“Beware the perils of groupthink…” These are the wise words of Michael Ocock, the British chartered surveyor and project risk management expert with strong Irish connections who died last month at the age of 81.

Ocock was keenly interested in mistakes made in the handling of the Corrib gas refinery, and other infrastructural projects that ran foul of local communities in both Ireland and Britain.

Developers of onshore and offshore wind farms should heed the mistakes of the past, he believed.

“Some promoters of infrastructure schemes are arrogant enough to think they know what’s best for everyone,” Ocock told Afloat in a Wavelengths podcast last year.

“They’re convinced they have sufficient power and more than enough influence to override objections to their plans - and they act accordingly,” he said.

“This is the notorious ‘decide-announce-defend’ or ‘bulldozer’ approach to infrastructure projects,” he said, resulting in opposition and cost overruns.

“Maybe it’s an approach just about acceptable in an emergency - but otherwise, it can be unwise, and any consultation process employed is almost certainly going to be a sham,” he warned.

Ocock, joint author with Barry Trebes of Making Sense of Challenging Projects: Things to Know, Questions to Ask, spent most of his career managing, overseeing and advising on infrastructure, and was acutely aware of how inconvenient truths are often handled.

During the past two decades, he worked with psychologists to develop ways of making it easier for infrastructure project teams to understand and engage with local communities, and to identify “rogue stakeholders” who may have no one’s interest at heart apart from their own.

He ran training courses on risk in relation to project management and strategic planning, and he contributed to many publications, including the training manual for “GRASP” or “Global Risk Assessment for Strategic Planning”.

His argument, as articulated in his interview with Wavelengths, was that it makes economic sense for developers to engage properly with stakeholders at an early stage – not just at a “box-ticking” stage of public consultation as required by legislation.

“Why, when major infrastructure developments are announced, are we always surprised at the degree of public opposition?” he asked.

“ For any community facing the prospect of new infrastructure on its doorstep, it’s surely the shock of the “new” that triggers their protests - coupled with a stubborn belief that most of the pain stays local, whilst most of the gain goes elsewhere,” Ocock said.

“To get their voices heard - communities have little option but to object and object furiously. But immediately they do that - they’re accused of being negative and deserving of a label such as NIMBY (not in my back yard) or banana (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone),” he observed.

“What they’re being forced to oppose has become, for them, a LULU (locally unwanted land use), or with offshore wind turbines, for example, perhaps a LUSU (locally unwanted sea use),” he said.

Engagement, rather than consultation, should kick in before options or considered or ideas are put to paper, he suggested.

“Too often we’re told ‘This is the scheme we’ve spent months (sometimes it’s years) perfecting – what do you think of it? Please leave your comments on a piece of paper at the back of the room or tick a box on the computer feedback form...’,” he noted.

“Communities deserve to be invited to take part in a genuine dialogue with the promoters of projects that affect them – better still, they deserve to take part in negotiations to find ways of creating working relationships between them as local communities and the teams tasked with designing and delivering the projects,” he said.

Mike Ocock was born in Maidstone, Kent on May 24th 1941, and developed a lifelong interest in archaeology when at Maidstone Grammar school. After school, he worked for Kent County Council and trained to be a quantity surveyor.

His second wife, Janet, recalls he told her that he spent most of his time “measuring school playgrounds”.

He qualified as a chartered surveyor and became a member of and fellow of the Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors.

In his spare time, he participated in a local archaeological group in Kent with his first wife Wendy. In 1962, he photographed some interesting crop marks from a light aeroplane above some fields in Eccles in Kent.

He was delighted to learn - upon excavation of the area - that a Roman villa, a bathhouse complex and an Anglo Saxon cemetery were identified. The 60th anniversary of that discovery is due to be marked this year.

Ocock worked for WS Atkins design, engineering and project management consultancy, and handled power station projects in both Britain and in Mexico. He was also involved in project management for several Debenham stores in Ipswich, Cardiff and Swansea.

After he and Wendy separated, he married Janet who had a son, Neil, and a daughter, Madelaine; in 1978 Tim was born. Neil studied physics at Liverpool and London, and Maddy became a doctor of psychology with consultant status.

Tim studied for a masters in engineering and computing at Lancaster followed by business management at Cambridge. Janet completed an Open University degree in 1984.

In the late 1970s, Ocock became involved with the extension to Guy’s Hospital in London – “not knowing that he would eventually become a long-serving patient of Guy’s himself,” Janet noted.

He founded Conspectus Project Management Ltd which ran from offices in Garrick Street, London.

“In 1994, the recession almost brought Conspectus to an end, but Mike managed to continue the operation from home in Orpington in Kent, and later still from Ambrosden in Oxfordshire, Janet recalled.

Family connections drew Mike and Janet Ocock to Cloonfad in Co Roscommon, where they bought and restored a 200- year- old cottage and formed a local archaeological group researching early Christian sites.

During his time in Ireland, he also provided advice to one of the survivor groups linked to the Tuam mother and babies home in Co Galway.

He and Janet took great delight in becoming grandparents to Maddy’s two daughters – Ruby, who was born in 2009, and Scarlett in 2012. As a lifelong cyclist, he took great pleasure in teaching each of them how to ride a bicycle.

His son, Tim, has collated links to some of his father’s publications, including the podcast for Afloat.

“I would therefore like to invite anyone here who might have a passing interest in any work that involves avoiding the perils of groupthink, in surfacing inconvenient truths, and engaging disenfranchised stakeholders, or reconciling conflicting vested interests to check it out, which you can do at these links,”Tim Ocock says.

More from Mike Ocock

Democratisation of planning

It Makes Economic Sense for Marine Developers to Earn the Trust of Stakeholders (Podcast)

Read Mike Ocock’s recent eBook here

Read his methodology textbook here

Read his British Standard on project risk management here

Communities who believe they are at risk from wind turbines and other proposed new infrastructure deserve more than just a tightly managed consultation exercise, however, well the consultation is conducted.

That’s the view of chartered surveyor Michael Ocock, who has been following the various public consultations initiated here on future energy needs, including offshore renewable power, Eirgrid’s proposal to lay a 2 billion euro cable around the coast, and designation of marine protected areas.

Speaking to Wavelengths this week, he explained why it makes economic sense for developers to engage with and earn the trust of stakeholders.

Ocock, who is a joint author with Barry Trebes of the recently published guidebook, Making Sense of Challenging Projects: Things to Know, Questions to Ask, has spent most of his career managing, overseeing and advising on projects.

During the past 20 years, he has also been working with psychologists to develop ways of making it easier for infrastructure project teams to better understand and engage with local communities.

“Why, when major infrastructure developments are announced, are we always surprised at the degree of public opposition? For any community facing the prospect of new infrastructure on its doorstep, it’s surely the shock of the “new” that triggers their protests - coupled with a stubborn belief that most of the pain stays local, whilst most of the gain goes elsewhere,” he says.

“To get their voices heard - communities have little option but to object and object furiously. But immediately they do that - they’re accused of being negative and deserving of a label such as NIMBY (not in my back yard) or banana (build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone).

“What they’re being forced to oppose has become, for them, a LULU (locally unwanted land use), or with offshore wind turbines, for example, perhaps a LUSU (locally unwanted sea use),” he says.

Michael Ocock, is a joint author with Barry Trebes of the recently published guidebook, Making Sense of Challenging Projects: Things to Know, Questions to Ask

“Local communities, local businesses and even local politicians understandably feel powerless and resentful at being kept at a distance from the secretive decision-making processes that determine the fate of most major infrastructure schemes. When you calculate the forces ranged against them, it’s not surprising they can’t secure a seat at the decision-makers table,” Ocock says.

“What do we mean when we talk about public ‘consultation’? Is the process of consultation simply a selling exercise – “this is what we intend to do and we’re unlikely to make big changes to our plans” – or are we talking about genuine attempts to listen and learn?” he says.

Engagement, rather than consultation, should kick in before options or considered or ideas put to paper, he suggests.

“Too often we’re told ‘This is the scheme we’ve spent months (sometimes it’s years) perfecting – what do you think of it? Please leave your comments on a piece of paper at the back of the room or tick a box on the computer feedback form...’,” he notes.

“We forget that even those who act for local people and organisations with something worthwhile to offer – not just objections and pointless criticisms – still find their representations can count for little,” he says.

“ They’re unlikely to be present when engineers and other technical experts consider their comments, and they most certainly will not be there when any objections they might have (probably buried deep in a report produced by public relations experts) are considered and big decisions about a project are made by its promoters; unless of course, local campaigns have reached the courts,” Ocock continues.

“Communities deserve to be invited to take part in a genuine dialogue with the promoters of projects that affect them – better still, they deserve to take part in negotiations to find ways of creating working relationships between them as local communities and the teams tasked with designing and delivering the projects,” he says.

“A big obstacle to making the consultation process democratic is that some promoters of infrastructure schemes are arrogant enough to think they know what’s best for everyone. They’re convinced they have sufficient power and more than enough influence to override objections to their plans - and they act accordingly,” he says.

“ This is the notorious ‘decide-announce-defend’ or ‘bulldozer’ approach to infrastructure projects. Maybe it’s an approach just about acceptable in an emergency - but otherwise, it can be unwise and any consultation process employed is almost certainly going to be a sham,” he says.

Ocock cites Shell’s Corrib gas project in north Mayo as one such example.

“Shell’s managing director for Ireland at the time admitted the company had underestimated the level of community concern and unrest. Inadequate engagement with the community led to decisions, which he agreed, were too legalistic and Shell had no real understanding of what the community’s concerns were. Careful planning to bring about better community relations might have saved Shell large sums of money,” he says.

“In recent years, promoters of infrastructure projects have had some encouragement from government legislation and public pressure to adopt a softer and outwardly more conciliatory approach; but for the affected communities - has anything really changed?” he asks.

“Misperceptions can easily lead to what promoters of schemes too readily interpret as unwarranted fears, unrealistic aspirations, and irrational actions,” he says.

“There’s no good reason why promoters of infrastructure developments shouldn’t invite their project’s many stakeholders to participate in the selection of the ‘right’ option (what to build and where to build it) and join in the planning for its construction (when to build and how to build it). On the contrary, this would create trust in the community and help ensure the chosen scheme was delivered with fewer risks,” Ocock suggests.

“We need a giant leap forward so that in future promoters are motivated to encourage a majority of their project’s stakeholders - of which there will be many - to not only participate in selecting the ‘right’ option but also to help determine exactly what the problem is the project is meant to fix,” he says.

“This new ‘normal’ would not only see the ‘wisdom of crowds’ used to produce better strategic decisions for projects but also encourage consensus-building around their future construction,” he says.

“Such ideas are not new - research has been done for many years on this sensitive topic - but politicians, bureaucrats and Shell’s managers appear not to read research papers; and in my experience neither are they known for welcoming ideas that could improve their archaic methods of working. Individuals learn lessons from what they do; organisations rarely do,” he says.

“For many years several east coast US states have worked together to adopt a protocol for gaining community agreement on controversial infrastructure facilities such as hazardous waste incinerators, which they call their ‘facility siting credo’,” Ocock says.

“The Poolbeg incinerator is an outstanding example of a facility that might have been approved much sooner if a similar protocol had been in place in Dublin,” he says.

“This facility siting credo advises the promoters of a facility that many in a community will see as a serious threat - to first get the community to agree that something has to change, something has to be built, and the status quo is not an option,” he says.

“ The next step for the promoters is to gain the trust of the community by being honest about the negative aspects of what’s proposed - finally making sure the host community will be left better off,” he says.

European research teams have similarly shown how controversy can be extremely wasteful and how the solution lies in engaging in constructive discourse with all of a project’s primary stakeholders, including the NIMBYs as well as the project’s key decision-makers,” Ocock says.

If project teams do not meet with local communities early in a project, he warns, there will be “people out there who know something vital to the project; something the project’s engineers should know about but don’t”.

“Let’s be realistic though. Taking steps to replace consultation with engagement and improve on the way we do things now - won’t be easy. Adversarial planning inquiries are big business for many professions and professions have influence,” Ocock says.

“Planning and assessing alternative schemes using today’s procedures can generate good business, regardless of whether anything is actually constructed,” he says.

Ironically, he notes, “few, if any, of the parties typically associated with planning and public approvals have any incentive to find quicker ways to get a scheme approved”.

“For management consultants, public relations experts, lawyers, engineers and designers of all kinds - drawing up plans and assessing scheme, after scheme, after scheme, can be much more profitable and far less risky than becoming involved in putting concrete and steel in the ground or turbine towers in the sea,” he says.

“We might have to reluctantly accept that reform will come slowly - if it comes at all,” he says.

Ocock’s advice for planners and developers is to “bring your planning and approval-seeking processes closer together; manage them as a single people-centred project with its own clearly defined aims and methods of working”.

“It may cover only the preliminary phases of the major development, it is hoped, will follow, but it should still be managed as a project in its own right and with its own measures of success - one of which must be gaining the trust of the affected communities,”he says

“Only recently the UK oil and gas industry published a revealing study report into the performance of the industry’s projects,” he says. The study noted there were important lessons to be drawn, one of which was that “more cooperation must take place between the engineering contractors employed and local communities – they too have a stake in the project”.

“Infrastructure projects are more likely to stay on track and be successful when they are directed by wise leaders, benefit from independent oversight, and, when their management engages with the communities affected by the plans to encourage questioning and constructive challenges –from every quarter,” Ocock concludes.

“Conflicting opinions are never in short supply in Ireland. Those who want to bring us new technology and improve our protection of the seas could make better use of them,” he says.