Project Title: Area 5.

Collaborative Mapping / Planning at Boston Manor Viaduct M4

Scheme Title: Boston Manor Repair

Knowledge Transfer Pack, version 4

(KTP)

“Of all the gin joints,

in all the towns, in all the world…

she has to walk into mine.”

“Of all the viaducts,

on all the routes, in all the network…

it has to be this one.” Airport Site Olympic Park

1.0 Background

Facts and figures- Boston Manor Viaduct - 965m long / 17 span- Key Olympic (games Lane) Route from Heathrow Airport to Central London- A 7.5T restriction was in place prior to project commencing due to cracks in

steelwork- Connect Plus manage the viaduct - Balfour Beatty, Skanska, Atkins and Egis Road

Operation UK- Project duration – Investigations and repair since April 2012 but ….- Extent of scope not realised until May 2012- Politically sensitive project due to Olympics – update daily to the Permanent

Secretary- Initial remit – repair cracks to enable 7.5T weight restriction to be lifted by Friday

13th July - Olympic traffic due to start using “Games Lane” on Monday 16th July

1.0 Participants

- Highways Agency - Client- Connect Plus - DBFO Co- Halcrow - Lean consultancy (Chris Wearne)- Navitas - Lean consultancy (Nigel Harris)- Arup - Connect Plus Designer- Osborne - Main Contractor- BS Steels - Main Steel Sub-Contractor- Stead + Wilkins - Steelwork Sub-Contractor- Mouchel - Investigation Lead- TWI - Specialist advisers to Mouchel- Hyder - Site Representative- Atkins - Connect Plus Checker

2.0 Understanding current state, scope of work- Works included

- Locating cracks using non destructive inspection techniques- Carry out detailed investigation- Select repair option- Detailed design and check for repair- Fabricate plates 1.3 x 0.6m, 3 ply, 92No 25mm bolts - Fabricate milled ‘ 3D profiled’ plates, - Plate repairs, 32 locations- Other areas of grind out, burring out of cracks- Scope emerging as work progressed

- “Investigate, Scope, Design and Build?”

2.0 Understanding current state, site constraints- Difficult site conditions:

- Working at height, off scaffolding, under and around steelwork- At peak working in 18 locations concurrently- Interfaces regarding M4 and A4 closures, with TfL works, Olympic Games Lane etc - Live traffic overhead (M4) and underneath (A4, Boston Manor Road) - Various access restrictions:

- river, - park and play area - car parks, - shops, - offices

- Other constraints - accesses, - buildings, - student flats- festival

2.0 Understanding current state, why this mattered

- The background, Government under the microscope……- Hosepipe bans, record rains and flash floods- G4S and a shortage of security guards- Border Agency and a discussion over policy - Delays at the airports

- Crack located in highly stressed location 8 days prior to the Olympic deadline- ‘Intense political scrutiny’

3.0 What we did, first meeting, agree a mission statement

Objective

“To identify key deliverables, monitor, communicate to all Stakeholders and close out by utilising Lean Visual Management and Collaborative Planning techniques”

Preparation Extensive work on ‘opinion formers’ and leading figures Stressed forward look, as positive as possible Stressed that co-operation takes place alongside contractual obligations etc Reviewed the past for lessons /reasons, not blame allocation to people A sense of challenge and a sense of humour

3.1 What we did, first meeting, collaborative mapping

- Carried out an initial Collaborative Mapping session with all relevant stakeholders off site on the 23/05/12 – desired outcome:

- Confirmation of issues- What is required – scope / sequence + instruction for steelwork- Improve communication & flow- Shared vision on scope- Programme to deliver for Olympic 2012- Clarity on process until 13 July deadline- Clarity on roles and dependencies / who we affect- Identify key deliverables for Design, Construction and the Client

3.2. What we did, second meeting, start collaborative planning

- On site it was agreed that we would implement the collaborative planning process using the following steps:

- Collaborative Mapping Sessions to agree standard delivery process and show crack locations- Agreed to set up daily production meetings (7 days a week) on site / conference call- Use the magnetic wall to re-programme works- Learn and improve as we go- Standard process agreed - Day – until deadline of Friday 13th July

- Crack repair location added- Standard process populated against resources available

3.2 What we did, collaborative planning, continued– Due to the continuous re-programming almost on a daily basis we decided to introduce magnets– Colour codes used to show the accountabilities of disciplines / parties

– We then populated the magnetic wall and used it as a visual aid for the daily production meeting. A programmer emailed this out daily to all stakeholders

3.3 What we did, sharing of information, to aid collaboration – Each stage of the repair was numbered and shown magnets - a corresponding 3D snapshot was also produced and positioned next to the magnetic programme showing the key steps

– Board also used for shift handover – key in demonstrating progress status of various locations (concerns / causes / countermeasure) and what was expected during the forthcoming shift.– The information on the walls was used as part of site induction for new starts, to aid understanding of the requirements

3.4 What we did, daily ‘production meetings’ – Daily production meetings (7 days a week) on site or via conference call, 0900 hrs

- Daily meetings covered investigation, design, manufacture and construction tasks- All key stakeholders involved daily – up to 15 people- Execute the Plan – Do – Check – Act cycle- Key tasks were shown as status complete or not complete and reasons captured. - Reasons were analysed and mitigation actions put in place on a daily basis. - Tasks were captured for all Stakeholders including the HADN, Netserv, PM etc- Measure reliability of planned tasks completion and capture reasons for non completion

3.4. What we did, daily ‘production meetings’, continued– After each meeting the Construction team updated the wall programme and re-programmed as necessary.

– On Tuesday 10th July, co-ordination meetings held 9am, 5pm, 7pm, 9pm– Planned for procedure for closing the M4 – very boring was the target

4.0 BMV collaborative planning Benefits

– Boston Manor Viaduct reopened on Friday 13th July – M4 used by the Olympic traffic on the 16th July– Created a collaborative environment under intense pressurised conditions (nobody fell out)– No stress – related illnesses, one Reportable incident – that attributable to lack of planning.– Reliability continued to improve throughout the process with an average of 69%

– Message from the Permanent Secretary on behalf of the Prime Minister, to the Highways Agency:- “I want to pass on my personal thanks to all those who worked so hard to repair the M4 bridge and

get it open again in time for the Olympics. You showed real determination to get the job done in time, working through the night to do so. I was delighted to get the news very early this morning”

5.0 Issues and Barriers

– Feedback from questionnaire– One initial reaction was that, using stickies on a wall, we had gone back 20 years! – C Plus– Some Consultants were not fully engaged with the process – Some calls were difficult to control: numbers, poor network coverage, noise - Facilitator– Production plans need to be sent out immediately after meeting - Connect Plus– Ask all Sub Contractors to participate - Hyder/HA– No links of tasks on Lean programme on wall - not obvious if there were changes – Osborne– Collaborative planning… set up prior to there being a crisis - HA

6.1 What made a difference – honesty?

– Honesty of effort, aligned to a common goal

– Honesty about what each can give, and cannot give

– Behaviours will not easily change without it

6.2 What made a difference – clear information?

– A man digging a hole…. another building a cathedral

– Clarity of interdependencies and roles

– Start of shift inductions used the programme on the wall

– Visitors, such as Graham Dalton could see what was left to be done

6.3 What made a difference – shared knowledge?

The case for collaboration – 10 quiz questions

5 teams of 2? 2 teams of 5? 1 team of 10

Team 1 5 points

Team 2 4 points

Team 3 6 points

Team 4 5 points

Team 5 3 points

Red Team

8 points

Blue Team

7 points

One team.Scores 9 or10 points

6.4 What made a difference – Improvement cycle?

– Often we review a project just once, after completion, to improve

– Use of 5 Why’s, ‘Why Not?’ e.g. challenge sequences, review, improve

– At Boston Manor we reviewed every day, over 40 cycles

– That’s 40 very crude Lean projects? (Dead Quick, Dead Dirty?)

– Forming, Storming, Norming, Performing – in a month or so.

6.5 What made a difference - Reliability?

Target duration

50 %ile duration 95 %ile durationAnd the effect on programme?

Activity 1 No activity Activity 2 No activity

‘the Cost of Uncertainty’ ‘the Cost of Uncertainty’

And the effect of improved reliability?

Activity 1 Activity 2 Activity 3 Activity 4 Activity 5

The effect of removing uncertainty on programme?

“The greatest waste is the waste we do not see” Shigeo Shingo

7.0 Sustaining the Improvement– The team has continued to use techniques following the completion of Halcrow and Navitas implementation. – Simon Duke and Connect Plus commissioned Chris Wearne to apply the same techniques to the ongoing safety works at Dartford tunnels. First

planning session was successfully held in September 2012, and weekly meeting cycle started October 2012, and has generated improved collaboration, despite the presence of significant contractual ‘blockers’

– A further application started January 2013 to assist processing of schemes for replacing bearings on M25 structures– Further applications ongoing for Pinch Point works, M4, A1, Lower Thames Crossing etc– There are many different models, for differing project demands

– The most important thing has been the change of culture

Thank you

Questions?