The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building Incident-Case Analysis - Assignment Example

? The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building Incident-Case Analysis The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building Incident-Case Analysis Executive Summary Asia and Europe have been highly susceptible to earthquakes in the recent past. Many of these earthquakes have had devastating effects on the countries affected. One such earthquake occurred on 22nd February 2011 in New Zealand causing 184 deaths with property worth billions of dollars being destroyed. This happened when an earthquake measuring 6.3 on the Richter scale hit Christchurch. The fact that only the Canterbury Television (CTV) Building collapsed following the earthquake have raised a lot of questions regarding the design and construction of the building. Investigations have since shown that the collapse occurred due to poor design and construction, several parties drawing blame for the collapse of the building. Several role players have been blamed for the collapse of CTV building which has affected several stakeholders. Many of the role players in the building double up as stakeholders. The main role players in the building include David Harding, Alun Wilke Associates, Alan Reay Consultants Ltd., Alan Reay, Gerald Schirtcliff, Bill Jones, David Coatsworth, CCC, and different inspectors. Other stakeholders include tenants, the building owner, shareholders of the company that owned CTV building, staff members working for CTV building tenants, and members of public. It is worth noting that some of the management issues that emerge from the CTV building event are corruption, favoritism and lack of professionalism. It is recommended that all role players and stakeholders in the construction industry should take their work/roles seriously to avoid similar incidences. Table of Contents Table of Contents 3 Introduction 4 The Key Role-Players and Stakeholders 5 Management and organizational factors associated with the incident 9 Conclusion 10 Recommendations 10 References 11 The Canterbury Television (CTV) Building Incident-Case Analysis Introduction Hirsch (2013) argues that the world is increasingly becoming susceptible to different forms of natural disasters more than ever before. Earthquakes, for example, are on the increase in different parts of the world, especially in Asia and parts of Europe. New Zealand is among countries that have been heavily affected by huge earthquakes in the recent past. Reitherman (2012) attributes the susceptibility of New Zealand to earthquakes to its proximity to the seismic zone. The earthquake that occurred in Christchurch on 22nd February 2011 was the most destructive in the history of New Zealand. On the fateful day, an earthquake of magnitude 6.3 on the Richter scale hit Christchurch causing massive destruction of property and loss of lives. Fig. 1: The collapsed CTV building Source: http://www.voxy.co.nz/ Structural engineers, according to Davison (2012), have s questioned the structural integrity of the building. The aim of this report is to identify the key-role players and stakeholders that were associated with the CTV Building and the consequences of its construction. Finally, the report will evaluate and analyze the key management and organizational factors associated with the incident prior, during, and after the incident. The Key Role-Players and Stakeholders Only the CTV building collapsed following the earthquake in the entire Christchurch killing 115 victims out of the 184 people who died due to the earthquake. The fact that CTV was the only building that collapsed signaled that something was amiss in the design and construction of the building. Indeed, subsequent investigations have shown that poor design and construction is highly to blame for the collapse of the building (Wright and Greenhill, 2012). Figure 2 shows the CTV building before its destruction. Fig. 2: The CTV building before its destruction Source: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/ A number of role-players and stakeholders associated with the incident have been identified. The role players double up as stakeholders in the CTV Building Incident. One of the main stakeholders and role player in the CTV building collapse incident is the architect of the structure. The architect/designer of the building is a stakeholder since he played an important role and made important decisions regarding the structural elements of the building and the materials used in its construction. For this reason, the designer is both a stakeholder and role player. According to a report released by the Associated Press (2012), David Harding, the designer of the CTV building worked beyond his competence. Several errors were inherent in the design even before the actual construction of the building. An investigation into Harding’s experience shows that he had no tangible experience of designing multistory buildings. Therefore, it was a terrible mistake awarding him the contract to design the six-storey building. The designer made several structural errors in his design, which made it susceptible to collapse under a little tensional stress (Vervaeck & Daniell, 2012). Alun Wilke Associates Architects also played a role in designing the building is also a stakeholder and role player in the CTV building. Although so far no blame has directly been ascribed to the company, its reputation as a stakeholder may easily be at stake. Figure 3 shows the CTV building and other buildings around it not affected by the earthquake. Fig. 3: The CTV building and other buildings around it not affected by the earthquake Source: http://www.newstalkzb.co.nz/ The construction company, Alan Reay Consultants Ltd., is also culpable given the role it played in the construction of the CTV building. The company went ahead to construct the building despite the flaws in the design. Because of this, the company as a stakeholder and role player is bound to lose its reputation in the market. Investigations showed that the construction manager Gerald Schirtcliff was a fraudster and worthy of blame for the poor work done in the construction of CTV building (Vervaeck and Daniell, 2012). According to the Royal Commissioners findings, the construction manager failed to identify the design errors committed by the designer of the building. This was a terrible mistake since as an experienced engineer; the construction manager should have identified the design flaws and advised his site supervisor, Bill Jones accordingly. According to Davison (2012), Jones was a very experienced and competent supervisor, but was compelled to work under unfamiliar circumstances resulting in the shoddy work. Jones did not supervise the project as required of him which makes him equally culpable (Greeenhill, 2012). The construction company ought to have identified the design problems and stopped the construction work. Therefore, its decision to continue with the construction work amounts to negligence, making the company culpable for the poor work. Investigations conducted after the earthquake incident revealed that Alan Reay hired Harding to design the building despite knowing that Harding was ill equipped to design multistory buildings like the CTV building. The Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2012) report showed that Reay hired Harding for the design work without even reviewing his work to ascertain Harding’s level of competence in designing the CTV building. Even after the Christchurch City Council had pointed out the design errors made by Harding, Reay intervened allowing Harding to continue with his poor design, making the building susceptible to earthquakes (BBC News, 2012). The inspectors of the construction works are also culpable for the collapse of the building. Davison (2012) notes that the first inspection of the building was conducted in 1991 to identify if there was a structural flaw between floors and the north wall. The inspection reportedly identified structural errors in the design. However, no additional review was conducted to ensure that the flaws were rectified. Additionally, following the 2010 earthquake, another inspection was commissioned by engineer David Coatsworth to assess the degree of damage. However, the inspections failed to identify the shortcomings in the design and construction of the building. The failure to identify the errors during inspection is attributed to the fact that the inspectors were not engineers and lacked the knowledge required (Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority, 2012). The inspectors are partly responsible for the mishap since they ought to have noted the design errors and advised the stoppage of the construction work or evacuation of people from the building since it was not suitable for habitation. The Christchurch City Council is another stakeholder linked to the CTV building and its collapse following the earthquake. As earlier stated, the building designer was give a clean bill of health by Graeme Tapper, the licensing officer, despite its failing to meet the minimum building requirements of 1986 (Macfie, 2012). This makes CCC culpable for the incident since it should not have issued the construction permit after discovering that the building failed to meet the minimum standards (Vervaeck and Daniell, 2012; Cunningham, 2012). Graeme is also culpable as a role player since his issued a license irregularly. In addition to the role players, the other stakeholders in the building included the tenants, building owner, shareholders of the company that owned CTV building, staff members working for CTV building tenants, and members of public. The building owner, Madras Equities, is a stakeholder since it invested a lot in the building and lost much when the building collapsed. Given that Madras Equities is an organization that has shareholders (Russell Ibbotson and Lionel Hunter), the shareholders were indirect stakeholders in CTV building. When their company suffered loss, the shareholders equally suffer loss. Tenants of the building were stakeholders in the incident considering that they gained utility by using the building for various purposes. When the building collapsed, they lost a lot of property and some of them could have lost their lives. Staff members working for the tenants of CTV building were stakeholders in the CTV building considering that they earned their livelihoods from the building and were grossly affected by its collapse. Some of them ended up with injuries or lost their lives during the earthquake. Members of public were stakeholders in the building and incident considering that their lives were put to risk by the poor design and shoddy work of the role players. Some of the members of public who lost their lives in the CTV building incident were patients and school children. What this means is that the customers of the buildings tenants also feature as stakeholders in the building. Management and organizational factors associated with the incident The analysis of the CTV incident on 22 February 2011 showed that a number of management and organizational factors were involved. Firstly, it becomes evident that corruption and favoritism was involved in awarding the contract to the designer, which led to the shoddy work. This became evident when Reay, appointed Harding to be the designer of the building despite knowing very well that he lacked the competence and experience to design multistory buildings like the CTV building (Davison, 2012). As a result, Harding poorly designed the CTV building resulting in its collapse following the earthquake. What is evident is that Harding’s appointment signified a management problem since the contract should have been awarded competitively. The CTV building incident also occurred due to failure by the management to conduct thorough inspection. This is because the inspection was poorly done without taking regard the competence of the inspectors. According to BBC News (2012), the CTV building was approved after having been inspected by just three inspectors, who happened not to have been engineers. This was a big management problem, since inspectors ought to have been highly trained and experienced building safety evaluators. Conclusion The CTV incident of 22 February 2011 is one among incidents that occur due to poor design and construction works. This became apparent from the investigations which established that the designer did a shoddy work since he lacked the competence and experience to design multistory buildings. The investigations also found a number of role-players and stakeholders culpable for the incident. These include the designer, the construction company, Reay, the inspectors, and the Christchurch City Council. In addition, the incident occurred due to management and organizational problems such as corruption and poor inspection. Recommendations Designers should ensure that modern buildings meet the minimum standards of the current century to ensure that buildings are strong enough to withstand earthquakes of any reasonably high magnitude. To do this, management should put structures in place that ensure that architects appointed to design buildings are competent and have the required experience to design buildings for which they are required to design. Other players in the construction industry should also take their work seriously to avoid similar incidences. References Canterbury Earthquake Recovery Authority (2012). “Report into CTV building collapse released.” Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://cera.govt.nz/news/2012/report-into-ctv-building-collapse-released-9-february-2012 Hirsch, R. (2013). New Zealand. London: ABDO. Reitherman, R. (2012). Earthquakes and engineers: An international history. New York, NY: ASCE Publications. Vervaeck, A. & Daniell, J. (2012). “Construction errors may have been responsible for the collapse of the Christchurch CTV building (killing 115 people).” Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://earthquake-report.com/2012/02/21/construction-errors-responsibe-for-the-collapse-of-the-christchurch-ctv-building-killing-115-people/ Wright, M. & Greenhill, M. (2012). “CTV Royal Commission finds deficiencies.” Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/8059838/CTV-royal-commission-finds-deficiencies Associated Press (2012, February 9). “Christchurch earthquake collapse building was substandard.” The Guardian. Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/feb/09/christchurch-quake-ctv-building-substandard BBC News (2012 December, 10). “NZ quake collapse building design 'deficient.” Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20661984 Davison, I. (2012 December, 10). “CTV building errors laid bare in report.” The New Zealand Herald. 2012. Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10853110 Cunningham B. (2012, December 10). “Chch council to blame for killer CTV building collapse – Williamson”. The National Business Review. Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://www.nbr.co.nz/article/chch-city-council-blame-killer-ctv-building-collapse-maurice-williamson-bc-133769 Macfie R. (2012, December 10). “CTV building catastrophe: a catalogue of tragic failure”. New Zealand Listener. Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://www.listener.co.nz/commentary/letter-from-christchurch/the-ctv-building-catastrophe/ Greeenhill M. (2012). “CTV - the key players”. Retrieved August10, 2013 from http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/christchurch-earthquake-2011/8060096/CTV-the-key-players Read More