Programming and Planning - Level 2

Question 1

What are your ‘Programming and Planning’ Level 2 examples?

Answer 1

Kingsmeadow office refurbishment:
Refining the contractor’s schedule to support floor-by-floor decant strategy.

Modular workplaces project:
Reviewing the contractor’s proposed programme and identifing unrealistic assumptions.

Birmingham:
checking the two project programme for conflict and finding duplicated supplier mobilisation

Question 2

2a: What were the key constraints influencing the programme?

What was the key programming challenge on this project?

Answer 2

• Business continuity
• limited decant space
• security requirements
• maintaining operational desk numbers.
• Maintaining operational continuity while delivering refurbishment works, ensuring sufficient workspace remained available throughout.

Question 3

2a: How did business continuity affect sequencing decisions?

Why was business continuity a critical constraint?

Answer 3

• It required works to be phased floor by floor rather than multiple floors being done together, so that staff could relocate without disruption.
• disruption to operational teams would impact service delivery.
• This created constraints to the order we could close floors.

Question 4

2a: How did you develop the floor-by-floor decant strategy?

or How did you develop the decant sequence?

Answer 4

By consulting stakeholders and representatives to understand their minimum needs, and then sequencing works to maintain at least 180 desks at all times.

• I reviewed existing team locations
• compared them to the proposed layout
• tested sequencing works to ensure as much as possible that specialist teams were only relocated once their new areas were ready.
• checked to see if that left 180 desks
• also prioritised the ground floor and m&E and security
• shared with senior stakeholder and fm for feedback

Question 5

2a: Why did you prioritise ground-floor M&E and security works?

Answer 5

• Because the M&E works directly related to and supported spaces that would be delivered on the top floors.
• the client’s policy to enhance security across their estate influenced the decision to deliver the security enhancements as early as possible.

Question 6

2a: Why was maintaining 180 desks critical?

What would have happened if this requirement was not met?

Answer 6

• The client data showed that this was the minimum number of in-person desks they could reduce the office to during the construction works.
• It was the minimum operational requirement agreed with stakeholders.

if this was not met;
- Reduced productivity due to impact on service provision
- stakeholder dissatisfaction, and
-potential project delay

Question 7

2a: How did you manage the staggered completion and handover
of areas contractually?

Answer 7

• employed x5 clause section completion, allows ownership to pass onto client while works continued elsewhere

Question 8

2a: what happens at sectional completion

Answer 8

• the contract data will specify a brief description of what is required to be completed for each section, and the detailed requirements for the sectional completion.
• the project manager issues a Certificate of Completion within 1 week
• the client is required to take over within 2 weeks of the section being completed.
• unless the contract is adjusted to included staggered defects dates, the defects period is usually continues until the defined “defects date” for the whole project.
• similarly no retention is released for sectional completion.

Question 9

2a: Why did you only relocate teams once new areas were complete?

Answer 9

• To avoid temporary displacement and maintain operational continuity.
• it would have impacted the continuity of services

Question 10

2a: How did stakeholder consultation influence the programme?

Answer 10

It ensured the sequencing aligned with operational needs and was practical to implement, rather than theorecially what would be the most efficient.

-it meant more phases but ensured business continuity

Question 11

2a: What information did you use to inform your sequencing?

Answer 11

• client requirements - 180 desks, security
• Existing floor layouts and proposed designs
• stakeholder requirements and operational constraints
• my observations from site visit

Question 12

2a: How did you ensure logical sequencing of activities?

Answer 12

• exact activities within the sequences were furhter detailed by the contractor but i would;
• have linked activities so that any enabling works were or post refurbishment activitives were completed in a logical order and before relocations.

for example, furniture install before the IT install, before the internet cloud service connection before moving teams.

Question 13

2a: How did you ensure the decant strategy was realistic?

Question 14

2a: How did you determine the order of floor works?

Answer 14

Based on dependencies between the proposed layout and

• the existing location of teams also

-the availability of 180 desks and suitable relocation space.

Question 15

2a: Why did you undertake site visits?

Answer 15

• To validate how spaces were actually used and the the existing floorplans were true to what was actually on site since the office building had been in use for a long time.
• also to ensure the sequence was practical.

Question 16

2a: What risks would arise if the decant strategy failed?

or What risks would arise if decanting was not properly planned?

Answer 16

Failure of the decant strategy would disrupt operations, delay the programme, increase cost through re-sequencing, and introduce safety and stakeholder risks.

• Loss of workspace
• operational disruption
• programme delays
• stakeholder dissatisfaction.

Question 17

2a: How did you manage dependencies between floors?

Answer 17

I ensured works were complete before safe relocations, allowed enough time between the contractor’s completion and the client’s IT and furniture supplier team to finalise the floors. I coordinated closely with stakeholders to avoid operational clashes, and I used the 2nd and 1st floor as float.

Question 18

2a: What risks did your approach reduce?

Answer 18

• Operational disruption
• inefficient sequencing.

Question 19

2a: How did you communicate the decant plan to stakeholders?

Question 20

2a: How would you monitor whether the decant was working in practice?

Answer 20

• I would monitor through regular stakeholder feedback, site observations, and checking whether operational capacity—such as desk availability—was being maintained as planned.
• review whether relocations were occurring in line with the programme and identify any emerging issues early, allowing adjustments to sequencing if required.

Question 21

2a: What would you have done if capacity could not be maintained?

Answer 21

I would have escalated to the client and explored alternative solutions such as temporary accommodation.

Question 22

2a: Were there any risks with a staggered approach to completion and taking
occupation of certain areas whilst refurbishment works continued in others?

what measures did you have in place?

Answer 22

yes;

• live construction areas in the same building as operating offices - mitigated by clear and coordinated segregation between these areas
• construction noises during office hours - mitigated by agreeing with stakeholders that very noisy works would be done out of hours also giving plent of advance of what areas will be worked on via newsletters
• stakeholder delay impacting and delaying the construction programme - mitigated by structured and regular communication with FM and building occupants, separate timescales for packing staff ahead of move.
• building powerdown for M&E and electrical works - mitigated by agreeing with stakeholders a long weekend (4 day period) when this could be done, communicating this to staff.

Question 23

2a: given all the risks of the sectional approach, what was the key driver?

Answer 23

• the client had teams that had specilist equipment and areas within the building
• staff couldn’t simply be fully relocated out temporarily without great cost and wider implications for the client organisation.

Question 24

2b: How did you review the contractor’s proposed programme?

or How did you assess the programme’s feasibility?

Answer 24

• By testing assumptions against length of internal processes, client approvals, and known internal timelines.
• By comparing proposed durations against known client processes and previous project experience.

Question 25

2b: What issues did you identify in the contractor’s programme? What assumptions did you identify as unrealistic? Why were the durations unrealistic?

Answer 25

- Unrealistic durations for procurement and internal processes, particularly purchase orders and IT installation. - Two weeks for procurement approval and three days for IT installation, which did not reflect the governance period or technical complexity of these tasks

Question 26

2b: Why were the durations unrealistic?

Answer 26

- They did not reflect the client’s governance timelines and internal approval processes.

Question 27

2b: What factors did you consider when reviewing durations?

Answer 27

- the order of taks, the duration of tasks - resources or documents need to be in place for certain activities - Lead times - internal approvals timelines - coordination of the IT teams.

Question 28

2b: Why was the IT installation duration unrealistic?

Answer 28

The client required aset period of 1 week for their IT team to install and commission the equipment.

Question 29

2b: Why were client governance timelines important? What risks arise if internal processes are not reflected in the programme?

Answer 29

- Because delays in approvals would directly impact the programme. - Programme slippage, misalignment between contractor and client expectations, reputational damage for a public sector client not following due process.

Question 30

2b: How did you challenge the contractor constructively? How did you ensure your feedback was accepted?

Answer 30

- I approached it from an evidence based standpoint, highlighting that these assumptions simply could not be met. - By clearly explaining the discrepancies and providing realistic timescales. - I emphasised my comment from a viewpoint of wanting to ensure our programme was robust and reliable rather than complain or assign blame

Question 31

2b: How do you distinguish optimism bias from genuine efficiency?

Answer 31

- By testing optimistic assumptions against evidence and known constraints. - By testing assumptions against evidence, such as checking approvals periods against what was provided.

Question 32

2b: What would you have done if the contractor refused to amend the programme?

Answer 32

- I would escalate and advise the client that the programme was not deliverable. I would have escalated the issue, clearly setting out the risks, and advised the client that the programme was not feasible, recommending formal revision before proceeding.

Question 33

2b: What was the outcome of your intervention? How did this improve the programme?

Answer 33

- The programme was revised to reflect realistic durations. - It made it more achievable and reduced the risk of delay.

Question 34

2c: You mention that you identified where another project within the Birmingham office programme had been delayed, which now overlapped with your programme. How did you come to understand this delay and the potential impact on your programme?

Question 35

2c: What conflict did you identify between the two projects? What were the risks?

Answer 35

- I was checking to see if there would be any access conflict as it was likely that both projects would be using the service staircase for deliveries - i identified the Two projects were using the same suppliers but scheduled separately. - It would result in duplicated mobilisation, increased cost, and additional disruption.

Question 36

2c: How did you review and compare the two programmes?

Answer 36

By comparing key dates and timelines, key activities across both projects, delivery and requirements to use the service stairs, noting the suppliers detailed.

Question 37

2c: How did you identify the opportunity to align works?

Answer 37

By recognising shared dependencies, particularly suppliers and installation activities.

Question 38

2c: Why was aligning supplier mobilisation beneficial? What risks did this approach reduce?

Answer 38

- It reduced duplication, cost, and disruption - Programme inefficiency, cost increase, and stakeholder disruption.

Question 39

2c: How did you coordinate with the other project manager?

Answer 39

- Through direct engagement to liasie about coordinating these activities and agreement for me to contact the supplier and check if the arrangement was feasible.

Question 40

2c: How did you engage suppliers?

Answer 40

- I contacted them directly to explain the situation and confirm if they had availability to merge the two deliveries. - I then coordinating delivery schedules, it would actually make the cellpods it furniture and it install earlier.

Question 41

2c: What was the purpose of the combined programme you developed? Why was a high-level programme sufficient?

Answer 41

- The FM team were wanting to control the disruption on the first floor, so instead of each project manager sharing the separate details of the deliveries and furniture install, I provided a clear overview of key coordinated activities and when the area would be disrupted. - Because it was intended for FM to plan for key milestones rather than manage detailed sequencing of activities.

Question 42

2c: What was the benefit of this approach to the client? How did this improve efficiency?

Answer 42

Reduced cost, improved efficiency, and minimised disruption.

Question 43

2c: What would have happened if the projects were not coordinated?

Answer 43

- Duplicated effort - higher costs - duplicated disruption.

Question 44

2c: How do you manage interfaces across multiple projects?

Answer 44

- I identify shared dependencies such as access, suppliers, and space early, and coordinate with other project teams to align key activities. - maintain clear communication and if needed set up regular meeting for coordination

Question 45

G: How do you ensure a programme reflects real-world constraints?

Answer 45

- engaging stakeholders - validating assumptions - incorporating known processes and limitations.

Question 46

G: How do you challenge a contractor’s programme professionally?

Answer 46

By presenting evidence - explaining risks - focusing on achieving a realistic outcome.

Question 47

G: How do you incorporate stakeholder requirements into a programme?

Answer 47

- I obtain the stakeholder requirements through consultation or evidence and consider the sequencing against these opperational needs or constraints

Question 48

G: What risks arise from unrealistic programmes? How do you identify programme risk early?

Answer 48

- Delays - cost overruns - loss of stakeholder confidence. - reviewing assumptions, dependencies, and constraints.

Question 49

G: How do you communicate programme changes to stakeholders?

Answer 49

- It can depend on what type of stakeholder they are; - if they're decision makers you may need to consult them first and get their approval if needed - if they need to be informed you may want to set a meeting to discuss the programme change and make sure it's understood - depending on the number of stakeholders you may need to provide comms to ensure things sure as floor closures are known well in advance. you

Question 50

G: How do you ensure understanding of sequencing decisions?

Answer 50

- By clearly explaining the rationale behind sequencing, linking it to constraints such as business continuity or dependencies, and using visual tools like programmes or phasing plans to support understanding.

Question 51

G: How do you balance programme efficiency with operational constraints?

Answer 51

- testing programme options against operational requirements and prioritising safe and practical delivery over theoretical efficiency. - Where necessary, I accept a longer programme to maintain continuity and reduce risk.

Question 52

G: When would you accept programme risk?

Answer 52

When the risk is - understood - proportionate - agreed by stakeholders - where the potential benefit outweighs the impact. These should always be supported by mitigation measures.

Question 53

G: How do you manage competing priorities across projects?

Answer 53

By understanding the relative importance of each project, aligning them with client objectives, and coordinating resources and timelines to minimise conflict. Where necessary, I escalate to get support prioritising activities.

Question 54

G: How do you ensure programmes remain aligned across multiple workstreams?

Answer 54

- Through regular coordination meetings - shared milestones, - continuous review of dependencies - ensure any changes in one programme are reflected in others to maintain alignment.