The Shard Uk Design and Build
The Shard Uk Design and Build
Identification:
Upon identifying risks that impact our project and its outcomes, the team engages in thorough
discussions to compile a Project Risk Register.
Analysis:
Following risk identification, the team assesses the likelihood and consequences of these risks.
The impact of these risks on the project's overarching goals and objectives is carefully studied
and documented in the Project Risk Register.
Evaluation:
After a comprehensive examination, risks are assigned rankings based on their significance and
potential repercussions. These rankings are then recorded in the Project Risk Register.
Response:
This pivotal step involves planning responses to the risks based on their ranked priority. A
detailed plan is formulated to address and mitigate risks to an acceptable level. This process
includes creating strategies to ignore, mitigate, or prevent risks, as well as developing
contingency plans for emergencies. The approaches derived from this step are added to the
Project Risk Register.
Monitor & Review:
Using the Project Risk Register, this step in the Risk Management Process entails diligent
monitoring and evaluation of the current status of risks. Regular reviews are conducted to
determine if any adjustments are necessary to further mitigate the identified risks.
Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Analysis
Qualitative Risk Analysis:
The Qualitative Risk Analysis will consider two primary factors: the likelihood of a risk
occurring and the impact it could have on the project, including its objectives and goals. The
probability of occurrence for our project will be determined according to the specified criteria.
The Risk Management Team, led by the Project Manager, will conduct this Qualitative Risk
Analysis. The Project Manager, serving as the ultimate decision-maker, holds the responsibility
of reviewing the analysis and taking any necessary actions based on the findings.
Below is the probability and impact matrix with Scoring scheme for the Shark UK Design and
Build :-
Among these risks, the very high and high risks, scaled 4 and 5 will be further prioritized for risk
response planning and contingencies if required.
Risk Response Planning
In the response strategies outlined below, the risk management team and the Project Manager
will share equal responsibility based on the project's severity. These strategies will be time-
bound, with a single action capable of addressing multiple risk events. Subject matter experts and
stakeholders can also participate in selecting these strategies. The individuals responsible for
implementing the strategies are indicated below.
Negative Risk Response Strategies:
Table 3 : Negative Risk Response Strategies Table
Mitigate Aimed at lessening the impact of the risk by reducing either the Risk
risk probability or impact. For instance, addressing the risk of a key Management
resource leaving mid-project by temporarily bringing in a resource Team Member
from another team until a replacement is on board.
Avoid Seeks to eliminate the risk or its impact entirely by making Risk
adjustments to project scope, schedule, or plan. Management
Team Member
Accept Involves taking no action and acknowledging the project risk. Project Manager
Escalate Similar actions to negative risk responses. The project team Project Manager
ensures the opportunity aligns with the project scope and
escalates to the authorities.
Exploit The opposite of the Avoid strategy. Resources are invested Risk Management
to harness the opportunity, potentially reducing project Team Member
duration or cost.
Enhance Project teams utilize this strategy to increase the probability Project
of positive impacts associated with an opportunity, Management Team
benefiting the overall project.
Share Involves sharing some or all of the opportunity with a third Project Manager
party capable of capturing the benefits for the entire project.
Accept Similar to a negative risk strategy, where no action is taken, Project Manager
and the project risk is accepted as it is.
RISK CONTINGENCY BUDGETING
The project has a budget allocation of £2 billion, which is segmented into various categories,
including Construction, Resources, Equipment and Supplies, and Working Capital. Each
category has an individual Contingency budget, facilitating the meticulous tracking and
management of the overall project budget. The Project Manager holds the responsibility for
overseeing both risk management and budgeting. To enhance expertise in each category, an
advisory firm comprising specialists is engaged. The Project Manager ensures consistent
communication with the advisory firm, sponsors, and other stakeholders. Regular reviews and
reevaluations are conducted for potential new risks associated with each category. The Project
Manager is authorized to approve expenditures aimed at mitigating these risks.
Table 5 : Contingency Budgeting
Stakeholders Management
Key Stakeholders
The Shard project key stakeholders are as bellow:
Developer: Sellar Property Group
Architect: Renzo Piano
Associate architect: Adamson Associates
Project Management: Turner & Townsend
Structural Engineering Consultant: WSP Group
M&E Engineering Consultant – Arup
Cost Consultant: Davis Langdon & Everest
Construction Engineering Consultant: Robert Bird Group
Contractor: Mace
Piling Contractor: Stent Foundations
Concrete Contractor: Byrne Bros
Cladding Contractor: Scheldebouw
Steelwork Contractor: Severfield Reeve Structures
Impact Of Stakeholders
The pivotal decisions shaping the project's trajectory were initiated in its early stages. Upon
completion of this phase, the Project Manager encountered challenges in accommodating
stakeholders' claims that could potentially impact the project's outcomes. The conclusion of the
research stage, particularly in securing institutional investment, held considerable influence over
subsequent phases of the investment project (Whitworth, 2012).
The setup phase encompassed crucial steps such as viability assessments, planning, and
designing. Given the unique nature of the Shard project, distinct groups of stakeholders were not
initially established. However, they were subsequently formed as an outcome of the project.
Organizing and managing actions, resource gathering, and message dissemination for secondary
stakeholders proved time-intensive when they were not actively involved from the project's
outset. Material and non-material resources played essential roles in the stakeholders' activities.
The global economic crisis in 2007 significantly impacted the project, prompting a change in the
primary stakeholder during the construction phase. This presented a critical situation, potentially
leading to project abandonment. However, the project found new investors, enabling it to
recommence (Whitworth, 2012). The project's success was attributed to effective communication
among stakeholders, the owner, the consultant, and the project manager throughout various
stages, phases, and activities. This communication fostered innovation and the exchange of ideas,
playing a crucial role in enhancing construction techniques.
Importance and Management Approach
Stakeholder management was crucial for The Shard project due to its scale, impact on the
London Bridge Quarter, and intricate design. Sellar Property Group's financial backing, Renzo
Piano's design influence, and effective collaboration with construction contractors were essential
for project viability. Engaging with the local community and complying with regulatory
standards ensured smooth project progression.
Management Approach:
Regular Communication Channels: The Project Manager facilitated regular communication
channels with major stakeholders. This included scheduled meetings, progress updates, and
addressing any concerns or queries.
Advisory Firms: Engaging advisory firms with expertise in relevant categories (construction,
resources, etc.) ensured that specific stakeholder interests were well-represented and managed.
Risk Management Integration: Stakeholder concerns and interests were integrated into the
overall risk management plan. Regular risk assessments considered stakeholder impacts,
allowing for proactive management.
Community Engagement: Special efforts were made to engage with the London Bridge Quarter
community through town hall meetings, feedback sessions, and addressing concerns to foster
positive relationships.
Compliance and Transparency: Adherence to government regulations and transparent
communication about project timelines, changes, and potential disruptions ensured a positive
relationship with regulatory bodies and local authorities.
Roles and Responsibilities
Effectively managing both the project and associated risks is crucial for success. In our project,
while all stakeholders share responsibility, the Project Manager holds the primary decision-
making authority. The Project Manager plays a pivotal role, making crucial decisions, approving
risk responses, and implementing contingency plans. Additionally, they take charge of any
necessary changes or modifications to contracts, ensuring timely communication with the
Management Team. The table below outlines specific responsibilities and roles within the Risk
Management Plan:
Project Management
Turner & Townsend embarked on The Shard project when it existed only on paper, utilizing the
Directive model of Project Management Office (PMO). This approach brought a substantial level
of professionalism to the project, ensuring a consistent standard of practices throughout.
Collaborating closely with the developer, Turner & Townsend played a central role in meeting
the project's commercial and quality criteria. They functioned as the central coordinating team,
skillfully managing both internal and external stakeholders. Over 900 monitoring points were
strategically placed around third-party properties, supported by a dashboard to keep external
stakeholders well-informed. Turner & Townsend adeptly addressed numerous challenges,
providing innovative solutions and overseeing more than 700 legal obligations on behalf of the
developer(koome, 2021).
With Turner & Townsend at the forefront of program and project management, the project
achieved several groundbreaking milestones for both the UK and the global construction sector:
Implementing a top-down construction strategy allowed simultaneous work on both
substructure and superstructure construction.
The introduction of jump-lifting for the core, featuring a self-climbing elevator system,
presented an alternative to external lifts.
Conducting London's largest continuous concrete pour over 36 hours in a highly
constrained area.
Successfully operating the UK's tallest crane at a height of 255 meters, overcoming
challenges posed by high-speed winds.
Project Management Programs
The construction firms involved in the project, namely Mace Group, WSP, and ARUP, opted for
an advanced GEOBIM (Geospatial Building Information Modeling) software solution for
planning, designing, and executing the project. This BIM (Building Information Management)
software significantly elevated project productivity by incorporating 3D topographical surveys,
3D environmental scans utilizing Total Station, GPS, Laser scanning technologies, and real-time
4D modeling to ensure coherent coordination among all project elements. The implementation of
BIM software allowed Mace to assess and address construction and logistical challenges more
efficiently (Fig. 2). The GEOBIM solution led to a modest improvement in construction
coordination and overall productivity (Gwprime.geospatialworld, 2021).
Building Information Modeling (BIM) represents an expansive field within the Architecture,
Engineering, Construction, and Operations (AECO) industries. The adoption and discourse
around BIM continue to gain momentum as more organizations and national bodies recognize its
potential for value addition. This is evident in the increasing proliferation of guidelines and
comprehensive reports dedicated to exploring and defining the requirements and deliverables
associated with BIM (Fig. 3) (Succar, B. 2009).
Project stakeholders have adeptly employed BIM software in the construction industry for
several years, proving instrumental in evaluating and managing construction and logistical
challenges seamlessly. Additionally, BIM's visual scheduling and planning have marginally
enhanced the quality of team communication and collaboration among stakeholders. The visual
planning aspect has allowed for the review of fixed planning processes before they evolve into
costly changes during construction. For instance, the scheduling oversight of tower crane
installation was identified early by the team, mitigating potential project delays.
In optimizing the structural design of The Shard, the structural engineering consultant utilized
Bentley's structural software. WSP capitalized on the opportunity to create over a thousand
different structural models to evaluate the most suitable design for the building. This approach
not only saved time and construction costs but also mitigated structural risks associated with the
project.
Conclusions
The Shard stands as a construction masterpiece in London, a testament to the success of its well-
planned processes, innovative architectural and structural engineering, and efficient project
management. The project's innovative construction methodology not only facilitated the
achievement of a tight timeframe but also resulted in substantial time savings, reducing the
overall construction program by four months. This success was further highlighted by the
mitigation of potential delay risks through the implementation of a new excavation methodology.
The innovative approach employed in The Shard's construction not only reduced costs but also
garnered recognition, winning the Institute of Civil Engineers (ICE) London awards in 2010
under the category of "Building award" for the "jump-start" methodology. Despite facing
challenges, including a 125% increase over the planned budget, The Shard was successfully
delivered on time within the 38-month construction timeline. The Shard's groundbreaking
methodology has set a precedent for future construction projects, demonstrating the adaptability
and applicability of its innovative approaches in the construction industry.
References
Booth, R. (2011). London’s Shard: a ‘tower of power and riches’ looking down on poverty. The
Guardian. [online] 30 Dec. Available at:
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2011/dec/30/shard-of-glass-london.
Hammond, J. (2019). The Shard in London - The Tallest Building in Britain - Go Guides.
[online] Hotels.com. Available at: https://www.hotels.com/go/england/the-shard-london.
Hillel, M.B.H. (2014). Why the Shard stands proud – but empty. [online] The Independent.
Available at: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/why-the-shard-stands-proud-but-
empty-9088155.html.
Jones, J. (2014). Art Critic Explains Why London’s Shard Is A Failure. [online] Business Insider.
Available at: https://www.businessinsider.com/art-critic-explains-why-londons-shard-is-a-
failure-2012-8?IR=T.
koome, dennis (2021). The Shard Project» StudyExcell. [online] StudyExcell. Available at:
https://studyexcell.com/the-shard-project-4/.
Parker, J., Sharratt, M. and Richmond, J. (2012). The Shard, London, UK: response of arches to
ground movements. Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers - Bridge Engineering,
165(3), pp.185–194. doi:https://doi.org/10.1680/bren.11.00017.
Richest , T. (2012). The Shard, London: Cost of Europe’s Tallest Building. [online] TheRichest.
Available at: https://www.therichest.com/technology/shard-london-bridge/.
The Shard (2023). The Vision. [online] The Shard. Available at:
https://www.the-shard.com/about/.
Appendices
The following table summarizes the documents referenced in this document.
Document Name Description Location
Tom Kendrick Text Textbook for Risk N/A
Book for Risk Management by Tom Kendrick
Management
Practice Standards for Book for Risk Management by N/A
Risk Management PMI
Project Description Description and terms for the https://www.designbuild-
Shard Bridge network.com/projects/london-bridge/
Risk Management Public Health Emergency / N/A
Plan / Qualitative Risk Office of Acquisitions,
Assessment Management, Contracts and
Grants