Project auditing best
practice
and take a closer look at the channel tunnel high speed 1 project’s fresh approach to project auditing practices and how it can be used to inform new project audits
Project audits and healthchecks provide organizations with the opportunity to uncover issues, concerns and challenges in the execution of a project. They afford a view of what has gone well and what needs to be improved by thoroughly examining the management of a project and its control processes.
The audit and self-assessment processes of the channel tunnel high speed 1 project created a fresh approach to project auditing that involves all of the key stakeholders. It can be argued that this new approach was a contributing factor to the success of the project and to its achievement of an European Foundation for Quality Module (EFQM) award.
High Speed 1
In 1996 London and Continental Railways (LCR) was awarded the concession to build the channel tunnel rail link later known as high speed 1 (HS1). HS1 was the UK’s first high speed railway and runs for 100km between London and the channel tunnel. The project ran for nine years and employed a workforce of more than 1,000 at its peak. In November 2007 the £5.8bn project opened both on time and within budget.
Union Railways was the client of the project and Rail Link Engineering (RLE) was appointed as project manager. From the very beginning those involved sought to ensure that quality was integral to the process. A project-specific quality strategy, designed from existing best practices, was submitted within three months of being awarded the concession. The strategy covered four key areas, one of which was quality audit and self assessment.
Different audits
Three types of audit processes were applied when conducting management systems audits on the HS1 project. Each also encompassed quality, environment and health and safety elements:
Principal audits
Examined high level processes to ensure they were operating satisfactorily. Auditors were drawn from the government project representative and Union Railways.
Level one audits
Audited management systems related to RLE senior management and major contractors. Auditors were drawn from RLE, Union Railways and the contractor’s corporate organizations. Central audits examining design and procurement processes were conducted by internal auditors from Union Railways and RLE.
Level two audits
Audited management control systems related to sub-contractors and associated RLE middle management. Auditors were drawn from contractors and RLE.
The audits were designed to focus on the effectiveness of management systems, at all levels, to deliver quality.
Auditing process
Each type of audit had well defined processes supported by detailed process charts in three key stages
- programming and planning
- execution
- follow-up and close out
Figure 1: A simplified flow diagram of key stages of the audit process for all three types of audit
Audits were carried out through interviews, examination of data and observation of activities. The auditors attended pre-closing meetings to review and agree audit findings and prepare corrective action requests (CAR) and observations of good practice.
The benefits
The robustness of the HS1 audit processes was underpinned by the involvement of the project team (RLE), client (Union Railway), major contractors and the government appointed representative. As a result, audit findings were included in RLE and Union Railways safety reports. There was constant attention to resolving issues raised by CARs and key quality results were addressed at quality excellence meetings attended by directors of RLE and Union Railways.
The audit levels and checklists were designed to reflect specific requirements of the HS1 project as enablers, as well as to show results leading to continuous improvement. CAR forms were highly effective in identifying both corrective and preventive actions to improve design and processes and attracted the attention of the project board.
Best practice
The fundamental principles of project audits were customized in the HS1 project to monitor and evaluate management systems of both the client and project managers in order to meet the specific requirements of a complex project. Organizations contemplating future project audits can learn a lot from this new approach and should take into consideration the following best practices:
- assessing the need of auditing management systems
- designing audit processes at appropriate levels covering the project teams, major contractors and sub-contractors
- detailed design and documentation of audit processes supported by process charts, checklists, audit briefs, audit notification and audit forms
- involvement of key stakeholders in the audit process and thus encouraging supplier partnership and proactive involvement of contractors in monitoring and improving project quality and conformance to standards
- creating audit processes and checklists that span across the key aspects of project deliverables including health and safety, environment, quality, design and procurement
- aligning the audit processes with the project execution strategy, executive reports, and EFQM-based self assessment
Effective project audits can contribute immensely to the successful completion of any project and should be carried out in the best possible fashion. By being dedicated to quality practices and tailoring project auditing and self-assessment to HS1’s specific needs, the project team ensured they were doing the utmost on every level to achieve this.
About the authors
Ron Basu is director of Performance Excellence and visiting executive fellow at Henley Business School. He is also visiting professor at ESC Lille.
Dan Keeling trained as a civil engineer before moving into quality management while on a city building project. He spent five years working on the channel tunnel before heading up the quality management function on HS1.
 |
 Have an issue to raise? A question to ask? Give us your opinions now in the Online Forums. |
