THE IMPORTANCE OF TRUST AND RELATIONSHIPS IN PROJECT STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMEN T A Critical Analysis & Investigation of Solutions Industry Project Investigation By Sahan Kekiriwaragoda & Wassaporn Suwanprinya May 25, 2018 The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 2 Contents Executive Summary ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 3 1.0 Introduction ................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 4 - 5 2.0 Rationale ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 5 3.0 Research Methods ................................ ................................ ................................ .................... 6 - 8 3.1 The Research Process ................................ ................................ ................................ ........ 6 - 8 4.0 The Case: The Wembley Blame Game ................................ ................................ .................. 9 - 17 5.0 Critical Analysis ................................ ................................ ................................ ................... 18 - 24 6.0 Proposed Recommendations ................................ ................................ ................................ 25 - 32 6.1 Importance of Incorporating Change ................................ ................................ ............. 31 - 32 7.0 Conclusion ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ 33 8.0 References ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 34 - 37 9.0 Appendixes ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 38 - 41 9.1 Appendix 1: Timeline for the Wembley Blame Game case ................................ ............... 38 9.2 Appendix 2: Key Stakeholders in the Wembley Stadium Project ................................ 38 - 40 9.3 Appendix 3: Contractual Agreement between Multiplex and Cleveland Bridge ............... 41 The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 3 Executive Summary The discussion carried out through this paper is based on the importance of trust and relationships in project stakeholder management. For this analysis to be conducted, a case of the Wembley National Stadium project in the United Kingdom, which contains related information, was composed by the research team. The case discusses situations that occurred during the project through the perspective of project participants. Evidence was presented during a court case based on the repudiation of the contract by t he sub - contractor as they were being sued by the main contractor in September 2008. Information gathered by the research team through the case was allocated as a basis to conduct the critical analysis. The gathered information was categorised int o three segments of issues. These were listed as issues in directing information, controlling site conditions, and poor transition and lack of transparency. Thereafter, two dissimilar solutions were presented to address these particular issues. Pr oposed recommendations were an ERP for WNS and reformed contractual agreements with alliance being the focus during the initial stages of the project. The research team have managed to capture the importance of trust and relationships in project stakeholde r management for the benefit of construction projects The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 4 1.0. Introduction Given the numerous detailed activities that are involved in project management, it is undeniable that the fragments associated with management of projects mainly consist of human behaviour (Strahorn, Brewer & Gajendran 2017). Projects that are undertaken based on stronger bonds and relationships among the project stakeholders have be en identified as a factor that leads towards project success. Trust among project stakeholders has been listed as one of the crucial deciding factors by conducting thorough examinations among practitioners of construction projects (Strahorn, Brewer & Gajendran 2017). Therefore, it is understandable that disciplines related to forming trust is an aspect that should not be avoided when contextualising particulars that are consistent with project management in a construction related environment (Strahorn, Brewer & Gajendran 2017). General theories suggest that trust is a factor that should be effectively applied during situations involving uncertainties among parties to proceed with actions while seeking positive outcomes from the presented issue at hand (Smyth, Gustafsson & Ganskau 2010). Furthermore, it is understandable that trust is based on judgement, and it depends on factors such as parties being capable in reducing risks and uncertainties, and the helpful nature of the parties that are present (Smyth, Gustafsson & Ganskau 2010). Project stakeholder management, which is one of the ten knowledge area s mentioned in PMBOK, could be rationalised as a framework in both projects and organisations that is dedicated to conducting stakeholder activities while avoiding negative project outcomes during project performance (Karlsen, Graee & Massaoud 2008). With the rationale , project stakeholders being able to maintain a healthy relationship among each other is deduced crucial for achieving positive outcomes and end results (Karlsen, Gra ee & Massaoud 2008). Trust is identified as a prominent factor for stable project stakeholder relationships to maintain cooperation among involved parties and conducting regular interactions (Karlsen, Graee & Massaoud 2008). Reserved with a higher level of importance, the relationship between trust and stakeholder management is an area that could be discussed to analyse valuable insights towards project management success. This paper intends to discuss the importance of trust and relations hips in project stakeholder management. This paper would observe a series of events that involves an array of stakeholders under various circumstances that took place during the Wembley National Stadium project in United Kingdom. The project is referred to as one of The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 5 the failures that caused time delays and a substantial increase in budget during the life cycle. The case has been written in an omniscient viewpoint as it elaborates the perspectives of different stakeholders that w ere involved in the project under the main contractor and the sub - contractor. Their views of how each other acted and how they blame each other due to breaches in trust and stakeholder relationships would be focused as the basis of the case. Therefore, wi th reference to such information, the paper would then try to identify the instances that could be explained through established literature that has been published by academics and analyse them through existing frameworks in the perceptions of project mana gement. The existing frameworks would then be used to consolidate the facts that would be presented through a set of lessons learnt as recommendations to steer clear from facing trust and stakeholder related issues that would occur during construction projects in the future to achieve project success. The lessons would be categorised in a manner that assist readers to realise the issues that occurred during the project, how the issues would be categorised in terms of trust and stakeholder r elationships and how this analysis would assist to formulate solutions for future construction projects. 2.0. Rationale Depending on the above provided context of the project, it is comprehensible that issues have been presented due to lack of trust among the involved stakeholders. Research indicates that the number of projects failing is at a higher rate as they fail to approach successful relationships among stakeholders during the procedure (Beleiu, Crisan & Nistor 2013). Therefore, our minds would wonder how a correlation between successful relationships and trust would lead to successful projects and why the lack of these elements causes failure. It is fascinating since the case on Wembley Stadium presents some evidence r elated to lack of trust and formation of hostile relationships throughout the project duration. Certain questions on why such issues occurred between the parties, what are the reasons in depth on why the issues occurred, could they have been avoided if the involved stakeholders and team of project management proceeded along a different path as described in theory, and how could the theory have been successfully applied in practice are the reasons which lead to selecting this topic The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 6 3.0. Research Methods Fellows and Liu (2002) suggested that the appropriate selection for research methodologies depends on the depth and scope required for the different research topic. Therefore, the document investigation strategy is applied for this research based on the above consideration. This research followed the methodology concept model as suggested by a s tudy of Walker (1997), which was based on the comprehensive review of relevant materials from the transcript of legal documents, journal articles and internet information to capture background and story of the Wembley Stadium Project. 3.1. The Research Process To write the case in the field of stakeholder management in construction for the Wembley Project, a document investigation was undertaken. The objective was to retrieve as much research papers with creative information as possible regardi ng trust and relationships based on stakeholder management to relate the context towards the Wembley Stadium Project. The research process started with establishing three search criteria for paper retrieval as it was guided by a study of Mok, Shen and Yang (2015). Initially, papers were searched by using search engines such as Google, Google Scholar and RMIT Online Library to obtain relevant research papers. The transcript of legal documents and journal articles were selected to be reviewed. These papers were related to the Wembley Project. Secondly, papers were searched by using selective keywords such as ‘Wembley Project’, Stakeholder Issues in Wembley’ and ‘Wembley Issues’. A study of Olander (2006) acted as a guideline for the search process. A time span from 27 March to 11 April 2018 was established for searching those papers, which was sixteen days in total. The research team suggested all retrieved papers could be clearly reviewed within this time span as some papers may appear to b e less relevant. A total of twelve research papers were retrieved (See Table 1 for the full list). Thus, the research team adopted another process, which filtered the articles. The process was to screen out the selected papers, which were less relevant to the topic to create a focus in the research. This is to ensure that all retrieved papers could be investigated to write a good case. This resulted in the remainder of six research papers for further analysis. The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 7 Select papers in 2 academic databases Search with time span: 27 March – 11 April Initial Search Search with Keywords in Topic 6 papers remain The draft was written up on 12 April The final case was written up on 17 April Then, these six papers discussing the relationships among the project stakeholders were further explored. The draft was written up on 12 April; a structured and a systematic technique for compressing several words of text into a story based on real information. Finally, the Wembley Blame Game case was written up on 17 April to critical analyse key issues related Stakeholder in Project Management perspective and suggest some possible solutions to address/avoid those issues. The research process can be see n in Figure 1 below Figure 1: The Research Process Filtering Containing keywords in title Initially Retrieved 12 papers The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 8 Table 1: Overview of the Research Papers Source of the research paper Number of related papers Percentage (%) The Transcript of Legal Documents Multiplex V Cleveland 2006 1 20 Multiplex V Cleveland (no. 2) 2006 1 - UK Multiplex V Cleveland HT - 04 - 314 & HT - 04 - 238 29 SEPTEMBER 2008 1 60 Journal Articles Multiplex at a Loss to Explain How Wembley Got Out of Control 1 - Arch enemies & Armageddon: lessons learnt from Multiplex 1 5 The professionals’ perspective on the causes of project delay in the construction industry 1 - Lessons from the Wembley litigation 1 5 Multiplex targets Cleveland Bridge 1 5 One City: Two Stadiums Lessons Learned in Megaprojects 1 - Britain: Own goal; Wembley Stadium 1 - Business: Overdue and over budget, over and over again; Project management 1 - Wembley project faces relegations 1 5 Total 12 100 The case was written up by the research team between 12 to 19 April and submitted by 20 April. ***This research project was undertaken between March and May 2018*** The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 9 4.0. The Case: The Wembley Blame Game Delay of UK’s largest football stadium project: Who is responsible? Introduction In July 2008, The Hon. Justice Mr. Rupert Jackson from the Queen’s Bench Division of the Technology and Construction Court was hearing to decide whether the British steel firm Cleveland Bridge UK Ltd (CBUK) owes any money to the Australian construction com pany Multiplex Constructions Ltd for walking off the Wembley Stadium project. Making his opening statement, the appointed lawyer from Multiplex, Mr. Roger Stewart was determined to win the case as he grasped the attention of Hon. Justice Jackson by raising one of the most anticipated issues, which formed the sentence “The important question is who repudiated the contract?” The project was one of the largest football stadiums in the United Kingdom, with an initial estimated cost for construction being £332m in 1999 and to be completed in three years by September 2003. However, the project finished on March 2007 as the actual start date was on September 2002 with a 50% cost overrun, which was £757m. The court case, which commenced in 2004 as the project was still being carried out, would eventually get dragged along for four years before it reaches a conclusion. The Wembley Stadium With the idea of hosting spectacular events such as cup finals to the home of football, musical concerts and other sporting tournaments, the project aspired to design and build a state - of - the - art National Stadium unlike any other across the world. The blueprints of the proposed stadium portrayed detailed construction drawi ngs of a retractable roof and an astounding 135 - meter - high arch, which would visible throughout London. The proposed design also boasted of a 90,000 covered seating capacity. As the selected venue for the new establishment was Wembley Park, in London, the famous existing Wembley Twin Towers were demolished in February 2003. The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 10 Financing the Project It was clearly understood that the project would require a massive amount of funding and the involved parties agreed to deploy the project under a fixed - cost contract, which allowed a provision of £352m for its disposal. The arrangement was considered to be ideal as it would benefit the client by protecting them in instances where delays in construction would occur together with cost overruns. Therefore, the complete risk would be borne by the main contractor of the project. Tendering proposals were examined by the independent consultancy firm, Cyr il Sweett, who acted on behalf of Wembley National Stadium Limited (WNSL). However, upon investigation, it was deduced that the initial funding was insufficient. Therefore, the finalised project funding amounts included £120m by Sport England, £426m throug h West Deutsche Landesbank of Germany, £21m by London Development Agency, £148m by Football Association, £7m by Credit Suisse First Boston, £20m by Department of Culture, Media, and Sport, and an additional £15m by WNSL that boosted the total to £757m as sh own in Figure 2. Figure 2: Sources of Funding The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 11 Stakeholders and Contractors The independent consultancy firm, Cyril Sweett proposed that the main contractor should be Multiplex Ltd. from Australia as they presented a tendering proposal that was of value for money. Project management was undertaken by Symonds Project Management Ser vices Ltd. who had prior experience in a stadium construction project in Cardiff. SVE Franklin and Andrews, and Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners acted as the structural engineering consultants. The building services engineering was carried out by Mott MacD onald while the M&E contractor for the project was Emcor, Drake and Scull. The original steel contractor was Cleveland Bridge, who was later replaced by Hollandia. Piling and concrete related work were carried out by Stent and PC Harrington respectively. A rchitectural firm Norman Foster and Partners designed the stadium structural components. The Wembley Arch and Roof As designed by Norman Foster and Partners, the arch and the roof of the stadium were two of the elements that were included to portray the aesthetic value of the establishment through functionality. Designed to withstand high loads of winds, the 135 - meter - high arch consisted of 41 steel rings that were connected by spiralling tubular chords and was formed with 13 modules that tapered on both ends. 7.4 meters in diameter at the base and weighing 1,750 tones , the arch was designed to be supported by 70 tonne hinges that would be immersed in concrete bases formed on 35 - meter - deep piles. This was designed to be held in position with the reinforcement of a series of forestay and backstay cables that formed a diagonal pattern, which would ultimately distribute weight across its 315 - meter span over the roof structure. The roof structure, which is considered as the longest single - span roof structure in the world, had a total area of 50,000 square meters and weighed almost 7,000 tonnes. It was also retractable and was supported by horizontal supporting struts that were also constructed by a substantial amount of steel. The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 12 Issues from the Start When the project commenced in September 2002, it was already delayed by several years with comparison to its expected start date due to financial instability and political involvement. The cost of the project has already risen by the year 2000 when the pro ject was tendered to the main contractor, Multiplex. The drawings for the steel work provided by building services engineers Mott MacDonald, was not fit for purpose. They were regarded as incorrect, unable to construct, poorly coordinated and inconsistent. The sub - contractor, Cleveland Bridge commenced construction of the steel bridge in the year 2003 despite such issues. The cost of steel was on the rise during the period, and this ultimately slowed down the site work. When the site was suppos ed to be run with a full deck of workers accounting an amount of 150, it only had 80, which was slightly higher than the required amount. Multiplex denied accepting the fact that they would fall behind on construction and reveal of the stadium before the FA cup in May 2006. Thousands of tonnes of steel were yet to be erected, when Cleveland Bridge was told by Multiplex in June 2004 that they were being replaced by the runner up contractor, Hollandia. An ‘Armageddon Plan’, as it was described by the Quality Control Officer of Cleveland Bridge, Mr. Hugh Tomlinson, was the objective of Multiplex to save money on the project and diverted the blame towards a different party as it was clearly not meeting the deadline. In August 2004, shortly before the arch was raised, Cleveland Bridge decided to walk off from the project as they had arrived at the conclusion of them not receiving the agreed amount of money on the contract by Multiplex. They were eventually replaced by the Dutch firm, Hollandia. The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 13 The Blame Game inside the High Court Upon initial commencement of construction, it was clear that the project was being led towar ds a disaster due to the disagreements and arguments that took place between the main contractor, Multiplex and the sub - contractor who was in charge of steel work, Cleveland Bridge. It seemed as if no one was responsible for the delay of the project. Multiplex and Their Side of the Story As the claimant and the main contractor, Multiplex seemed to have a substantial weight in their claims and allegations that were pointed during the case towards Cleveland Bridge. Many people were involved in the process of providing evidence that supported their own claims during the case. Mr. Ranald McGregor, the Project Manager appointed by Multiplex was one of the initial witnesses to be examined by Hon. Justice Jackson. He had a significant role throughout the project and was currently involved in the project while the case was taking place as the person responsible for the steel work package. Later in November 2003 onward s, he was responsible for the entire project. Answering the questions during both examination and cross examination, he mentioned that the initial drawings were sent to Cleveland in December 2003 after the completion of the demolition of the existing Wembley Towers. He also raised the fact that Cleveland Bridge issued an RFI in January 2004. It was a necessity for the RFI’s to be sent through to Mott MacDonald, who was the partnering Building Servi ces Engineer. Accusations were starting to present at an early stage as questioning was conducted by both law firms. According to Mr. McGregor, Mott MacDonald indicated lack of efficiency when returning information through RFI’s. His statement included ter minology such as ‘errors’ and ‘subsequent changes of information’. It was also evident that though it was their main duty, Mott MacDonald did not provide necessary and crucial information that required for the construction process from the beginning of the project. Commenting further on the drawings that were used in the construction process, Mr. McGregor also lashed out on Cleveland Bridge with their actions that lead towards the disruption of the entire process. It was his belief that Cleveland Bridge sho uld have coped better with the design changes made by Mott MacDonald. He claimed that the ‘Retro Squad’ that was established by Cleveland Bridge for the benefit of the project with regard to the drawings should have been more capable, should have included personnel from all involved parties (i.e. Cleveland, X Steel and Mott The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 14 MacDonald) and should have agreed on software platforms that were to be used to in terms of Computer Aided Drawings. Mr. McGregor’s statements were consolidated by the Construction Manager of Multiplex, Mr. David Watkins, who was on site during the total p eriod of the project. He stated that Cleveland Bridge claimed that they would incorporate a labour force of 200 construction employees for the activities related to erecting the steel for the construction of the structures. However, he asserts that only a mere 56 employees were involved in the processes, which he believes lead to the ultimate lack of performance. Mr. Watkins mentioned that during the period after February 2004, they only managed to erect 200 tonnes of steel per week. A statement made by Mr. McGregor during an earlier session of the court case indicated that Cleveland should have erected a minimum of 400 tonnes of steel per week if they employed 200 employees on site. The Project Director, Mr. Ashley Muldoon mentioned that the relationship between Cleveland Bridge and Multiplex further deteriorated as Cleveland Bridge was informed that they were being removed from activities related to erecting steel on site. The news of removal from the supplemental agreement was conveyed to Cleveland Bridg e in June 2004, which allowed a 30 - day period of notification in advance. Mr. Muldoon reiterated that Multiplex had informed Cleveland Bridge to perform an orderly handover to conduct operations smoothly as possible. As stated by Clifford Chance L LP, legal representatives of Multiplex, “Despite the incompletion of the project, Cleveland Bridge decided to repudiate the contract signed by them together with Multiplex and walk off the Wembley Stadium project.” During cross examinations it was noted th at Cleveland Bridges’ repudiation had caused a substantial impact on Multiplex and the project itself. Mr. Muldoon, the Project Director was the person to be involved in the procedure of contacting the runners up for the project, the Dutch firm Hollandia to be involved in the continuation. However, it was not until August 2004 that the new firm was able to become involved in the project. Furthermore, it w as mentioned by all involved personnel from the party of claimants that even though they stepped in immediately, Hollandia was unable to perform effectively until the end of September 2004, due to the poor handover by Cleveland Bridge, which ultimately led to additional issues. The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 15 Cleveland Bridge States Their Case The defendants, Cleveland Bridge, who had their own collection of information on the events that occurred to present a solidified case against the main contractor, was be ing represented by McGrigors LLP. Cleveland had their own cavalry to do so as they too were inclined to counter - sue Multiplex for their actions. From the beginning itself, Cleveland Bridge denied the allegations by Multiplex about the statements made on efficiency from the period that occurred after February 2004. Reports by Cleveland indicated the causes for such delays as mentioned by Multiplex. Factors included poor weather conditions, disruptions caused by the raising of arch that evidently obstructed access towards the site during an extended period, delayed RFIs and design change instructions from Mott MacDonald, and ma ny other aspects related to errors and delays of concrete as well as steel structures done by other subcontractors hired by Multiplex. This information was brought to light by the leading Project Manager of Cleveland Bridge, Mr. Andrew Hall. Furthermore, h e pointed out that Multiplex allocated different venues as their new storage facilities in June 2004, at Palace of Industries and East Lane. He also stated that Cleveland was informed to re - transfer the steel components to the new sites by the end of June 2004 by Multiplex even though Cleveland had to focus on the construction processes. Presenting evidence to the court, Mr. Hall recalled that they were given 28 days of notice at the very end of June 2004 by Multiplex regarding the fact that they were being replaced as the leading steel work contractor. He reiterated that he overlooked the process of the handing over and that he himself ensured that it was a smooth transition while handing all the relevant documentation to Multiplex. Mr. Hall had also prepar ed evidence to be presented at the court. Referring to the disruptions that occurred during the steel moving process and the project transition process, he mentioned that he blames Multiplex for misplacing a substantial amount of ‘leave out steel’ (tempora ry steel structures that are typically owned by the steel work contractor of any project). He further pointed out that the reason for some of the steel work needed repairing was due to mishandling that was carried out by Multiplex during the transition process. Mr. Hall’s statements were supported by the statements that were provided by Mr. Ronald Green; the Construction Superintendent employed by Clevela nd. His evidence ensured the The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 16 facts provided by Mr. Hall regarding the efficiency of construction and that the delays occurred due to the needless restrictions that were imposed by Multiplex. As a member of the group who was involved in th e transition process from the side of Cleveland Bridge, Mr. Green affirmed that the team from Cleveland completed as many of the tasks during the given 28 - day period to proceed with the handover. He believed that the handover was in an orderly fas hion and mentioned that he was surprised to hear that Multiplex and Hollandia stated otherwise during the court case as neither of the companies’ brought complaints to their attention during the handover process. Mr. Green also mentioned that he conducted a n inspection to present a report to Cleveland Bridge about the missing steel components as authorized by the company itself. During the inspection he observed many instances where Multiplex and Hollandia mishandled steel structures, which caused damages that ultimately led towards additional costs. The report p repared by him on behalf of Cleveland Bridge indicated that the temporary steel structures that were moved and marked as belonging to Cleveland were not the structures and were less in value. His statements directed the blames and allegations back towards Multiplex. Mr. Stephen Osborne, the Planning Manager that was employed by Cleveland Bridge on the Wembley stadium project was another piece on this messy puzzle who presented information on behalf of his employer. His statement was observed to be another s upporting element of Cleveland Bridges’ case as to what happened during the project. He mentioned that the provision of late information and constant design changes that were sent by Mott MacDonald, which got approved by Multiplex, was the main cause for the additional delays. His reports were cross checked together with the reports provided by Multiplex to arrive at the conclusion of how Cleveland Bridge was at an 88% success rate on their planned production activities despite the delays caused by multiple parties. Mr. Osborne was also involved in the handing over of the project to Hollandia in June 2004, where he prepared his own report on behalf of the company that included detai ls on completion of tasks and issues caused by Multiplex such as mishandling steel components and incorrect fabrication. The final transcript contained the following statement by him, which read as “we trusted the teams that we were involved with during th e project”. The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 17 Who is Responsible? Both Multiplex and Cleveland Bridge were suing each other for significant amounts of money (£45m and £22.5m respectively); at what actual cost to the project? The project suffered with heavy financial burdens and time delays during the life cycle before eventually becoming the largest covered football stadium in the United Kingdom. Due to the witnesses who came forward during the court case and the evidence that they presented, Hon. Justice Mr. Rupert Jackson had a tough decision to make as the project has had already gained a great amount of publicity not among the sports world but also among the journalists from established and well - known newspapers. It was not a matter of simply stating that either of these parties has won the case. It ultimately meant that the defeated party accepts the blame for becoming the cause of the project delay or the failure. Both the companies risked their image and reputation in ste pping inside the court. If they proceeded differently, would the situation have been better? Would the project have not been listed as a failure? Would it have been a success? It was well beyond the point of speculating. Facts have been presented and Hon. Justice Mr. Rupert Jackson had to choose whom to blame prior to raising the gavel to announce the verdict. The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 18 5.0. Critical Analysis The presented case of the Wembley National Stadium (WNS) elaborates a variety of issues through the omniscient view. When thoroughly referring to the facts presented by both the claimant and defendant, it is observable that these issues form a tangent towa rds trust and stakeholder management. Therefore, the issues would be categorised into three different sectors when being analysed. This section would consist of the analysis on three dissimilar yet closely related situations that occur during a project. Each of them has been listed to instances that were identified upon revealing the Wembley Blame Game case. 1. Directing Information - Handling RFIs, relaying information and constant design changes during projects 2. Controlling Site Conditions - Failure to meet expectations due to involved teams, restrictions, and mishandling resources 3. Poor transition and lack of transparency - Changing contractors during project lifecycle and withholding of information Issues listed under the situations have been analy sed with reference to trust and stakeholder management. 1. Directing Information Information obtained with reference to the statements given by both claimant and defendant in the case present a series of events that occurred about the directing of information. The facts present that Multiplex received an RFI from Cleveland Bridge (CB) in January 2004, which was then sent to Mott MacDonald for clarification. Mott Mac Donald’s inefficiency and inability to cope with this process and failing to return the processed and finalised amendments as well as information was listed as an issue across the statements. Achieving flexibility of information processing and allowing inf ormation to flow reliably throughout the supply chain for it to be obtained by project actors is described as an act towards forming trust and is also identified as an essential element in projects (Swan et al. 2002). It is also a persisting challenge to form collaborative relationships between main contractors and sub - contractors and sustain them (Swan et al. 2002) as such disruptions occur throughout the processes that require projects to handle RFIs in various stages. However, it is also noticeable that RFIs are being abused deliberately during detail submissions by contractors at various stages of projects while i ncluding common communications in them The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 19 that cause decreases in productivity and project delays (Navigant Consulting 2007). This clearly provides consolidation towards two dissimilar aspects. Firstly, it indicates that the insufficient flo w of information across stakeholders might cause stakeholder relationships to decay and lose trust amongst each other. Secondly, the literature vividly expresses the abusal of RFIs through including unnecessary information deliberately may cause delays. Th e given situations of the WNS project could have occurred due to both factors as the RFI process involved a lengthy route, which consisted of an overload of communications and various parties that did not wish to disclose information for the benefit of one another. However, according to the literature, it is possible to arrive at the conclusion that trust among stakeholders plays a major role during the procedure. Similarly coinciding with the above factors, the case further elaborates instances that portray the drawings related to building services and engineering being sent to shareholders in a linear manner than being shared to be accessed by all involved parties and issues related to retro squad that presents the incompatibility of software that allowed t he information handling to become over complicated. Though providing necessary instructions could have avoided such situations, it is observable that stakeholders delayed the process. Therefore, this paper has identified the necessity of relaying informati on effectively. These aspects could be used to identify the growth of the interest in the construction industry related to collaboratively managing information in frameworks that are organised in alliance - type arrangements that enhance the business performance due to trust being the enforcing factor (Love et al. 2002). Inefficient communication is indicative as a factor that negatively impact relationships and causes trust issues during construction projects (Yi k et al. 2006). The lack of common understanding could also be described as a factor that leads to project failures, stakeholder disorientation and poor quality of work performance (Lin & Gibson 2011). Therefore, according to the above discussion, it is un derstandable that the WNS project had issues when considering literature associated with the importance of relaying information in a trusted manner by maintaining stakeholder relationships. Directing information during the WNS project indicates a certain limitation when considering the amount of design changes that occurred during the project. Evidently it is understandable that construction projects conduct changes during various phases of p rojects. It is also identified to be the nature of such projects. However, according to the case, design changes occurred both before construction and during construction of the project. Statements provided by Mr. Ranald McGregor (Project Manager for Multi plex) indicates that Mott MacDonald The Importance of Trust and Relationship in Project Stakeholder Management Kekiriwaragoda, S & Suwanprinya, W 2018 20 provided information that were incorrect as they had errors and it required them to obtain additional information, which caused subsequent number of changes in processes. Statements provided by CB indic ate that Mott MacDonald provided them with instructions to conduct design changes on numerous occasions. Hence, it is evident that Mott MacDonald conducted project processes in a manner that caused issues among other involved stakeholders. Design changes h ave been identified as one of the major causes that lead towards disruptions and performance let downs in construction projects (Kikwasi 2012) and led towards stakeholder and trust issues. In the event of design changes being characterised as information that needed processing and proper direction towards various stakeholders, constant changes by project contractors would act as a source that creates disagreements and would be the reason that easily elevate towards disputes (Manu et al. 2015). The influence that is imposed by one stakeholder on the project may cause trust among other stakeholders to deteriorate exponentially as it creates inconsistencies in