimes there's a feeling like, I'm out to get them or I don't necessarily understand their point of view. So I have had, yeah, some pretty explicit acts of rebellion against me on the team. And like I said, luckily, we sort of rode through it and got through the other side, but because I'm not, you know, I'm not a wallflower. Like, you have said, like, I will express my opinion, I'm there for a reason. So yeah, so it's been there's been some some rocky roads.
Riccardo Cosentino 13:13 But nevertheless, you succeeded. I mean, you've had a pretty, pretty interesting career so far, with lots of opportunities ahead. And so what what do you think has helped you succeed? I mean, your hard work, obviously.
Shormila Chatterjee 13:26 Yeah, I think for me, you know, I A Well, one thing, too, that I've I tried to maybe do consciously in the beginning of a project as well, especially, is to be vocal about when I don't know something, you know, working with a lot of technical people, I think they get what, what I've heard this term before, and I use it a lot is analysis paralysis, like nobody wants to say anything unless they know everything. And, you know, when you're, especially when you're in a, in a, in a bidding environment, where there's very little information, and you have to make very consequential decisions based on very little information, you sort of have to go with your gut. And it's okay not to know, and sort of being the one that's very vocal about like, I don't know the answer to this, but let's try to sort of risk assess the situation and move things forward. I think being vocal about that is important in the beginning, and I think that that's helped me and then also being decisive. I think we work with a lot of people who are, you know, you're expected the pieces, kind of incredible of what you're expected to do in, you know, six to eight months of a bid opportunity. And so people who are not used to that and they're used to kind of five to 10 year long projects, they don't, they're not used to kind of moving things forward at that type of pace. So, you know, I'm happy to take the fall if something goes wrong, but you know, I just want to move things forward. So being decisive, especially early on in a project opportunity I think is really important. I try to try to be that the, you know, the sort of the buck stops with me attitude, I think helps
Riccardo Cosentino 15:10 that's probably why you and I get along. Yeah,
Shormila Chatterjee 15:13 yeah, exactly. Like, I think you just, you know, it's, it might be the wrong decision six months from now, but you have to make a decision, you know,
Riccardo Cosentino 15:22 and, you know, other guests in the previous episode that she talked about the challenges of being, you know, one of the few women in the room, if not the only woman in the room, and the challenge was, you know, do I do I modify my behavior to be accepted, or be more myself that your experience in the past, and you find yourself having to modify you, your behavior, or who you are in order to fit in? Is it something that you, you felt you had to do in order to be accepted in a male dominated environment, you or you didn't care?
Shormila Chatterjee 16:00 I think I, I don't think it's modified. But I do compartmentalize myself quite a bit. I mean, like, you and I have a lot of conversations about sort of Shop Talk, like, I like talking. And I think that's the thing, like, I like talking about the industry and work, and I don't naturally sort of lead my personal life with my I sort of like to compartmentalize those parts of my life. So I don't think I'm sort of censoring or, or altering who I am at all. But it's just like, a different facet of my life is at work. And then a different facet of my life is at home. And so I that's, that's what I just I'm, I don't think it's being in a male dominated, I'm just sort of that type of person. And that's just how I am, but I don't think I've changed myself. And I would say it would be less about being in a male dominated as, when I was younger, I felt that I was very young, like in a, you know, that was more of a thing. I'm that's caught up to me now. But But before I've generally worked with, like I said, just really great managers and mentors, but I never felt I had to diminish myself in anyway.
Riccardo Cosentino 17:20 Well, I guess that's a perfect segue to my next question, you know, how important is mentorship for for professional success? Have you had any, any particular mentor and female mentor in this industry?
Shormila Chatterjee 17:34 Yes, I've been very lucky to have, I would say, not just mentors, but champions in my career, like they've really all pushed me. And we've had this sort of common thread of stretch goals, like trying to push me further than I think I could go. And that's really, is what propelled my own kind of confidence and like stepping into my own light, which I wish I didn't do kind of when I was younger in my career. And so my mentors have been really instrumental in that. And I think it's important to that I've had both female and male mentors, and I would also suggest that women, mentor men and men, mentor women, just so everybody sort of can see the challenges that everybody else goes through. But I've had great female mentors as well. And I think what they taught me is, you know, you can have it all, just not all at once. And that is what I sort of believe, anyways, is that, you know, there's kind of a season for when to sort of, like, really accelerate your career and sort of, then if you want to focus on the family, if that's what you choose to do, you know, you can always kind of still be very fulfilled in your career, but then have this whole other sort of aspect to your career and hit your stride. You know, when your kids are older, and sort of seeing that ebb and flow of people's progression has been really inspiring for me for you know, seeing these women doing amazing things in their, you know, 50s and 60s, is something that I really, like it gives me this, this, this excitement for the future rather than, that's when people slow down, you know, and that's not the case at all. So that's what I've learned a lot from, from my female mentors, and I'm lucky now that I'm in the at the point in my career where I'm mentoring men and women and so like, I find that really exciting as well.
Riccardo Cosentino 19:34 Interesting. Very interesting. Okay, so we talked about your past, we talked about your experiences, what are your hopes for the industry as a whole? Like,
Shormila Chatterjee 19:47 I mean, that's a loaded question. But I think for me, I, I mean, and you will probably remember this as well, and maybe better than me, but, you know, I see a lot of rhetoric around sort of collaborative modeling and and working on a project that has that as well. But like, I think projects are people. And you know, a lot of what we are talking about now how a lot of these models will solve all our problems is a lot of similar rhetoric of what was said when p3 is first became really popular. And so I don't think that models are here to solve all our problems, it's, we really have to sort of look at behavior. And so as an industry, I hope we take these tenants that are coming out of collaborative models and apply them just as an industry as a whole. Because we can collaborate in any in data, like you, but it did, you don't need a model to tell you to do that. So I hope that we take this time to sort of can reflect, and then particularly now that I'm on the public sector side, like what does that mean, as an owner, you know, you we are have to be a sophisticated buyer now. And it's not just to be a contract administrator anymore. So, you know, it's that third P in in in p3 is to be a partner. And it's the same now in a collaborative contract, there's this expectation of an active participant from an owner. So what does that mean? And, and how can we be sort of better partners to each other moving forward? And, you know, I hope that we can just move the behavioral piece forward, regardless of the model.
Riccardo Cosentino 21:29 Yeah, that's a good aspiration for the industry. I have to say that the, ultimately, the collaboration, you do need a framework around the collaboration, like it's not it's, it's not just the People. Obviously, you need the people, you need the culture, you need the leadership. Yeah. But you also need the legal and commercial framework to incentivize that. Because ultimately, I think that's, that's the problem with PPPs is that although the name has been deceiving, called a partnership. But when you actually look at the commercial, legal framework of a PPP, it's everything back collaborative is a zero sum game,
Shormila Chatterjee 22:12 right
Riccardo Cosentino 22:13 And so, you know, sure, you can achieve the collaboration. But that's by chance, not by design, because the model is not designed commercially, legally, to incentivize collaborations as zero sum game. But hopefully, yeah, I agree with you. Like, it's more than just the rhetoric, and it does start with people in leadership. I completely agree with you. I mean, ultimately, you need a capable owner, you need, you need trained individuals. And eventually, though, you also need the legal and commercial framework to support the leadership and the people.
Shormila Chatterjee 22:54 Right. Yeah,
Riccardo Cosentino 22:55 yeah. My Yeah. Another guest Mariska said the same thing, because she's working on a lot of claims. And even though I'm talking myself out of a job, it would be good if it was less, less adversarial.
Shormila Chatterjee 23:09 Yeah, absolutely.
Riccardo Cosentino 23:11 Would you help encourage more women to pursue a career in infrastructure? And as your experience being positive enough?
Shormila Chatterjee 23:19 I would absolutely. And I think one thing that I love, too, about the industry is how small it is, surprisingly, and I, it hit me again, when I moved to Ottawa, you know, five years ago, and thought I didn't have a network here. And you realize infrastructures, not even six degrees of separation, it's probably three. And so there's this real kind of sort of camaraderie amongst people, at least in Canada. And so I think it's very everybody's sort of, there's just a, just a really kind of great sense of connection and community. Exactly. And so I really, I really appreciate that and, and, you know, like, talking about maternity leave, like, making your kids like my older daughter calls it, her. It's her mom's train, you know, every time she sees it, and for better or for worse, but those things are really it's it is like, sort of exciting, is it to be able to see the legacy building that you do is is something that you can really be proud of. So absolutely, I would definitely recommend it.
Riccardo Cosentino 24:29 What would you say to these women that you're encouraging? If you if somebody one of your mentor were to come to you and say, why should they join? Why should they join this industry?
Shormila Chatterjee 24:39 I think because there's a lot to learn, but also a lot of people need to hear diverse voices. And so to be able to just, you know, give because, you know, these these projects are supposed to be for communities and for the public. So how can we better serve people if there's more people that were being represented? Did in house you know, so the more people that we can have, and so women or people of color or indigenous people, like really, everybody who feels like they don't see themselves in these projects, or they feel like it doesn't really resonate with them, and then come work here, you know, there, I think there's just so much opportunity and you know, projects like high frequency rail, which is, you know, could be such a huge change to how passenger rail service is delivered over 1000 kilometers. Like that's something that we should have as many diverse voices on the on the project side, I think as we can so yeah, I think if to better serve our communities, we need as many voices at the table as we can.
Riccardo Cosentino 25:49 Yeah, I agree. Some of these projects are defined as nation building, right. So I do want everybody to help build a nation. Absolutely. Especially because I feel like Canada. Yeah. Well, thank you very much for the conversation. Shormila this this was entertaining and interesting, as usual. glad that you joined be
Shormila Chatterjee 26:10 it really appreciate being here. Yeah, we usually don't talk like this without a beer. But so this is new. But
Riccardo Cosentino 26:20 you don't know if I have one you can see for the screen right? Say well, you probably have a scotch.
Shormila Chatterjee 26:27 Yeah. Okay,
Riccardo Cosentino 26:32 well, thank you again, and have a good evening. We'll talk soon. Thank you so much. Bye now. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, where we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership, risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major problems and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 10 Mar 2025 | Embracing AI to Transform Risk Management in Construction with Luigi La Corte | 00:43:24 | |
Host Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Luigi La Corte, CEO and Co-Founder of Provision, a Toronto-based AI construction technology company. Luigi recounts his journey from working alongside his father’s contracting business to a role in P3 (Public-Private Partnerships) at Plenary, where he observed firsthand the mounting costs of construction disputes and claims. Driven by a desire to create positive change, Luigi launched Provision in 2022, evolving the venture through several pivots to its current mission—helping contractors and subcontractors identify and mitigate contractual risks early and effectively. Together, Riccardo and Luigi discuss the promise of AI in reducing disputes, optimizing processes, and ultimately aiming to put more profit into contractors’ pockets, thereby fueling a more innovative and rewarding construction industry for all. " I do think the industry is very receptive. They want to solve problems. And I don't think AI is a lot of hype. I think what it's done, especially in construction, is it's helped people standardize. One of the biggest problems in construction is that a lot of the information is contained within PDFs and unstructured documents. But now you can create a taxonomy for each of those things and plug them into, you know, the respective workflow. That's magic. And then also, LLMs can emulate some level of human thought and exercise some discretion in a very specific sense." – Luigi La Corte Key Takeaways
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 23 Sep 2024 | Revolutionizing Infrastructure: Unlocking AI’s Untapped Potential with Dev Amratia| S2 EP17 | 00:40:35 | |
In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino dives into an engaging conversation with AI visionary Dev Amratia, uncovering how AI is revolutionizing the infrastructure industry. Together, they explore the game-changing potential of harnessing data from over 760,000 global projects to forecast outcomes with precision, drastically improving risk management and efficiency. Dev reveals the untapped possibilities of AI, from smarter decision-making to reshaping the very way projects are delivered, offering insights that challenge traditional approaches and inspire a bold new future for infrastructure.
"What if we had the experience of 760,000 projects between the two of us and then worked on a project, wouldn’t we be hundreds of times more effective than we currently are?" – Dev Amratia
Dev is the Co-Founder and CEO of nPlan, where he is at the forefront of rethinking how project outcomes are forecasted and addressing risk in the built environment. With an aerospace engineering background and 9 years of capital project management experience, he combines both technical and commercial expertise to tackle complex challenges. Dev also co-authored the UK Government's AI Review (2017) and is a Chartered Engineer (CEng) through the Royal Institute of Mechanical Engineers.
Key Takeaways:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:
Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||
| 06 Nov 2023 | The Psychology of Major Programmes With Dr. Diana Nada | S1 EP 14 | 00:43:59 | |
“Projects get delivered by people and how we do things in our day to day life and how we make big decisions around our day to day life, whether it’s small or big, are actually very relatable on how we make decisions in the business world when funding, approving and delivering projects.”– Dr. Diana Nada Dr. Diana brings over 20 years of experience advising public and private sector clients on strategies and toolkits for best practices in improved capital project delivery and informed decision making. She is a regular industry contributor, a published scholar educator with over 25 speaking engagements. She is the current AAC Canada Region One director, and is a member of the ULI Public Development and Infrastructure Council and the UK APM Project Assurance SIG. Diana is one of the contributing authors to the 2023 first edition for A Guide to Auditing Programmes and Projects, published by APM. She was shortlisted as one of the 2020 A Woman Infrastructure Network, emerging leaders in Canada. Key Takeaways:
Links Mentioned:
The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:
Transcript: Riccardo Cosentino 00:05 You're listening to navigate major problems, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino brings over 20 years of major product management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University's day business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode, as I pressed the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us. Dr. Diana nada is a project management expert and advisory mega capital projects, a civil engineer by background with a PhD in project management from the University of Calgary. She brings over 20 years of experience advising public and private sector clients on strategies and toolkits for best practices in improved capital project delivery and informed decision making. She is a regular industry contributor, a published scholar educator with over 25 speaking engagement. She is the current AAC Canada region one director, and is a member of the ULI public development and infrastructure Council and the UK APM project assurance SIG. Diana is one of the contributing over to the 2023 first edition for a guide to auditing problems and project published by APM. She will show listed as one of the 2020 A woman infrastructure network, emerging leaders in Canada. Hello, everyone. Welcome to our new episode on navigating major programs. today. I'm here with Diana nada PhD. Diana did a dissertation a few years ago. And I was very intrigued by her dissertation. And so I asked her to join us today in the on the podcast. How are you doing, Diana? Great. All right. Diana Nada 02:15 Thank you, Riccardo for having me. Riccardo Cosentino 02:17 Nice to have you. Yeah, I took a lot of joy in reading your dissertation. And it's was quite interesting for me because it was written a few years ago. And some of the topic is still extremely relevant. But you know, maybe you can tell us a little bit more about your dissertation, why you picked it, and what do you learn from it? Diana Nada 02:37 Okay, so it's very interesting that we're having this conversation right now. Actually, I did defend the PhD, exactly 10 years ago, around October 1. So if it's been 10 years, and every time I check it, then you've made me go and look into it again. And and remember some of the reasons why I picked this or that. So it's very interesting to reflect after all of those years, maybe a bit about myself. I'm a civil engineer by background, but got very intrigued by project management early on, in my degree. Coming in, as a third culture kid with parents who are engineers, I decided to go into engineering, just probably not by choice, but expectation. My career has been very interesting that I grew up in Dubai. And by the time I graduated and finished my masters, it was very booming in Dubai early 2000s. And I ended up working in a lot of mega projects, a lot of big projects in with a lot of multinationals. In you see how projects get executed get funded. And for me, it was more of I've seen it from the side of delivery and working with a project management consultant. But then I worked also as a developer, and this gave me a bit of like, okay, I've worked on the same project on both sides of the table. And I could see things differently. So I wanted to step back and know more why, why projects go over budget, why there are scheduled delays. And I wanted to explore that and know more about it because project management is a very applied field. I felt that there is a lot in literature and research that actually doesn't get translated into the industry. And that's when I decided to move to Canada and did my PhD at the University of Calgary. Big thanks to my late supervisor, Professor Francis Hartman. I have to say when I started my degree, I presented a specific research interest And then the first day I met him, I said, I don't want to do that. And he was a great mentor. And I don't think I did my research, the outcome of it. And where I was few years later was what I anticipated. It was more of a journey, and a learning experience and a reflection of what I saw in Dubai, what I was seeing in Canada, it was the recession, the financial crisis has just started. By the time I graduated, there was the oil crisis in Calgary. So it's always an opportunity to just reflect on how things around you impact our projects get delivered. So what was your dissertation about? As a research topic, it was called Project Approval decisions exploring success factors, when I mentioned it, the first thing that most people think of is okay, this is about is this is very quantitative, it's about economic analysis, or value for money, etc. But I took a very different perspective, I took it from a qualitative aspect. It's a it's a qualitative research. At that point in time, I didn't know what is qualitative research. As an engineer, you're like thinking about numbers. So it was very intriguing, and I didn't think it applies. So what, as time went by, I learned that qualitative research is very interested in the project management field just because it's an interpretation of why we do specific things, how we solve complex problems. And and I think, in that sense of mega projects, or capital projects, you're dealing with a number of stakeholders, you're dealing with complexity, you're dealing with a timeframe that could be decades. Qualitative research gives you an opportunity to study this from a research base that is based on how people think I had to read a lot of psychology. I've learned a lot of terms like neuro economics, biases. And I remember when I was reading all of this, besides the academic research, part of like, what is qualitative research, I was very intrigued with the psychology and how our brain works. And I remember having conversations that I think it's very applicable to my day to day life, rather than to project management. And this was, for me a very eye opener, because projects get delivered by people, and how we do things in our day to day life and how we make big decisions around our day to day life, whether it's small or big, are actually very relatable on how we make decisions in the business world when funding approving delivering projects. Riccardo Cosentino 07:50 Yeah, it's very interesting. Yeah, I, you know, I also learned, when I did my master's degree, in major program management that major programs are treated, the research in major program is treated as a social science. It's very, very interesting, as well as yourself. I'm a civil engineer. And to me, mega projects were always concrete and rebar and, you know, ashphalt and numbers and, and then, you know, when you actually look at the research, you learned that no, it's more about the people. It's more about the biases. I think your your I can't believe how still relevant to your researches in today's world. You know, optimism bias, strategic misrepresentation is still a very relevant topic when it comes to understanding why major programs get delayed and over budget. And it doesn't seem but however, even though that's a well established cause nowadays, it doesn't seem to be a way, especially in the public sector to tackle that issue. You know, I think you mentioned in your research, Bent Flyvbjerg, and you know, is, you know, he's done the most work in translating the Daniel Kahneman research Prospect Theory from the field, the Kahneman and Treviski did into major programs. So they're in you talk about that. And, you know, I'm new to this academic field. And it's interesting to see that, even after 10 years is still relevant and still not being fully addressed. Diana Nada 09:30 Yes, I totally agree with you, even when I was doing it, and I was you read stuff that are 20 years ago, and you're like, oh, this didn't move. We didn't move the needle much in 20 years. And after I was done my PhD and actually before it, I went to the AAC conference and presented it as a pilot to just see how people are gonna react and then presented it few times after that point. When you talk about social sciences, soft skills, trust biases, It was a very different conversation. And people were very skeptical on what that means to project management, to design to construction. And now 10 years later, I think the conversation has shifted, there's more talk about what you've mentioned, like optimism, bias, strategic misrepresentation, the research by Professor Bent. And I remember reading, Thinking Fast and Slow, and was like, wow, really, this is applicable in how amazing or how much we actually need to do this things differently. Because the success rates of projects is really bad. And we all talk about how we should deliver differently and how we should do things in a different way. And only maybe the last few years. I can say maybe for the first time, there is an acceptance of maybe doing but it's it, we're going to see how this movement or how that shift in mindset will will, will take place. Riccardo Cosentino 11:06 Yeah, that that's, that's a very, very interesting point, and how, you know, the social science is actually at the core at the core of the success of major projects. And as an engineer, I always wondered, you know, because I know how projects are estimated, and I could not quite rationalize, if you're estimating a project, we're all very smart human beings, we can all determine we have all the statistical tools, we have all the past data, we have all the information, how can you how can we get this so wrong? How can we get the budget so wrong? I mean, we're smarter than that. And so it was refreshing when I learned, you know, the Bent theory about prospect theory about applying to mega project. And that to me was that, to me was the answer. It is like, okay, it's not about not being able to adapt the number to the right budget is just all these biases in these alternative ulterior motive, like strategic misrepresentation in the public sector. In order for in order for project to move forwards politician cannot afford to have the real budget, share publicly, because the sticker shock will stop the project for going forward. So there's always going to be a deflation of the project estimate, even at decision or the point of decision making, or the point of approval, because politicians and the public is not really prepared to accept the true cost of the project. And but then, then you end up in situation where there's there's a big confusion is five years, 10 years after the project was approved? Why is the budget not enough and you know, and then nobody looks backwards to why it was, you know, what happened at the decision making point, they all looked at? Oh, well, you know, the project was mismanaged. And sometimes that's the case in my experience, but it's not always the case. Sometimes you never had a chance to begin with, because if you're not given the proper resources to begin with, you're never going to be on time and on budget. Diana Nada 13:32 Yeah, yeah. And I had the same, I'd say a epiphany I was looking as like, yes, we are. How do we get the budget that wrong? And how do we get the schedule as well, because we are building something like we're putting a schedule, that's unrealistic, and a budget, that's not going to be met. A and that was the point in time when I was very curious, is this the environment I am working in? Is this the industry like construction? Is this different teams? And the research was mostly around, okay. It's not related to the industry, the most of the industries that are plagued with the same issues, whether you're looking at infrastructure, healthcare, it oil and gas, any any you name it, and it's not by the location across the world. And that's why the interesting part you mentioned is this critical point and when you make the decision to invest or want or approve the project, and that's what and that was a point when I wasn't very appreciative. Our what could go wrong at this point. And the fact that we actually start on the wrong footing, like right from that point, you approve a budget and a schedule that no one believes If you ask anyone they would know that this number is I would, in an extreme sense, a, an educated guess, the schedule. And later on you are evaluating the success of this project, like you said, by the people by the management of the people, the teams. Other factors, what you're actually not looking back to see, did we approve, did we do this right? Was this business case, fully representative of of all factors that we need, but then later on, I appreciated that you actually cannot predict the future at that point in time. And I think embracing this risk and change is important. Because no matter how much you learn at that point in time, you are trying your best. And it's based on limited or less information that you will know as you actually design and have a project because there is no project at that point in time. It's all numbers. And and I think that's why the qualitative part is important. Because the quantitative part takes the attention as a doc as a business case, and everything. But that qualitative and how we actually go about that decision and deliver on font is what, what actually we need to pay more attention to. And I think even right now, this aspect of the how we approved the project in to get the funding and to get it approved. And to get that signature and to get it sanctioned. I think this is where we will struggle for a bit. Because even though I'm going to speak about the environment in Canada, we are now in a phase where we are considering other models, this number still, we have not went back to see this this number, the right number we start from or not the right schedule or not. And that's even without considering that you're making this approval or this schedule 20 years, and then by the time you're actually on the ground, it's 20 years later, by the time this number is approved by a specific politician. This number probably stays the same for 10 years without inflation and escalation. And then you don't visit it, because you can't at that point in time, and you just keep going. Yeah, Riccardo Cosentino 17:33 I mean, they are according to Bent Flydjerg. I mean, part of the problem is, is that yes, I mean, it's correct that these numbers, once he's approved, it doesn't get changed. But I think the reality that the main, the main problem is that sometimes the number is is strategically deflated. Because if you actually calculate the right number and present the right number are gonna get is not going to get approved. And because in you know, there is, you know, there are, you know, Kahneman talks about it and Ben Flybjerg talks about it, you know, you can you can have an outside view. So you can you can do a benchmarking, you know, usually you can do bottom and bottom up estimate, which is not going to be perfect, because you don't know, as you said, you cannot. But, you know, by by also having a bottom up estimate a benchmarking estimate using an outside view, you could triangulate a better number. But so I don't think that predicting the future is the main issue, I think, is that the true cost of a project and the decision making, or the point that the shoe making point is just never something that politician can stomach. So there's always going to be a tendency to deflate it in order to get through. Diana Nada 18:55 Yep. Yeah. And, and even the sense of like, you cannot predict the future, but you can get better at it. Yes. And that's why Professor Bent talks about reference class casting and how you can actually look at how you have been delivering projects and making it and, and working out backwards and see how you can make that estimate better. But we're not doing that. We can get better, but we're not there Riccardo Cosentino 19:20 Let me let me take you to another part of your dissertation that I found quite interesting. And hopefully, hopefully you still remember it. But you know, I think is in the original introduction in the literature review, you actually do a critical assessment of the PMBOK Yeah. And and the and the you know, the the PMP and I found a found that is quite interesting. I think I think your your findings were probably the PMBOK is not is not a deep enough tool to help keep project on time and on budget. Can you. Do you remember Can you elaborate? Diana Nada 19:55 Yeah, I do. I do. Remember that. I tackle it all the time. So I first learned about the PMBOK. Actually, during my undergrad, there was a course that was on the PMBOK. For me, at that point, it was like, wow, there is a project management, body of knowledge out there. And I think it was maybe second, third addition. And then at that point in time, you're like, you have to get the PMP, you have to get the PMP. This is important. And the PMP, I think, is important because it gives you the basics, the jargon, and I'm talking, I'm now moving into a term that a lot of people would not appreciate. But I don't think so I finished my degree. When I when I, when I finished my literature review, it was 2012 2013. So at that point in time, the PMBOK did not yet touch the PMI, triangle strategy business, it was still very focused on project management. From a technical perspective, the edition in 2013, or 14 has, like, if you look at it 10 years later, there has been a big shift, the PMBOK has changed quite a bit. So my analysis at that point in time was very much based on this is not enough, you're only talking about 10 bodies of knowledge. You're not talking about external factors, you're not talking about the style, which socio political economic factors. You're not talking about the business case and the strategy. And you're also not talking about, you're talking about human resources, even from very, like HR, but not you're talking about that you can't find resources or supplies or challenges around that. So I found that very limiting at that point, and that's why I have that, that view, and I would go even an extra step and say that the PMP on its own, it's like talking about education versus experience versus studying for an exam, it's a mix of things, you can't say that just because someone has this experience, or this degree or this certificate that they know it all, it's a bunch of things. So that's why I addressed it from from this point. But I also then learn that that journey about the APM, the Association of project management in the UK, and and I found that the that there are aspects there and research based aspects that I think is worth. US including in North America, mind you, the jordanelle, the Project Management Journal of the PMI is, is huge. It most of the research is out of the PMI, I think is just how we can embrace some of this research in that the PMI hosts to into the PMBOK And in I think that's that's where the the issue is. Yeah, I have a similar, I have a similar so I used to have a PMP designation, I kinda lead a lapsed, and a you remember? So this was probably around even before 2013 Yeah, and I found it was very, very rigid, very rigid structure. And I agree with you now that I've been exposed to novel theories, like major programs that cause complex adaptive systems, right. And you know, treating major programs or temporary organization and designing designing major programs as organization. So applying, you know, the, what we typically apply to businesses to project a major project. I mean, we talk about major projects, because those are more complex. And so, you know, the same way you apply a porter five forces to, to a corporation, you should be able to also apply, you know, maybe not Porter, but a different framework that, you know, we apply to Galbraith star to a major program, and adopting the PMBOK goes into that level of organization design, and, you know, and as managing external stakeholders, and, you know, applying system thinking to major programs. So, yeah, I don't know if now PMBOK got there. But yeah, at the time, it wasn't there. And it probably is not there today, either. Yeah, there has been a shift and change in the last seven years. There are some aspects I still go and like I'm curious to see how much it has changed. But I don't think it has changed yet. But but the most important thing is that for me that when I did it, it was very, compared to maybe it Two years later, after I defended, there was a change in the PMBOK. But I don't I think there it is critical that the pm Bock embraces some of those factors given that it is the basis of, of how, like, it's basically okay. Do you know project management? Do you have a PMP? which is… I put the question mark. Riccardo Cosentino 25:29 is more complex than that? Yeah, yeah. Okay. So, you know, I know, we talked about your, your dissertation and how you defend it, you know, in a few words, how would you how would you characterize the findings of your research? Diana Nada 25:46 So I think the biggest finding that I kind of put out there is that the documentation or the approval for funding or the sanctioning that critical point is not documented well? And is is that that what we talked about at the beginning that we start on the wrong fitting, that I think wasn't what a major or a big finding out of it, there were the other ones where I studied how executives make decision making making and how project I called them project implementers, not project managers, basically, the delivery team. And even you can think of it of a context of an organization where there's executive slash staff. So there is the difference in how teams make decisions. And this difference is mostly around, their priorities are different. When you're making a decision, as an executive, you are thinking about specific priorities, and you're thinking about the company interests, you're thinking about profit, you're thinking about shareholder value, you're thinking about different aspects. And then when you're making a decision as a delivery team, you're actually thinking about cost, schedule, budget scope. And these are two different worlds, or two different realities. In a lot of my data collection was around making sense of how those two teams interact, and what are their priorities, and how they share information, or not share information, transparency, trust, communication, and all of these factors that come into play, once you actually start delivering the project. So the findings were around that how we make decisions as teams is very different. There are different priorities and acknowledging that this is a big factor that will continue. But I think, to bridge this gap, is to actually share why we're doing this project. Because we're, why we're doing the project from each team's perspective is very different. And the way I've termed it is like a project intent. Getting alignment on this, from the different stakeholders that are involved is key, so that we're working towards the same success. Outcomes are the same, the definitions of how we want to proceed. And then I take examples of how teams change make a decision around the change in scope, around priorities, etc. Part of this big research was also a big picture of at that point in time, collaborative contracting at that point in time, and that was the big research group. So each one of us had had a specific aspect, in like my contribution at that point in time was around those the teams are different. And how we can make sure that the teams work together from a success outcome, and other team members were taking it from procurement from risk, etc. So that was kind of how sharing information trust communication, and biases impacts how actually projects get delivered. And how do they actually make or break a project and cause delays or overruns. Riccardo Cosentino 29:14 Very interesting. So this was 10 years ago. Yeah, already looking at collaborative contracting. We now talking about collaborative contracting in Canada. Yeah. On the largest scale, and we have authority started to exploring I don't want to say embrace because nobody's embrace collaborative contract. That definitely exploring but yeah, it's been it's been out there for a while. And yeah, I've I've had, you know, my dissertation was about that as well. Obviously, not a PhD dissertation, but, and I've had other colleagues coming on the podcast to talk about IPD alliances in different sectors. Yeah, it's, yeah, I mean, I'm I anecdotally I I believe collaboration is a significant player is a key component of success in delivering major programs. I always said that, you know, I think it was my anecdote that lawyers, you know, money that you spend on legal fees don't get to pour concrete faster. So if you are able to remove the litigation from the day to day running of the project, and you focus that those resources on actually moving the project forward, you have a better chance of achieving success and completion on time and on budget. Diana Nada 30:32 Yes, yeah. And at the end of the day, a contract, whether it's an IPD, or an alliance, or a P3 or a design build is a contract, you will find issues with the contract. It is how you interpret the contract and how you work together, and collaborate. So even if you change the type of contract, and you're not doing all those things that you need to do from a success, like collaboration and how you share information, you're still gonna might get the same result. Riccardo Cosentino 31:06 The contract is I defined a contract myself has, you know, that's, that's, that's the ultimate back stopper, right? Yeah. So ultimately, when when relation breakdown and or the working level contract, you go and look at a contract, right. And so I believe that you can have collaboration within even like, contract with, with litigation built into it. However, you have less room for maneuvering, right. So if you have not enough budget, because you never would never price the correctly or you never had to write rewrite budget at the decision making point. And then you have another adversarial contract, eventually, with all the best will in the world, is going to come to a clash at the working level, and you're going to go back to the contract, and then it is going to become litigious. So I think you can have collaboration, but without without a collaborative contract. But then you need to have the right resources available. Because if when there's scarcity of resources, you go back to the contract, and then you find a way of getting the money that you loosing. Diana Nada 32:25 court. Correct? Correct. And that's probably why my my research was very, was not tied to a specific contract as well, because I believe that that collaboration is key, regardless of how you're delivering the project. Some of my recommendations were around, okay. How do you enhance this collaboration regardless of of the contract in, in any project in in, and I think this is applicable, like some of the stuff that I talk about is our rules of engagement, how you would do partnering meetings, that you're not talking about the project that design the cost and schedule, but you're talking about all of us as a team, how we're working together, what behaviors we need to change, what what decisions we need to make, because a lot of the time that you go into litigation or you go to that stage, when actually you have failed in, in having a proper communication or a decision or resolution of a of an issue. So how will you share that bad news and make a decision, because that a lot of the times, even not making a decision is a decision. So how you would have that environment where we are working in a in a in a transparent, relatively transparent environment where you could say this went wrong. Or you could share and, and most of the time, I remember that the best projects that we all remember are the teams and people we worked with. Not that the schedule was over budget, or the schedule was was delayed, or it was an overrun, but you remember your relationships that you've built in that project. And that's why building this relationship, and even how you form a team, you're not gonna start a team and trust each other from day one. If we take like marriage, you're not like or if you meet someone, this this is something you're investing in, and it's the same as a project. So so how you build that, so that you are all working towards the same success outcomes. I also talk about how you can bridge this gap between how teams, executives or project managers think Think or prioritize differently. And I say, well, we need to be in each other's shoes. So I call it correct courier swaps. Give the opportunity for project team members to understand why you are making decisions from a business perspective this way, share with them more information. And vice versa. The project team is not sharing the right budget, or the schedule with your design consultant, or the contractor. So, so try to find opportunities where you would actually learn from each other because your realities are different. And you're also governed like, performance measurement for each one is different. So you're actually going to make decisions differently. So if you are, if your performance is going to be measured by profit, that's different if your performance is going to be measured by meeting a project deadline, and I've seen it firsthand when, when I work then and I usually give this example. I worked on one project where I was part of the project management team. And there was sales there was strategy team. And this sales and marketing team were able to sell the apartments or the or, or the basically go on sale like and meet their priorities in terms of, okay, we sold X number of apartments, and they got their bonus. But the project team was putting a budget and schedule that was not favorable. So they didn't get a bonus. But we're all working on the same project. But we're measured differently. That was for me, an aha moment that if we are measured differently, then there are our outcomes will be different. And that's not even talking about job security, by individual biases, and all of that. So and that's why I talk about company interest, Project interest and individual interest and they are different. Riccardo Cosentino 37:13 Yeah, I mean, that's why I mean, I mentioned earlier, the Gerber f star right, aligning processes, people remuneration, strategy, culture, like that's what you do in any organization. However, we don't seem to do it when it comes to project. And this is the perfect example. You know, you've got a sales team, who's focuses on selling the project management team is supposed to construct and build and it's one team, right. And then so you've now by not aligning the the incentives and aligning the compensation, you now created. Diverging interest. Yeah, it's Diana Nada 37:51 point two fingers. Riccardo Cosentino 37:53 But it's interesting how there is so common knowledge and common practice in business, right, I've done an MBA. So I mean, that's, you know, you go to MBA, and you study all of this. And in yet, when it comes to project management or major program management, there's not the same level of understanding, but it's it's it's, it's there it's hobbyists, major projects is an organization. Diana Nada 38:18 Yeah, I still find it very fascinating. It is, when I see projects, and how team members interact, and how a project or when looking at documents and all of that, it is a very fascinating field. Riccardo Cosentino 38:36 So the No, this was a really, really interesting conversation, I think, I think we're coming to an end of the podcast. You know, I think you've, you've now defended your dissertation. 10 years ago, you seen some changes? I just, I've asked this question in the past to our guests, and I'm going to ask you as well was, Do you have any hope for the industry? Do you have any hope for the field of project management? Diana Nada 39:03 I do. I do. And then in it's interesting, you asked the question. And I myself went through a learning curve. So the when I got asked, I actually got I got asked that question differently. It 10 years ago when I was like, oh, Diana, then you're saying there is no hope. And at that point in time, you're still fresh from your PhD, you don't you have not tested it again, like you did. You you worked. You did the research, and you want to go back to industry and actually test okay, because the research was mostly testing what you've seen. That's how I saw it. And I think there is there is hope. I think the conversations that we are all having in the interest in the sharing of knowledge across the different borders. Is there as simple as The research by an in, in us having that conversation when we first met about Professor bent and all of all of that, I think there, there's more talk about it. So I think there is hope. And I think there's some how, and appreciation that okay, we need to stand back and see what we're doing wrong. Because we're getting the same results. It's basically I was Einstein scoring six, yeah, Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. And we've been doing things over and over again, expecting different results. So I think there is an appreciation that we need to do some something about it. We are trying to do things differently. And I think this is good in that sense. And I think for me, it's more of an appreciation that actually projects are not unique. You can learn from past projects, and you can come up with better schedules and better budgets, you can make decisions at the right time, you should also acknowledge that there will be changes on the project. We had the pandemic, no one expected it. It's a black swan event, things could go sideways. And I think the governance in how the teams work together is what's the hope that we could actually do projects differently and better. And if we study the projects that were successful, they did something that we should learn about. Riccardo Cosentino 41:34 No, I could No, I could not agree more. I think you touching upon or very, very relevant topic. You mentioned uniqueness bias. I mean, bent, always says that your project is not unique. So uniqueness bias is a problem. A lesson learned from successful projects. I posted an article a few weeks ago about OPG here in Ontario, learning from from what went wrong in nuclear and changing for the refurbishment of Darlington and now their project is going very well. So yeah, I mean, there is hope. There is hope. It's not all doom and gloom, but I think yeah, Diana Nada 42:12 and don't rush into execution. Yes. Riccardo Cosentino 42:15 What does Ben say? Glance thing lands? Execute fast. Diana Nada 42:20 Yeah, yeah. So plan, you have to plan. And then you have to execute, but don't rush into execution and break ground. Riccardo Cosentino 42:31 Well, and on that note, thank you very much they and it was it was a pleasure to have you on the podcast. And I look forward to to meet you again. Some somewhere in Toronto. And maybe we'll have you back for season two to explore other topics. Diana Nada 42:47 Thank you, thank you Riccardo for this opportunity and actually giving me the opportunity to reflect on on this in a way that I have not had the chance to actually go back and revisit and read. So thank you for for that and pleasure beings. Riccardo Cosentino 43:04 Thank you. Bye now. That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, where we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat. | |||