Over the last decade, ESDi research into infrastructure interdependency and systems approaches to planning has been influential across industry and Government. Initially sponsored by HM Treasury in the UK, ESDi worked in partnership with The Bartlett, University College London to develop a framework and the principles to create value from better planning and management of infrastructure interdependencies.
The Proposed Framework Report was published in 2014 alongside three case study reports, and these formed the basis for the Interdependency Planning and Management Framework (IPMF) and tools published in HM Treasury’s ‘Valuing infrastructure spend: Supplementary guidance to the Green Book’ in March 2015.
This work on infrastructure interdependencies was pivotal in building the relationships that led to the formation of the International Centre for Infrastructure Futures (ICIF). The networks developed through ICIF and its sister projects played a part in establishing the UK Collaboratorium for Research on Infrastructure and Cities.
The Case for ‘System-of-Systems’ Level Planning and Management of Infrastructure Interdependencies
Modern infrastructure systems are highly coupled, operating as a ‘system of systems’ with digital, organisational, physical, and geographical interdependencies. Natural and built assets are materially interconnected, both with each other and with the socio-economic systems in which they are located. The potential benefit for infrastructure owners, operators and regulators is to create additional value by:
- Exploiting interdependencies to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of infrastructure;
- Systematically identifying potentially hazardous and economically damaging interdependencies.
Our paper on creating value from infrastructure interdependencies was discussed at the International Symposium on Next Generation Infrastructure in 2013.
Applying the IPMF
The IPFM is capable of supporting both ‘broad-brush’ strategic appraisals at the start of the planning and design processes, as well as more complex and detailed engineering-orientated assessments later on in the project life-cycle. The following case studies illustrate the approach and benefits:
High Speed 2 rail network, from Birmingham to Manchester and Leeds: A facilitated workshop with a diverse range of invited infrastructure stakeholders revealed that the High Speed 2 Phase 2 corridor could act as an ‘agent of change’ supporting potentially valuable auxiliary infrastructure outcomes. Group model building using the IPMF revealed opportunities to create value by enhancing resilience through: additional electricity distribution capacity into Sheffield and Manchester; as a route for inter-regional water transfer; supporting additional flood protection schemes; and as a route for additional ICT infrastructure including to rural areas.
High-level Infrastructure Interdependencies for the Lower Thames Crossing: A desk study identified and assessed opportunities arising from exploiting additional interdependencies or engineering new interdependencies for the Lower Thame Crossing. The study found that a crossing could provide the capability for additional electricity generation and utility distribution. It could help facilitate additional flood defences and, as part of its construction, provide a use for waste products such as tyres. Appreciating the full impact of such interdependent outcomes requires a project that goes beyond its conceived purpose as a solution to a purely transport challenge. The study also found opportunities for positive and negative interdependencies to arise between the crossing and several regeneration projects in the area, even though these are ultimately loosely coupled.
Northern Line Extension: This case study by Dr John Ward at UCL provided insight into reasons why interdependencies are not widely considered. Barriers include appraisal processes which conceptualise projects around a narrow core purpose, e.g. the Northern Line Extension was defined exclusively on the line haul without consideration of significant interactions with the other infrastructure elements and wider economic impacts such as urban regeneration policy goals. The fact that the Northern Line Extension project is relatively tightly coupled with regeneration schemes, yet these interdependencies were largely not considered, is potentially evidence of a prevailing closed-system view. The study of the Northern Line Extension project also revealed a dependence on Cost Benefit Analysis and a narrow appreciation of wider stakeholder needs. This approach can unduly constrain a project, discouraging an appreciation of wider costs, benefits and requirements.
Engineering the Future’s Infrastructure Timelines Report: This study applied the IPMF in a multi-disciplinary stakeholder workshop to investigate interdependencies between policies and projects for the UK national infrastructure plan. The research demonstrated the potential for large scale, multi-disciplinary application and was notable for highlighting potential organisational interdependencies and opportunities for collaboration. The investigation was supported by the Institution of Civil Engineers with input from the Chartered Institution of Water & Environmental Management, the Institute of Water, the Institution of Chemical Engineers, the Institution of Engineering and Technology, the Nuclear Institute, the Chartered Institution for Highways and Transportation, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers and the Royal Academy of Engineering.