Approach Adopted by Lehrer-McGovern International in Managing the Project - Case Study Example

Overview The towers of Canary Wharf was originally a dockyard and cargo warehouse at the West India Docks, which slowly degenerated by 1980s. Thus, the derelict land was left for a clear candidate for regeneration, which was an original vision of chairman of First Boston Real Estate, G Ware Travelstead. However, the idea was taken forward by Olympia & York (O&Y) developer Paul Reichmann. Right from the beginning, the project was a challenging one, as the development to the area not just demanded high quality but also great detailing and landscaping owing to the area on which it was to be built. The project was undertaking by LMI, the US/UK management arm of Bovis. It was a difficult project with everything right from the land on which the area was to be developed was tough one. Furthermore, supplying logistics also posed another problem as the roads were not developed and equipped to handle such a huge project. Therefore, much of the logistics were supplied through the water way. Many new technologies were used, which included intermixing new and old techniques such as using foamed concrete and permanent slabs (‘Leader: Towering achievement’ 1991). The success of the project was not just in terms of its technological achievements, but benefited the people and businesses in London, as it provided high-quality offices adjacent to London and thus, reducing the burden on the city. It also benefited the southeast area in a ripple effect. Furthermore, the design and engineering excellence showcased by the towers set new standards in building offices in the UK. Approach adopted by Lehrer-McGovern International in managing the project LMI, the US/UK management arm of Bovis, right from the beginning understood the requirements of O&Y. It read between the lines to decipher the differing attitudes and approaches adopted by O&M. Furthermore, their connections with Bovis gave it access to an entire directory of sub-contractors and build a management staff that were well-versed with the UK construction polices. LMI formulated a team that had in-depth understanding of construction management and UK laws regarding the construction industry. The team was headed by LMI chairman Fritz Rehkopf, with two senior vice-presidents, namely Richard Griffths, who looked after the construction division, and George Lacobescu for the procurement division. In order to understand the requirement of the client in a better manner, LMI fully integrated itself with O&Y and adopted its culture as its own (Ridout 1991: 8-9). In its journey so far, both O&Y and LMI has been very tough taskmasters. For instance, in the early 1990, the company established itself as the construction manger of the tower and the first thing it did after assuming the role was to relegate Ellis-Don McAlpine from the role of management contractor to that of concrete contractor. Furthermore, the company has never been afraid of speaking about the problems and shortcomings in the construction practices and policies followed in the UK. LMI had also often openly criticised the capabilities of even large contractors (Ridout 1991: 8-9). However, the contractors also admit that although being tough taskmasters, LMI had been a hands-on-client and are very much aware about the work. They believe in paying promptly for the work that can be measured. Although, there had been complaints from certain quarter of contractors, most of them believed that O&Y/LMI has been a good client to work for. This can be best summed with the quote by Rehkopf who said that one of the major achievement of working with the company had been, "Collectively, what we have done is put together one of the best construction teams in the world in terms of size, scope and capability, including management contractors, the total staff is around the 600-plus level and that would probably place us among the top 10 construction firms in the world." (Ridout 1991: 8-9) “The real Canary Wharf success story has been the logistics behind the construction” Canary Wharf was among the busiest docks in the world till 1980. However, by 1981, the plan was underway to establish a small-scale industrial estate in this derelict piece of land. Although, the initial plan was to re-develop the 8 sq. miles land for a television production company, Limehouse Studios, it was later on, morphed into a full-fledged business centre. This resulted into a 62 million pound construction project undertaken by two prominent construction companies. It was a humongous task, and needed a solid backbone of logistics support, because any construction work cannot become a success without the synchronised support from the logistics suppliers. Thus, the success of Canary Wharf depended on the logistics employed for the construction that took less than four years to complete on a terrain that was almost inaccessible through road or railways. The major difficulty faced by the construction company was the land on which the area was to be developed as much of the work had to be done over water. This resulted in another problem to provide logistics support as the area was under-developed and did not have much of rail or road transportation system. Thus, the constructor, Olympia & York (O&Y), decided to use the docks and barges for transporting the construction materials and the waste products. Therefore, the constructors and logistics supplier depended on the water transportation system, with most of the building material being transported through the river. O&Y transported around 1 million tonnes of materials to the site, as well as waste materials from the Wharf by using the docks (Ridout 1991). United Marine Aggregates Ltd (UMA) was employed to transport construction aggregates through barge to the construction site at the Canary Wharf. The company, from 1991 to 2003, has transported around 200,000 tonnes of aggregates per year to Canary Wharf and the Jubilee Line station. The construction material was already mixed and processed in a manufacturing unit on the river Thames at the Blackwall Point. Using water ways as a means of transportation was not just cheaper but also solved issues such as traffic congestion, pollution and accidents. However, the construction company also faced several issues to handle on-site logistics, as construction on such a large scale meant immaculate coordination. Due to the terrain on which the area was built, the construction companies found little space for parking, storing materials and handling raw materials. It was imperative to supplying construction materials on time to finish the project as per schedule. The contractors of Canary Wharf focused on developing an integrated solution and employed a supply chain management consultant, The Logistics Business. The company developed Zone-Manager software, a loading and unloading program that helped Canary Wharf to regulate truck movement. This helped in allocating delivery slots to the trucks that stopped at the holding area for some time before proceeding towards the unloading zone, where the materials are unloading using the right tools and equipments (‘Acres of Floor Space…’) In order to oversee the entire logistics control, Dan Frank, O&Y project executive and his team chalked a detailed plan, right from taking decision about who would get priority for delivering concrete on the site, to controlling traffic over the temporarily made Bailey bridge. The team even provided and looked after common work like giving office accommodation, drying room facilities and canteens for the ground force. Frank and his team also prepared detailed report about the progress and fed into a software package developed by the company for its Battery Park project in New York, which gave them strategic inputs about their logistics movement. Furthermore, the team also put into demurrage contract, wherein, contractors were given a deadline of 24 hours to offload their materials or else pay fine. Similarly, suppliers of concrete were also given a 48 hours deadline (Ridout 1991). Thus, the logistics that worked behind the screen, which aided the construction at every stage was the real reason for the success of such a huge construction. Management problems for the infrastructure development at Canary Wharf The Canary Wharf management faced many infrastructure development related problem in the region due to its inaccessibility and the former character of being a dockyard. The tower at the Canary Wharf, ironically, is not the most expensive project for the area; instead, it’s the surrounding infrastructure, i.e. the roads, parking, and retail space that accounted for most of the expenses. The major infrastructure work began in June 1988 with Bovis Construction, a construction management company taking over the project, which was overseen by Ron Davie, a project executive. The company prepared and sketched various access routes to the inaccessible region. Davie and his team drafted plans in such a way that the infrastructure would be developed without interfering with actual construction of the buildings. This resulted in preparing a master plan of snapshots that showed when and where the access routes needs to be blocked or opened. Although, originally, the plan was to build water roads to restrict traffic congestion, it was necessary to build road networks for making the pilling and concrete decks for the dockyard to complete the barges (Ridout 1991: 32-34). Till the time the water roads were established to ease the congestion on the road, land infrastructure was the major focal point, where three-dimensional work was going on, which included developing the towers, access ramps as well as the temporary bailey bridges. Therefore, the need of the hour was to construct the roads as fast as possible. Thus, Bovis and his team worked towards the north roadway and started by constructing the sewers and covering it with temporary surface. Thereafter, they transferred the east-west traffic to the north side, which gave them free space to develop the south road. Consecutively, they swapped the traffic again to build the other roads. These roads were about 5 meter above the old roads, which were filled with foamed concrete that was supplied by Voton, a Dutch firm. The constructors, O&Y, created a two level road system, with the main road running 3 meter above the old quay. Underneath the quay, roads were built to provide access to the multi-story car parking areas (Ridout 1991: 32-34). Another problem that dogged the management was the Canary Wharf's Grade I listed "banana" wall. The wall, built in 1803, although, did not have much of the original structure in existence, its listed status made demolishing of the structure impossible for the construction company. Thus, O&Y decided to stabilise the wall by using fill materials that were collected from the rubble of the old buildings. This formed an underwater embankment, on which the piles were designed that took the load of the enormous 12 to 20 story buildings (Ridout 1991: 32-34). The problem of communication was another potent one, faced by the developers. Although, the constructors had the capability to equip the offices and houses in the region with telephones and other modern communication systems, they did not have access to provide them the connections. Furthermore, there was no provision for distinct telephone numbers, and the offices also lacked direct dialling facility. Thus, the construction company coordinated with the UK government, which in turn restructured the London telephone dialling codes in 1989 to suit the requirements of Canary Wharf. Another major infrastructure challenge faced by the management was to undertake waste management as per the European and UK law. Furthermore, directives given by the government also made using the traditional method of landfill for disposing waste a difficult option. Thus, Canary Wharf Group sketched a waste strategy to not just reduce waste but also to improve waste management techniques. The waste management in the region is conducted under the supervision of the Canary Wharf Management Limited that manages all the waste generated by not just the estate infrastructure such as parks and roads, but even those generated from the buildings. Thus, the group along with the contractors are developing various recycling technologies that would not just meet but exceed the recycling targets set by the government. Characteristics and features of the Canary Wharf culture The success story of Canary Wharf cannot just be attributed to the great management or construction visions, but also to the culture followed in making this project a success. Thus, the success of the development project can also be credited to the corporate culture and identities followed by the various companies and suppliers associated with the project. As Fritz Rehkopf, chairman, LMI, rightly said, "What has happened over the past three years is that there is no longer an LMI culture or an O&Y culture. It is a Canary Wharf culture." This culture took time to form over the years, although, in the initial stages, the contractors and other related firms got involved into the project for obvious reasons – to earn profits. However, their association with companies such as O&Y and LMI taught them that these companies were looking for long-term commitment and lasting loyalties. Thus, steadily, most of these corporates integrated themselves with the culture followed by O&Y and LMI, which ensured them with repeat business (Ridout 1991: 10). It became imperative for O&Y/LMI to ensure contractors were loyal and provided them with quality product and services, as the risk associated with such a huge project is immense and any single mistake on the part of the associates can cost dearly to the major contractors. Thus, the stringent policies followed by O&Y soon become a part of the culture of most of the 700-odd constructors and other service providers employed by O&Y. This helped the company in two ways, it just not ensured the quality of the project, but also helped in building loyalties and based on the quality work showcased by these contractors O&Y employed them again for other phases as well. Therefore, the contractors were also benefited by the arrangement, and there adaptability with the culture of O&Y ensured higher profits and greater responsibility. Furthermore, the culture adopted by O&Y solely focused on the quality and not financial benefits. O&Y believed that it was not the economics that drove the business, but the quality and loyalty of contractors. Thus, good contractors even with slightly higher prices got the business (Ridout 1991: 10). However, often times, contractors had to put up with the stringent policies of O&Y, which were often dictatorial, as it did not allow the contractors to put their proposals about doing things more easily. Many contractors complained that it was useless to put new proposals with the O&Y unless one is through with the project and have most of the answers (Ridout 1991: 10). Richard Griffths, senior vice president, O&Y, admits that it would not be possible to get everyone buy-in the Canary Wharf culture and the way O&Y operates. He said, "It is not always the right way, but it is the way we want to do things and one that we feel comfortable about. Anyone coming on to this project had to go through a learning curve of getting used to the way we work - some are less successful than others." (Ridout 1991: 10) Building engineering services The engineering services adopted at Canary Wharf has forever changed the UK building services scenario, with the fire engineering, air-conditioning, high-speed lifts and electrics altering various of their tried-and-tested methods for this new project. Fire engineering The towers are equipped with high-tech devices to protect the lives of more the vast workforce that work at the Wharf. O&Y and its team of consultants worked on some strict fire management programs that were supervised by the local building control officers. they have developed a system, wherein, at the slightest notion of danger, fire alarm and public address system would start at the same time, that would give instructions to people on how to exit or stay in a particular area. The high-tech equipments would start the sprinklers and the smoke from the affected area would be sucked out much more efficiently. This entire system is automatic and uses its own dedicated fire-rated cabling. Furthermore, the central computer system in the area helps the fire brigade in locating the exact location of the fire outbreak (Chevin 1991: 91). Along with the fire defence system, the buildings are also equipped with phased evacuation in times of crisis. The strategy and design of the buildings is such that evacuation work can be carried out floor by floor instead of attempting to evacuate people within a stipulated period of time through a main exit door. Therefore, every floor of the buildings has separate fire fighting systems, with its own host of sprinklers and smoke extraction systems. Additionally, the buildings also have a robust sprinkler system which gets the water from twin sets of pumps in the basement (Chevin 1991: 91). Air conditioning The air conditionings used in the Canary Wharf buildings are a deluxe variant of air-conditioning which is not much used in the UK. O&Y has used the HVAC technology, a tried-and-tested system and then improvised the system. For instance, the air conditioning kit had been improved to focus on installing a quite air-conditioning plant. Similar to its treatment for fire defence technique, with air-conditioning as well, O&Y treated each floor as separate units, which has separate chilled water and air conditioning unit and distribution system that is located next to the office space itself, thus, giving the flexibility to the office users to control the temperature at their will and not be dependent on the central air-conditioning system as seen in most other buildings in the UK. The entire system is automated, and operated and controlled by microcomputers that are attached with the fan-powered boxes within the air-conditioning units. The offices can link these microprocessors with their own computer system to control the temperature (Chevin 1991: 92-93). Lifts The buildings have a total of thirty-two passenger lifts, two goods lifts and two firemen's lifts. The speed for the lifts serving lower floors is 3.5 m/sec, and for upper floors is an amazing 6 m/sec. Such a huge engineering endeavour also requires a dedicated maintenance staff as well as up-to-date engineering facilities. The life cars in the building are linked with intercom facilities to the security room, which in turn are linked with the central management computer system, thus, automating the entire process in times of crisis. In terms of technology, the tower is the first building in the UK to use jump lift technology that allows lifts to be used even while the shaft is at the construction stage (Chevin 1991: 93). Electrics The electrical systems in the towers are made in such a way that it could provide power flexibly and reliably, as per the requirement of the tenants. The main power is supplied from the dedicated substation, which were later split into two and half to a similar plant room inside the tower's pyramidal cap. At this stage, the dry transformers decrease the power supply to 415 V and transmit the power to the tenants and other parts of the tower through separate circuits. Each floor has bus-bars to supply four satellite closets, which in turn has separate lighting and small power panels. In order to provide reliable power supply, the main transformers are connected in pairs. In case of total power cut, there are two massive emergency diesel generating sets that automatically start in the lower plant room to provide power to the entire area (Coomber 1991: 93-94). References ‘Acres of Floor Space but not Enough Room’, The Logistics Business Ltd., viewed on December 21, 2008 . ‘Leader: Towering achievement’, A Builder Group Publication, October 1991, p 3 Chevin, Denise 1991, 'Building Services: Service ability’, A Builder Group Publication, October 1991, pp. 91-93. Coomber, Matthew 1991, 'Building Services: Service ability - Electrics’ A Builder Group Publication, October 1991, pp. 93-94. Ridout, Graham 1991, 'Infrastructure: Spinal accord', A Builder Group Publication, October 1991, pp. 32-34. Ridout, Graham 1991, 'Logistics: Prime mover', A Builder Group Publication, October 1991, pp. 24. Read More