Energy
Waste
Water and Sewage
Transport
Green Blue
Buildings & land use
englishdeutsch
Project Summary Project Description Application of Tools Opinion of Tools Decision making process Contact Details

Decision making process

Name der Fallstudie
Baglan Energy Park Phase 2

Decision making process - stages

Decision making process - levels
Policitical and technical

Decision making process - sources of information

Decision making process - who are the decision makers
Decision making was at three levels
1. Partnership Board, where the political dimension was paramount. Project implementation was agreed here following work by the: -
2. Site Project Management Group where overall spending and direction were determined. This involved debate between partners and Contractor.
3. Site Team where the decisions were specific to the works.

Decision making process - who made the final decision for project implementation
-


Name of tool
Constructing Excellence Movement for Innovation (M4I) Sustainability Project Performance Indicator Assessment Tool,

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The tool whilst the project was ongoing. This tool is designed to be used at any stage of the project.</p> <p>The results of the tool showed that the project when measured against a number of set sustainability issues a high score was achieved (i.e. consider economic, environmental and social issues). It is believed that the tool made the group think about sustainability issues in more detail. As the tool was introduced later on in the project and was only a pilot full benefit of using the tool throughout the project was not experienced. When used as intended the tool would help measure project performance against a set of sustainability issues to help project managers:<br> ⢠with a guide towards making a project more sustainable;<br> ⢠ask the right questions of themselves and others in the running a project;<br> ⢠with a measure of what is being done in sustainability terms;<br> ⢠provide a route to continuous improvement.<br> The Sustainability Indicator Assessment Tool provides benchmarks to allow a project to be compared with others. The benchmarks in the tool were based on the analysis of 30 projects during 1999/2000.</p>


Name of tool
Dispute Resolution Ladder

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The steps of the dispute resolution ladder were agreed at the outset of the project, and the ladder was used a number of times through the projects life.<br> By using the tool disputes within the project were preventing from lasting longer than 24 hours â which was Level 2 of the steps. Level 2 was reached 3 times throughout the duration of the project. The higher the level reached the less agreeable the partnering process.</p> <p>The five steps act as a form of benchmark: level 1 - 4 hours to agree on the dispute; level 2 - PM and contract agent - 24 hours; level 3 - General Manager and people outside situation to become involved; level 4 - Steering group; level 5 - Adjudication.</p> <p>The tool was used to support argumentations and solve disputes to ensure maintenance of progress.</p>


Name of tool
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The EIA was as required by law, carried out prior to starting the project.<br> The EIA did have an influence over the Phase 2 of the Baglan Project.


Name of tool
Environmental management system: ISO 14001

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
An EMS is used continuously through a project.<br> EMS and Hochtief Griffiths Management System influenced the process through quality of administration and final outputs.</p> <p>The goals or benchmarks for the project were to produce a high quality environment with &acute;no harm to people, animals or the environment&acute; on a project produced to time and budget.</p>


Name of tool
Hochtief/Griffiths QUENSH (Quality, Environment, Safety and Health) plan

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The tool was used continuously throughout the project from the initial stages. The tool is implemented at the managerial level by a number of people including the Project Manager, Construction Manager and Quality Manager, and the processes are then disseminated to the construction level. The Quensh plan provide information for the method statement which in turn supplies information for toolbox talks and training videos to provide information to on site workers.</p> <p>The tool acts as a form of decision making â identifying issues that must be considered and incorporated into a development project, therefore prevention of overlooking of important issues.<br> The legal requirements and specifications from a client would act as goals and benchmarks for each project.</p>


Name of tool
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
Use of the KPIs was a continuous process, and completion of score sheets took place in every monthly meeting by all partners separately.</p> <p>Through the use of the KPI score sheet, the project was continuously assessed on a monthly basis allowing any problems to be rectified quickly, for example, if the results of a montly indicator score sheet revealed that morale was low and changes could be made to return morale to previous levels. </p> <p>The benchmarks used in the KPIs originate from other projects. KPI results are fed back to Constructing Excellence who use the information to benchmark with other projects throughout the UK. In doing so the Baglan Energy project could be compared with other projects throughout the country.</p> <p>KPIs therefore provide direct evidence through lower longitudinal scores that changes are required to improve site workings. </p>


Name of tool
Partnering scheme

Decision making process - tools in decision-making process
The partnering approach used throughout the project was essential for the projects success. The approach relied on an integrated project team who shared site accommodation and duties, thus reducing overheads and duplication of work. An open door policy was used to encourage input of ideas and alternative approaches to all issues, as well as the whole project team dealing with and discussing what to do with problems that arose, thus the team worked as one. NPTCBC, as part of the partnering agreement, controlled the developers Quality Control.</p> <p>The partnering scheme facilitated workshop techniques to give all team members a thorough understanding of the project objectives, partnering strategy and protocols for working together. This was a very full two day workshop covering many areas but included risk management, communications, dispute resolution, identifying and signing up to individual&acute;s/organisational aims and objectives.</p>


Decision making process - how was the information for the dmp disseminated
Information about the project was disseminated by both the project team to the public and via a PR company particularly through presentations to local student groups.

Decision making process - how was the public involved
Public consultation took place through the planning process.

Decision making process - was there public discussion over the project
Public consultation took place through the planning process.

Welche Tools wurden verwendet, um Nachhaltigkeit zu beurteilen?

Constructing Excellence Movement for Innovation (M4I) Sustainability Project Performance Indicator Assessment Tool,

Dispute Resolution Ladder

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)

Environmental management system: ISO 14001

Hochtief/Griffiths QUENSH (Quality, Environment, Safety and Health) plan

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs)

Partnering scheme

Weiterführende Informationen (nur auf Englisch):

Für den vollständigen Bericht hier klicken (pdf)