Relationships key to success of Emirates Stadium for Sir Robert McAlpine
We engineers are a funny lot. If you ask a civil engineer what it takes to deliver a project on-time and on budget they will wax lyrical about the contractual arrangements, the programming and construction phasing, the technical innovations and selection of the right subcontractors. When you ask them to talk about what made project a success the common thread throughout is relationships. This was made clear at a recent presentation I attended on the construction of the Emirates Stadium for Arsenal Football Club...Vince Corrigan, Director and Andrew Veness, Project Manager eloquently outlined the project, the phases, the contractual and commercial arrangements and the technical challenges they faced in delivering a complex undertaking on time and on budget.
The key challenges were:
- the site for the new stadium was already occupied by a number of businesses including a waste processing site that needed to be relocated
- the triangular site was bounded by railway lines on two sides both of which would need to be bridged to provide access to the completed stadium
- the stadium had to be delivered in time for the start of the 2006/07 football season
- work was stopped for 9 months from April 2003 to January 2004 while planning and funding issues were resolved
In the end “Sir Robert McAlpine completed the Emirates Stadium and handed it over to Arsenal Football Club on 14th July 2006, ahead of schedule and on budget. The new 60,000 seat stadium hosted its first game, a testimonial for Dennis Bergkamp, on Saturday 22nd July.”
Vince and Andrew put their success down to a number of factors including:
- End user was the Employer (Arsenal Football Club took a hands on role in delivery of the project)
- Empowered Employer representatives (two of the Arsenal main board directors were responsible for delivery of the stadium)
- Accessibility to decision makers (I believe Arsenal’s project team was co-located with the Sir Robert MCAlpine team)
- Prompt decision making – key decisions were made when required by the Employer representatives
- Co-location of key players in design and construction team
- Transparency and change control
- Time to properly address issues (effective use was made of the period of suspension to review the design, methodology and programme constraints/parameters)
- Regular principals meetings
- Selective supply chain decisions (Sir Robert used people they had long term relationships with, engaging them at an early stage of the project – often on a single source basis with prices benchmarked against live current data)
And most importantly:
- The stadium HAD to be open for the 2006/07 season (clearly this focused the minds of all involved)
What is apparent is that most of these success factors are down to relationship factors – principally trust, empowerment and communication and this is reflected in the language of Vince and Kevin:
- “trust in Sir Robert McAlpine” at tender stage who competed for the work openly and honestly without hype despite having “no first hand construction experience in the Southeast”
- “trust in the Project Manager” – Kevin Veness’ previous experience was in road and bridge projects
- “involvement with the client from the outset securing financing as a team”
- “Design and Construct contract produced as a team”
- “tight payment schedule passed down to subcontractors to ensure cashflow” – ie prompt payment of Sir Robert and subcontractors
- “Escrow account accessible by Sir Robert McAlpine and funders”
- “Relationships [with Network Rail] important for securing possessions”
In an industry infamous for contractual disputes and legal wranglings (in which the only beneficiaries are the lawyers) it is gratifying to report that there were “no formal disputes” on this project. This suggests that issues got resolved through discussion based on the foundation of trust that had been built up from the start of this project. Even more remarkable is the fact that the esprit de corps that was apparent within the project team seemed to have permeated down to the guys on the ground – in the words of Vince Corrigan “vandalism [by the contractors] was minimal – the only West Ham hammers to be seen were on lunchboxes and bags and not the infrastructure”.
When I asked what steps had been taken to build trust and communication throughout the team, I was advised that there had been little in the way of formal events. I got the impression that it all happened fairly organically which says to me that the intention that was shared by the client and the senior management to deliver this project on time and on budget with the minimum of fuss was strong indeed – strong enough indeed to shape and influence the culture of the entire undertaking.
There is a theory that results (R) come from a combination of intention (I) and or mechanisms (M). Expressed as formula it looks something like this:
R = I + M
The question to ask is what is the relative importance (in percentage terms) of I to M to achieve 100% R? The suggestion is that it is 100% Intention and 0% Mechanism
ie R=I
Or to put it another way if the intention is strong enough the mechanism to achieve the result will be found. In the case of the Emirates Stadium the mechanisms of contracts, planning and programming, systems and processes, meetings etc were the means by which the project was delivered. However, I suggest that it was the strength of Intention from the client down that ensured the success of this project.
For more information on this project follow this link Emirates Stadium Completed Early
If you would like to develop similar levels of trust, engagement and communication on your projects give me a call on 01273 467628 or drop me a line with a brief outline of what you’re looking for.
Last Updated ( Wednesday, 10 October 2007 )