EA: From your perspective at Ramboll, what are the most effective collaborative structures you’ve seen used in infrastructure delivery, and what lessons can we draw from them to inform future best practice?

PS: There are many examples of deliberately integrated, systems-driven delivery models that are intentionally set up to enable collaboration across the many organisations and functions that contribute to infrastructure delivery.  HS2, for example, established an integrated delivery team where the different contributing organisations were structured and encouraged to work together as a single team towards common aims.  The pre-COVID model of co-locating a  team, meant effective daily engagement and resolution of issues, as well as strategic alignment on overarching objectives.  

The Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE) Project 13 Enterprise Model, moves away from a transactional client–supplier setup to a collaborative, integrated enterprise approach.  Many infrastructure developers have adopted Project 13 principles, including, Anglian Water’s @one Alliance, Heathrow, National Grid, British Antarctic Survey and Network Rail, among others. These organisations have all benefitted, to varying degrees from the focus on long-term relationships over short-term contracts, prioritising  outcomes over outputs, with shared governance and open data.

Finally, the C40 Cities programme is a good example of ambitious collaboration.  Ramboll is contributing to the programme as a partner through the Ramboll Foundation.  C40 involves 100 of the world’s largest and most influential cities, led by their mayors, united in taking bold climate action.  The C40 programme shares a sustainability and resilience framework, tools, and data and includes collective investment in research, skills, and supply chain capability (e.g., low-carbon concrete and flood-adapted design). The programme has enabled best practices to be shared across the globe, innovation to be shared and evidenced, demonstrating the immense power of real collaboration as a motivator and change agent.

All these initiatives teach us that there is benefit in intentionally setting up collaborative structures to enable sustainable infrastructure delivery.  However, to make such arrangements work, measurable outcomes must be defined from the get-go, with straightforward governance that ensures integration and accountability. Without this clarity, collaboration models can suffer from inefficiency. Conversely, when these models are effectively implemented, infrastructure delivery outcomes can be significantly enhanced, where holistic systems thinking on sustainability and whole-life value can be embedded from the start, where opportunities can be optimised and maximum benefit can be gained.

EA: Procurement and supply chains often present major hurdles to embedding sustainability. How do you think these frameworks need to evolve to better support innovation and climate-resilient outcomes?

PS: Unfortunately, some infrastructure developments are optimised for the lowest capital cost and short-term outputs, which can discourage innovation and investment in climate-resilient solutions.  To ensure that sustainability is embedded and not lost through the procurement process, it is important to see a consistent shift from lowest cost to whole-life value.   Tenders should be evaluated using whole-life carbon and cost assessments (e.g., considering operational energy, maintenance and decommissioning) while also accounting for resilience benefits (e.g., avoided flood damage, reduced downtime from heatwaves) where possible.  Early, collaborative supply chain engagement is also highly effective, particularly when suppliers are invited in before key design decisions are fixed and cannot be influenced.  Suppliers should also be incentivised to seek technically and financially feasible sustainability options. Another key requirement should be the use of open, standardised carbon and resilience data reporting from suppliers (e.g., PAS 2080 for carbon, ISO 14090 for adaptation).  This helps project teams speak the same language and share data effectively, which is critical to the enablement of climate-resilient outcomes.

EA: Cross-sector collaboration can be complex to navigate. What conditions or behaviours are essential to making partnerships between public agencies, private companies, and consultants genuinely effective and outcome-driven?

PS: In my experience, the key elements essential for success include agreeing on a small set of measurable, time-bound outcomes, such as, carbon, resilience, biodiversity and social value.  Leaders in all organisations involved need to be able to convincingly explain why these outcomes matter and continually anchor their decisions to them even when cost or schedule pressures arise.  It is also important that incentives and risk allocation is structured to ensure that no one wins by undermining these outcomes.  Shared pain/gain mechanisms can help, as can transparent decision-making about trade-offs.  Misaligned contracts will likely result in adversarial behaviour.  Collaboration is always easier if public, private and consultant partners are engaged from the concept stage, when they can collectively debate and influence key approaches and design decisions.  Finally, investing some time in team-building always pays off through smoother and more open engagement, and stronger relationships that can be resilient through the ups and downs of a project.

EA: Early engagement is frequently cited as key to success. In your experience, how can early, integrated collaboration help embed biodiversity and climate resilience from the outset of infrastructure projects?

PS: Early, integrated collaboration is one of the most powerful levers for embedding biodiversity and climate resilience into infrastructure, but only if it happens before key design and procurement decisions are locked in.  Early engagement means that key stakeholders can all participate in shaping an aligned vision, strategy and objectives, as appropriate to the work they are going to do.  With early engagement, projects can benefit from holistic consideration of the optimal route and footprint.  This will help to avoid high-value habitats or flood prone areas and avoid costly retrofits later.  Holistic assessment is critical to balance the input of, for example landscape architects, civil engineers, and environmental scientists to balance considerations such as, for example,  flood attenuation, habitat connectivity, and public amenity.  For example, Copenhagen’s Cloudburst Management Plan, which Ramboll was the primary private partner, combined stormwater retention parks with urban biodiversity corridors, designed jointly by water engineers and ecologists.  This holistic approach was achieved through intentional collaboration with the relevant stakeholders.

EA: As chair of this panel, what key insights or shifts are you hoping to surface in the discussion, particularly when it comes to accelerating the pace of change across the infrastructure ecosystem?

PS: We have an excellent panel with wide-ranging experience of these challenges.  I am hoping to hear the panel’s views and experience of the ongoing shift to whole-life value as well as ways in which to align incentives across the full value-chain of suppliers.  I am interested in their recommendations regarding what leadership should consider and how it should behave to embed both a collaborative spirit and meaningful action amongst the stakeholders involved in major capital projects.  I am interested as much in the failures as in successes, as both are equally instructive.