27 Metronet and Tube Lines took different approaches to project management. They also encountered substantial problems over scope and compliance with London Underground standards. Tube Lines was, however, quick to establish the potential impact of the problems and responded by completely halting most of its stations work within six months of the beginning of the contract, to negotiate a consistent and comprehensive framework with London Underground, which would include all stations. When Metronet encountered the same problems it, by contrast, continued to work and negotiate with London Underground on a station by station basis.
28 Tube Lines reduced the complexity of its own organisation by cutting out contractors and project managing the stations work itself. This simplified the processes for assurance, and those for getting station access and closures. Metronet, in contrast, had an additional level of management in Trans4m, formed from four of Metronet's five shareholders, a structure that created more interfaces with London Underground. Evidence suggests Tube Lines' approach made better use of stations closures. It appears Metronet was not able to use its scarce construction hours effectively, due to poor planning and difficulties in the coordination of contractors.
29 Tube Lines also managed to streamline the assurance and compliance process considerably by cutting out duplicate procedures. Where the original compliance process required Tube Lines to submit detailed non-compliance reports and a project assurance plan for each station, Tube Lines convinced London Underground to classify the majority of station works as "low risk works" (for instance, tiling, painting and cleaning), which Tube Lines was subsequently permitted to perform without explicit London Underground consent. Tube Lines was therefore able to move towards an approach where the majority of assurance was carried out internally.
30 Additionally, following a Tube Lines initiative, London Underground agreed to standardise the compliance and assurance process for repetitive work, thereby reducing the lengthy practice of duplicating each non-compliance report and project assurance plan. Tube Lines would, for example, no longer issue a project assurance plan for each station, but rather a project assurance plan for a set of similar stations. Metronet was not able to achieve any of these standardisation gains.
31 Tube Lines adopted a strategic approach to its relationship with London Underground, identifying key London Underground partners who understood Tube Lines' commercial pressures and were able to advocate that London Underground move towards Tube Lines position. At the same time, Tube Lines used the "Star Chamber", a forum for all London Underground representatives, to discuss the scope of each station effectively. Through strategic partnering with London Underground and use of the Star Chambers forums, Tube Lines reduced the number of contact points needed from 90 to 18. Although Metronet also participated in the Star Chamber meetings, Metronet's participation made little impact on its approach and it reduced its involvement over time.