Activity 10.1: Manage plan implementation

GLOSSARY TERMS

By Admin Eltis / Updated: 28 May 2019

Rationaleinfo-icon

A good Sustainable Urban Mobility Planinfo-icon does not automatically lead to good results. It is crucial to deliver the goals of the plan effectively and to apply appropriate management to oversee the implementation and to manage risks. This requires agreements with all actors involved in measureinfo-icon implementation. Implementation follows a much shorter cycle than the Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan process. It will usually include the refinement of targets as well as planning, detailing, managing, communicating and monitoringinfo-icon of the measure implementation.

 

Aims

  • Formalise the roles of actors involved in measure implementation.
  • Ensure sound coordination among all parties involved.
  • Facilitate an efficient and effective implementation process.
  • Address potential risks and synergies.
  • Ensure transparencyinfo-icon of implementation.

 

 Tasks

  • Agree on management procedures and responsibilities with all stakeholders involved in implementing the measures (work plan).
  • Assess risks and plan for contingencies.
  • Enforce work plan implementation and agree on reporting formats.

 

Details on the tasks

GUIDEMAPS: Project plan and management

Project management is concerned with the overall planning and coordination of a project, from inception to completion. It ensures that requirements of the decision-maker or commissioning body are met by achieving completion on time, within budget and to the required quality standards.

Project management covers the whole transport decision making process and usually structures the project plan according to a six-stage project process:

1. Scheme definition

This stage involves the detailed definition of the scheme, either based on the objectives and programme set out in a strategyinfo-icon (or Sustainable Urban Mobility Plan > Activities 5.1, 7.2), or through the direct identification of the problems or issues to be addressed. It includes the specification of requirements and the identification of constraints, as well as the selection of performance indicators (> Activities 5.2, 8.1).

2. Option generationinfo-icon

Several options (e.g. different features or routes) need to be prepared in order to find an effective and efficient scheme which maximises stakeholderinfo-icon support. Various tools can be used to aid professional creativity and stakeholder involvement in the option generation process.

3. Option assessmentinfo-icon

This involves the appraisalinfo-icon of options with regard to their potential impacts and cost effectiveness. Typically, this process assesses many characteristics, covering impacts on the local economy, environmentinfo-icon and society. It includes a technical analysis of each option and an assessment of likely public acceptance.

4. Formal decision taking

The decision is taken by the responsible institutioninfo-icon (or delegated body for smaller schemes), taking into account the findings of the option assessment stage. It includes agreement on the preferred option, arrangements for when the project will be implemented and by whom, and the allocation of resources (> relates to Activities 7.1, 7.2).

5. Implementation

This includes all necessary preparatory and site work to bring the scheme to the point of operation. For infrastructure projects, final details regarding the phasing of construction must be agreed on and authorisation for construction obtained. This stage can also include other tasks, such as the recruiting of operating staff, the promotion of the scheme, or an information campaign (> Activity 10.2).

6. Monitoring and evaluationinfo-icon (> see Activity 10.3)

Datainfo-icon on the performance of the scheme are collected and analysed to determine whether the objectives have been met. This can lead to improvements in future scheme design and can contribute to the evaluation of the strategy of which it has formed one part.

 

Broad phases in undertaking project management

 

 

Source: Guidemaps Handbook, Volume 1: Concepts and tools, p. 15 and 22.

ww.osmose-os.org/documents/316/GUIDEMAPSHandbook_web[1].pdf

 
Activities beyond essential requirements
  • Link the management of measure implementation with wider performance management systems within the administration.

 

Timing and coordination

  • Throughout implementation phase.

 

Checklist

Work plan on management procedures and actor responsabilities agreed on.
Risk contingency plan elaborated.
Reporting formats agreed on.

 

Example

Budapest, Hungary: Coordination among involved parties

The Heart of Budapest Programme is a programme created in 2007 to revitalise the inner city through large-scale traffic calming. It was initiated and managed by the following key stakeholders: the Municipality of Budapest (as the ultimate project owner), the ’Heart of Budapest Urban Development Non-profit Company’ (as the coordinator of project implementation), a private consultancy which developed the plan and the ’Aiming for a clean inner city’ association (an NGO which channels citizeninfo-icon’s input into the project). Apart from these main stakeholders, the importance of this Programme also attracted a range of other stakeholders, from the media, local businesses and various public authorities in charge of planning and approvals.

Due to the complexity of this plan, the aforementioned non-profit company was created to manage and coordinate the actual implementation, in close cooperation with the local district municipality. This company is in charge of assuring the transparency of implementation (e.g. through its website and a regular free-newsletter), while during the planning process, the most important actors were the local politicians and the private consultants, which developed the actual plan. But during the implementation phase it turned out to be extremely important to have a separate and fully dedicated body for managing the measures’ implementation.

Eltis case study with more information on the Heart of Budapest programme: /index.php?id=13&study_id=2961

Source: Gábor Heves, Regional Environmental Center for Central and Eastern Europe