Introduction

In this value management study it was important to ensure all internal stakeholders needs were considered in finally making a choice of the most favoured option for a heavy railway project in Hong Kong . For reasons of confidentiality and for reasons of brevity only certain portions of the value management study have been represented. Therefore this case study does not represent a full value management report. The format used highlights the important aspects of the study. It should be mentioned at the outset that the preferred rail alignment to provide the railway link to Tseung Kwan O had been investigated for many months with no consensus resolution being attained. Such consensus was attained as the result of a two day workshop. The main points are as follows: Client Mass Transit Railway Corporation, Hong Kong (MTRC) Project Objectives To provide a railway link with sufficient capacity for the new town Tseung Kwan O to support a projected population of 445,000 Scope of the Project 1. Geographic Parameters: (These represented the extreme boundaries within which the rail link could be aligned.) Eastern Boundary defined as: Tseung Kwan O Development Area Western Boundary define as: Hong Kong/Central Station area Northern Boundary defined as: Wong Tai Sin Station Southern Boundary defined as: Wan Chai Station 2. Temporal Parameters Railway project Tseung Kwan E (TKE) to be open by December 31st, 2001, with a targeted MTRC railway opening of April 30th, 2001. 3. Financial Parameters: (There will be reference to the Quarry Bay Extension (QBE) as this was considered an integral part of the project and was included) Total project capital cost of approximately HK$3 billion for Quarry Bay Extension (QBE); and approximately HK$19 billion for TKE. Workshop Objectives: Identify gaps in the information needed to make the appropriate selection of the preferred design alignment option. 1. Enhance communication between all divisions of MTRC and associated consultants.

2. Generate ideas on individual components of the project concept. 3. Identify value added aspects of any components of the project. 4. Identify all options and to agree upon a preferred option, (subject to final analysis and Government agreement) No - No Parameters: (These are the areas considered not suitable for discussion in the value management workshop) Conjecture on Chinese Government response to project Participants : (The list of participants represents a wide range of internal stakeholders. It was decided at this stage that no external stakeholders would be represented. That could be done at the detailed design stage. The wide representation of internal stakeholders would surely represent ethos being attained). MTRC Project Director MTRC Project Engineering Manager TKE/QBE Consultant - Rolling Stock/Depot MTRC Chief E&M Engineer (Project) MTRC Design Manager (New Works) MTRC Chief Engineer (Operations) MTRC Operations Development Manager Construction/Railway Industry Consultant MTRC Deputy Operations Director MTRC Chief Architect MTRC Town Planning Adviser H.K. Railway Inspectorate - Chief Inspecting Officer MTRC Marketing & Planning Director MTRC Chief Civil Engineer TKE/QBE Consultant - Transportation TKE/QBE Consultant - Team Leader TKE/QBE Consultant - Engineering Manager TKE/QBE Consultant - Railway Operations MTRC Area Project Manager MTRC Railway Extensions Manager

Workshop Duration: Two Days of intensive retreat decision making. Information Stage: Presentation Topics (The list of presenters has not been indicated here for reasons of confidentiality. The presentation topics were considered to cover the full breadth of the project. By exposing all participants to these topics it was considered that pathos would be achieved such that all members of the G.P.S. session would be exposed to all important facets of the project.) 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. Project Status Transportation Issues YAT Options Operational Issues Alignment Issues in TKO Alignment Options: QBE QBE Program Depot Location Property Issues Design Standards QBE Marketing Issues

Link Thinking Hierarchy: (The diagram below establishes the link thinking hierarchy used to structure thought for the idea generation stage)

Discussion on the Link Thinking Hierarchy As far as the link thinking hierarchy is concerned, the basic function of the workshop was considered to be to "Evaluate the Options". When analysing how to describe "Evaluate the Options" using verb/Noun Functional Identification, eight supporting functions were identified. These were as follows: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Establish User Requirements Establish Government Requirements Establish MTRC Requirements Establish Evaluation Criteria Identify/Develop Options Identify Constraints Establish Community Requirements

In this instance, because of the nature of the workshop, the link thinking hierarchy really reflects a function of the workshop itself. In this particular instance this was appropriate, rather than functionally analysing the project itself, which could be covered at a value engineering workshop. Idea Generation Stage A total to 395 ideas were generated. Evaluation Stage Design Notation: 35 Ideas were identified for design notation. This meaning that by consensus all internal stakeholders agreed that these "design notation" ideas had to be included into the detailed design. Example: Idea No. 15: Reduce journey times - improve boarding and alighting times by increasing door stand backs and/or number of doors.

Idea No. 28: Weather protected routes from stations to destinations in locality. Idea No. 59: Make stations brighter - finishes, lighting Idea No. 231: Exhaust ventilation shafts to be clear of residential areas Idea No. 316: Use space above tracks in cut and cover tunnels for recreational or other uses. Idea No. 395: Maintain service connections between new and existing system for cross running.

Evaluation Criteria: A list of nine evaluation criteria were arrived at by consensus from a much larger list derived from the idea generation stage. These final evaluation criteria were defined as follows: Evaluative Criteria A B C Journey Time Urban Planning Enhancement Ability to Handle Future Railway Ridership Growth Public Reaction Definition Perceived time from origin to destination Deleted- zero rating Balancing EHC Capacity

Expected negative public reaction to aspects of the project Reliability; Recovery; Flexible to Change Ability to build on to the new line facilities Restricted to old Technology; Mix of new/old trains Comfort; Convenience at the station Comfort; Convenience; Interchange

E F G

Ops: Reliability/ Resilience Flexibility: Future Expansion Improved Technology

H I

Customer Experience Train Experience: Boarding/ Alighting; In-train

Please note, it is very important that a precise definition, arrived at by consensus by all stakeholders in attendance at the workshop, is achieved. It is important too, that not only is this definition agreed to by all stakeholders at the workshop, but that definition must also be understandable to anybody reading the evaluation matrix to follow, who is not in attendance at the workshop. Paired Comparisons: Each of the evaluation criteria was then weighted using a paired comparison technique. This process has been described in an earlier section of this chapter. This is represented in the table below.

Evaluative Criteria Journey Time Urban Planning Enhance. Ability to handle growth Public reaction Ops Reliability/Resilience Flexibility: Future Expan. Improved Technology Station Experience Train Experience A B

B A

C C C

D A D

E E E

F F F

G A G

H A H

I A I

Index 5 0

Weighting 15 0

20

D E

F E

D E

H E

I E

2 8

5 23

10

G H I

I I

1 4 5 36

2 11 14 100

Options Development: A series of nine possible options for the Railway Link to Tseung Kwan O were formulated and these are described below but will not be expanded upon for reasons of confidentiality in this case study. A. POL to EXH: 3 station B. POL to ECH: 2 station C. POL to EXH: 1 station D. Delta D E. LAL to POL: 3 station} i.e. same as A, B and C except LAL extends F. LAL to POL: 2 station} from EXH to POL G. LAL to POL: 1 station} H. KTL to POL: 3 station}i.e. line from EXH terminates at TKO or TKE I. KTL to POL: 2 station} Evaluation Matrix: A summary of the evaluation criteria and their weighting being applied each against each of the potential options with the evaluation criteria then being rated on each option is summarised in the next table. From this it becomes clear that the Option "A" coded POL 3 was the most preferred option by consensus, taking into consideration all the values of the internal stakeholders. POL 2 was the second preferred option with LAL 3 ("E") as the third option. Whilst it is an admirable ambition to try and achieve a preferred option by consensus it is sometimes dangerous to do this. It is far more prudent to rank the top three options and for those options to be subject to further financial and economic feasibility studies. In some instances the value ratio of the options can change when more refined calculations like BCRs (Benefit Cost Ratios) are calculated. It is best if participants at the workshop will agree to a

ranking such that if the preferred option is not substantiated or validated by economic and financial feasibility studies that the second option could take its place. If that option also is not substantiated then finally the third would take its place. If the findings of the benefit cost ratio or other economic and financial feasibility study techniques indicate completely different options being preferred it would be necessary to re-do the evaluation matrix. OPTIONS POL 3 Evaluation Criteria Journey Time Ability to handle growth Public Reaction Ops Resilience Flexibility: Future Expansion Improved technology Station Experience Train Experience Total Weighted Criteria Rating Estimated Cost ($M) Value Ratio
Weighting

POL 2 B

POL 1 C

Delta

LAL 3 E

LAL 2 F

LAL 1 G

KTL 3 H

KTL 2

15 20

135/8 160/8

120/8 160/8

75/5 60/3

140/9 80/4

105/7 140/7

90/6 140/7

45/3 60/3

75/5 40/2

60/4 40/2

5 23 10

30/6 184/8 70/7

30/6 184/8 70/7

25/5 92/4 50/5

35/7 69/3 40/4

30/6 138/6 60/6

30/6 138/6 60/6

25/5 92/4 40/4

30/6 184/8 70/7

30/6 184/8 70/7

18/8

18/8

4/2

10/5

10/5

10/5

10/5

4/2

4/2

11 14 100

88/8 84/6 767

77/7 84/6 743

22/2 70/5 410

44/4 98/7 520

88/8 84/6 655

77/7 84/6 629

22/2 70/5 364

66/6 56/4 525

55/5 56/4 499

1 14.4

2 14.0

8 13.0

5 12.3

3 14.4

4 14.0

9 13.3

6 14.1

7 13.4

53/3

52.9

30.8

42.3

45.5

45.0

27.4

37.2

37.2

Action Plan Comments: A significant number of actions were identified for implementation to ensure the successful carrying out of the proposed project. An example of these is indicated below. Item No. Item Action Resp. Due Date

283

MTR feeder buses in advance of TKE, to LAT Innovative equipment procurement strategy Advanced construction and finance by developer to reduce program & cost eg Po Lam

Investigate and develop proposal

RN

Feb 96

299

Investigate alternative procurement strategies Discussing with adjacent developer opportunities for integrated development and station construction

SR

Feb 96

307

CMc

31/12/95

Conclusions & Cost Savings: From the series of nine options with the nine evaluation criteria the preferred option is known as POL to EXH with a 3 station interchange. Cost savings were not a consideration although it would be considered reasonable to expect fast tracking of the project with substantial savings possibly to a billion Hong Kong dollars as a result of a final decision being made on the preferred option. It was considered once the final option had been agreed upon by consensus that a value engineering exercise should be held on the three major cost components of the project. These were the civil; architectural; and electrical engineering components. The MTRC considered that the value management process has saved nine to twelve months on their normal decision making process which represented considerable cost savings given the size of the project studied.