For a large infrastructure project of this nature, multiple stakeholders are a given. Within this dynamic there is an overall project objective, but also individual organizational goals that need to be taken into consideration and addressed. At times, these individual mandates can conflict with the project’s overall goals with one team’s workstream impacted by the needs of another’s.
An example of this can be found in the innovation and design mandates. Imperative for some of the partners, these directives require considerable and conscientious ideation. This alone can be seen by stakeholders with limited understanding of the complexities and intricacies of design innovation as a delay.
Add in the fact that creating something new and different means there is no true baseline for comparison, and processes like tendering become that much more complicated and can lead some to question the need for such layers of innovation.
Additionally, public accountability is of paramount concern to the city government anchoring this project. The innovation mandate is therefore severely bounded and has to be located on the side of caution or “reasonable risk”.
These competing interests puts the onus on effective and clear communication amongst partners to ensure that all partners understand the importance of each activity and how each ties into the overall project.