When Projects Don't Have a Plan B: Managing Concurrent Risk Across Multiple Sites

Old Street and Farringdon were happening simultaneously. If Gas Networks delayed either site, both projects cascaded. We managed that without a Plan B. Instead, we managed the risk so effectively that Plan B was never needed. The concurrent delivery challenge on Old Street and Farringdon is the clearest example in my portfolio of portfolio-level risk management under constraint.

Concurrent Site Risk Structure

Two separate sites operating in parallel create a specific risk structure that single-site delivery doesn't have. Each site has its own site-level risk register with risks that are local to that project. But concurrent sites also create programme-level risks that span both projects. Gas Networks was the critical path constraint on both Old Street and Farringdon simultaneously. A delay on Gas Networks' Old Street operations affected the Old Street programme. A delay on Farringdon affected the Farringdon programme. And because TfL had interdependencies between the two sites, a cascade on either site would affect TfL's broader transport connectivity programme.

The risk structure therefore had three levels. Site-level risks at Old Street, managed by the Old Street delivery team. Site-level risks at Farringdon, managed by the Farringdon delivery team. Programme-level risks spanning both sites, managed at the programme level with TfL visibility. Managing all three levels simultaneously without creating governance overhead that slowed delivery was the central challenge.

Why Single Points of Failure Cascade Across Portfolios

Gas Networks was the single point of failure that could cascade across both sites. Understanding why required understanding TfL's interdependencies. TfL's transport connectivity agenda treated Old Street and Farringdon as a connected programme, not two independent projects. Their planning assumptions built on both sites being completed within a compressed window. If either site slipped, TfL's connectivity programme would need to be replanned.

The lesson from this structure is that concurrent delivery programmes need explicit single-point-of-failure analysis before delivery begins. Identifying the shared dependencies that could cascade across multiple projects allows you to build the governance structures and vendor relationships that prevent cascade. Reactive management of single points of failure is always more expensive than proactive prevention.

Risk Register Methodology

The risk register methodology separated site-level risks from programme-level risks with explicit escalation triggers. Site-level risks that remained local to one site were managed by the relevant site delivery team. Programme-level risks that could affect both sites were escalated to programme governance and flagged in TfL reporting. The separation prevented two failure modes. It prevented site-level noise from obscuring programme-level signals. And it prevented programme governance from becoming so detailed that it created overhead on site-level delivery.

The Gas Networks critical path risk was managed through the permit acceleration process that was negotiated before delivery began. By engaging Gas Networks at the programme level before individual site permits were submitted, we created a shared understanding of the timeline requirements and a commitment to an accelerated approval process for both sites simultaneously.

How Old Street Stayed Ahead of Farringdon

Old Street delivered 2 weeks early against the compressed timeline. The early completion was the result of Gas Networks completing their Old Street operations 6 weeks ahead of the critical path through the accelerated permit process. That 6-week schedule buffer on Old Street created the delivery capacity to focus programme-level attention on Farringdon during its most complex delivery phase.

The concurrent delivery outcome, Old Street 2 weeks early, Farringdon on schedule within the compressed timeline, zero cascades between sites, and TfL programme delivered on time, is the result of risk management before it becomes risk response. Managing concurrent risk requires identifying the programme-level exposures before delivery begins and building the governance structures that prevent them from materialising. The Old Street and Farringdon delivery case study is at olamapped.com/old-street-farringdon-programme.