7 Achievability – the Management Case

7 Achievability – the Management Case

7.1 Introduction

7.1.1 For any project to proceed, it is essential that it is actually achievable and has been properly planned and resourced from the outset. This will involves consideration of the following areas:

  • Programme/project management arrangements;
  • Project roles and resources;
  • Use of specialist advisors;
  • Methodology for tracking benefits;
  • Procurement routes and timetables;
  • Risk management arrangements; and
  • Contingency planning arrangements

7.1.2 The preferred way forward as articulated in Section 5 involves an incremental approach to the implementation of Smart and Integrated ticketing, with an initial focus upon Smart projects which are already in process. Many of these projects are being driven by different parties with no one organisation in overall control. This therefore spreads the overall risk at this stage and reduces the risk of overall project failure.

7.1.3 However, once the integration phase of the process is reached, this will require a more structured approach with the potential requirement for one organisation in overall control.

7.2 Delivery Approach

7.2.1 It is worth considering the stakeholders within public transport in Strathclyde who could potentially become involved in delivering the integrated element of the scheme. This is important because the shape of the delivery model is likely to influence operators’ views on whether or not to participate in the scheme. The structure of the delivery model has a significant bearing on where the balance of risk lies between the delivery partners.

7.2.2 The key players in the public transport market are SPT, FSR and a host of commercial bus operators. With responsibility for delivering the Scottish Government’s national transport policy, TS sits at a level above this. All of these key stakeholders may potentially seek a role in the delivery of Smart and Integrated ticketing, particularly as each currently has control over part of the infrastructure.

7.2.3 If a ticketing solution is to be implemented on a region-by-region basis, there are clear arguments for the actual delivery also to be led at a regional level:

  • A regional delivery model would help to ensure that front and back office structures are proportionate to what is required for a regional scheme;
  • Only the costs of regional infrastructure need to be weighed against the regional benefits. If a national delivery model were adopted, it may become difficult to achieve a satisfactory benefit: cost ratio due to the impact of setting national costs against regional benefits; and
  • Regional delivery partners will understand the local market and the key players within it. This should make it easier to put in place revenue allocation arrangements which are satisfactory to local operators.

Table 7.1: Various possible delivery models for the Strathclyde based options

Delivery Model

Partners Involved


Potential Drawbacks


Regional Transport Partnership

SPT only

SPT could take the delivery lead, in partnership with TS.

Responsible for front and back office systems and for administering revenue allocation (similar to existing ZoneCard forum).

Operators not directly involved, hence operators may have concerns over sharing commercially sensitive data.

SPT already has the lead role in delivering transport services and has excellent relationships with operators.

Separate legal entity

SPT and operators

Separate company set up, perhaps as a Joint Venture, to ensure all parties are fully bought in.30

Company could take responsibility for front and back office systems.

May be unwieldy if all operators involved. May create distrust among operators if only some are involved.

Will ensure risk is jointly shared.

Central Government

Transport Scotland

TS could take the delivery lead31, starting first with Glasgow and moving on to other regional schemes.

TS would be responsible for front and back office and would therefore retain the option of scaling these up to a national model.

Places TS at the forefront of delivery which may not fit with strategic direction of TS itself.

Fits with TS’ role in delivering national strategy. Will minimise the risk of regional aspects being incompatible with each other.

Central Government Partnership

Transport Scotland, SPT and operators

TS could take the lead but could enter into some form of partnership (perhaps JV) on a regional basis.

Could achieve a mix of central government control and local delivery knowledge.

May also offer the possibility of hosting front and back office and scaling up to a national level.

The impending re-procurement of the ScotRail Franchise in 2011 may provide a key opportunity to bring a significant operator with critical mass on-board.

Operators may perceive this as unwieldy – involves too many partners.

Ensures maximum buy in and participation from key players.

Partnership with Other UK Bodies

Transport Scotland, one or more English PTEs

TS could enter into some form of partnership with other PTEs in England who are also implementing schemes32.

Could share the risk of central design and implementation and local delivery knowledge. Could draw on framework contracts set up by DfT. May also offer ticketing front and back office services at marginal cost to TS and still allow gradual scaling from Glasgow-focused to the long-term vision. Could enable cross-border ticketing operation anticipated within the options.

May require the ticketing strategy in Scotland to be similar to that at the PTEs.

Knowledge and experience can be shared allowing lessons to be learned. May result in economies of scale.

Possible Delivery Models

7.2.4 For Strathclyde-based options, the delivery model should include some combination of SPT, FSR and the bus operators, potentially with TS in a coordination or oversight role, given that the intention is to move towards national implementation.

7.2.5 There are a wide range of possibilities for the delivery vehicle – this vehicle is essentially the solution that will deliver the preferred option. For illustrative purposes, it could take a number of different forms as set out in Table 7.1.

7.2.6 The table illustrates a number of possibilities but it is not intended to present an exhaustive list. It does, however, offer suggestions as to how stakeholder involvement could be achieved and leadership taken in an incremental regional delivery approach.