Susanne Cooper, SKM / W2W Alliance
Dr Robert Humphries, WA Water Corporation

Alliance Contracting is increasingly being used to deliver the effective design and construction of major infrastructure across Australia.

Over the next decade, major infrastructure projects across the globe will be delivered through alliances, which will bring new and diverse levels of skills, expertise and innovation.

Introducing sustainability
Embedding sustainability from the beginning of projects can create enduring value.

In managing sustainability in large, complex projects, there is a need to go beyond concepts or principles and to apply them pragmatically.

It is essential to apply a structured, systematic process, particularly for programs that involve multiple projects and project teams – as is the case with alliances.

Just as it is critical to encourage thinking within a sustainability framework and engender this as part of design development.

Not so much why, but how…

Sustainability principles are now broadly accepted by project teams as a useful compass to guide planning and design decisions.

The real challenge is in the ‘how’ – and in applying sustainability principles into practice across multiple projects at various stages of design.

The following case study shows how carefully thought out sustainability management can positively impact on a large, multidisciplinary project.

Western Australia’s Water Corporation (WAWC) commissioned the “W2W Alliance” (Water to Water) to design and construct upgrades to Perth’s three largest wastewater treatment plants (WWTPs), with a budget of $352 million over the next 5 years.

Sustainability was key – starting with the tender documents and selection workshops. Driven by the Water Corporation’s Sustainability Strategy (2004), and adopting 18 business or ‘sustainability’ principles (2006), sustainability principles and business principles became synonymous: ‘its’ the way we do business’.

By rigorously applying these (sustainability / business) principles to all decisions, it improves the sustainability of those decisions and reduces the ecological footprint of infrastructure construction and operation, both financially and socially acceptably.

For the Water Corporation, these principles now form the basis for water planning and infrastructure decisions, and in assessing multiple infrastructure options against detailed sustainability guidelines. Sustainability is integrated into every activity the business undertakes.

The Alliance’s approach to sustainability built upon and extended the foundation already developed by the Water Corporation’s Sustainability team. They recognised the opportunity – and considered it essential – to extend sustainability into the governance and thinking patterns of the W2W Alliance team because of its magnitude, longevity and the potential to propel ideas and innovation back into the Water Corporation.

The task was complex with concurrent projects at the three sites (38 projects at the start), at various stages of design.

The longevity of the Alliance offers opportunities to imbed sustainability into all stages of planning and conceptual design, through to construction and operation.

This project provided the opportunity to:

• leverage technical and intellectual innovations back into the Water Corporation to harvest the benefits of experience and expertise with mutually improved outcomes for all parties;
• achieve important infrastructure upgrades in a manner compatible with the corporation’s culture of and commitment to financial, social and environmental excellence; and
• invest in a long-term mutually beneficial relationship with the Alliance partners to achieve genuine, more sustainable outcomes.

And by creating the potential philosophical alignment with a sustainability-based approach and mutually satisfying, enduring outcomes, it suggests Alliances will be a preferred model to deliver large projects for the Water Corporation into the future.

How

The challenge for the Alliance was to embed sustainability into all facets of its program:

• project design and construction
• the Alliance culture
• the strategic direction for all projects.

An additional challenge was to retrofit upgrades into existing plant and infrastructure, while the absence of ‘greenfield’ sites constrained the pursuit of the most sustainable outcomes.

This required a multi-faceted approach, structured around four elements:

• Embedding sustainable design considerations into project decisions at all levels – from scoping to design to construction and operation;
• Identifying appropriate KPIs, goals and targets to set the strategic direction and to monitor and assess progress;
• Building an organisational culture supportive of sustainability; increasing awareness, understanding and confidence in its application; and
• Ensuring relevance to and alignment with broader, strategic and drivers such as population growth and climate change.

These formed the basis of the sustainability plan, with objectives, actions and targets for each.

Awareness and organisational culture
Embedding sustainability into an alliance culture requires building awareness of applying sustainability in all activities and confidence in using a toolbox of sustainability approaches.

To address this, we developed a sustainability toolbox that provided a structured, systematic process and practical tools for projects teams to apply. This was applied x at each level to include strategic questions and assessments that are most relevant to the scoping and conceptual design stage, as well as tools more appropriate for detailed design and construction.

An important part of the toolbox approach was to develop the team’s capability to apply these tools and sustainability criteria and way of thinking that epitomises a sustainable approach.

To build this capability, we designed and delivered a series of interactive sustainability learning modules designed to all Alliance members.

The modules introduce the concept of sustainability and cover specific tools (life cycle analysis, ecological footprint), and their potential applications.

We developed a monthly sustainability scorecard to capture monthly performance data against a set of indicators for:

• The office (paper, electricity)
• Site works (fuel use, concrete volumes, safety, response to community)
• The WWTPs (chemical, potable water, energy and GHG emissions).

Although the scorecard was based on a limited set of indicators, it generated a visual  output that gave meaning to the often nebulous concept of sustainability and showed trends.

Long-held assumptions and current practice strongly influenced decisions across all elements of the project – from waste management to energy and costing.

Financial estimates and assumptions underpin many decisions, but are rarely scrutinised. This is particularly relevant, given the rapidly changing costs linked to energy greenhouse gas emissions and water, and the longevity of substantial infrastructure which requires robust financial assessments over the life of the asset.

A new, ‘advanced’ cost-benefit model is being applied to projects, including co-generation of power from biogas.

Traditional financial analysis concluded that this project is not financially viable. However, assessing a broader suite of costs and benefits (including intangibles such as reputation and community credibility) will provide a more informed basis to make major investments in sustainable outcomes.

The role of a sustainability manager for these kinds of projects is increasingly important for a sustainability strategy to be effectively designed and implemented.

Typically, large water infrastructure projects are commissioned with urgent time frames; the various disciplines brought together quickly for the project become busy and focused.

Within this project environment, having a specific role designated to sustainability is important – not to develop specific design solutions isolated from other team members, but to establish an integrated and holistic process and framework that allows all team members to identify opportunities to build sustainability thinking into key decisions.

This is a role that straddles all project tasks, including engineering design, communications, community engagement, on-ground works, site location and planning and operations.

Educational Background

• Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering University of Illinois Urbana, IL, October 1959
• S.M. in Electrical Engineering Massachusetts Institute of Technology Cambridge, MA, June 1956
• B.S. in Electrical Engineering, summa cum laude University of the Philippines Quezon City, April 1953

Biographical Listings

• Who’s Who in the World
• Who’s Who in America
• Who’s Who in Engineering
• Who’s Who in Science and Engineering
• Who’s Who in American Education
• Who’s Who in Technology Today
• Who’s Who in Frontiers of Science and Technology
• Who’s Who in Society
• Who’s Who in the Midwest
• American Men and Women of Science
• Who’s Who Among Asian Americans, 1994
• International Directory of Distinguished Leadership
• 5000 Personalities of the World, Edition 2, 1989
• Filipino Achievers in the USA & Canada: Profiles in Excellence, by Isabelo Crisostomo, Bookhaus Publishers, Michigan, 1995.
• The Filipino Americans, by Veltisezar Bautista, 1998
• 10 Outstanding Filipino Scientists, by Queena Lee-Chua, ANVIL Publishing, 2000

Awards ( partial list)

• Member, National Academy of Engineering (NAE), elected 1980
• Corresponding Member, National Academy of Science and Technology (NAST, Philippines), elected 2003
• Recipient, Richard E. Bellman Control Heritage Award, American Automatic Control Council , 1994 (AACC)
• Fellow, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), elected 1968
• Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), elected 1989
• Fellow, American Society for Engineering Education, (ASEE), elected 2004
• Fellow, International Federation of Automatic Control (IFAC), appointed 2007

For more information about Jose B Cruz Jr., please visit http://www.ece.osu.edu/~cruz/Biography.htm