Singapore, June 30 - The strategic consultancy Wood Holmes PTE was recently tapped to handle the stakeholder engagement process in a massive £260 million civil engineering scheme to provide a second vehicle tunnel under the River Tyne in the U.K. This infrastructure project involved a complex, integrated social responsibility element that aimed at building relationships between the authorities, the construction consortium, and the public. What were the outcomes, and was the project successful in delivering on its promises? Eco-business.com talks to Wood Holmes CEO Stuart Smith and looks at the firm’s experience as a case study underlining the importance of CSR and community engagement.

Eco-Business.com: To set the stage, what can you tell us about the area that project took place?

Stuart Smith: The New Tyne Crossing Project is fundamentally a development designed to provide a new link across the River Tyne, the aim of the project is to relieve congestion on the strategically important A19 road corridor and to facilitate much needed economic development.

Geographically the development area is located six miles away from the City of Newcastle upon Tyne, close to the Port of Tyne’s freight and ferry terminal and a few miles from the river mouth. The existing Tyne Tunnel is the only river crossing point for vehicles within a ten mile stretch of the Tyne, and it runs at 150% over capacity, hence the need for a second vehicle tunnel.

The communities on either side of the river at the points of construction are amongst the most economically deprived in England. Politically, there are high expectations that despite constructing the tunnel directly through the urban fabric, construction of the new structure will not disrupt the lives of people living, working or being schooled in the vicinity of the project. The organizations behind the project are also expected to maximize opportunities for local people to benefit from the scheme.

An additional challenge associated with the location of the project is the contractual requirement that existing traffic flows must not be adversely impacted by construction works. Hence it has proved necessary to build the second vehicle tunnel and associated access roads and over bridges around a congested site of 38,000 vehicles per day.

Tyne Tunnel 2

Tyne Tunnel 2

EB: The River Tyne tunnel was an example of a large infrastructure project. What sort of challenges did you anticipate in dealing with the general public, the construction contractors, and general public when you first got involved?

SS: If you look at the diverse range of stakeholders we deal with you can quickly understand what the challenges are likely to be. Our three primary aims on this project were one, to keep the contractor and funders happy, two to keep those people living next door to the building site or those motorists driving through the site each day happy, and three, to keep the regulators and decision makers happy. All of these were of equal priority.

The contractor and their funders want to build the tunnel as quickly and safely as possible with minimum disruption. Ideally the contractor would work through the night and over weekends, using the easiest technique regardless of noise impacts or dust levels.

The local residents want to be able to live their lives exactly as they were before construction began, which presents a problem when the construction site cuts the community in half.

Decision makers need to scrutinize the contractors activities and feel reassured that they are made aware in advance of every thing that will happen on site, before it happens. Unfortunately for many large scale construction projects, decisions sometimes have to be made on the spot. Plans sometimes need to be amended. Decision makers like to be offered a reasonable amount of time to consider such modifications, but on the ground delivery isn’t always so perfect.

These tensions if not carefully planned for and addressed can lead to barriers to progress.

The Tyne Tunnel project has been sensitive from the outset, as although the business case for the scheme made sense, there were a large number of objections to the project at the planning stage, resulting in a Public Inquiry and a challenge in the European Court.

We knew that there would be numerous sensitive issues and groups of stakeholders that would require particular attention, and we have worked closely with different people to make sure that they feel their concerns have been dealt with.

EB: Given the diverse group of stakeholders involved, what did your communication plan include?

SS: At Wood Holmes we have developed a range of techniques to ensure that we get the planning right. Plans should be seen as iterative documents which are always under review and we try and make them as visual as possible. At the beginning of the project we undertake a detailed stakeholder mapping exercise which is captured visually in the form of social network map. This is used as a reference tool throughout the project.

We then plan appropriate communication and engagement activity depending on the stakeholder group, the stage of the project and the sensitivity of the activity that is being undertaken.

Communications activity therefore covers everything from intensive face to face engagement with individual residents through to the more ‘broadcast’ techniques of the mass media.

EB: What elements do you think were successful in building trust between the different stakeholder groups?

SS: Building trust is one of the most fundamental skills but doing it effectively takes time and intense effort. As a starting point before we began telling stakeholders anything we listened to them.

Once they trusted us, then they wanted to listen to what we had to say. We’ve always done what we said we would do, and if they’ve asked for things we couldn’t do, we’ve always been honest about that, and explained why. Most people appreciate honesty.

When dealing with highly technical issues so many communicators or projects refuse to adapt their communications for the audience. In our view, it is our role to explain complex technical issues in a way in which the community can engage. This must be done without patronizing people.

Once stakeholders have a shared understanding it is remarkable how much can be achieved.

EB: Could you give us an example of how things perhaps didn’t go according to plan, and how those obstacles were overcome?

SS:Fortunately, we have had no major problems in the 4 years we have worked on the project. Having said that, no plan can ever capture the complexity and fluid nature of a project such as this.

This is a key fact of life and therefore, we had to ensure that the team on site are able to act flexibly and rapidly to changes in the situation. This is where the teams skills as communicators, engineers and anthropologists come into play.

EB: Beyond the outcome of improved infrastructure, were there any other benefits to the local community? How were those benefits maximised?

SS: As you know the UK, like many other countries, has been impacted by the global recession therefore developers, funders and policy makers are looking for a bigger bang for their buck. Our approach with the project has been to view the investment in this project (£246 million) as more than just the price paid for the concrete/steel and labor for the construction, viewing it instead as an investment upon which other things can be leveraged.

We have attempted to link the project to existing efforts to upskill the local workforce, to provide training and education opportunities for local communities, to foster SME and enterprise development and lobby for further improvements in surrounding infrastructure.

Tyne Tunnel 3

Tyne Tunnel 3

EB: Through involving the local community, was there any input from them that was particularly beneficial in steering the project and its outcomes?

SS:We held a major public consultation into the landscape master plan for the sites north and south of the river. We found out how people would like to see the land that was left behind after construction used. This was really insightful and helped us to produce landscape designs that were acceptable to the planning authorities straight away, as the authorities also had confidence in the pre-application consultation process.

A major change to the design was brought about as a result of community input to the landscape plans south of the river. Local experts had considered that the riverside park would be an ideal location for an amphitheatre, with ambitions to put the area on the map culturally. However local people were aghast at the thought and rallied against it. This was a huge surprise to the local decision makers, but they accepted the arguments against the amphitheatre proposal that were put forward by a wide range of consultees. The residents suggested that the area be used to create a facility for young people, suggesting a skate park or cycle track. They felt this was a more positive use of the space for local people and that it was a more welcome legacy for the project to leave the area. This idea is now being developed with the local council.

EB: On other projects you’ve worked on, do you think there is any reluctance on the part of governments to involve the community in the same way as with the Tyne Tunnel? If so, why do you think they have reservations?

SS:There can be a fear that stakeholder engagement will delay the project and require a substantial resource investment. In fact at the outset of the Tyne Tunnel project there were even those within the project who doubted that a major investment into stakeholder engagement was worthwhile. However, EFFECTIVE stakeholder engagement (as opposed to the tick box exercise that many organizations are advised to pursue) can have an extremely beneficial effect on projects.

The feedback we’ve had from engineers and project managers on the construction side and the client side have been that they cannot believe how smoothly the project has proceeded. They cannot believe that there have been more compliments about the construction works than complaints. They tell us this is unheard of in their industry. The positive feedback is echoed by local politicians, residents, and even journalists (who in fact express their disappointment at the fact, as they had anticipated for several years of bad news stories to fill their pages). With an underlying strength in confidence from local politicians, the local authority decision makers are able to relax somewhat, smoothing the approvals process. This ensures that the project can be delivered with minimum fuss and without planning related delays.

However the key message is that effective stakeholder engagement has to be carefully thought through before work begins, and it cannot be an activity that is tacked on as an after thought, as that is exactly what it will be recognized as. If you’re going to do it, do it properly, and then all of your stakeholders will reap the benefits.

EB: What do you think were the most important lessons learned through the project and its outcomes?

SS:The difficulties of establishing partnership working amongst the project delivery partners – don’t assume it will happen naturally as each project partner has a very different perspective even if the overall ambition is the same.

The assumptions that everyone understands or sees the world in the same way and we were very surprised at how little some of the government policy makers understood about a modern construction site and similarly the understanding of contractors of the public policy influences and how these manifest themselves on the project.

EB: What advice might you give to others planning large public infrastructure projects, e.g. governments and the construction industry?

SS:Sometimes these issues are described as ‘softer’ issues. I would say that they are the opposite. They are very definite ‘hard’ risk issues, get these wrong and you are looking at cost overruns, reputational PR damage, political issues and even legal sanctions. None of these things sound particularly soft to me and all of these will have a detrimental impact on finances.

Different countries will experience these pressures in their own particular way but the involvement of communities and other stakeholders in the developments that impact upon their environment will continue to come to the forefront wherever you are based.

EB: Do you think the experiences from the Tyne Tunnel project have relevance in other business areas and industries?

SS: Absolutely. Several of the approaches we adopt here we have adapted from our other work in organizational change management/strategy and vice versa.

Fundamentally, it’s about people and communication. So whether that’s a construction project, the redevelopment of a City, an internal ICT project or the launch of a new product or service the techniques and dynamics remain the same.