24 Metronet and Tube Lines chose different approaches to addressing problems with scope agreements, standards issues and London Underground's project management.
25 In general terms, Metronet chose a more accommodating approach because it expected that its shareholder-dominated supply chain would be paid to do the extra work requested. Furthermore, Metronet's supply chain did not appear to have sufficient incentive to improve cost control, despite the existence of a contractual incentive mechanism. In contrast, Tube Lines took a strong stand to enforce its interpretation of the contract. It also managed to improve the efficiency of its supply chain over time.