Matthew Birchall is an independent sports and entertainment venue development advisor. He formerly served as a senior director at engineering consultancy Buro Happold before retiring in May.
Here, Birchall, who won the Outstanding Achievement Award at TheStadiumBusiness Design & Development Awards 2022, takes a look at the challenges currently facing venue developers.
Introduction
Stadium and arena developments are fraught with risks that are well known to all who work on them: too often they are late, over-budget, and very painful, with many projects even stalling well before there’s a spade in the ground.
There are perhaps three groups of contributing factors to this situation: namely those arising from the clients’ side, the inherent complexity of a stadium and arena redevelopment, and those from the consultants’ side too.
There has to be a better way.
I had an incredible 20-year ride as a full-time sports and entertainment venue engineering consultant. I helped enable the viability of untold challenging projects, engineering and value-engineering stadiums and arenas – bringing some back from the brink of cancellation – and (with a lot of help from my friends) consistently delivering incredible venues for memorable experiences on time and in budget.
But more recently as an advisor entirely independent of the corporate world of engineering and architecture, I have started to see the industry a little differently, adding a whole new perspective to my thoughts on what ‘a better way’ would look like.
Challenges and Consequences
I will deal with each of the three main challenges in turn:
1) Client
Typically not an experienced developer, often not having the time or funds to take the project along the (currently tortuous) pathway to planning and beyond, and frequently having a fixed (and ambitious) opening date.
2) Complexity
Sports and entertainment buildings are fundamentally complex engineering projects in their own right, posing challenges such as long span structures, site issues, and building systems integration – all of which can have massive impacts on the actual viability of a development. Such is the perceived risk that it is often a significant challenge just to find an experienced contractor willing to tender for the works.
3) Consultants
The current ‘inherited wisdom’ and design-led approach from many consultants poses another set of challenges, with the handcrafting of ‘what’ is to be built being seemingly much more important than ‘how’ it is going to be built, or even ‘why’ it is to be built in the first place. All of which contributes to the delays and additional expense caused by late reworking to try to cut costs and to try and save many projects.
All these challenges when taken together can lead to the following consequences:
- Misalignment between brief and business case
- Unclear parameters with which to judge progress and success
- Stakeholder misalignment
- Client’s loss of project control
- Contracting woes from disconnection between design and construction
- Cost and time over-runs
Surely it is better for clients to be navigated around these pitfalls in the first place, and for their value-engineering to be done upfront in a controlled manner rather than reactively as a cost-cutting exercise late in the process?
A leaner, quicker, lower-risk approach
The ability to make the most impact on any process is at the start, as subsequent reworking or abortive work costs both time and money. Getting things right from the outset makes hitting the key gateways of planning and tender easier, setting up the whole project for success through construction and handover.
Hence, there seems merit in a rebalancing of the plan of work to provide more emphasis on the ‘why’ and the ‘how’ of the project, so as to better inform the ‘what’, and better align the final result with the initial vision.
Similarly, there also seems to be merit in instilling a ‘lean and mean’ culture from day one, challenging the team to eliminate, reduce or reuse at every stage of the project to most efficiently align the reality with the vision.
Combining a bespoke process with a ‘true value engineering’ culture should provide great foundations for success. The best way to build on these foundations – and ultimately deliver a venue development leaner, quicker, and with lower risk – is through a series of inter-related activities relating to critical stages in the bespoke plan of work:
1 – Vision & Viability
The first activity is well before the involvement of an extensive team of consultants, and involves establishing the clear vision and success metrics that help assess overall viability, and provide a basis for the ongoing monitoring of the project (see 4 below).
2 – Strategy & Roadmap
This activity includes specific technical, commercial, and planning feasibility studies, and an appropriate consideration of the procurement/construction/operation options (see item 5 below) so as to develop a tighter brief, de-risk the project, ensure contractor interest, and produce a project-specific roadmap for success.
3 – Gateway Design
We can drive a step change in pre-contract project efficiency through this activity, with the lean consultant team delivering only the detailed brief to the level required for the key gateways of planning and tender, by making use of precedent and prototypes wherever practically possible (see item 6).
4 – Mission Control
This activity refers to the ongoing evidence-based project tracking that uses the previously-agreed success metrics to help make sense of the project for the client from feasibility to handover, and keep the development appropriately lean and robust throughout.
5 – Implementation Integration
How you procure, build and operate a venue is fundamental to getting an appropriately skilled contractor on board – and hence delivering the programme, cost and ROI targets of the development – and these considerations are integrated into the strategy and roadmap through this activity.
6 – Precedent & Products
Repetition is inherent in most venues, and this activity drives efficiency and better manages risk through the rigorous consideration of relevant precedents and products (both design and construction) early in the design process.
Summary
The approach outlined above addresses the key challenges associated with stadium and arena developments by navigating the client around the anticipated pitfalls, and by embedding a culture of true value engineering from day one.
Applying this approach through a series of high-value activities integrated into a bespoke plan of work should positively impact the time, money, risk, and even the stress associated with these high value and all-consuming projects.
So yes, there IS a better way.
