Navigating Major Programmes – Détails, épisodes et analyse

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Vickie Turnbull, a trailblazer in infrastructure finance with over 35 years of experience in the banking industry. Vickie shares her unique journey from corporate banking to becoming a key figure in infrastructure finance, shedding light on her extensive work with leading Canadian banks like TD Securities and RBC. Now, in what she calls "Vickie 2.0," she remains deeply involved in the sector, leveraging her expertise in advisory roles and as a board member for Infrastructure Ontario.

Vickie also dives into her commitment to mentorship and advocacy for women in infrastructure, reflecting on her role in founding the Women's Infrastructure Network (WIN) and Women in Energy Canada (WIECAN). She emphasizes the importance of diversity and inclusion in infrastructure and discusses how these networks have evolved to support and empower women in the industry.

"I think that's one of the things I really love about the whole infrastructure space is it takes a village to get these transactions done. I think that's been part of the fun part for me is that I have so many different people that I talk through as I'm working on a transaction. Right? And you've got all these people that you can interact with. And again, you get that whole diversity. People are looking at things from various different ways. And at the end of the day, we've got these fabulous assets that are getting built for the use of Canadians and replacing, you know, things that really needed to be replaced. There's a lot more that still needs to be done. So I'm a part of it, but I don't see myself, like I, it's hard and I don't know whether that's just how I think through things, how I look at it, but I do really, like, it does take a village to get these things done and I couldn't do it alone on my own. Absolutely not." – Vickie Turnbull

• Vickie's journey from corporate banking to a leadership role in infrastructure finance
• The genesis and growth of the Women's Infrastructure Network and Women in Energy Canada
• Insights into navigating the complexities of infrastructure finance and project management
• The evolving role of mentorship and diversity in the infrastructure sector
• Strategies for fostering innovation and resilience in major programmes

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Follow Vickie Turnbull on LinkedIn
• Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedIn
• Follow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedIn
• Read Riccardo’s latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

Host Riccardo Cosentino explores untapped knowledge in project management, drawing from his Oxford insights. This episode of Navigating Major Programmes delves into integrating social sciences and complex adaptive systems, addressing how minor changes can lead to significant impacts due to project complexity. Join Riccardo as he navigates through the complexities of project management, offering innovative solutions to embrace and manage these challenges effectively in a new mini series: The Science of Complexity. Could your approach to project management be outdated?

"I am convinced that, although we have achieved many incredible things already as project leaders and managers, there's something missing, something that's already out there in the world's knowledge that we're not using well enough." – Riccardo Cosentino

Steps for improving the management and understanding of complex, large-scale infrastructure projects:

• Step one: Social sciences and complex adaptive systems.
• Step two: Systems thinking.
• Step three: A Betagon chart.
• Step four: Finding a success criterion.
• Step five: Network graphs.
• Step six: Higher level network graphs.
• Step seven: Digital twins.
• Step eight: The Incerto.
• Step nine: Digital twins.
• Step ten: Composable systems.
• Step eleven: Semantics and Ontologies

Mentioned Links:  

The Fifth Discipline: The Art & Practice of The Learning Organization (Recommended Reading)

• Amazon.ca
• Amazon.com

How Understanding Systems Thinking Changed My Career (Riccardo’s LinkedIn Article)

Organizing for Work (Recommended Reading) 

• Amazon.ca
• Amazon.com

Nassim Nicholas Taleb’s Published Works (Recommended Incerto Reading)

• Amazon.ca
• Amazon.com

Digital Construction Ontologies 
 

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedIn
• Follow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedIn
• Read Riccardo’s latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

Are LLMs stochastic parrots or reflection of our own intelligence? In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Lawrence Rowland for an extremely candid conversation surrounding the adoption of artificial intelligence, in major programmes and beyond. AI skeptics and AI enthusiasts alike, this episode was recorded for you.

“None of us are keeping up, none of us know what the hell is going on. So, if you can kind of just relax and enjoy it happening, you will also help everyone else so much more. Enjoy it. And enjoy what [AI] is telling us about us.”  –Lawrence Rowland

Lawrence began as an engineer on large capital projects with WSP and Motts, before moving onto Bechtel and Booz Allen. He spent ten years in project and portfolio management with CPC and Pcubed, before transitioning to data analytics and AI for projects, working originally for Projecting Success, and now for React AI. He now helps project services firms find relevant immediate AI applications for their business.

Key Takeaways:

• Large Language Model (LLM) 101
• What is an AI agent? What is the principal-agent problem (PAP)?
• What LLMs can teach you about your own thinking patterns
• The future of Google Gemini and AI adoption in general
• The weaknesses of the generative AI of today

Mentioned Links:

• A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence
• Principal Agent Problem
• Applied Category Theory
• Wisdom of Crowds
• State Space Models and Mamba
• Demis Hassabis and the return of alpha zero type tree search and RL

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedIn
• Follow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedIn
• Read Riccardo’s latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo sits down with Daniel Armanios, BT Professor of Major Programme Management and Chair of Major Programme Management at University of Oxford, Saïd Business School. The pair discuss the importance of research, the type of valuable research and the post evaluation of major programmes.

"And so a second very cool question would be where do we want resilience in a major programme? I mean, obviously you want it within the program but do you want it in the selection process? Maybe not? Do you want it in the post validation where we don't do as well? Maybe not so maybe resilience is not great everywhere. And maybe it's really important in certain places.  I've been really thinking about this a lot because it's a really visceral fundamental point. What is it we're actually doing and trying to achieve?" – Daniel Armanios

Daniel’s research and teaching integrates civil engineering and organizational sociology to better understand how organizations coordinate to build, manage, and maintain infrastructure systems. His findings inform efforts to advance sustainable development, entrepreneurship, and innovation, while also alleviating systemic and persistent inequities within such systems.

Key Takeaways:

• The distinction of megaprojects and major programmes
• The importance of transparent assumptions and data research in major programmes
• Studying major programmes at a component level
• Where do we want resilience in major programmes?

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community:

• Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedIn
• Follow Riccardo on LinkedIn
• Follow Daniel Armanios on LinkedIn
• Daniel Armanios’ published work
• Read Riccardo’s latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Oomar Paurobally, a fellow Oxford alumnus and leader in hospitality megaprojects in South East Asia and Korea, to discuss his dissertation and his unique perspective on the Iron Triangle. The pair cover everything from stakeholder management and the universal complexity of major programmes to the interesting outcomes that can arise from a megaproject's royal flush.

“What we found is that the more you look at an aggregate level, when you're looking at an aggregated industry level, you find that the root causes tend to be the same. So, the same root causes we learned during our programme as areas affecting major infrastructure projects were the same that were impacting our industry, which were stakeholder management processes, product management skills in itself across portfolios; the root causes were similar. But what was really interesting insight was, so what? Now what? So we know, that's a core issue. But what does it really mean to us?” – Oomar Paurobally

After a degree in law, Oomar went to Dubai with a major project constructing a multi-billion dollar resort and waterpark. He has opened hotels, resorts and restaurants across Asia, the Middle East and Africa. Now, he has pivoted his career into real estate in the tech industry.

Key Takeaways:

• Is the hospitality industry immune to the iron law of major programmes?  
• The similarity of Iron Triangle root causes in civil infrastructure major programmes and luxury commercial megaprojects: Infrastructure stakeholder management and leadership management  
• Delays as strategy in private sector of hospitality major programmes; the sharp contrast from civil major programmes  
• Oomar’s dissertation research methodology; the successes and failures of thematic analysis and quantitative survey research
• The importance of pivoting to manage research bias  
• The royal flush in hospitality megaprojects and the interesting outcomes they can bring 

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedIn
• Follow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedIn
• Follow Oomar Paurobally on LinkedIn
• Read Riccardo’s latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com

Transcript:

Riccardo Cosentino  00:05

You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.

Riccardo Cosentino  00:51

Hello everyone and welcome back to another episode of Navigating Major Programmes. We're here today with Oomar Paurobally. How are you doing, Oomar?

Oomar Paurobally  01:02

I'm doing great Riccardo, it's great to be here.

Riccardo Cosentino  01:04

Thank you for joining me today. Really, really excited to have you on. I believe today you are calling from Singapore. Am I correct?

Oomar Paurobally  01:13

That's right. Beautiful island of Singapore.

Riccardo Cosentino  01:15

There you go. And I'm in Toronto so I think we are covering most of the time zone around the globe today. We're here today to talk about, I mean, you attended the Master in Major Program Management with me, we were in the same cohort. And today I invited you to the podcast to talk about your research, your dissertation. But maybe before we do that, that you might introduce yourself a little bit. Tell us a little bit about your background and what did you do before Oxford, what are you doing now, and things like that.

Oomar Paurobally  01:46

Thank you so much, Riccardo. Well, pleasure to be on the podcast and invest. Here I'm standing on shoulders of giants who came before me and we're on the fourth podcast. So if you ask myself, I actually did not start in life thinking I was going into major programmes. I read law and management in my very first degree. But I was tapped on the shoulder for a very interesting project, my first major programme in Dubai, which was to join the project management team building the Atlantis in Dubai. So that was approximately 15 years ago now. And that's how I joined this world in this realm. After that. I've been plodding along in the world of construction, building hotels and resorts across Asia, Middle East and Africa. The programme was a seminal point in my life and my career because I did pivot into a different industry, into the technology industry, right after looking still looking after spaces, but in a very different way.

Riccardo Cosentino  02:42

Very interesting, your background is very different from mine, I mean, you do construction, but you did a different type of construction. So I was very intrigued by your dissertation because it looks a case study that is very different from what I used to know. What I found from the dissertation for your research even though the case study is a different day, the issues are similar because upon the the level of complexity of the problems that you were looking at, is as high as any other major programmes that I looked at. So that was why I was interested in that, I was very keen to have you on because when we think of major programmes, in my circle, we always think of the major civil project is very complex and like well, tunneling, big dams and power plants. But you'll be looking at major programme from a different perspective. And so I was very, very keen to have a different perspective on the podcast.

Oomar Paurobally  03:38

Thank you so much, Riccardo. I guess first, let me start by saying obviously, the views I'll be sharing today are mine and mine alone and do not reflect any of the views and perspectives of my previous or current employers. So now that that's out of the way, let's talk about perspective. So it's very interesting, actually, I joined the programme itself, I was asking myself that question, major programme is programmes that are currently focused on major infrastructure projects (inaudible) start, whereas I was coming from a commercial lens at this project philosophy commercializing it from day one. And the added element to this was the complexity of the programmes I was managing was due to scale. So they had already scaled. So, if you looked at each individual project I was working on, they would not make up a programme. They would fall very clearly within the realms of what we define as project management, that when you start multiplying, and you start building in different countries with different stakeholders, at the same time, then the complexities became the same complexities you would face at a major programme level. So for me, that's where the similarities were, as we started engaging into the programme.

Riccardo Cosentino  05:00

And maybe we can have a bit of a debate as I've had this debate in the past with other people. So obviously, you're saying one building is probably not a major project but when you are combining a portfolio of building projects, then that's when it becomes a major programme. So a portfolio does reach a level of complexity that brings something to the level of major programme with some (inaudible). And I don't like I never like to measure major programmes by the size, you know, either financial size or like, even one bedroom size. I always look at, it's a major programme when the complexity is high. And so I think when you have a portfolio, by their nature becomes very complex because you're now dealing with multiple stakeholdesr, multiple jurisdictions. So yeah, I, you know, to me, and I would like to get your view, is like, is it appropriate to define major programme by the level of complexity or should we have a discussion about the financial size? Well, what would be your experience during your research?

Oomar Paurobally  06:08

Well, I think just financial size of your portfolio matters, because it will determine the level of interest that there is from different stakeholders on managing a portfolio of let's say, you have 50 assets, but which are worth 10 million versus 20 assets that are worth $100 million each, it's very different. So I think the financial element plays a part, plays a role because the bigger the financial elements that you're working with, the higher the level of pressure. In my context, and it is about assets that are owned, mostly by conglomerates or high-net-worth individuals. So the pressure to perform can can be quite different, versus assets that are owned, or heavily subsidized by banks, for example, where timing becomes very important and staying within limits of initial plan execution. It's more critical.

Riccardo Cosentino  07:11

Interesting. Okay, switching gears a little bit, shall we talk about your dissertation? Well, what was your word? What was your area of research? What did you research when you were at Oxford?

Oomar Paurobally  07:21

I was looking in the hospitality industry and whether the iron law of major programme was also relevant there, which is, you know, programmes are delayed and produce under benefits over and over again. Across the industry and across different brands, we found that to be true and that as an industry, it was not immune to the iron law of major programmes.

Riccardo Cosentino  07:49

And did you find that, you know, I think we all are aware, people who listen to the podcast are aware (inaudible) of what is analysis of the root causes of the iron triangle? Did you find that it's very similar root causes of your currents of the iron triangle or you've done with different root causes in your industry?

Oomar Paurobally  08:16

Oh, that's a really interesting question, Riccardo, because what we found is that the more you look at an aggregate level, when you're looking at an aggregated industry level, you find that the root causes tend to be the same. So the same root causes we learned during our programme as areas affecting major infrastructure projects were the same that were impacting our industry, which is your stakeholder management processes. You're talking about project management skills in itself across portfolios. The root causes were similar but what was really interesting insight was, so what? Now what? So we know that's a core issue. But what does it really mean to us? And the answer, and what added to the complexity or the beauty of portfolios is it really depends. It depends on the organization you're working with. What are the different stakeholders we're working with? And for some organizations, being delayed was a good strategy. Well, it was a strategic decision to do so because unlike infrastructure projects, where you're using, again, Epic Funds to build something and you have an imperative all the time of making sure that every dollar counts when you're going into the private sector, there might be an erosion framework, and yet, you might have invested a bit too early, but it makes more sense for conglomerate to wait, better headwinds, better travel industry patterns. COVID was a fantastic example of that. It might have been the middle of construction, while opening you better wait buddy. Let that thing pass before you can even (inaudible) means having to keep certain fixed expenses.

Riccardo Cosentino  10:02

That's very, yeah, for sure. That's not something that we see in my project, you know, we build, like, right, like rapid transit system that you can never open there soon enough also, because the idea is these projects, these mega projects in the public realm, and I know I'm not subjected to the economic ups and downs, right? I mean, and then they're typically long overdue. Yeah. So I can see, I can see how the government capital plays a part in the strategic decision of the major programmes that you look at. What are the interesting findings? And finally, the deal, I mean, you always see, maybe you want to talk a little bit about your methodology for the research is something that we always talk about, but you know, Oxford has a very rigorous research methods. And we as a Master's student, we are asked to form a very, very specific research guidelines. So do you want to maybe talk a little bit about your process?

Oomar Paurobally  11:02

Sure, I guess, rigorous is a bit of an understatement. It was like it was very interesting. I took an approach over here because I was looking at an industry in general, of doing a whole literature review first. And then I went into interviews. The reason I started with a literature review approach, which is, you know, scour the web and websites like Web of Science, Scopus, where we really have, you know, the majority of academic articles are listed. It is really scour websites to find out how much information, how much literature had been written on these aspects of major programming. But the performance of major programmes in the hospitality industry there wasn't a lot I mean, when individual it's a lot, it's a lot to go through, I went to thousand plus abstracts to be read and filtered down to get to the core articles that we wanted to analyze where the approach was a literature review approach to really understand what was the status of knowledge with regards to major programmes in that industry. What was interesting is that 5000 as a number can sound like a lot, it is not when you look at it in other industries, you're talking about hundreds of thousands. So the first insight was it was an interesting dissertation because not a lot was written on the subject. And when you look at the conclusion of 90 odd articles in the selected foreword station and to really analyze it was a handful of offers. So there, the interest, the academic interest in the industry was not very high, which for me was really interesting because it really open up more opportunities for study.

Riccardo Cosentino  13:09

So you went for a qualitative versus quantitative research so you qualitatively assessed the issue, rather than quantitatively which means you basically interview, how did you select your participants in the research and you know, how big was the pool?

Oomar Paurobally  13:26

The pool was leaders in the sector, across major hotel organizations in Southeast Asia. (Inaudible) basic geographic delineation around the dissertation, which is it studies the industry from an Asian perspective, which is also where most hurdles have been built in recent years.

Riccardo Cosentino  13:54

Okay, so you interview your participant, you gather the data? And then what do you, and then I'm assuming you analyze the data using a specific model that you probably had built? Sorry, I'm going for this because I, I just realized that I'm not over, you know, I invite a lot of guests and we talk about their dissertation and give it, I always assume that people know what the process of a dissertation and I realize that they don't So, I'm not, I'm putting you for this just to give a sense of why it's important to have guests like you on the podcast to talk about your research and to actually explain the rigor and what we do. So yeah, but I was asking you, you know, once you have all the data, you actually you know, I think we all do it, we actually create a model to analyze and assess the data, right?

Oomar Paurobally  14:46

Correct. And the methodology I used was a methodology from have Mahler and key platinum book, which explains the different methodologies available when doing interviews and more specifically when writing dissertations. And the approach I took was a thematic approach, meaning you would run the interview and you would give full, obviously, full freedom, full length for the interviewees to give their point of view. But after the fact, you will look at how many times a fear would come up during the conversation without being prompted. Right. So he got really hard because you really don't want to influence the interviewee to keep on one subject, but you would let it naturally flow during the conversation. And what would happen is after a little while up to two or three questions, and as we go into our root causes, of performance or underperformance, each stakeholder start developing a fear as to why they shake (inaudible) I will then note the number of times that fear is coming up. So I would do that for all the interviewees. And at the end of the interview, I would highly tally shall be able to look at how many times project management skills or lack of knowledge of project management skills was coming up, the number of times stakeholder management was coming up. And that was the approach and the tricky part of the approach is, there's an inherent bias when you're selecting interviewees, because the higher up the corporate ladder you're going, the more the leaders would be guarding up stakeholder management, because that's where a bigger portion of their time is spent. While you're going to get the teams and within the teams then project management skills is really coming up soon. You're going to manage those different biases and try to find finely balance the interviewees you're looking for in the first place to make sure that the data doesn't go in one direction versus the other purely because of the set of interviewees that are on the pool.

Riccardo Cosentino  17:05

Thank you for explaining that. Because I think it's yeah, I think it's interesting and worth mentioning, as you said, these are experienced individuals, experienced participant, people who are, been working in the industry for a long time. So their views are very, very valid. And looking at patterns and models view of practitioners who have similar experiences, is what the research is about. And I found that a very, very interesting process because you do get a cross section of the industry or you do get a cross section of what's happening. So you talked about biases. And so did you try to balance off some of the biases by the type of participants? So you mentioned you had experienced project manager? Did you also try to balance so we'd, like, less experienced project manager to see if the (inaudible) a different views?

Oomar Paurobally  18:02

That's correct. You know, sometimes we talk about the things that work. But let me share something that did not work. My first approach was not an interviewing approach. My first approach was a survey approach. And it feels to be reserved, because I hadn't read the room correctly. You know, for context, while I was writing the dissertation, we were coming out of COVID years, and COVID had had a tremendous impact on, you see, with hospitality industry. So you can imagine how it would feel when you receive a survey telling you about, you know, what project is going wrong, the type of answers you would get shared good quality bias or influence, but there was certainly COVID looming behind the surveys, and I was trying to go for quantity and pushed it out to as many folks as possible are creating a wide region, the data that came in was just unworkable, because, you know, you get to read the room correctly for the balance correctly. So I had to pivot on the approach to get a better quality of data and to be able to get stock hurdles. So when you talk about biases, it was easier during an interview, to have a different conversation of COVID. But also, let's get COVID aside, you have X years of experience in the industry. Let's talk about those and what they taught you. It also covered of course, but you know, let's talk about your overall experience. So one way to reduce the bias was when looking at length of experience within various industries. So if somebody had joined the industry right before COVID or during COVID, I would not be interviewing them because of experience without being bothered by that (inaudible).

Riccardo Cosentino  19:47

Thank you for clarifying and thank you for your vulnerability. You're telling us that went down the wrong path that led to, but that's part of the research, right? That's exactly part of the research. It's you know, you try things and you try something different and the ending worked. Okay, so you did the literature review, you select your participant, you tailored questionnaire, you interview the participant, you gather the data, you analyze the data. And then I'm assuming you roleplay the discussion and then a conclusion. And maybe you can walk us through if you can on what were the main themes of your of your recent work. What came out as the main themes from interviewing a participant then what conclusions did you draw from the data that you collected.

Oomar Paurobally  20:35

Sure. The first elements, I guess, in a nutshell, we're very similar again to the infrastructure programs before project management came up, stakeholder management, lack or lack of stakeholder management came out. Those were the first set of answers that were coming out from the interviews, we hadn't gone to the level and we talked about biases a bit earlier, we hadn't gone to a level of, of bias yet, which I purposely bought into a question in the interviews to say, well, is poor project management a symptom? Is lack of stakeholder management a symptom of the bigger issue of the bias? And for me, this is where it became interesting, because when we looked, not only was the symptom similar, the biases are similar, I believe that's at major programme, so it's, it was an insight, which was interesting for me because there was also what when it came to the bias, first if we talk about biased strategic misrepresentation, right, so they could happen on many different levels, they could happen on the stakeholder level, not necessarily from the leaders of the programme, strategically misrepresenting this amount of time is going to build and get commitment to build. But there was a very (inaudible). So what? We knew that. You simply look at the past to know that it's going to take time and we see something we can live with. So what was interesting is our conversation of how much can, how much of the performance can we leave with before we decide to call it quits? So that was an interesting conversation, which I didn't find when talking to fellow colleagues or looking at the infrastructure. There are some fact in there. And so yeah, we know plus minus six months, that you plus two years, nobody's doing that. Versus in the commercial world yeah, it's two years, no problem as long as the conglomerate is still healthy and still working very well and the economy is right and ripe for the picking when you open. So I think that was interesting and that was different from infrastructure programmes. So, yeah, there is this strategic misrepresentation.

Riccardo Cosentino  23:08

So I think we touched upon why it's different, at the beginning you mentioned that there are, because I think it's important to dwell on the thought that yeah, when you delivered public infrastructure, it was always long overdue when the confession starts, because you know, thing takes a long time to get this project approved. And so the need for the infrastructure is already there, even before it gets built. And so then, therefore, a delay, all it creates is even more, you're already late when you start because you probably should have built that transit system 20 years ago, and so the further delays are not going to be acceptable. But in my field, we call that revenue transactions, where the asset is actually going to generate monetary revenues on the back end. And it could be yeah, I mean, there could be other reasons why a project, it could be delayed, or it's acceptable for a project to be delayed, because there are revenue consideration and cost consideration on the back end, something that doesn't really exist when you're building a public transit. I mean, it should exist, because ultimately, these are assets that generate benefits for the community. So your financial benefit should always be taken into consideration, but because the reason that exchange of money from the user or not a commensurate exchanging money for the user, that aspect, is that forgotten. And so sometimes being able to trade off delays with revenues or considering other reasons, it could be advantageous, but really, and we don't see that in the public realm.

Oomar Paurobally  24:51

Correct. I think the second element to your question of the findings were first, the first finding was a reaction of, sure what? Right? Set it to a bar set. So we've got it, it's an economic reality, which we live with. And because we were running a P&L, we manage a P&L, and as long as we're doing well, it's okay, let's live with it and move forward. So we don't dwell on it. But the second limit, which was not immediately coming across, but you would see, as we, you know, I was reading for the interviews was a collection of organizational inertia. So, for the inertia of a or I call it a (inaudible) company, that's managing the portfolio can slow down to a portfolio of projects itself. So if you're looking at a project, by definition, it's, it has a, an end date, it gets delayed, but there's an end date. If your teams are very nimble or if they're working like little organizations themselves. What's different in the hospitality industry is you, you have big organizations behind them. And what we saw is that to that nimbleness, sometimes we get lost at an individual project level, because you need to wait for the bigger organization for decision making. So organizational inertia, of bigger organization impacting individual project was also something that came up, which wouldn't exist in infrastructure programs, because we have one organization and designed for that speed and pace.

Riccardo Cosentino  26:37

Interesting, interesting. And so in your research in your conclusion, the way you're able to look at, okay, you look at so what and where you will also be able to look at now what? So what is supposed the solution or that was beyond the scope of research?

Oomar Paurobally  26:57

Yeah, look, we started to look at opportunities, right? I think I'll start with organization inertia first. I wonder who said that there was a code, that snow melts at the periphery. I won't be quoting him wrong, but it was Andy Grove of Microsoft, talking about this. And his point was that organizations can get too big before snow melts at the center and the center knows about it, it already melted everywhere else. And it sure felt that way. When I was studying the industry for a nation that where COVID had a major impact was redefining the industry. But it was also creating opportunities within the industry. So for example, Foodie Kiwi business was never hired while during COVID. And organizations that were nimble were able to take advantage of it so the term Goose Kitchens became popular. They werew opening up all over the place. Delivery services became massive and even after COVID they're still around and having taken with food for delivery services is now a thing. So what this created was a reckoning in the world of hospitality around the business opportunity that existed in that food and beverage area versus what was traditionally a very rooms focused, focused business. So a recommendation was to keep an eye on the periphery and what offers businesses coming up to adapt. Otherwise, if you look up the hotel today, it seem very different when I (inaudible) in the 1960s as it wounds through reception, and there is a (inaudible) on the right hand side. So it did give a moment of reckoning for the industry, which was quite interesting.

Riccardo Cosentino  29:11

Thank you for that perspective. Yeah. Very, very interesting. Yeah, I think we all anecdotally understand that but to hear it from professional from the hotel industry is very interesting. Okay, I think we come in towards the end of the podcast. And I have one final question before I let you go. But before I get to the final question at any other particular discovery from your research or you think you have you presented all your findings or what was there something else in your research that you want to share with the audience?

Oomar Paurobally  29:45

So the (inaudible) was interesting from the research was the importance of the country in which you're operating. So we discussed a bit earlier about complexity will be coming from jurisdiction in which you're operate and when you look at this part of the world in specific, we tend to put acronyms to things we'll say this is Southeast Asia, there's tens of countries, and the laws are very, very different. So when you are operating across them, having those acronyms in mind and thinking, oh, it's just one project under that acronym, how hard can it be? I think you can never discount the jurisdiction element. And again, that's a point of difference in I think, big infrastructure projects. But we know the country in which it's happening, if it's something that's being built between the countries, we're also very specific about those two, whereas when it's the portfolio, and it's across different countries, and different stakeholders we have in those countries being able to navigate, those jurisdictions become very, very important skill.

Riccardo Cosentino  30:55

Thank you for sharing that. Yeah. Very interesting point. It's very peculiar to your industry. Also because you have an ongoing like with mega projects, either they get handed over to somebody else, but the operation politics is well entrenched into the business, right? So it's not just about the power, it's all of the facility. It's about running afterward. Okay, before I go, and hopefully you can you can answer these questions. I don't think this triggers any confidentiality. But I think you while we were in Oxford, you were telling us almost very specific commissioning process that the hotels, group of hotels, have to go through. Can you tell us what the royal flush is?

Oomar Paurobally  31:44

Well, one very, one very specific project that (inaudible) when you're you're commissioning a property, and you want to make sure all the mechanical and engineering systems and the pipings are working well. You test all the products and amenities in a room that includes turning on all your TVs, etc. And when it comes to the flush, it's about opening every faucet there is, from the bathtub to the shower to the water closet and picking and choosing the big button and flushing and doing it all at the same time to check your equipment. There have been some interesting outcomes of (inaudible).

Riccardo Cosentino  32:32

(Inaudible) as a civil engineer that as commissioned projects, you know, that part of the commissioning (inaudible), so thank you for sharing that. And now, on that line note, I want to thank you for joining me today. It was a fascinating conversation. Thank you for sharing with us your dissertation, your process, your findings, and I wish you all the best for your new endeavor. And thank you for joining me.

Oomar Paurobally  32:55

Thank you, Riccardo, always a pleasure.

Riccardo Cosentino  32:59

That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major programme management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.

Transcribed by https://otter.ai

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Sherena Hussain, lawyer, global thought leader in infrastructure and advisor to new partnership and sustainable finance models, to tackle the complex question: is private capital successful in major programmes?  

“The research and the industry and the research is beginning to align in the sense that we need to begin to do things differently. Now is the time to start to challenge the paradigm and do better.” – Sherena Hussain  

Key Takeaways:

• The role private capital in infrastructure major programmes  
• The overlaying correlation and causation of politics in private capital  
• The biases of private practitioners in determining the use of private capital  
• Delivery models, risk transfer and the tools for successful major programmes  
• Systems approach to complexity  
• The collective responsibility and impact of stakeholder management

Sherena Hussain’s Published Work

• Rethinking the role of private capital in infrastructure PPPs: the experience of Ontario, Canada
• Exploring the Success of Social Infrastructure Public Private Partnerships: The Complex Case of Bridgepoint Active Healthcare in Ontario, Canada

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Connect with Sherena Hussain on Linkedin
• Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedIn
• Follow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedIn
• Read Riccardo’s latest at wwww.riccardocosentino.com

Transcript:

Riccardo Cosentino  0:05  

You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.

Riccardo Cosentino  0:53  

Hello, everyone. Welcome to a new episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I'm here today with Sherena Hussain. How are you doing, Sherena?

Sherena Hussain  1:01  

I'm doing well. Thanks. How are you?

Riccardo Cosentino  1:04  

I'm very good. I'm very good. I'm so glad we're on this podcast together. Thank you for agreeing to join me. I've known you for a long time. But maybe for the guests that may not have seen you on CBC or seen your work on LinkedIn, can you introduce yourself briefly?

Sherena Hussain  1:21  

Oh, wonderful. Well, thank you for that. Well, my name, as you mentioned, is Shereena. Hussein. I'm a lawyer as well as an academic. In addition to being in the infrastructure space for many years, it's so interesting that Riccardo, you and I, we go back, way back, to the Infrastructure Ontario days where I was a summer associate and I was able to work alongside some of your teams. And since then, my career has taken me in different directions. Practicing as a lawyer at McCarthy Tétrault moving into academia, including affiliations with the Schulich School of Business, and also dovetailing into a variety of different international work, including affiliations with the G7 and the G20, trying to pair private capital to sustainable infrastructure projects all around the world. And now more specifically, trying to connect different types of research to actual problems that we have in the infrastructure community, more specifically, how do we make those projects bankable but also sustainable economically as well as environmentally speaking?

Riccardo Cosentino  2:26  

Okay, very interesting. So you, obviously, our path connected in the past and having this still do because I'm also still involved with private capital. I work for AtkinsRéalis doing investments into infrastructure. I have not been able to attend your courses at Schulich. But I certainly have seen them or your affiliation with the university. I mean, today, we want to talk about, obviously, private capital, but we want to also talk about major programming in general, and the challenges that major programme bring in terms of on-time delivery, on-budget delivery, and the complexity of major programmes and the multitude of stakeholders that they involve. So it's a very, very complex ecosystem. And I think I would just want to explore with you what you've picked up over the years in terms of what is the function of private capital and how can private capital at times help and at times doesn't help major programmes?

Sherena Hussain  3:34  

Yes, and first and foremost, I'm so happy that you're having this podcast series, because often we don't talk about this enough, and really being able to step back, see how well we're doing as an industry, but also, where are the rules or the ways that we can otherwise find solutions? How do we improve or at least create a dialogue around that? And with my research, and it's actually in fact, one of the reasons why I ended up doing a dovetail into academia, was really coming to the reflection point of whether or not we can do things better. And you know, as well as I do, and most of your listeners know that there has been a considerable amount of challenges that are almost endemic to major projects and the idea that items are over budget, they're never on time and then there's fallacies on how we plan and how we execute. And you can just look for the headlines from time to time, in which case, we always end up scratching our head and asking ourself, how did this happen? And that was one of the major questions that led me to move into academia and also conduct research with a bit of a slant towards private capital, but less so from a pure financial perspective, but rather looking at the role of private capital at the intersection of law, risk, as well as how that infuses some of the planning processes. So that intersectionality is quite challenging to wrap your head around, let alone do research. What I found really telling is that in the process, being able to step away from just each project stage and each project clause or project agreement, which as a lawyer, you can appreciate that's something that matters very much to what we do. But being able to step back and look at, well, how do these items interact with one another? In the context of say, are these projects able to attract private capital? What influence does this have on how the parties behave over the duration of long-term project agreements, some instance upwards of 30 years? How does that then influence the different stakeholders outside of the agreements? And then how then does different decision-makers reflect upon that whether at the front end and when they're coming out with some of the projected benefits, but also, as they try to communicate what went well, and try to then encourage other jurisdictions to follow suit. And it's that latter piece, which some of my research has gained a lot of traction, because looking at, say, Canada, we are regarded around the world, as some of the leaders when it comes to preparing infrastructure projects using different delivery models. I know some of your listeners might not recognize that. But as someone who then goes around the world, and interacts with say, senior government officials that are looking to bring on board different types of sustainable infrastructure, they always ask, what is Canada doing? How can we learn from Canada? What are some of your practitioners' best practices? And how then do we follow suit? So when you put that into the context of things like private law, risk, and all the different, the contextual features that come into play with how we put in place major projects, we're not just making a decision as a one-off, we are influencing effectively global infrastructure. And that's where some of the research on private capital is anyways, both fascinating, but also daunting because it does have a ripple effect in terms of how practitioners may then take them into account, and then replicate that in other places around the world.

Riccardo Cosentino  7:21  

Wow, there's so much to unpack in that. Certainly, yeah, the role of private capital. And I think we, what we're seeing right now in Canada, and what we're seeing in the UK, is how the role of private capital has started to shift in certain type of infrastructure. Again, I don't want to overgeneralize, because, you know, there's a lot of places where a lot of assets where private capital is still using is still the domino form of financing. But in more traditional public infrastructure, we've seen a bit of a decline in the use of that type of capital, as a tool of achieving outcomes, because I think that that's important, I think it's important to define that in Canada, the use of private capital was with the purpose of creating different incentives and creating different outcomes for major projects, rather than using private capitals, as a source or as a gap filler for project funding or project financing. So I actually would like to ask you, what's your view in terms of how effective is private capital being, it's a loaded question, but how effective is private capital being in achieving different or I would say, better outcomes for project delivery or major projects in general?  

Sherena Hussain  8:55  

That is a loaded question. I'll try to address this from the perspective of both research but also practice considering that I really have a foot in both worlds. Let me step back and understand well, what are the motivations to then introduce private capital? In many ways, those are your benchmarkers for success in terms of did it achieve that or did it not? And when we stop and think about the theory behind the use of private capital in mega projects, many of the key items include things like is it a way to then align incentives between different parties? Is it an opportunity and then to incentivize certain behavior so that you achieve value for money in terms of how best different parties are able to manage risk, as an example, or some of the the windfall profits can then be better managed by virtue of using private capital. You have the benefit of leverage to then induce different types of returns to then bring different forms of maybe longer-term private capital providers to the table which otherwise may have not been available. And then again, can you align the incentives with what the public sector also wants to achieve? One of the key challenges, though, that exists with just that theoretical approach to then benchmark, how well does private capital work or does not work is that just so much more (inaudible) with or without private capital. And this, you move beyond the theory, and then you look at, say, the process to then create a market that then entices private capital. The processes involved in terms of structuring different tender documents, getting some degree of negotiation, and also making your way through the process of financial close and then when the real fun begins, when the capital comes into different projects, that's when you see things like leadership and personalities come into the conversation. We also see the role of which different capital markets come into play. And inevitably, there's a political climate that, for the most, part does overlay whether or not private capital is available, but also how well it's priced and if that price outweighs some of the benefits that come with private capital. We're now entering a period in which case interest rates are much higher than they have been in at least the past six to seven years. That, in and of itself, introduces a different paradigm for just private capital and a cost-benefit analysis that might come into play. But also in that period, at least here in Canada, we're also seeing a morph in terms of what kind of delivery models have we introduced and how much private capital have they also been deployed. And that makes it somewhat difficult to then apply, say, our theoretical approaches for whether private capital is successful or not because there have been things outside of that traditional analysis that have occurred as well. So from a research perspective, it's difficult to say causation versus correlation. But what it ultimately means from, say, a decision maker's perspective is, well, if private capital was successful five years ago in a specific industry, does it mean I can replicate the exact same set of circumstances for another industry today? And the short answer is no, you have to then reevaluate, is it the right solution? And if it is, how much private capital? Which source? At what period of time? And all these different variables to then being able to then achieve some of those benefits like, are we aligning incentives over the long haul? Who takes on some of the most problematic risks that comes into play? And I will say that, Riccardo, is one in which we're entering a new frontier when we start to think about the role of private capital of mega projects, because not only has the ecosystem changed, but also much of the research is catching up to now being able to pull some holes in those assumptions. And the practitioner community is even recognizing that yes, we need to stop and think about is this the right set of contexts or circumstances for us to determine is it the right use? Is it not? And then be able to benchmark after the fact of whether it's successful or not.

Riccardo Cosentino  13:18  

Again, a lot to unpack. As you said, it was a loaded question, I think you answered it beautifully. For certain, the landscape has changed. And I like how you refer to practitioners. And so, by the way, for the non-academic listeners, we, I am a practitioner, as people in the industry are the practitioners. And so we have our own views. And I have to say that, without taking away much from practitioner, I do believe that the practitioner view's a little biased. So relying, of course, a practitioner will, a private sector practitioner will always push for private capital, and get that generates a return on the capital that is deployed. And so I think relying on practitioner to provide views on the use of private capital is a little biased but I think it's a necessary point of view. I think you touched upon the ability to assess the outcomes of these mega projects and the influence of private capital or public capital to the mega projects. However, I think it can be challenging because the horizons are very long and the datasets are limited when you have such horizons, right? When you have a project that could last five, seven, 10 years, you might actually not know the outcome of that project, probably couple of years after the contraction has been completed. And that could be 12 years from now. So it's really difficult to have, to assess the benefits of the impact that certain decision, like the decision of using private capital, can have on the outcomes. And that's why I touched upon the bias because obviously if you, if the people making the assessment are biased and you have incomplete data and long span horizons, the verdict, so to speak, might be highly biased and geared towards certain preferences of the industry or the person that is making that assessment. But nevertheless, it's important that we do assess, and we do try to understand, what private capital can do, or other tools in the toolbox, for that matter, that are used to tackle the challenges of major programmes, right? Major programmes are very complex, they have a history, if you're starting a major programme, you should know that you probably going to be late and over budget. And if you think that your major programme is not going to do that, then you probably don't understand major programmes because the history, the data is out there. Having Professor Filberg is, I can't remember the stat but probably 90% of major programmes are late and over budget. So in any case, major programmes are complex. And we need the tools to deal with this complexity. And so private capital is one of the tools but in your mind are their other tools and is the choice of tools, an important choice? And if I can add one more element, is the choice of tools fixed or the tools actually change along the lifecycle of a major project?  

Sherena Hussain  16:54  

This is an excellent question. And I like to use the analogy of tools in a toolbox, but also whether or not it's an individual who's picking up that tool? Do they know what to pick up at any given time? And for what project are they trying to use this tool for? So think of, say a home renovation, in which case, today, you might use a variety of different tools, supplies for a particular problem. But think about, say three years from now. And you might have to reconsider, oh, do I need to replace? Do I need three player? Which tool from the toolbox do I need now? If we use that and then apply that sort of question-answering queue to then major projects, then we have to think about at what point are we thinking about the problem? Are we thinking in terms of, say, delivery models? And often that's where we get the analogy of tool in a toolbox? Are we thinking of one form of risk transfer versus another? And this is where we often gravitate towards and say, well, this type of a public-private partnership or alliancing model, this is one tool from our toolbox. That's a very simplistic approach. Because yes, we ask that question. But we also have to ask ourselves, who's in fact using these tools? Do we have the institutional capabilities in order to then be able to leverage these tools in order to achieve an outcome? Go one step further, are we actually addressing the right project at any given time? Do we have to up-scope or descope it? And if we start thinking about that perspective or going beyond just a micro project approach, which is typically how much of the private capital research is focused on, it really goes down to a project level or a subset of different portfolio data. But once we try to introduce it into an institutional context, that's when we see a variety of different theories that ultimately can gravitate towards things like the systems in which case private capital then operates in. And that's why I think there are different solutions that are available that thinks about, well, it's not just what's in the toolbox. But there are also solutions such as how do we upskill? Or what capacity are we building? What about, say, things like critical thinking skills and problem definitions? That's another tool which, there are different intellectual models that exist and we can train and teach for that we can conduct research in that, that also then has an impact on the use and or success of different types of private capital. And I can give you an example of how I'm currently grappling with this from a research but also in terms of application and by the way, this particular public-private partnership agency wants to then attract private capital to do so. In that process, we're looking at okay, which delivery model works, let's prepare the project. And we can go through a lot of those more micro-level analyses. But what is critical is the fact that private capital may or may not be attracted to that and particularly at the right risk-return profile. And that's when you step up and start looking at the norms, the processes, the people, the broader institutional ecosystem that comes into play, that all has to work together. So much so that the term private capital, which might be politically advantageous in those markets are not really used much anymore. It's called blended capital, how well can you de-risk private capital to then bring them into a market, so you have a balance between public capital, and private capital and different types as well like the nonprofit sector? And that's where we're seeing an inflection point in how, not only the research but the practitioner community in certain regions where private capital is just not available, is trying to evolve in order to address, can we get some of the benefits, but also knowing that some markets just do not exist today.

Riccardo Cosentino  20:56  

Yeah, I like how you describe major projects, and you look at all of the facets, the delivery model, that type of contract used is one facet. But you know, I think we study, we study major projects, as temporary organizations and being an organization, you need to consider multiple facets, you need to consider, as you said, exactly what you said is the people, the processes, the culture that gets to sits in the middle, how these people compensated, what kind of bureaucracy do you have, and all of these should exist in a harmony that allows the system, so the major programme, to deliver the appropriate outcomes. And yeah, there are situations where certain tools will work and other tools won't and vice versa. So, alignment, as you said, the private capital is very good at aligning incentives and providing risk transfer. But, you know, does that really apply to every single project? I mean, I can think of one industry that never really used private capital to its full extent, which is the nuclear industry there's no way you can find privately financed nuclear power plant because of because of the risk. So you really need to understand I think, my law professor, during my master said, what problem are you trying to solve? And then from that, once you've established the problem you're trying to solve, you find the right contract to help you solve that problem, right? If the problem is I want to transfer the most amount of risk, then you've got to find a contract like a PPP or like a project finance solution where you're transferring the majority of the contract, but that comes with cost, as you pointed out, or the private capital might not be available so the risk transfer might not be, might not be the right mechanism for that particular project. So, I think we've been conditioned over the last few years, over the last 10 years, that there is our delivery model that will accomplish the best outcomes. But I think that's very reductionist because you really need to look at the system that you're dealing with and that is much more multifaceted than just, oh, this contract versus that contract.  

Sherena Hussain  23:22  

Absolutely. And when you start to explore that, you also then have the opportunity to then look at systems solutions to system challenges. And from one end, to be able to have that conversation is quite challenging, because some would say, well, that's just outside my zone of influence, or that's outside my industry, or you just have to wait for something to happen but we need this built today. That elements of not so much public, or public or political considerations, but also more broadly about the role in which organizations and different disciplines can then interact with one another is also something to be challenged. We often think about, well, one company only does X, they rely upon a consortium to come together and provide a solution, say in major programmes. So to be able to then offer a system space solution, then a similar sort of coming together of disciplines looking at some of the solutions they have, what are the problem they have to solve knowing that it isn't going to be a simple answer to a relatively challenging problem also requires even within the public sector and even, you know, at least even drop the distinction between public and private, a systems-based approach to thinking about what's the problem we're trying to achieve and what are some of the solutions that exist, ultimately are ways in which we can at least beginning to scratch the surface and look at can we actually get to the root of some of these problems and then start to implement some of say, the innovations that come forward. I am mindful that there are certain delivery models out there that are masking themselves with some of those broader solutions that say, well, we might be doing things like alliancing, which on its surface suggests that we're doing exactly that. But as we've discussed so far, it's, in some ways, it goes beyond just a project and a delivery model. It's looking at, do we have the right skills? Do we have the right capabilities? Are we pricing risk accordingly? And what about things like norms, culture, that do you have to be addressed? They could be addressed within a delivery model. But what's been clear in the research and the theoretical framework is that we have to go beyond that. And that does require an evolution within the industry, but also within different types of interactions and yeah, I would even say, broaden what the industry means in order to start moving that envelope across the board, to then being able to say we're now developing system space solutions to system space problems in mega projects.

Riccardo Cosentino  26:08  

Okay, I want to pause a little bit on system approach. Because I think you and I are familiar, and probably a lot of the listeners, are familiar with system thinking. But it is a discipline that it's certainly underutilized in, certainly in Canada, as far as I know, because I've not come across system thinking until I ended up in the U.K. where it's a concept that even there is not broadly used, but it's I think a bit more understood and at least the benefits of system thinking and approaching issues from a system perspective is something that is being embraced more and more especially in civil engineering in mega project, because when you have a lot of complexity, you need to think of different types of relations between agents within the various system. And you might even have a system or systems to make things even more complicated.  

Riccardo Cosentino  27:14  

But the system approach is, it's important because I'm always trying to explain it to known to people who have never come acrossed system thinking that the example I always give is the butterfly effect, right? Whenever, we always know we've always heard some in, when a butterfly flaps the wings in Australia, you might have a tornado in North America. And that's basically how I explained system thinking where there is no direct cause and effect, which is perceived by as more causality that happens in a way that we don't quite understand. And so we need to really understand all of the elements to trying to understand our all of the elements, in our case, for major programmes, stakeholders, interact with each other because only when we understand those interactions, we can start seeing patterns of actions that occur within the system. And we always have a tendency as human beings to reduce the complexity, and always thinking of linear cause and effect, when in reality, we're talking about circular cause and effect. And in fact, it is not even cause and effect it is just circularity of relations. So sorry, I wanted to take just a few minutes just to get all the listeners on the same page, when we talk when we say systems and system thinking and system approach. What do we mean? And I guess, you and I have discussed this in the past, but what are? What are the advantages of having a system approach? I think you touched on some of them already, but in your mind, what are the advantages of system thinking and system approach to major projects?

Sherena Hussain  29:08  

Yes, and when we stop and think about, why should we entertain such levels of complexity amongst not just one system, but multiple systems of systems, and one area is it offers the ability to think through how different say, stakeholders, actions, activities, risk, capital sources, all interact or can be affected by a certain course of action. And for the most part in our daily lives we don't think necessarily like that. For the reason you mentioned before we're, it tends to have a reduction as an (inaudible) from simplicity and how we undertake our affairs. However, if you're willing to then step back and do that mapping exercise, that identification often will yield you the ability to see some of the assumptions that have possibly been made. In different circumstances, you might have to test those assumptions. An excellent example that I grapple with daily right now is in the context of decarbonizing transport, meaning try to reduce CO2 emissions from transport through other propulsion technologies like battery electric, like hydrogens, like anything else in between. I can tell you, Riccardo, but often they say, well, you just need someone to get a vehicle, put in a charger, and you're on the road and everything is great. Well, if that were true, then we'd probably have a lot more, you know, different types of vehicles on the road, but we don't. And then once you start mapping that out, you realize, well, you interact with utility, that electricity has to come from somewhere, there's a supply chain that comes with, say, critical minerals that go into the components to the vehicle to the charger. There's also different individuals and regular regulatory frameworks that are impacted such as safety, such as the individuals who have to maintain like the mechanics, do they feel safe touching these vehicles? Do they need to be trained? What about our ecosystem for upskilling and reskilling the trades. So once you start looking at systems and unpacking that, you're able to not only identify who your stakeholders are, but some of the embedded assumptions into our projects. And once you have that insights, then you can make decisions such as you know what we need to bring in certain stakeholders earlier, or you know what, maybe the utility is a source of low-cost financing to this project, because they might have a vested interest in greater adoption of certain types of electricity sources through electrification. So that's another, those are some of the benefits that comes with systems theory, and systems thinking. But I also want to throw the caveat out there is that it's not a one-size-fits-all all approach. Often, you have to do this on an ongoing basis for the same project, but also on a project-by-project basis. And that's where the application of this type of thinking, in some ways is very challenging in the mega project space, because there's always a tension about, can we get economies of scale, and how we can then replicate some of these across some of the say, smaller projects that just do not have the capital in place, or the budget in place to do this on an ongoing basis. So that is ultimately something that comes into place. Do we have solutions available to then make it a more timely and cost-effective to apply systems thinking? I would say yes, but we just haven't figured it out yet. Or we can at least try and see how we do that. And I'm sure, Riccardo, you've seen in some of your work in your masters that there are solutions around the world to do that. So some of these benefits could be realized.

Riccardo Cosentino  33:02  

Yeah, for sure. I do think that understanding, okay, I'm going to reduce the complexity a little bit. And in my mind, one thing that projects don't do and I'm going to be very specific, is stakeholder analysis and the effect of stakeholders onto even onto the day-to-day delivery, right? We, you know, even when we start in delivery project, and we're on-site, there's a little bit of work done in stakeholder management, but not to the extent that is required, and that has detrimental effects on delivery. And I think sitting down and understanding and do and apply system thinking the second you apply system thinking you have to think of the stakeholders because, you know, if you're an on-site delivering a project, all you are looking at is your Gantt chart, right, your schedule, and you know, that by the way, that's a whole new podcast on the fallacy of a linear schedule for a complex mega project is you know, I don't even know where to start with that, where you you have all these activities and somehow something as complex as a major project you end up with, with a delivery day, like to the day you can tell when the project is going to be done. But which is a fallacy, because the second you start actually looking from a system perspective, you understand that there's so many moving parts, so many relations, you don't understand that how you can predict to that level of accuracy is beyond me. As I said, that's a different podcast. I think it's important though, that we start using these approaches because we drive in blind, like I think there's a lot of project director, project managers out there that are driving blind because they're using, they're using tools that are designed for things with little complexity and the tools that we're using for high complexity, issues of say high complexity projects are not good enough. And that basically, doesn't basically makes the project director being oblivious to what's ahead. And so we're getting more in the specific now of project delivery. But you know, if you step back, you know, even in the planning phase, applying systems thinking during the planning phase, or during the early phases of the project, to understand what the challenges are going to be making the project more resilient. Because ultimately, I think that's also what system thinking allows you to do. It allows you to do how the project might fail over the long term. And I'm not just talking about the delivery phase, I'm talking about the planning phase, you know, a lot of projects don't get the funding, they get shelved, and but applying system thinking upfront, allows you to understand what could go wrong, you know, there's a change in government that happens. Doesn't mean that the project needs to stop if there's a change in government, you could set it up in a way that is politically agnostic on who's the leader, right? So these tools are very, very helpful, but I don't think they are understood or even why they're not utilizing, I don't think they're even understood.

Sherena Hussain  36:36  

And that's where I find that that could be an opportunity. An example of one of those tools, just carrying on on the example of stakeholder management is one that I teach to my master's students. And also, when I engage with senior government officials, and that is a power interest matrix, it's a very simple two by two matrix. On one axis, you have power, another axis, you have interests, and then you plot your stakeholders. What's really telling is that if a stakeholder for example, has high power, high interest in your mega project, say, during the planning stage, well, you have to make sure they're consulted and they're involved in that project. If you have a stakeholder that has low interest, but high power, you want to make sure that they're amendable. But they have, for the most part, as long as they're disinterested, they're not going to exercise their power. That analysis continues throughout the duration of our mega projects through all its stages, because a stakeholder might shift in their power or their interest. So say the mega project experiences a significant delay that then affects one of those stakeholders. So their interests, even though they're very powerful, but low interest now increases. So they're by far one of your most problematic issues to your project in getting, say, consensus to get this project back on track. If you're not thinking about stakeholder management, then that is going to just emerge and potentially not be foreseen, and you're behind the eight ball. Whereas before, if you had a constant view of your stakeholders, and even if it's say, looking in quarterly, looking in and reflecting monthly, then you're in a better situation to get ahead of those situations and develop solutions before it minds for that. What I'm very clear to all my students is that this is not just for, you know, the stakeholder management consultants, this is everyone's job, everyone should be thinking about stakeholders, because whether you're involved in say, claims management, or if you're involved with project coordination from, say, a public sector perspective, you're still dealing with stakeholders, from your vantage point, you should be managing that as well, such that we can at least be applying some of these systems based solutions to then avoid the common pitfalls that typically come with major projects.

Riccardo Cosentino  39:01  

Yeah, you make me smile when you say the stakeholder consultant because yeah, that's my experience too, right? You don't just make a project you typically have and it's typically a comms firm or somebody that just when in reality, stakeholder management is at the core, right, the project director should have direct visibility and influence on that and should be spending quite a bit of his or her time on stakeholder management because, as you said, it's evolving, right? I really liked your two by two matrix because you have to continue reviewing it, because the situation change and somebody that didn't really matter early on in the project may become very influential. And if you haven't mapped it out at the beginning, guess what? You're going to be completely blindsided because if you haven't done the exercise at the beginning of the project, to understand who these parties are and what their role are, when they see intuitions shift and somebody now becomes irrelevant if you hadn't mapped it to begin with, you'll never even going to know what's going to hit you.

Sherena Hussain  40:07  

And this is where you might you must know the term, and your listeners too, the term social license, that we need a social license to build mega projects. We need a social license to be able to introduce X, Y, and Z. Well, yes, but what does that actually mean? How do we develop a social license? How do we maintain it? How do we grow that? Often, if based upon our conversation, we're pretty much saying it's on the basis of applying systems thinking, systems theories to stakeholders. And that's how you're able to cultivate the social license. And it's not just the jobs for the comms department or the consultant. It's everyone's job when we're dealing with major projects, because we all have a zone of influence in what we're doing. And that all has some form of impact, like the butterfly on how that mega project unfolds at the end of the day.

Riccardo Cosentino  41:04  

Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Yeah. stakeholder management has become a new pet peeve. Okay, I think we're coming towards the end of today's podcast, but you know, before, before we wrap up, I just wanted to ask you what, do you have any hope for the industry do you, as a bit of a broad, sweeping question that, you know, you've been in the industry for a long time and I ask this question to most of my guests, it's, you know, are you positive are you negative about major programme as an industry, in Canada and or around the world?

Sherena Hussain  41:51  

I would say I'm optimistic for a variety of different reasons. If we looked at purely from a public policy economics perspective, infrastructure is critical to the success of any society. Canada's no difference. So there will always be a role for mega projects. A lot of decisions that we have to make today are informed by things that maybe we didn't think about 10, 20 years ago, such as climate risk, how does this affects some of our mega projects. It's not just bringing a consultant who tells you to do X, Y, and Zed that requires an application of systems thinking. And the theory is across all facets of a mega project's lifecycle, not just in project development. So I think that is going to be one of the biggest drivers paired with the fact that across some of the major industries that require either a renewal, or the investment of different types of infrastructure, leveraging technology, again, highly complicated. That's another realm for where we will see the need to apply different forms of system thinking and systems solutions that we've talked about today. So with that in mind, we either have the opportunity to continue doing what we've been doing before and possibly just fail or not be able to achieve the outcomes, or reflecting upon in our daily lives, we have to deal with more systems-based thinking, because our lives are getting more complicated. Why not start thinking about how that applies to mega projects and major programmes. And I think that is an opportunity that I'm bit excited for, in the sense that the research and the industry is beginning to align. And so in the sense that we need to begin to do things differently. How quickly we're able to mobilize? I'd say I'm also optimistic because you have a podcast like this talking about it. So to the extent that your listeners are decision-makers as well, they're being influenced by the fact that now it's time to challenge the paradigm and think about how we do things better.

Riccardo Cosentino  43:52  

You make me blush I'm doing I'm trying to do my part. I'm trying to do my part and then with this podcast for sure, because it's I am a little bit more negative than you I think it is, it is a monumental challenge. For decades, we've been trying to improve major programmes and major programme delivery and the progress is slow. But at least we are definitely moving in the right direction. But you know, when you see when you see outcomes of major programmes on a day-to-day, I won't name projects but you start to think you know, how long is it going to ask is going to take for us to have a situation where it's not a given that a major programme will be late and over budget. But although I have a little bit of a negative outlook, here I am trying to do my part to change and I, you know, as people like you and that are helping these change by bringing different perspective from different parts of the industry. So on that, I want to thank you for taking the time today. It's been a fantastic conversation. Hopefully, we won't let pass another war 15 years from the next time we talk to each other. But yeah, thank you very much, Sherena, for for joining me today.

Sherena Hussain  45:24  

My pleasure. Thanks for having me.

Riccardo Cosentino  45:27  

That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major programme management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with Matti Siemiatyck, Professor of Geography and Planning and Director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto, to discuss the rise and fall of infrastructure in Ontario and answer the big question: Does the type of delivery model dictate the outcome of mega projects?

“We’ve lost track of what it means to be working collaboratively across organizations in these complex temporary organizations that are working at a huge scale with thousands of people and huge risk.” —Matti Siemiatycki, 20:42

The pair discuss the importance of data-driven debates for bettering delivery models and furthermore, the outcomes of major programmes.

Key Takeaways:

• The good, the bad, and the ugly of PPP
• The importance independent conversations about major programmes
• The danger of simplifying delivery models for complex projects
• Recognizing the delivery model’s role in the outcome
• Infrastructure leadership training and where it is lacking, looking to the UK model
• The importance of venues for open industry discussion, independent quality research and public data

"We need to try to create these spaces where we can have divergent views and we can actually discuss these points.”—Matti Siemiatycki, 33:01

Guest Bio:

Matti Siemiatycki is a Professor of Geography and Planning and Director of the Infrastructure Institute at the University of Toronto. His work focuses on delivering large-scale infrastructure projects, evidence-based infrastructure investment decisions, and the effective integration of infrastructure into the fabric of cities. His recent studies explore transit policy decisions, the value for money of public-private partnerships, the development of innovative mixed-use buildings as a form of place based infrastructure policy, and the diversity gap in the infrastructure industry workforce.

Matti Siemiatycki’s Published Work

• Public–Private Partnerships and the Design Process: Consequences for Architects and City Building
• The gendered production of infrastructure
• Public-Private Partnerships in Canada: Reflections on twenty years of practice
• Mixing Public and Private Uses in the Same Building: Opportunities and Barriers

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our community via LinkedIn:

• Follow Navigating Major Programmes on LinkedIn
• Follow Riccardo Cosentino on LinkedIn
• Connect with Matti Siemiatycki
• Read Riccardo’s latest

Transcript:

Riccardo Cosentino  0:05  

You're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, a podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host, Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of Major Programme Management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford University Saïd Business School, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major programmes. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as I press the industry experts about the complexity of Major Programme Management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion-dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.  

Riccardo Cosentino  0:53  

Hello, everyone, welcome to another episode of season two of Navigating Major Programmes. I'm here with Matti Siemiatycki who is going to introduce himself in a minute. And today we're going to talk about his latest paper and have a general discussion about the PPP model in Ontario and in Canada  more broadly and delivery models in general in our industry. How are you doing, Matti?

Matti Siemiatycki  1:16  

I'm great, Riccardo, thanks for having me. It's nice being with you.

Matti Siemiatycki  1:19  

So as I said at the top, I mean, maybe for I know you well, but maybe it's for some of our guests, could you just tell us a little bit about yourself?

Matti Siemiatycki  1:29  

Sure. I'm Matti Siemiatycki, I'm the director of The Infrastructure Institute and a professor of geography and planning at the University of Toronto. I've been studying big infrastructure projects now going on two decades, and had been at the University of Toronto since 2008. And this was a really important time to be studying infrastructure because I started studying infrastructure in around 2003, as Public-Private Partnerships were starting to really take hold in Canada and a generational wave of infrastructure started to become delivered through Public-Private Partnerships. And so through that period, at some parts of it, being on the west coast of Canada, some parts being overseas, and some parts, then returning to the University of Toronto, for most of it, I've had a pretty front row seat to the way that infrastructure is delivered, the changes that have happened, the big scaling up of investments in big projects, but also some of the challenges that have been experienced. So my work itself has been on Public-Private Partnerships on how to deliver projects on time and on budget. And most recently, I've founded and led the Infrastructure Institute where we do a lot of work looking at innovative types of partnerships, where there's deep collaboration in mixed-use buildings, for example, where a public-private sector and nonprofit may co-locate in the same building and where the definition and meaning of partnership is a true collaboration under one roof, which really stretches the definition from the infrastructure sector into housing and buildings. But the work I've done over the years then has delved deeply into how projects are delivered and some of the good, the bad and the ugly of the Public-Private Partnership model here in Canada.

Riccardo Cosentino  3:20  

Yeah, I mean, I think I think I've come across you in the past and I think you and I touched or crossed paths during the Ottawa Public Inquiry where you were part of the panel, and I actually felt, think you've led that panel for the commissioner. And I've also followed some of your past work. You're an avid researcher, great publisher of articles and articles and journals, peer-reviewed journals. And in fact, today, I think we're here to talk a little bit about your latest paper about I call it a retrospective on PPPs in Canada and specifically in Ontario. And I believe that's in the context of understanding, you know, the rise and fall of PPP in this particular jurisdiction.  

Matti Siemiatycki  4:08  

Yeah, so we've really seen a wave and you can really, you can think of it like a wave cresting on the beach, that we had a dramatic rise of Public-Private Partnerships. They emerged in the 1990s, with a first wave that were really private sector-led and the goal was to try to outsource as much of the project delivery to the private sector. At that time, there was a view that the public sector wasn't either skilled or incentivized to deliver projects. In some cases, there was antipathy towards organized labor and unions on big construction projects. And there was a thought that if you inserted and injected private sector innovation and capital into projects that they would go better and deliver better results.  

Matti Siemiatycki  4:56  

That first wave did not go particularly well. There were significant challenges, in some cases, the how high the user fees were. And surprise, surprise, people don't love paying user fees. So that was experienced on Highway 407. There were other incidents where the projects weren't delivered all that well and had delays or other issues with rising costs. And so that first wave of Public-Private Partnerships didn't go particularly well. And at that moment, coming into the early 2000s, you might have thought that Public-Private Partnerships in Canada would subside and something else might replace it. But in fact, what happened was there was a real surge as the Public-Private Partnership brand and also the approach started to get re-interpreted. And what we saw, especially here in Ontario was a drive to use Public-Private Partnerships to deliver what was called value for money and in particular, on time and on budget. That past projects, big government projects, did have a problem with on time and on budget delivery. There was a lot of political frustration and community frustration and there was a view that we could rebrand and rethink Public-Private Partnerships to focus specifically on this intention of on time and on budget.  

Matti Siemiatycki  6:15  

And so in Ontario, what you saw was essentially a 15-year surge of a big project starting with health care, then into justice projects, and more recently into civil and transit projects where pretty much every project was going to be delivered through a Public-Private Partnership. The politicians at the time, had a strong favor for Public-Private Partnerships because they were seeing results, they were seeing that risk transfer could be achieved in the early projects, and that the evidence that they were seeing showed that they were getting projects on time and on budget.  

Matti Siemiatycki  6:15  

Additionally, they formed an organization in Ontario called Infrastructure Ontario, in British Columbia Partnerships BC, at the federal level, PPP Canada, to really start to encourage and incentivize, and in some cases require big projects to be delivered through Public-Private Partnerships. So there was a narrowing of the range of project models that were permitted. But more to the point, you saw this surge. And this was supported by government, but also by the private sector. The private sector really bought into this model of project delivery. It was, in some cases, quite lucrative for various advisors and firms and so big industry support for this model of project delivery. And there's this confluence, that for 15 years, this is basically the only game in town to deliver big infrastructure. And then more recently, there have been challenges with some of the, especially starting with transit projects, that have started to show cracks in the foundation of the PPP model and some questions about what's going to come next. But this is an area where there's been just so much interest, because the the stakes are high, the money is huge, and the implications for communities and for government are substantial.

Riccardo Cosentino  8:05  

Yeah, that's actually I have to jump in and say that it's a fascinating retrospective, because I, as a practitioner, I was involved in exactly that journey and I think you have captured beautifully what I felt at the time, you know, I started infrastructure in Ontario in 2007. I worked for the government and then I worked for the private sector bidding and delivering these models, and I was part of this ecosystem that you described very well, of advisor and almost lobbying group, you know, to try and to keep the model going, because it was serving, it was serving a lot of purposes. And as I said, a very accurate summary word, I think anybody that has been involved as long as we have ever experienced, your report is a really good retrospective, like I said before. And you know, my impression has been, over the years, is that there's been a sort of tendency to assume that if you pick the, if you pick the right delivery model, everything will take care by itself. You know, if you pick PPP, then you know, all of a sudden, you'll have the private sector involved and or everything by magic will work quite well. And it's almost like, as long as you make that right decision, everything else is secondary and will work anyway. What's your view on that? What's your impression on that because it's quite reductionist, it's almost like a very reductionist approach to something very complex, like major infrastructure.

Matti Siemiatycki  9:33  

I think it's almost human nature that we're looking for a solution that fits all problems that delivering big infrastructure is so complicated and so risky and when challenges occur, the implications are so significant financially, politically, environmentally, community-wise, that people are looking for these types of solutions that are universal that will work in all different settings. And if we want to drill down further, there's also deep interests involved that if you deliver a project, in one way, certain interests will really benefit. And if you do it a different way, there might be other interests. So there is competition and there is, there are interests involved. And I think what we found with Public-Private Partnerships is, they became the solution to many problems and at some points, even all problems that we started really forcing projects through the lens of the PPP and trying to see the Public-Private Partnership as a universalized solution to a variety of different types of infrastructure challenges, and there was a period there probably in the late 2000s, early 2000s, and '10s, were Public-Private Partnerships were essentially the only game in town that if municipalities or other orders of government wanted funding for their projects, they essentially had a one choice and it was to deliver the project as a Public-Private Partnership. The auditor general did a study, I think it was 2013, looking in Ontario, looking at the record of Public-Private Partnerships, and one of the conclusions was that pretty much every value-for-money study, looking at whether a project should be delivered through a Public-Private Partnership or another alternative, showed that the Public-Private Partnership was the best way to proceed. And you just started to see this, this wave and this pressure and the technical, aligning with the political to ensure that this became the model that was delivered and it started to foreclose other options, and it started to make all infrastructure projects kind of seem the same, that you can deliver a hospital or a school or a courthouse or bridge, or a highway or a transit project through a Public-Private Partnership and the commonality was the P3. And I think what we've learned more recently is that each project is itself unique and each asset class has variations, and that having a more open mind to the types of delivery models matching the delivery model to the project, I think is becoming more of the norm now as we come out of this, this, this wave of P3s being both politically and technically and bureaucratic, and within the bureaucracy, the only game in town.

Riccardo Cosentino  12:19  

Yeah, I totally agree with that analysis and I think part of the problem is also that you allowed, having one solution that fits all the problem would allow a much fast track approach to delivery where you didn't have to think about the intricacy of each project, you didn't have to spend time, you know, analyzing and understanding the issues and then tailoring a solution to those issues, you could just apply a cookie-cutter approach that would would really fast track everything, which I think at the time was the ambition of various level of governments to, you know, push out as many projects as possible, keeping a pipeline of opportunity going. And the model kind of lent itself. And, you know, I'm very familiar with the value for money and houses of Infrastructure Ontario, having studied there and applied there. And you know, even when you actually look at what's that value for money actually doing is actually telling you that there is always going to be value for money because you're transferring risk to the private sector. And that's really what that value for money says, but it doesn't really look at the intricacy of each opportunity. I mean, yes, there is a risk matrix that was updated throughout the years. But ultimately, it was a way of justifying, in my mind, it was a way of justifying the additional cost of private finance through the transfer risk. And that, you know, as now we look back, indiscriminate transfer of risk. And now we've seen, you know, I'm fast-forwarding, now, the reason why some, the PPP model has failed is because, I believe, that indiscriminate transfer of risk or not understanding from both public and private side what actually we were signing up to in terms of risk. And, you know, we just focus on oh, this model works and we're going to make it work. And then in the end and in reality it didn't, I mean, it did work for certain asset classes for certain projects, but not for all of them.

Matti Siemiatycki  14:28  

Yeah, there's so much to tease out there. I mean, the first part is how we funneled projects through P3s and into the P3 model. I mean, it was interesting at the beginning, like even throughout its lifespan, Infrastructure Ontario and its culture evolved. I mean, the early days of Infrastructure Ontario, I think when you were there were really its heady days of promoting P3s and being out there arguing in public about the value of P3s and engaged in both the technical game and the branding game of what it's what the model could do. And then over time, as the model became more embedded, but also more research started to come out, there was a bit of an opening up of and a recognition that there needed to be greater flexibility and a wider variation of ways that the P3 model was applied. But, nevertheless, the commonality was that the Public-Private Partnership approach was the same. And, you know, if you had asked me 10 years ago, what was going to lead to cracks in the model and potentially even the decline of Public-Private Partnerships, I would have said government and a change in ideology that would have gone against the public sector, the private sector financing in particular, and the high costs of private financing. And what's turned out in practice is that it's been much more of a mix of the private and the public sector, that, to your point, many of the risks that people said were transferred, actually did get transferred. And those costs are material. And those costs really added up for the private sector. And when they did over time, firms started to say, this is expensive for us, we can't keep going on losing money on these projects in this way, and having these giant liabilities that come to fruition. And so the private sector started to lose, I think they, it lost its luster with the private sector and then some of the issues that have happened, particularly with the transit projects, started to create challenges and obvious political risk for for the public sector. And you've seen the public sector too, start to step back from being enamored with Public-Private Partnerships. So it was less, it actually went down a different track than what one might have expected. As you know, if you were to see the wave crest, from not ideology, and not the public sector pulling up but actually experience, an experience on both sides of that the deal saying that this maybe isn't meeting their interests anymore.

Riccardo Cosentino  16:53  

Yeah, it's true. It's true. I mean, because I think when we look at when we look at the U.K. as another jurisdiction where the PFI, PPP had a similar transition, it was, there was political, it was more political than anything else. And there was a feeling that they were paying too much or there were too much profit for the private sector. While in Canada, it was actually, you're right, it was actually the opposite. It's the private sector wasn't making enough money. But, you know, I think as you touched on the paper, there were some actors that were still finding the model profitable, and they tried, for the longest time to keep it going, even when it wasn't any longer feasible.  

Riccardo Cosentino  17:36  

I wanted to maybe switch gears a little bit. And so talk about project delivery more in general, and, you know, what can public and private sector do to achieve the outcomes that we expect out of major programmes, right, because ultimately, we do these major programmes too, because we want to achieve certain outcomes, and we want to improve the quality of life, and we want to do it in a timely fashion. And so I think we always talk about outcomes. And so now, you know, PPP was supposed to be the model that will generate the best outcomes for, for the stakeholders. Now, there's been a shift, and now the expectation is that maybe a different delivery model, Alliance, IPD will generate those better outcomes. But again, I personally find all of this a little reductionist when we talk about complex, complex mega projects, I mean, I refer to mega project as complex adaptive systems, right? And so when you have something that complex that can change and adapt with multiple stakeholders, I think you need to go beyond the delivery model, you need to go beyond, you know, the box that contains the delivery of the project, you know, you have thousands of people involved, you have various companies involved in in a mega project, you have internal-external stakeholders. And so, in your mind, is there a delivery model that can fit that or should we talk about all of the individual issues within the major programme in order to have the outcomes that we're looking for?

Matti Siemiatycki  19:20  

One of the lessons I think we've learned in recent years is project delivery is such a human business, it is so much about people. And I think during the P3 wave, we kind of assumed that, that if you set up the right model, and you had people who were trained in Public-Private Partnerships, they would be able to deliver any type of project, whether it was a bridge or a road or a hospital or a school or transit project, that the model would provide the guardrails and you could slot in the people and I think what we're learning increasingly is that, you know, we got the public and the private part and we lost track of the partnership. That actually the way that we delivered these projects, when we were using P3s, was really, it wasn't a partnership in any genuine sense of the term, it was really a public-private contract. And it was a contracting model. And, you know, on the first day of construction, maybe people shake hands, and it looks like we're going along this together. And as soon as anything went wrong, everyone was running to their lawyers, and everyone was trying to figure out what was in the contract to enable to protect them.  

Matti Siemiatycki  20:29  

And what you learn about these projects, when you study them over time, is that as soon as you're going to the contract, once each party has retreated to the contract, this is trouble for a project. And I think we lost track of what it means to be working collaboratively across organizations in these complex, temporary organizations that are working at huge scale with thousands of people and big risk. And I think in many ways, what you're starting to see is whether we can start to reinvigorate the idea of whatever word you use, collaboration, alliance, whatever it is, that there's going to need to be a greater ability to work together and work, have a contract that incentivizes and encourages people to collectively find solutions to problems rather than to try to, either duke it out through the contract or ultimately to retreat to their own side and try to find a solution that way.  

Matti Siemiatycki  21:29  

And it starts, it's interesting, it starts even earlier upstream. The Public-Private Partnership model, what it does is it shifts so much of the responsibility not just for financing and construction to the private sector, but also facility design. And what you hear when you speak to some of the asset owners is that part of the challenge was they were also, they also felt like they were losing control of the design of their asset, that even when it came to the purpose of the building, and what its goals were, they were struggling to get those embedded into the design of the buildings or into the way that the facility could operate.  

Matti Siemiatycki  22:03  

And so we saw situations where schools, where the principals were losing control over, you know, over the way the facility was used, or how the fields could be used, or in some cases there, there are stories, at least, about even like the heat and how you know how they could control the heat in a country like Canada. So you started to see this, you know, that even upstream, everything was set up to be public-private and the word partnership was really lost from this. And I think, you know, at the macro level, we need to try to reinvigorate how we work together. And then the models do provide the guardrails and the structure. So it's not to say that the model is unimportant. And each model has its pros and cons. I mean, if you look back at the traditional models of procurement, those clearly struggled, too and we've had, we've had devastating problems with cost overruns and delays on traditional procurement projects. And those tend to have an incentive for everyone to try to, you know, get, go in at the lowest price and then use change orders to lever up the price of the contract. So I mean, there's gamesmanship in all of these projects, and I think you're never going to get to a model, especially one that's in place for a long period of time, where people don't figure out where the ins and outs of the model are.  

Matti Siemiatycki  23:14  

And so ultimately, what you need is models that are well thought out. And then people who are well-trained and understand their role in meeting the public interest. And, you know, that was ultimately one of the conclusions of the Ottawa LRT inquiry was that for everyone involved, the public interest was not necessarily at all times their top priority. And that got, and that was the commissioner's conclusion. And I think that comes, you know, that comes back to how we train people. And then also making sure that we have people with the skills and understanding of this, but really recognizing the role of adaptability and working together to deliver these big complicated projects.

Riccardo Cosentino  23:54  

Yeah, I want to come back to the people in the training, but I want to pick up because I've had this discussion in previous podcasts, and even some of the articles that I wrote that, you know, PPP ultimately is a zero-sum game. And so I think, well, in order to have better outcomes, we need to find a framework that remove that zero-sum game, where there's a winner and a loser because ultimately, the winner has to be the public and the outcome is the thing that should matter the most. And so the, and although the model is important because any contractual and commercial model are important because they provide a very important framework to operate within, but I think you're absolutely right it's not the ultimate, it's not the ultimate framework because that just guides behaviors, but then you gotta have the right people with the right skills, and the right tools to generate the outcomes that the public is looking for. I mean, project outcomes is what matters at the end of the day, and with public project, the most important outcome is delivering value for the taxpayer who are paying for these projects.  

Riccardo Cosentino  25:10  

But, you know, I think you touched up on the skills and I think you talked about it in your paper as a conclusion. And I think I'd like to touch up on that, because, you know, my experience in the U.K. is that, you know, the government's, governments have recognized that whenever you have these mega projects, and you have people on the government side that are project managing these mega projects, they need to be what they call a capable owner or an informed owner. And so yes, you need the private sector because the private sector bring a certain type of skills and knowledge and that the public sector doesn't have but then, the public sector is there to protect the ultimate user and the taxpayer but they also have to be knowledgeable because you can't have an unbalanced relation. And so they've created this, you know, you talk about it in your paper, the Major Projects Leadership Academy, where anybody that, any public sector entity that gets money from Treasury has to have people put through these two years, part-time training, where they get educated on how to manage major project. And I think that's an absolutely outstanding concept. And I think many countries are now adopting it, but certainly not something that Canada has adopted. And since you touched up on training, I wanted to get your view on that.  

Matti Siemiatycki  26:32  

I think the training and capacity building is key because this is a human business. And one way to think about this would be does everyone have a project management certification? But actually, my understanding of the U.K. approach to the Major Project Leadership Academy and some of the ones that have followed it around the world is that it's more than project management, it's actually understanding the behavioral economics and the social psychology of big projects. Some of the work of Nobel Prize winner, Daniel Kahneman, interpreted through Professor Bent Flyvbjerg from Oxford and others, that you know, that these are, the understanding the, how we, as humans, see big projects, but also how they, that fits within organizations and the incentives within organizations, both Big P and Little P political incentives that we all experience is really important. Understanding how you then integrate data into those into that to vote, tell a story and shape how you use that data to inform decision-making is another area that I think is so important. Understanding the commercial relationship and partnerships, what does it mean to be a partner that is firm but fair, you know, you can, you know, you can rip someone off once, and then they're going to learn and they're not going to let you do it again. But, you know, if you're fair with them, over time, you will have people who continue to want to do business with you and want to do work in your area. And, you know, so this idea of what does that mean to be a firm but fair public sector owner, that your goal is not to, you know, and that again, also came out in the Ottawa LRT inquiry that there were instances that once the project started going poorly, the public sector really locked down and started to become really particular about how they enforce the contract and that soured the relationship. And as the relationship soured further, it became more adversarial and that posed challenges. Was that the only reason that project has struggled? No, of course not. But when we talk about how you train people to be involved in these projects, the relationship part, I think we've downplayed, as compared to the role of private finance and the role of risk transfer. So that would be another area. But, I think really setting up systems. And then the other point is that we've viewed risk transfer as being done only financially. But there are different ways that risk can not just be transferred, but also shared and then incentivized for performance through the sharing rather than the full transferring of risk. And that can ensure that the project designs meet the needs of the users and the owner more closely, and then, even during construction and operation, can ensure that the projects get delivered and operated effectively. So there's different, it's broadening out the skills of the people who are managing multi-billion dollar projects in organizations that have come together specifically for those projects. I think there's different ways that we could be educating and I think that the British model provides us a real insight into what we could be doing here at a time when we're in the midst of the biggest infrastructure building boom in decades here in Canada. We're probably one of the, we're home to one of the biggest construction waves anywhere in the world, and it'll reshape what our country looks like and how it operates for decades to come. And so, if we do this well, it will propel us, our economy, our inclusivity, environmental sustainability. And if we do it poorly, we could be stuck with some projects that become a millstone and really weigh us down for generations to come.  

Riccardo Cosentino  30:22  

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. And I think you touched upon some of the benefits of it also. The other economic benefit for the country is being able to export some of the skills, right? If you deliver this infrastructure and you deliver successfully, and you train, you upskill both the public and the private sector, I mean, that, that's a skill that you can export. You know, that's certainly what the U.K. has done, right? They've exported a lot of their people in other countries, helping other countries with bigger infrastructure booms. It's a very interesting, a very important concept, to want to upskill. What can the general industry do to support this transformation? Is there something that, you know, practitioner and academic could do more in order to help this transition? Because ultimately, you know, the public inquiry for Ottowa was, I think it was helpful for the industry. But you know, we had to get to that point in order to get visibility on and really peeking under the curtain. And obviously, that's, that's not the right way that there must be a better way to get there without having a crisis.  

Matti Siemiatycki  31:37  

Yeah, one thing that comes to mind is creating spaces for critical self-reflection. I mean, one of the aspects of P3 that made them such a juggernaut and so difficult to challenge was that everyone was on board, it was almost like this massive view that this was the best way to do it. And all of the signals and all of the ways that organizations and individuals were going to be successful was to come around this model and showcase its success and trade stories about, you know, how one P3 was better than the next one. And there wasn't all that much space for critical self-reflections. And if you were someone that was doing critical self-reflections, as an academic, that's one thing. That's our job. And we have, you know, we have a role to play. But within the industry, you didn't hear a lot of voices that were that at those times, were coming out and saying, you know what, maybe this isn't always the right way to go. Not to say that it's never the right way to go because that's also not accurate. But to say that it's it was always the right way to go, it became, that viewpoint became increasingly marginalized. And it almost like it was like you were an opponent of infrastructure and opponent of project delivery, rather than someone who was looking to have a reasoned conversation about where the sector was at. And I think we need to try to create these spaces where we can have divergent views and we can actually discuss these points. And the other issue is about evidence. I mean, Canada is notorious for having a lack of data and a lack of comparable publicly available data to actually go and assess what's happening. And so it's taken me years to try to get into the details of some of these projects and understand what's actually happening so that I can report it publicly. And so that then everyone involved, public sector, private sector, and others, have the evidence to then themselves go and make a judgement. We really struggle in this country with a lack of data. And so in the absence, the people with the loudest megaphone and the flashiest presentations, they're the ones who are able to shape the narrative and guide the story. And we struggled because of that. And I think another lesson we can learn from this is let's create some venues and some spaces where before we get to all our eggs in one basket and going down a path where you start to see the challenges we've had, that we're able to discuss what's working and what's not and learn from our own experiences.

Riccardo Cosentino  34:06  

Oh, music to my ear, Matti. I mean, that's why we're having this podcast, right, is exactly for that, is to create one platform, it's a tiny little platform, but I'm trying to do my part. But I guess I want to pick up on that because again, I'm very experienced with the U.K. I'm actually a member of the Institution of Civil Engineers in the U.K. and some of that role that you just described is what the Institution of Civil Engineers does in the U.K., right? They're almost, I mean, they do provide is the, similar to professional engineers in Canada, but they have a more of a stewardship role. And, you know, when I moved to Canada, back in 2005, I noticed that in Canada, there isn't an institution like that, that can provide advice, independent advice to government that is run by engineers, is run by professionals, and they have a bit of an independent voice. I mean, they've been around for 150 years. So what do you think could be the venue? Who do you think could be the body that could play that role of, you know, independent thinker or facilitator of independent thinking?

Matti Siemiatycki  35:12  

The universities are a clear spot where independent voices should be coming from. And we, we should be doing independent research on these projects. That posed a challenge. I mean, we're outsiders and it's hard to get behind the scenes and really understand what's happening in these projects. Like the paper that you've read, is the result of basically 20 years of just being around this and being in the venues where you can listen to the stories have both on-the-record and off-the-record conversations with people where you start to learn and hear. And in some cases, you can say the things that because of their professional position, they can't. And so the universities and the role of independent high-quality research, I think, is key. But the industry voices too, and the industry, like whether it's the professional engineers or the planner, or the Planning Institute, or others, I mean, there needs, their voice is important in this too. Too often, those become sort of the protector of guilds and the protector of the profession rather than a more general view on the sector and how things are going. But I think what we need again to come back to is data that's in the public realm that people can then have, each person can dissect the data, can analyze the data, and we can have debates based on evidence, because where we struggle in Canada is in the absence of data, you get debates based on ideology. And in those, in those settings, the people with the loudest megaphone and the best, able to craft the best narrative, they're going to be the ones that win. And we can't overestimate the role of politics in this, that infrastructure delivery is not just a technical pursuit. You saw in the 25 years or so that I, I mapped over in the, in this paper, the role of ideology, from seeing infrastructure and seeing the role of the private sector ideologically as just superior to the public sector, a shift to this idea of on time, and on budget being the king motivation for doing things and any model that can achieve that both for value reasons, but also to keep these projects off the front pages of the newspaper where it's hugely embarrassing. And then more recently, to the struggles of the partnership model. And, you know, the politicians now ducking and covering and looking for other approaches that really, you know, that we need evidence so that we can see what's working and what's not. And we can learn much more quickly and adapt for all of our interest.

Riccardo Cosentino  37:51  

Yeah, this is great, great conversation, I'm really, really enjoying it. Well, the topics that we were covering. I think we're almost at time and but before we wrap up, I wanted to ask you, if you have any other lessons, last minute wishes that you would like to communicate, as I said that what you mentioned up to now, especially in the last bit, it's you know, is a call to action, it's a call to action to have a better conversation and a more, more data-driven conversation. But is there any other appeal that you would like to make to the industry to have, to really have better outcome for these major projects, which by the way, we know that as Professor Flyvbjerg research is like 100% that over time and over budget, so we know, we started from a hole which we need to climb out. So you know, and I think that's part of the problem. Sometimes we forget that we're starting from a point that we're probably already losing. So what, how do we lose less?

Matti Siemiatycki  38:54  

I would like us to get to a point where we don't think about infrastructure delivery as losing less, but rather about creating structures where we have confidence that they're going to be delivered well, recognizing, and I think we should recognize this. And maybe we don't say this explicitly or transparently enough, it is hard to deliver big projects. They are risky, they are unpredictable, the bigger they are and especially transit projects are being done in urban environments where there's, you know, this is tough stuff. And I think we should acknowledge the risks and the skill that comes along with it. But just by acknowledging that does not excuse projects that are years late way over budget, hugely frustrating for the surrounding communities, and a potential drain on the public purse for long periods of time. I mean, I think, we now, we need to zero in and recognize that, that we can do better. And I think that's a good and important starting point because that sharpens the mind and brings people together to the table. And I think in this moment where both the public and the private sector have both recognized that what had been happening, certainly through the 2000s and into the 2010s is no longer working for them, for both of them. You're starting to see innovation. And I hope what that innovation leads towards is a reinvigoration of collaboration. You're hearing about things like the Alliance Model, there's not enough evidence or data in Canada, at least to show how those are going to work. My fear is that we'll just replace the word partnership with alliance and we'll keep doing exactly what we've been doing before of adversarial relationships just under a new title. My hope is that we really take on board what that means to be in an alliance and to be a partner with someone across the table from you, and to then have the skills in place. And to think of infrastructure delivery as a human pursuit, with all the good, the bad, and the ugly that that entails. And I think we're in a moment now where we're being forced to re-evaluate because the record has showed and the frustration of people in our communities is such, and we're building so much. So this is a moment to do better. And I hope, I hope conversations like this open a space for others to reflect on their own experiences, and we're in their role in this sector, that they themselves could do better or could share information in ways to contribute to the conversation we're having.

Riccardo Cosentino  41:23  

Well, Matti, thank you for those last words. I think, you know, it's been a fantastic conversation today. I will, I will leave you, I will leave you with that last words. I want to thank you for joining me and I truly hope that this podcast is listened to. And you know, some of the things that we talked about today are picked up because ultimately what we all want is better outcome for the people that need this new infrastructure.

Matti Siemiatycki  41:51  

Couldn't agree more and thanks for having me.

Riccardo Cosentino  41:54  

That's it for this episode of Navigating Major Programmes. I hope you found today's conversation as informative or provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn, @RiccardoCosentino.  

Riccardo Cosentino  42:18  

Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in Major Programme Management. Our next in-depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

Thank you for tuning in for the first episode of Navigating Major Programmes’ second season. You can expect new conversations with Riccardo Cosentino and his guests bi-weekly, everywhere you listen to podcasts.

“In this podcast, I really wanted to create a platform for research-based conversation. And the reason for that is because the majority of the conferences in our industry are privately sponsored and therefore, the content is, to a certain degree, is privately controlled.” – Riccardo Cosentino

Key Takeaways:

• The importance of having a dedicated platform for researched-based conversation
• Understanding biases in industry conversation and developing critical thinking
• What to expect from upcoming conversations in Navigating Major Programmes’ second season

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Navigating Major Programmes Podcast
• Riccardo Cosentino

Transcript:

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

In this episode of Navigating Major Programmes, Riccardo Cosentino sits down to reflect on the conversations during the first season of Navigating Major Programmes and what he’s learned about the industry because of them. Plus, Riccardo shares why he started a podcast in the first place and his final thoughts before taking a brief break ahead of an exciting season two. 

“The opportunity to sit down and interact with individuals who have spent six months researching a specific major programme topic and engaging into a debate about their findings and their conclusions has been very, very inspiring for me. To a point where all my initial concerns and fears of starting a podcast have now completely vanished and I’m really looking forward to building upon the first season of Navigating Major Programmes and bringing even more in-depth topics in season two.” —Riccardo Cosentino 

Key Takeaways: 

• The importance of being an ally for women in major programmes (listen to episodes 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5)
• Collaborative contracting as an alternative in complex programmes (listen to episodes 6, 10, 11 and 15)
• Leadership in major programmes (listen to episodes 7, 12 and 14)
• Setting the right expectation of technology in major programmes (listen to episodes 8 and 13)

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Navigating Major Programmes Podcast
• Riccardo Cosentino

Transcript:

Riccardo Cosentino  00:00

If you're listening to navigate the major programs, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino I bring over 20 years of major programme management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford universities Said business school, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major problem management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.  

Hello, and welcome to a new episode on navigating major programs. This episode will be the final episode in Season One. And in this episode, I will try to recap the topics that we covered in the first 15 podcasts. I will try to also recap the guests that join the podcast and the themes that we covered in the 15 episodes. 

But before I go into that, I think it's important that I also tried to recap and remind ourselves why I started the podcast in the first place.  I started this podcast for two reasons. The first one was a personal reason which was wanted to overcome my fear of public speaking, I wanted to practice the skills of interacting with guests and to record myself and listen to myself and overcome this cringe that we all have in listening ourselves speaking. And it was very important to me, it was very important for my journey to always become a better leader, I really wanted to put myself out of my comfort zone.  But the second reason which is to be more addressed stick is I wanted to create a platform for individuals that don't normally have access to these type of platforms such as podcasts and blogs. The idea really started from when I was finishing my dissertation at Oxford. And I realized that I just spent six months researching a topic using very rigorous academic research methods. And most likely the now the dissertation will probably end up on my bookshelf. And I also realized that in my class, there were another 60 People who had created similar research of similar standards. And also then I realized that because I was part of cohort 12, at Oxford for the master major program management, there were approximately 700 People who had written dissertation who had research, major program topics, and most of them probably never talked about the research. So those were the two main reasons why I started the podcast. 

But as you probably realize the first five episodes of the podcast was actually a mini series called Building Bridges. And the reason I started with a mini series is because I was very scared of getting the podcast off the ground, I had a huge amount of impostor syndrome. And so together with with my personal brand coach, we decided to actually create a mini series so that it wouldn't be too daunting. It wouldn't be a full podcast, and it was going to be a bit more manageable with a limited number of episodes in a very limited topic, which was the experience of women in working a male dominated industry. However, as I was launching the miniseries, and by the way, the miniseries took me two years to launch because I recorded the first podcast in 2020. And I ended up launching it in 2023. So I should have been more than two years, it took me more than two years to launch the podcast. But when I ended up doing it, when I started recording the second and third episode, I got really galvanized and decided to bite the bullet and to actually launch the full podcast. And that's how we ended up having navigated major programs together with building bridges, women in infrastructure.  I also picked the woman infrastructure topic because I'm a big ally to women. And I think our industry needs more women. And so I felt this was a topic very close to me, and probably a very easy place to start since I was quite confident about the topic. So in building bridges, we started with Mariska Pinto and she came in talk to us about being the only woman in the room and the challenges have been in a male dominated environment at the beginning of our career. We then had Corrail Bourrelier Fabiani, who has now become a regular guest as well as co host of the podcast where she discussed the importance of allyship. Then I decided to have an old colleague of mine, Hannelie Stockenstrom, who is being a big role model for me and also represented somebody in an advanced stage of our career, and somebody that is really passionate about infrastructure. Then in episode four, we had Divya Shah joining us and talking about how labels put limits on what women can achieve and how labels are detrimental to the advancement of women. And then finally, in Episode Five, we had my ex colleague Shormila Chatterjee, that came to talk to us about gender bias and their experience with gender bias, being an engineer, managing engineers, and getting pushback from these engineers because she was a female. Overall, the biggest lesson learned for the miniseries is that ally ship is very, very important. All women described how in a male dominated environment, some sort of allyship is necessary, because there just aren't enough women at the top. So if women want to try to make at the top in a male dominated industry, they need the support of men.  

Once I concluded building bridges, women in infrastructure I launched right into navigating major programs. As I mentioned before, the podcast was meant to give a platform to some of my classmates who had done extensive research on major program topics and didn't really have a platform to present their findings. So I started with several guests. And we followed three major themes. We talked about collaborative contracts, we talked about leadership in general leadership in major programs. And then we talked about technology and technology in major programs. There was also one episode where I invited back Corail to talk about her dissertation, which was linked to building bridges. But we were able to do a deep dive into a very interesting topic, which was, Do women need to play golf in order to lead major programs, and Corail was able to articulate the importance of women networks and how fundamental women networks are for the success of women and major projects in general.  In the collaborative contracts stream, we talk to Carol Tansley, about the use of IPD in nuclear mega projects. We also talk to Rachel Patel, about the use of integrated project delivery or IPD in the healthcare sector in Ontario for mega hospitals. And we looked at the strand for challenges of integrated project delivery in the Ontario context.  Then we also talk to Vicenta Cunha about the use of collaborative contracting in the procurement of oil rigs and in general ships and the use of schedule incentive for the completion of mega project on time. And then finally, in the collaborative contract stream, I had a bit of a role reversal, where I invited my classmate and podcast guest, Jim, to actually be the host and interview me so that I could present my research about the use of collaborative contracting in PPPs. Overall, the collaborative contract streams told us that although these forms of contract are not widely used, they're not new. And they can provide a very good alternative to standard contracting models used for large complex programs. And in fact, they may actually be a better contracting model for complex programs.  

We also had a leadership stream, which had three episodes. And in these free episodes, we had Jim Barnard coming in to talk to us about his dissertation, which was centered around practical major program leadership. Then I had my very first solo podcast where I talked about the cost of bad leadership in major programs. And then finally, we had Dr. Diana Nada, who came in talk to us about our PhD dissertation on the psychology of major programs.  The biggest takeaway from this leadership focus episode is that major programs are delivered by people and people are at the center of their success. So we can have a show or a podcast about major programs without talking about the people in the major programs.  

And then finally, we had a stream about technology. We had my classmate, Kimberley Heraux, coming in and talking about intelligent technology, major programs. And then I did a collaboration with the digital twin fan club where Henry-Fenby Taylor and Neal Thompson, from the digital twin fan club came in and had a discussion with me about the challenges of adopting technology, major programs, and how can technology help major programs moving forward? I think the most important takeaway from the technology stream is actually a quote from Neil Thompson, where he says they think, "Oh, we're going to be able to predict the future are actually the value of these things isn't about being able to predict the future is about being able to adapt as quickly as possible to change circumstances".  

As we come to an end, which is a one on navigating major programs, I want to take the time to reflect on how inspiring the last 15 episodes have been, for me, the opportunity to sit down and interact with individuals who have spent six months researching a specific major program topic, and engaging into a into a debate about their findings. And their conclusion has been very, very inspiring for me to a point where all of my initial concerns and fears of starting a podcast have now completely vanished. And I'm really, really looking forward about building upon the first season of navigating major programs, and bringing even more in depth topic in season two. 

My plan is to take them off for December and January off, I will be producing the new episode in January. And I'm hoping to be able to launch Season Two sometime in February 2024. In the meanwhile, you can still listen to the podcasts that are available where you get your podcasts. And I will also interact through my navigate imager programs LinkedIn page, which is now available in case you want to find other material related to the podcast.  So for now, thank you very much for joining me over the last several months. I hope you found these podcasts interesting. And I hope that you're going to join me again for season two. Until then, I wish you happy holidays and prosper New Year. We'll see you soon in 2024.  

That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, where we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to navigate the major programs and I look forward to keeping the conversation going.

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.

In this episode, Riccardo Cosentino sits down with fellow Oxford alumni, Rachael Patel, to discuss integrated project delivery (IPD). With a background as a registered nurse, Rachael brings her unique expertise to her current role in the health sector specializing in strategic planning and execution of health services, research and infrastructure projects in North America. The pair discuss the impediments and challenges of adoption of the IPD model, specifically how it relates to private and public healthcare major infrastructure projects and the procurement process.

“You add an integrated project delivery, where the idea is risk sharing and then you use that same methodology to calculate value for money, IPD will never win because IPDs base core base is sharing risk. It’s two issues in our procurement, it’s the idea of what value for money is and how we calculate money.”– Rachael Patel

Key Takeaways: 

• The origin of IPD and how its optimizing project design and construction 
• Why value for money is problematic for IPD
• Finding a better way to allocate risk, relational over transactional  
• The policy associated in procurement and how it is hindering the marketplace shift to alternative models

Links Mentioned: 

• A critical perspective on Integrated Project Delivery (IPD) applied in a Norwegian public hospital project
• Benefits and challenges to applying IPD: experiences from a Norwegian mega-project

If you enjoyed this episode, make sure and give us a five star rating and leave us a review on iTunes, Podcast Addict, Podchaser or Castbox.

The conversation doesn’t stop here—connect and converse with our LinkedIn community: 

• Navigating Major Programmes Podcast
• Riccardo Cosentino
• Rachael Patel

Transcript:

Riccardo Cosentino  00:00

If you're listening to Navigating Major Programmes, the podcast that aims to elevate the conversations happening in the infrastructure industry and inspire you to have a more efficient approach within it. I'm your host Riccardo Cosentino. I bring over 20 years of major programme management experience. Most recently, I graduated from Oxford Universities they business group, which shook my belief when it comes to navigating major problems. Now it's time to shake yours. Join me in each episode as a press the industry experts about the complexity of major program management, emerging digital trends and the critical leadership required to approach these multibillion dollar projects. Let's see where the conversation takes us.  Racheal Patel is an Associate Vice President and senior project manager at a global architecture and engineering firm. She's a registered nurse, and also the Master of Science in major program management from the University of Oxford, and a Master of nursing from the University of Toronto. Racheal is a skilled leader in the health sector specializing in strategic planning and execution of health services, research and infrastructure projects in Canada and the United States. Her expertise includes guiding organization for the initial strategic planning phase, through detailed planning and design to the implementation of transformative and innovative capital projects. Hello, everyone.  Welcome to another episode of navigating major programs. I'm here today with Richard Patel. I met Racheal at Oxford University when we were completing together our mastering major program management. And I asked Racheal today to join us on the podcast to discuss her dissertation, which is quite interesting and very relevant to the topics that we've been discussing on navigating major programs. How're you doing, Racheal?

Racheal Patel  02:00

I'm good Ricardo. And thanks for having me here. I'm excited to have a platform to talk about my dissertation and you providing that platform to talk about major programs. So thank you very much for having me.  

Riccardo Cosentino  02:14

It's my pleasure. So maybe since I've tucked up your dissertation a little bit, well, what was the topic of your dissertation?  Yeah, so my topic was actually looking at the challenges of adopting integrated project delivery in health infrastructure here specifically in Ontario. And I kind of was interested in this because here in Ontario, as you know, we've been in a transactional type of model for some time, and I wanted to see could we push the boundary and look at other project delivery models that would achieve the the goals of infrastructure for healthcare in a different manner? Interesting. And you talk about transactional contracting, and you talk about IPD, can you maybe explain for some of our listeners the difference or what was in the context of your, your research, what those terms mean?

Racheal Patel  03:20

So when we when I say transactional, it's more of a contractual obligation. So it's what we see today, like a p3, you know, alternative delivery model where you have a relationship based on some terms and conditions. Relational, it's a similar idea in that more, they're not similar, but it's a similar idea, in that it's a relationship based model where you're working together as a team, there's no one, you know, a buyer and a seller you are, I guess, in a way, a group or collaborative, all working towards the same goal and you have incentives and so forth, in a nutshell, that it's different. We in transactional, as you know, you have contractual requirements, you're obligated to meet certain things, whereas in relational, it's really about the relationships and the collaboration and the people and people organizations that come together to deliver. So it's, it's harder, sorry, relational is more softer compared to transactional in my non legal way of trying to explain.

Riccardo Cosentino  04:41

So another way of putting that is an is one that of an example that I use in the past is that transactional contracting or is more of a zero sum game where there is a party, a winning party in the losing party. We're in relational contracting. We're all on the same table, we all have one common goal, one common incentive. And all of the incentives are aligned providing a more collaborative environment.  

Racheal Patel  05:11

Yeah, yeah, that's probably more eloquent and articulate in the way I'm trying to explain it. That yeah, like, with relational, and specifically with IPD, you have everyone coming together with a common goal objective, and you're all measured on that same group of objectives or metrics metrics. And I would say transactional is a very much risk transfer moving risk to one party to hold that and your obligation to meet those risks, that transfer of that risk. But yes, I would say what you what you said is more eloquent than how I'm trying to explain it.

Riccardo Cosentino  05:54

No, yours is more is more detailed and more accurate by this very broad strokes. But maybe maybe for again, for our listeners, I know, in your research, you know, part of your literature review you you actually had a bit of a dive into IPD, which means integrated project delivery. And I actually cover some of that in my dissertation. So in a previous podcast, where I talked about IPD, Alliance and collaborative contracting, maybe just for those listeners that didn't listen to that podcast. Can you talk a little bit about the origin of IPD?  Yeah, no problem. So IPD, which is integrated project delivery is the definition. It's kind of vetted by the American Institute of Architects, or specifically the California Council that came up with this notion of IPD. Being that it's a project delivery model that integrates people, businesses, and legal structures into a process that drives collaboration, while it optimizes efficiencies in the design and the construction phases of a project. So what that really means is that your you know, you're kind of like a temporary project organization, or a temporary organization all set to one vision, a shared vision, purpose, and a goal. And you're all working together, in, in what we work in organizations to achieve that. And each part like, you know, you have a joint management decision making where you come together. It's not one party oversight on one, you have key party members within your organization that sit together make decisions, for the best project outcome, you agree on the targets and goals. So what what are we trying to like? What is our project mission values, but what are we trying to achieve with this, you bring everyone to the table. So it's early engagement of parties, like in our current models, or in some of the models, we're all used to, you know, you have owner, you know, their designers are the design team, and then they work together, then you bring in somebody else later in the game, whereas in this one, everyone's sitting at the table on day one, working together to achieve the vision. The other thing with integrated project delivery is that you're sharing the risks and rewards. So it's not self interest driven. It's more we work together, and we share the risk of the solutions we put together or the rewards of the solutions like we work together to do that. So it's a pain share gain kind of model, where if we all do it together, and we're successful, we profit in it together. If we made some bad judgments, we all suffer together in a nutshell. And then the other thing that's different than probably an alliance model, is that our life, reduce liability exposure. So there's no blame game, you know, you're waiving claim and liability between each other. I mean, I'm sure there are legal mechanisms that if it's willful, or negligent, like in that way, that it's purposeful, there's repercussions. But basically, what you're trying to do is create an environment that has trust or respect. And in order to do that, you don't have legal mechanisms that will point to someone and say, Well, you did this, now you're a blame because you all are all on the same page or sharing that reward or the risk or making the decisions.  Yeah, that's why I was That's why I was talking about a zero sum game, because I think what you described it, you know, I think the legal recourse creates a situation where there's going to be a winner and a loser in case things go wrong. I mean, at the end of the day, I mean, my my experience is that yeah, a contract. If a project goes well a contrast is on the shelves and nobody looks at it, but is when things start to go wrong, that you take out the contract. Look what the contract says and you pursue your legal remedies. I think what what you did ascribe to the IPD. And to a certain extent, even the Alliance model, or any relational contract allows for that. You know, if the project starts going badly, you don't reach for the contract to start appointing blame, but you actually have to sit at the table and come up with with a solution from the project team, rather than from the contract.

Racheal Patel  10:25

Yeah, like it's very much in this type of model. It's working together, you know, and in my experience, too, on the other types of contracts, if a project goes well, right, yeah, you're never gonna, you're never going to open it up and blame game. But I think, as the complexities of health infrastructure continues, and I'm talking health infrastructure, like continues to grow, I think we're more heading down the line. And I've seen it going down the line where that contract is open, and that blame game starts. Whereas an IP D, and what I like what I've seen in the industry, and those that have used it, you don't see those levels of escalation, or you don't hear about yourself as an escalation, because everyone that's in this delivery in this project are working together to achieve the same thing. So if, you know if blame is shared, everyone shares I mean, if blame is to be shared, everyone shares that blame. And so that that's the difference in this model, for sure.  

Riccardo Cosentino  11:28

Okay, so I think I think we've set the scene and we talked about IPD. So hopefully, people listening who are not familiar with a Marvel getting a sense. So like to take you back to your dissertation. And, you know, ask, I'd like to ask you, what were the key findings of your, of your, of your research.

Racheal Patel  11:52

So my, just to kind of give your listeners a little bit of context. So what I was trying to understand in this in this research is, what are the impediments or the challenges of adoption of this model? And so when I looked at, when I looked at, you know, how, how I would identify them, I interviewed individuals in Ontario, both in the public and the private end of health infrastructure, that are decision makers in the process and have been involved. And, you know, we looked at different categories. So is our market even ready to accept a model? Right? Like, are we are we in Ontario, even willing to say, hey, let's look at different project delivery models? You know, what's the impact of culture and environment? The legal ramifications, financial procurement, because we work through a different procurement body? And is there any impact of our regulatory authorities on how we go through it? And so I think, overarching, like one of the biggest findings, and the resounding is, the individuals that I interviewed, were all were like, We need a different model. So it was a resounding yes. The marketplace is saying we need to look at different ways to deliver these infrastructure projects. Because the complexities, the cost they're increasing. And the current models we have, while they deliver an amount saying that P3 are not good, but they do deliver. But for what we're delivering, it's not the best solution. And from a culture and environment, I think, you know, with integrated project delivery, it's about trust and collaboration. And our environment has a huge impact on trust, how we work together and so forth. So I think, I don't think are the culture we work in or in the environment. Everyone's like, it's going to be difficult to apply this model. And I think from a procurement perspective, one of the biggest, you know, ideas that came out was, you know, our procurement, the way we procure projects, that whole process, not necessarily, the broader procurement of the BPS has to change but we have to look at it in a different way to apply this type of model. I think those were some of the key big findings.

Riccardo Cosentino  14:22

Okay, so I think in your, your dissertation, you you talk about some of the challenges and some of the findings and I think procurement challenges is the one that I found quite interesting. And you talk about how the how the the process to secure funding for the developing new or new health infrastructure. creates challenges in adopting IPD. And also you look at the the value for money analysis used when procuring new infrastructure now that could be a barrier for the for the deployment of integrated project delivery. And so I'm very curious to draw upon your knowledge of what the MO Ministry of Health process is, and why is it detrimental?

Racheal Patel  15:18

So, I mean, it comes back to so the Ministry of Health process, if we look at, you know, how hospitals kind of work within our system, the hospitals are within, you know, the Ministry of Health. And it's not that they're regulated by the Ministry of Health, because each hospitals, independent corporations, they have their own board of directors, but they're tied to a lot of the operational funding the capital funding come through the Ministry of Health, so you have to work with them in order to get funding for whether it's a renovation or a new build. And so the capital, the health capital planning process, and I know they've changed it in in the last year, or they've added some different nomenclature of stages. But basically, it's separated into two different stages, in that you have your early planning, that talks about, you know, what is the infrastructure proposal how you're going to address it. And that then is requires approval to proceed further into the actual development of the health infrastructure structure project you want to actually implement. And so there's two different approval process within the government through the Treasury Board that your project has to go through. And then during that those approval processes, set dollar amount, whatever that is, whatever is established for that project, and that includes, you know, transaction fees. And so all the other fees that are held, that number is carried across the process. And that kind of is you're upset value or your total value of the project. But when you look at the process, the duration of this process is so long, and you know, healthcare projects can take 10, to, you know, 13 years to get through this process, where you actually go to a part where you go to RFP and start to bid and build, that there's such an evolution, the way we deliver healthcare, because it's rapidly changing with technology operations, and so forth, and different models of care, that what you first envisioned in your project, maybe you're one and where you ended up, when you're about to go to bed could change, but that number doesn't change. And so it's not agile enough to respond to the market.

Riccardo Cosentino  17:36

I guess another challenge is that when you know, because of the planning process, you develop a design and a solution. And you develop it to probably award 5% design completion. And so you lock in in certain certain things with your, with your master planning, you block schematic as you go through the approval process. And obviously, you wouldn't be able to have an IPD contractor on board, that early on to start that collaboration is that one of the findings, one of the challenges,

Racheal Patel  18:11

it is a challenge, but I think if you look at the way the US where IPDS is predominantly used for healthcare, you can have your business case written and your idea written, but then you know, when you get into blocks, or schematics, you engage that contractor into the process, right. And then together with the designer, the owner, the and the contractor in some of their sub trades, you start to build or design and plan for that future facility. So in the US, they do do that. Here in Ontario, we have a very process driven stream that contractors are not engaged and their value is not added until they get the bid documents. And so could the contractor come in earlier in the process? I believe it could. But that means you're procuring certain things earlier in order to have those conversations at the table. And they would have to be integrated into this. I don't see it being a barrier. I think it's a shift in mindset and how we approach it. And if this is the what we have to do with the ministry's process and Treasury board's approval for release of funding, then I think we have to look at, you know, when does a contract or when does the sub trades When did those key individuals get involved?

Riccardo Cosentino  19:33

Well, yeah, because what we have is a very linear process, you know, you have all these stages and you know, you can only is a Stage Gate approach. Well, I think without with IBD, you want a more fluid, more fluid approach that creates collaboration and interaction as early as possible because that's where that's where the value is created. And that's where optimization has appearance is it's at the early stages of the project.

Racheal Patel  20:02

Right. And it's also where the innovation happens, right? Like with the optimization, but it's innovation and maybe how we address mechanical I mean, you look at healthcare, mechanical, maybe 45, to, if not 50, but close to 50% of the value of our healthcare project is the engineering systems that run, not a name, excluding the equipment that you know, that it's put into the organization. But when you have such a heavy value of your costs sitting, like and you don't have those players that are going to build it at the table, it's a huge detriment, right. And we ended up having issues going down. And I think that's the benefit of this process of IPD. Everyone comes to the table early in design, so you can work out those solutions and the problems, say, you know, what's the best approach for, you know, air handling? What's the best approach for, you know, feature flexibility of data and so forth? I mean, I'm not an engineering to talk technical, but, you know, I've worked in situations where you have everyone at the table, and you can create something more efficient in its operation, but also in the price.

Riccardo Cosentino  21:11

Yes. Yeah. You know, enough to be dangerous. That's the mean. So, touched upon value for money. So let's, let's jump on to that. Because I think that's the other that, you know, and I worked for infrastructure, Ontario, and I know the value for money methodology. But, again, I think in your findings, you describe it beautifully. Why is problematic, so I won't steal your thunder. I leave, I leave you to explain why the VFM methodology is problematic.

Racheal Patel  21:52

Yeah, so So you, I get in trouble and not you. Alright. So I do believe that the value for money calculation that we use in Ontario is problematic, because the way we calculate value for money is that, and, again, I've listened and not at Infrastructure Ontario. So I can't say that with certainty. But my understanding of it is that when so let me take a step back when the idea of I think it's the idea of value for money first is problematic. When we think of value for money, we think of lowest price in Ontario. But when you look at what really value for money, it's the best, it's the best solution based on financial and non financial objectives. That's what value for money is value for money is not finding the cheapest bid. And I think, in Ontario, and I'm not just talking p3, but in Ontario, whether it's through supply chain procurement, so if we always look for this lowest price, because we believe that that is value for money, that itself is problematic for IPD. Because in IPD, its value for money is based on a number of other things, right? Value for money is on the team, it's on. It's not on a fixed price, it's how the team works together, right? Like, that's, you know, when you procure IPD, you're not procuring a fixed price, what you're procuring is the team that comes to the table that will work with you to develop the solution for what you're coming together for, you know, their qualifications, their experience, how they work together, their behaviors, that is what you're evaluating how you choose a team. It's not like, here's my lowest bid. And so I think that's one of the biggest challenges in Ontario is that we had this idea of low bid is the right solution. And then sorry, go  

Riccardo Cosentino  21:52

yeah, I was gonna I was gonna, you seem reluctant to come to the punch line. So I was gonna I was for you, in case you're too scared.

Racheal Patel  24:00

Scared, so but I just wanted to say, you know, like, so when you get to value for money calculation, and the way we do it is that it's about transferring the risk, right? So when you look at the value for money calculation, and how, you know, how one thing is, like one procurement model, p3 is better. It's because they're seeing the risk allocation, the transfers of the risk to the private sector is value for money for the public sector, because they're not burdened by that risk. And so that's kind of the premise. And I don't think that's correct, because you're measuring, you know, p3, the risk transference and against a traditional model where there isn't a risk transfer. So that's kind of the issue with the value for money calculation. Now you add an integrated project delivery, where the idea is risk sharing, and then you use that same methodology to calculate value for money IPD will never win because it's IPDs base core base is sharing risk. Because, you know, the definition is if you share a risk, you share solutions, right? Like you're working together to problem solve, as opposed to transferring that problem to somebody else doesn't get to the punch. Thank you. I'm not afraid to say it. But I just wanted to kind of, you know, I think it's two issues in our procurement, it's the idea of what value for money is and how we calculate money.  

Riccardo Cosentino  25:26

Okay, so I think I think that paints a pretty good picture of what what are the, in my mind, I mean, I'm your research talks about other challenges. And I think there's there's most the softer type challenges, which is, you know, resources, availability of resources, and culture and environment, which you talked at the beginning, but I'm a commercial person. So I always gravitate toward the heard liabilities and the heard numbers. So not that's not the sort of stuff but you know, the soft stuff is important. And yeah, I agree with you, I mean, value for money as to be and it to be to give credit to Infrastructure Ontario for for new projects. Now, on the civil side, they are starting to use more collaborative model, the studying to assess cognitive they do cognitive behavioral assessments for all the people that work on those project, because at the end of the day, there needs to be a culture of fit of everybody's at the table, because otherwise, you're not going to achieve the collaboration that you need.

Racheal Patel  26:29

100%. And, you know, I, I've spoken to people at Metrolinx, as well about the different ways they're trying to approach project delivery, civil projects are so complex, I would say probably even more so than a hospital delivery. You know, I think the hospital itself is a complex, but what Civil Works does, that's even more complex, but they're willing to try different models. And so if our partners here at Metrolinx, or other organizations are looking at different models, why can't we apply that? That's kind of also why I'm driving this idea. Like, let's look outside the box of what we've traditionally done here, Ontario.

Riccardo Cosentino  27:06

Yeah, I couldn't agree more. Okay. So jumping on, I wanted to maybe ask you more of a broader question, which, if you have actually had the chance to look at some case studies when you were doing your research, and if there's anything that that jumped out, you might you might have not actually looked at case study, because I know your literature literature review was a bit broader than that. But any, any anything that jumped out and key successes that jumped out,  

Racheal Patel  27:34

you know, IPD, in general, is permanently used in the US, but I think other countries are looking at it. So when I was doing this study, specifically, I was trying to find public hospitals or public systems that have applied integrated project delivery. The one organization I found was an I'm going to pronounce this wrong, because there is a lot over one of the letters, but it's in Norway, is the Songa project. And so the Norwegian government decided they've had enough with cost overruns, scheduled delays, adversarial relationships. And they actually implemented integrated project delivery in the redevelopment of hospitals, specifically one in this specific region and can't remember the name, but I can get you the reference or anybody that wants to know it after. And so they applied integrated project delivery, because they wanted more of a collaboration and a different approach to public infrastructure, it's probably the closest thing that you would see to a true definition of integrated project delivery, with the exception is that there is no multi party contract. So in integrated project delivery, all the individuals are under a multi party contracts, you all signed together. And so in this public project, that was the only key characteristics of a true IPD. That wasn't in there. But all of the risk sharing the reduced liability, not waiver of liability was there, you know, the the key concepts were there, with the exception of the multi party agreement. So that was probably the only one. There's still in the middle of the build stages. And if you do look it up. It's multi phase project. It's very complex redevelopment in this system. But they've just started issuing case studies or publishing case studies are starting to talk to the public or the global public about this specific example. And it's successful because they have delivered and they've achieved what they've wanted to they've had innovations through the process. But it's the first example of public system using integrated project delivery for health infrastructure.

Riccardo Cosentino  29:43

Interesting. Okay, I'll try. I'll try to get the details. We'll put in the shownotes. Search it up. Okay, so I guess, as maybe as a final question, probably quite a challenging question but are going to have Is there any way? What will be your recommendation to Ontario policymakers? entities like MOH, or Infrastructure Ontario? To what what would they have to do to embrace IPD for future projects? How can they navigate these challenges? Effectively?   does. I think, I think if I can paraphrase. I mean, there's a there's a need for a shift for a fundamental shift in the policy, because as you describe the fact that hospitals are risk averse, and they can't really absorb too much or cost overruns, or, you know, as lower risk. But that's a funding issue. Right? That's a policy issue there. I mean, at the end of the day, hospital are a creature of the Ministry of Health, right. So ultimately, the governance could allow could be put in place to allow a hospital to to have a different approach a different commercial approach. So it is it is within the gift of the policymaker and the politicians.

Racheal Patel  33:45

Yeah. And 100%. And I think, you know, when you're paraphrasing it better than I wrote it, I think, but I'm trying to put, you know, 60 pages into small answer. But if you look at you know, just even the allocation of how hospitals have funding for resources to do infrastructure. In the study, a lot of individuals brought up that thing that goes, there's not even enough money to do the current projects that we have with the lack of funding, you know, because they get a certain percentage of ancillary funding in order to pay their staff. But in this situation, when we do IPD, you're going to have a plethora of individuals and experts and stuff that have to sit in the hospital organization to do this. And a hospital isn't an infrastructure professional, right? They bring in the resources to do what they need to but they're they're there to deliver service and care to their community. And so they need to bring all these specialists in but if our if our ancillary costs are how until your cost is given and or funding is given to the hospitals to have the resources doesn't meet the need of these comp, this type of project delivery, you're never going to be able to add execute it. Right now, it supports more of the transactional. So yeah, to your point that also has to be done from a ministry level saying we need to look at how money is given the allocation of funding for these types.

Riccardo Cosentino  35:15

Okay, so I mean, if I gonna, I'm going to try to summarize I mean, I think my three takeaways is having the there needs to be a change in changing culture, and environment. In order to bring a different type of behaviors to the table, there needs to be a change in the way that risk is allocated, or better, we need to find a better way to share risk. We need to we will need to change some of the policies associated with procurement and project development. And if all this was to happen, then potentially we could have a rich IPD market in Ontario.  Yeah, I think you separated and I think maybe IPD, just in its and probably negate everything I just said about why I'm passionate about IPD. But I, I, I think this would be true for any relational type of contracting like Alliance, Alliance, as well as IPD. They have similarities as we talked about earlier. But what you've summarize are critical for our marketplace to allow for different models. And I think that's kind of the crux of the issue is that we have a marketplace that's set up for one specific type of delivery model. And if we need to look outside the box, we need to look at these issues. Okay, now, you said it better than me, well,

Racheal Patel  36:44

play off of you.

Riccardo Cosentino  36:47

Okay, I think I think that's all we have time for today. Thank you very much for joining me today. Racheal. This was a fascinating conversation about our own province, our own in our own country. So thank you for joining me and all the best for your future endeavors.

Racheal Patel  37:02

Thanks, Riccardo and thank you for the platform to talk about this right now.

Riccardo Cosentino  37:08

That's it for this episode on navigating major problems. I hope you found today's conversation as informative and thought provoking as I did. If you enjoyed this conversation, please consider subscribing and leaving a review. I would also like to personally invite you to continue the conversation by joining me on my personal LinkedIn at Riccardo Cosentino. Listening to the next episode, we will continue to explore the latest trends and challenges in major program management. Our next in depth conversation promises to continue to dive into topics such as leadership risk management, and the impact of emerging technology in infrastructure. It's a conversation you're not going to want to miss. Thanks for listening to Navigating Major Programmes and I look forward to keeping the conversation going

Music: "A New Tomorrow" by Chordial Music. Licensed through PremiumBeat.