“THE SHARD UK DESIGN AND BUILD”

Submitted in fulfillment of requirements of the module

“Advanced Project Management”

Abstract
The construction endeavor for The Shard commenced in March 2009, strategically situated at the
epicenter of London's economic hub adjacent to the London Bridge Station(Hammond, 2019).
This case study distinctly focuses on the project's timeline and its innovative construction
aspects, with a paramount emphasis on adhering to the stipulated timeframe. The success of this
endeavor hinges upon a collaborative effort from all stakeholders, fostering a cohesive team
dynamic and necessitating a touch of ingenuity. Notably, this groundbreaking approach, a global
first for a structure of such height, not only trimmed more than three months off the construction
timeline but also managed to keep the overall build cost under £450 million.
The Shard stands as an iconic symbol of architectural prowess and engineering excellence in the
heart of London, United Kingdom. This report delves into the intricacies of the design and build
process of The Shard, emphasizing the advanced project management strategies employed
throughout its conception and construction. With a focus on shared collaboration, cutting-edge
technology integration, and meticulous planning, this study aims to unravel the complexities that
underpin such a monumental undertaking. The report explores the project's initiation, planning,
design, and construction phases, shedding light on key challenges, successful methodologies, and
the role of advanced project management in ensuring the project's success. Through a
comprehensive analysis, this report not only offers insights into the unique characteristics of The
Shard but also distills valuable lessons and best practices applicable to the broader realm of
design and construction projects. As we navigate through the dimensions of this architectural
marvel, we uncover the symbiosis between innovative project management practices and the
realization of groundbreaking structures, contributing to the evolving landscape of modern urban
architecture.
Table of Contents
Abstract............................................................................................................................................2
Introduction......................................................................................................................................4
Risk Management Plan....................................................................................................................4
Purpose of the Risk Management Plan........................................................................................4
Risk Management Procedure.......................................................................................................4
Process.........................................................................................................................................4
Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Analysis.................................................................................6
Risk Response Planning..............................................................................................................7
RISK CONTINGENCY BUDGETING......................................................................................9
Tools and Practices......................................................................................................................9
Stakeholders Management...............................................................................................................9
Key Stakeholders.........................................................................................................................9
Impact Of Stakeholders.............................................................................................................10
Importance and Management Approach....................................................................................10
Management Approach:.........................................................................................................11
Roles and Responsibilities.........................................................................................................11
Success Review.............................................................................................................................12
Failure Aspects of The Shard Project........................................................................................12
Challenges Faced.......................................................................................................................13
Project Management......................................................................................................................13
Project Management Programs..................................................................................................14
Conclusions....................................................................................................................................15
References......................................................................................................................................15
Appendices....................................................................................................................................16
Introduction
The Shard project, initiated in March 2009 at the heart of London's economic center near the
London Bridge Station, represents a groundbreaking endeavor in urban architecture. This iconic
structure, with its distinctive glass façade, aims to set new standards in design and engineering
(The Shard, 2023). The project's essence lies in its commitment to pushing the boundaries of
construction, showcasing collaborative teamwork and innovative thinking. Located strategically
to contribute to the London skyline, The Shard signifies a harmonious blend of aesthetic
grandeur and advanced engineering. Embarking on a meticulous timeline, the project aspires not
only to redefine the city's skyline but also to establish benchmarks in construction speed and
cost-effectiveness. This report will delve into the project's intricacies, exploring unique
challenges, innovative approaches, and collaborative strategies that contributed to its success.
The Shard presently ranks as the seventh tallest skyscraper in Europe, soaring to a height of 306
meters, excluding antenna masts (Wikipedia, 2021). Positioned within the historic London
Bridge Quarter and serving as a crucial transportation hub, The Shard's construction was not only
architecturally fitting but also ingeniously engineered. Combining hybrid concrete cores,
composite floors, and steel structural elements, the construction commenced in March 2009 and
was formally inaugurated in July 2012. Developed by the Sellar Property Group, this 95-storey
skyscraper was designed by the renowned Italian architect Renzo Piano to serve as a vertical city,
pioneering a new era of mixed-use towers encompassing offices, restaurants, hotels, and
residential spaces without disrupting the major transport hub below (The Vision, 2021). Despite
an initial budget of £350 million, a swift increase to £435 million in October 2008 was
necessitated by the project's approved scale expansion (Therichest, 2021). Remarkably, the
project management's diligent efforts ensured smooth progress, culminating in the timely
completion of The Shard in July 2012 within the revised budget of £435 million, spanning a
period of 38 months.

Risk Management Plan

Purpose of the Risk Management Plan
The project's risk management plan serves as a guiding framework for the project management
team, steering them through the comprehensive process of risk management. This involves key
steps such as identifying risks, analyzing them, formulating responses, and subsequently
controlling or monitoring these risks. The primary objective of the risk management plan is to
furnish the team with a lucid understanding of the requisite measures to safeguard the project
against both concealed and acknowledged threats, while also leveraging existing opportunities to
enhance project performance. The Shard London Bridge Project employs a mitigation approach,
wherein proactive measures are implemented to either alleviate specific risks during construction
or to minimize the impact of risks that may arise.
Risk Management Procedure
Process
To ensure the seamless execution of the project, a systematic application of a risk management
process is essential(AlertMedia, 2023). This involves undertaking specific steps aimed at
mitigating potential risks. The following process will be employed to address and respond to the
risks associated with the project.

Figure 1 : Risk Management Cycle

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.

Table 1 : Qualitative Analysis Table

Quantitative Risk Analysis:

For the Shard UK design and build project, a Quantitative Risk Analysis will focus on
prioritizing the most critical risks to assess the likelihood of meeting overall cost and schedule
objectives(Booth, 2011). The risk management team will lead the quantitative analysis, and the
findings will undergo review by the Project Manager. The Project Manager, serving as the final
decision-maker, will evaluate the results and initiate any necessary actions. Throughout the
construction phase, the Expected Monetary Value (EMV) process and decision tree analysis will
be employed to enhance accuracy and contribute to the development of contingency reserves.
Following matrix will be used to define the probability and impact for the risks:
 Table 2 : Probability And Impact Table for the risk

Below is the probability and impact matrix with Scoring scheme for the Shark UK Design and
Build :-

Figure 2 : Matrix With scoring scheme

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

Risk Response Assigned To

Strategy
Escalate Utilized when the risk is identified, but the project team lacks the Project Manager
authority to manage it. The project team should be familiar with
escalation processes to address such risks.

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.

Transfer Employed when there is a shortage of skills or resources to Project

manage the risk, or when there is insufficient time to plan. Risk Management
transfer may involve strategies such as taking out insurance. Team

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

Positive Risk Response Strategies:

Table 4 : Positive Risk Response Strategies Table

Risk Responses Assigned To

Strategy

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

Tools and Practices

For the Shard UK project, all identified risks will be systematically documented in a risk register,
formatted as an Excel spreadsheet. This serves as a dynamic tool for continuous risk tracking
throughout the project's lifecycle and proves invaluable for post-project evaluations. The Project
Manager is tasked with maintaining and updating the risk register, ensuring that all risks are duly
recorded. Subsequently, a comprehensive risk analysis is conducted, wherein the Project
Manager monitors the probability of risk occurrence. By closely observing triggers and potential
risks, adaptive adjustments can be made to project plans in response to evolving circumstances.
If the risk impact diminishes or if the risk indeed materializes, the risk may be considered for
retirement or closure. In the event of actualization, predefined contingency plans are activated to
minimize the risk's impact on project deliverables.

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:

Figure 3 : Roles & Responsibilities of Stakeholders

Success Review
The Shard UK Design and Build project can be considered a resounding success from multiple
perspectives.
Financial Success:
From a financial standpoint, the project was deemed successful. Despite initial budget
adjustments, the project was completed within the revised financial framework of £435 million.
The ability to secure new investors during the global economic crisis in 2007 showcased
financial resilience and adaptability.
Architectural Triumph:
Architecturally, The Shard stands as a symbol of triumph. Renzo Piano's unique design not only
met but exceeded expectations. The Shard has become an iconic structure, contributing
significantly to London's skyline and establishing itself as a landmark in modern urban
architecture.
Project Management Excellence:
The success of the project can be attributed to effective project management. Despite facing
challenges such as the economic crisis and stakeholder changes, the Project Manager
demonstrated adept decision-making, ensuring the project's continuity and success. The
systematic risk management plan, with a focus on proactive strategies, played a crucial role in
navigating uncertainties.
Lessons Learned:
One key lesson learned from The Shard project is the importance of adaptability in the face of
unforeseen challenges. The ability to secure new investors during an economic crisis underscores
the significance of resilience and strategic decision-making.
Failure Aspects of The Shard Project
The Shard project, despite its iconic status, grapples with significant challenges and can be
deemed a failure in various aspects.
Location Hindrance:
The project's location hinders its success, with a substantial number of the 72 storeys remaining
vacant. Financed by some of the world's wealthiest individuals, primarily the Qataris, the
oversight on the crucial role of location in the UK property market has proven detrimental
(Hillel, 2014).
Underutilized Observation Area:
The Shard's observation area, though accessible for £25 per hour, falls short of rival attractions
like the London Eye, which charges £30 for a half-hour rotation. Despite its popularity, it fails to
attract crowds on the scale seen at the London Eye.
Difficulty in Selling Residences:
Selling residences within The Shard poses a significant challenge. The inclusion of two-story
duplexes and single-storey rooms on floors 53 to 65, priced at £50 million for the highest duplex,
failed to address the primary issue. The luxurious abode's occupants find themselves in an
uninviting and unappealing central London commuter station area, significantly diminishing the
allure of the location (Hillel, 2014).
Challenges Faced
The construction of The Shard faced various challenges, including the delivery of raw materials
in the midst of a bustling city. Despite this logistical hurdle, the construction process was
meticulously planned, spanning over 36 hours and involving approximately 700 lorry loads
arriving every two minutes. This strategic coordination enabled the project team to successfully
pour an unprecedented 5,400 cubic meters of concrete, marking a record for London buildings.
Another challenge arose from a high-profile public inquiry and an extensive planning process,
adding complexity to the project timeline. Additionally, the global economic crisis in 2007
significantly impacted the project during the pre-construction phase, leading to a change in the
primary stakeholder and causing a critical situation. While this crisis posed a potential threat to
the project, new investors intervened, providing the necessary funding to restart the project.

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).

Figure 4 : Common GEOBIM solution structure.

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.

Dodoiu, C. (2017). THE SHARD. [online] prezi.com. Available at:

https://prezi.com/42iivmh6i7vt/the-shard/?
frame=f564e9ce85c5a75b31dc48f9b670761dfa2e1b5a [Accessed 1 Jan. 2024].

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/.

Sellar, I. (2015). Title. [online] Available at:

https://global.ctbuh.org/resources/papers/download/2450-developing-an-icon-the-story-of-the-
shard.pdf.

The Shard (2023). The Vision. [online] The Shard. Available at:
https://www.the-shard.com/about/.

AlertMedia. (2023). Risk Management Lifecycle: 5 Steps to a Safer, More Resilient

Organization. [online] Available at: https://www.alertmedia.com/blog/risk-management-
lifecycle/.

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