The Project Management Process and Planning - Essay Example

?Project Management work MAJOR PROJECT (REPORT) The Project Management Process and Planning The project management process is an important component of all major national, international and global projects. Considering the magnitude of the Channel Tunnel project, it would be inappropriate for anyone to think that the application of basic project management processes were absent from the venture. Indeed, project management has been described as both an act and a science as the Microsoft Project Users Group (2012) notes that “project management is the science (and art) of organizing the components of a project, whether the project is development of a new product, the launch of a new service, a marketing campaign, or a wedding.” In a very broad sense, this definition brings out the essence and importance of project managing the Channel Tunnel project. Noting that the project management process has five (5) major stages or steps namely definition of project, planning of project, execution of project, control of project and closure of project, Mathias (2005) posits that all these stages were fully covered under the construction of the Channel Tunnel. Hamilton (2009) notes that the first two phases of the project, which are the definition and planning phases started several years before the actual implementation of the project. In his estimation, talks on the project started right after the World War I and that “British strategic sensitivities did plans for the construction of a Channel Tunnel, which were brought before the Committee of Imperial Defence for discussion in the autumn of 1919” (Hamilton, 2009). Official or paperwork planning was carried out prior to the very beginning of the project as “a hierarchical planning/control system allowed overall strategic planning, detailed day-to-day planning of long linear works, and proper reporting to management” (Pompee, n.d). This official planning structured a four level phase for the implementation of the project. The levels were accordingly named level 1 to level 4 with each level covering manageable programmes, that were to be delivered both in United Kingdom and France (Pompee, n.d p.4). As part of the planning, it was estimated that would a “31 mile tunnel running underneath the English Channel to carry Eurostar trains and freight trains between the UK and France” (Strategic PPM, 2010). It was also envisioned that the project would complete in five (5) years. Furthermore, it was consented that the project would cost 2.6 billion British pounds. The execution phase of the project saw the construction of English and France portions of the channel as the project was a joint project by those two countries. More to the rail channels, there was also a vehcle shuttle terminal at Coquelles and Cheriton. The vehicle shuttle terminal at Coquelles was as part of the execution connected A16 motorway whiles the Cheriton vehicle shuttle terminal was connected to the M20 motorway (Rafael, 2009, p.22). Monitoring was taken seriously as there was a technology inclined approach to monitoring the project. Pompee (n.d. p. 4) for instance reports that “A real-time computerized reporting system allowed to monitor remotely, day by day, progress on all aspects of the project.” The project was closed and commission in May 1994. Planned Specifications The planning phase of the project management process is very important and so has been set aside for comprehensive analysis under this section. Looking critically through some of the programmes outlined above, under the planning phase, it would be seen that there was indeed a lot of work committed into the planning phase of the Channel Tunnel project. This assertion has every justification that it deserves because planning serves as the anchorage for the successful implementation of the entire program. In management studies; the subject component where the construction of major projects like the Channel Tunnel falls under, the issue of planning becomes even more important and distinguishing. In management, planning has been defined as the preparation of a sequence of action steps to achieve some specific goal (Time Management Guide, 2002). Planning has also been explained as “a systematic activity which determines when, how and who is going to perform a specific job.” To this end, the planning of the Channel Tunnel involves timing (when), procedure (how) and resources (who). So the question now is, how was the program timed, what procedures were decided and how much resources were estimated to be involved in the construction of the Channel Tunnel? The project was timed to be completed in a total period of five years, which is made up sixty (60) calendar months. The five year period was accordingly sub divided to give specific apportioning programmes and the times they were to be executed. For instance a total of 150 kilometres of the tunnel was planned to be completed in four (4) years. Equipment installation in the channel was also supposed to be completed in two years amidst the construction of the tunnel. The installation of the equipment was to be done in the final half of the first four years proposed. The final one year was estimated to go into the testing and commissioning of the project. Concerning the procedure, there was a general plan to include among other things, tunnels, rail control centres, signalling systems and service tunnel services. The tunnels were planned to be three in all. Each component was to be made of 50km in length. Out of the total length, 38kilometres was to be under the sea. The average height under sea was given to be 40 metres. There were to be two major forms of resources, which were human resource and financial resource. The human resource was to be headed by engineers including civil engineers, geologists, surveyors, communication experts and electrical engineers. The financial budget apportioned to the project was 2.6 billion pounds. How the Project came together in the actual execution The planning phase was followed closely by the actual execution of the project. The first phase of execution consisted of the formation and merger of companies to take charge of the construction of the Channel Tunnel. As a British-French project, there was the consolidation of two companies from those two countries. The British component of the company was Channel Tunnel Group, which eventually bore the English name of the project. The Channel Tunnel consisted of five construction companies and two banks. The France company was named France–Manche. This company was also made up of five construction companies and three banks. Contractors from both companies started working from both ends of the project, thus the English and French ends in 1988. Noting that the laying of tunnel under the sea was a very herculean task, the Invicta Media (2002) posits that “1980's engineers used new technology developed for deep-sea oil exploration to check exactly what was under the sea bed.” The major work that began the grounds work consisted of digging of the tunnel. The English section started around the Shakespeare Cliff whiles the French section started near Sangatte. There were specialised machines acquired for the purpose of the digging, known as the tunnel boring machines (TBMs). The machines were multifunctional, which “cut through the chalk, collected the debris, and transported the debris behind it using conveyor belts” (Rosenberg, 2012). Connection of the tunnels was the second major task in the actual execution after the building of the channels from the two sides. The connection would indeed not start until concrete linings were done. The concrete lining was reckoned as very necessary in making the tunnel waterproof and also aiding it withstand the intense pressure from above (Rosenberg, 2012). A major challenge to the concrete lining was the collection of debris from the construction of the tunnels. Different strategies were thus used at both ends of the construction sites. At the English side, railroad wagons were used to tow this debris up. At the French side, the debris was mixed with water, after which they were pushed out through a pipe. After the successful execution of the constructions at both ends, it was time to join the tunnels at a point where they formed symmetry between the two countries. Though this was a difficult feat, it was eventually achieved in 1990 when the England and France ends of the tunnels were connected. Rosenberg (2012) argues that this indeed marked the joining of England and France for the first time in history. After connecting the two sides, the following components were added: “crossover tunnels, land tunnels from the coast to the terminals, piston relief ducts, electrical systems, fireproof doors, the ventilation system, large train terminals and train tracks (Rosenberg, 2012). Appreciation of the role of risk management, time frames, staffing, costing and evaluation of the project and what went wrong The Channel Tunnel was completed and celebrated. Today, it has come to be known as one of the wonders of engineering (McCarthy, 2001). Like all major world projects, there was a lot that went into risk management, time frames, staffing, costing and evaluation of the project. An appreciation of these components of the project will be done under this section of the presentation. Whiles doing this, the various challenges that were faced with these components shall also be discussed. The reason for combining these two tasks is that most researchers have pointed to the risk management, time frames, staffing, costing and evaluation of the project as some of the major factors that account for what went wrong with the project. This means that as much as there are general successes with the project, there are also challenges and issues that actually count as weaknesses of the project that was undertaken. The ability to undertake effective risk management has been associated with effective managers. Risk comes in different forms but in all this, the risk manager is tasked with the responsibility of identifying, assessing, and prioritizing risks of different kinds (What is Risk Management, 2011). The truth of the matter is that risk management had gone on in several informal forms since the 1880s. It was indeed out of such acts of risk management that stakeholders kept pushing the commencement of the project ahead. They had done several risk management including costing and structure of the project (McCarthy, 2001). They are many who however question the effectiveness of the risk management that took place, noting that two major area of risk management, which are time frames and costing did not seem to have been well taken care of. Without any doubt, if great care had been taken in assessing and prioritising risks, the time and cost apportioned would have just been what was sufficient for the project and there would not have been excesses. Time frames were well set before the commencement of the project. Unfortunately, the time frame given was exceeded by one calendar year and this is one major incident of what went wrong with the project. Generally, the timings given were reasonable and looked attainable. It was not until the very last parts of the project that the contractors got to find out that there would need much time. It has commonly been argued that the cause of the delay was as a result of changes in specifications for the tunnel. That is, “there was need for air conditioning systems to improve safety that were not included the initial design” Management PPM, 2010). Analytically, not much could be said in condemnation of the fact that there was a delay because of the need to install air conditioners, which were not part of the original plan. This stand is taken against the backdrop that the installation was a major security factor and that the lives of users could not be compromised because of the need to complete the work on time. This will be debated with the thinking that originators should have factored the installation in the original plan but it is important to note that the construction of the Channel Tunnel did not have much previous projects of a similar kind to use as reference points. This means that the probability that there was going to be trail and error was highly unavoidable. Staffing involved the assembling of personnel from different professional backgrounds. This was so, considering the diversity of work that needed to be done. As far as staffing was concerned, there was also the need to include – almost on a proportional basis, same number of workers from both France and England. This is because the project was bilateral between those two countries. The staffing base of the project comprised of two major groups of workers who were part time and full time workers. Universite Nice Sophia Antipolis (2012) observes that there were three major groups of staffs, who were engineers, designers and project managers. It is however regrettable that “despite the bringing together of the best engineers, designers and project management experts available the project did suffer from significant delays and a significant overspend.” Critical scrutiny of the situation reveals that the worker overstaffing that occurred at the later part of the project was as a result of the need to push in more human labour when it was released that the project could delay. Further, the introduction of new components to the project such as the installation of air conditioners called for the need to bring on more experts. It is however sad that upon the use of overstaffing as a possible intervention for fostering the delay of the project, the project still delayed. Finally on staffing, a lot of commentary has also gone on about how the use of bi-national staff affected communication system among workers badly. There are many who are of the view that a lot could have been done better if there was a common language gap. Costing is another controversial area that has characterised the construction of the Tunnel Channel. In fact, one additional year to the proposed year of commissioning constitutes 20% of additional time but the disbursement and use of 4.7billion instead of 2.8 billion constitutes over 80% of overspending. First, it will be observed that costing was done by practising banking experts and that it was for the need of this purpose (including financial engineering) that there were as many as five (5) banks as part of the merging company that undertook the project. It is therefore ironic that despite the presence of such array of financial brains, the costing could still not be done right. Most political and economic analysts blame the situation on the fact that costing and financial was done by only private companies and that government was not made to play any role in the costing and financing (Pompee, n.d). The strategic PPM (2010) even points out that since the contract was issued through the use of the bidding system, it is very much likely that the winner curse phenomenon existed. It cannot also be denied that the deviation from original plan to include other components of the project also accounts largely for overspending. Evaluation of projects is normally done at the end of the projects. Evaluation may be conducted for two major reasons depending on the project management approach used. In some project management procedures, evaluations are conducted to effect changes in the projects before they are officially closed and commissioned. In other cases, evaluations are done only to serve as appraisal systems for future improvements because once the projects are complete the only possible changes are future modifications. The latter is true for the Tunnel Channel project (McCarthy, 2001). This means that there was an internalised monitoring system that ensured that the project progressed successfully without much hitches. As a matter of fact, very little criticisms have been put forward against the evaluation policy of the project because despite the challenges faced in certain quarters of the delivery of the work, the overall output of work was judged as excellent. Suggestions as to how the process could have been improved The following suggestions are made in accordance with project management thoughts and not in terms of the engineering and functional role of the project. Without any doubt, the amount of money overspend was unpardonable. With 80% of overspent money, the implication is that if resources had been well harnessed, the excess money could have started and completed another Tunnel Channel to an 80% level. With the accusation that private bidding resulted in winner curse, it is suggested that if the project financing had been done by government, pricing could have been down considerably. This is because better valuation of the bidding would have been done. Effective monitoring would have also gone into the disbursement of funds. Secondly, it is suggested that specifications should have been adhered to. This would have saved money, time and human resource. Though some of the modifications were necessary, the question remains as to whether they could not have been more efficient ways of addressing those needs. Again, there could have been conscious effort to break the communication gap that existed among project stakeholders. This could have been done by using bi-lingual experts. There could also have been the training of staff to become bi-lingual. Even more, it is suggested that an external quality assurance system should have been in place. With such as system, there was certainly going to be a more independent and reliable quality control mechanism as and when the project was being undertaken. Such quality assurance system could have revealed more innovative components needed to make the work even more excelling than it is today. Finally, it is suggested that the evaluation stage of the project should have involved comprehensive and independent auditing to ensure that avoidable financial lapses were identified for future corrections. REFERENCE LIST Hamilton L, 2009, The Channel Tunnel and British Strategic Planning [Online] http://leehamilton.blogspot.com/2009/07/channel-tunnel-and-british-strategic.html [Accessed March 12, 2012] Invicta Media, 2002, Channel Tunnel, [Online] http://www.theotherside.co.uk/tm-heritage/background/tunnel.htm [Accessed March 13, 2012] Mathias R. A., 2005, The Basis of International Project Delivery, London: Omega Press Series McCarthy T. A, 2001, Engineering of the 20th Century. Durban: PrintMark Printing Press. Microsoft Project Users Group, 2012, What is Project Management? [Online] http://www.mpug.com/Pages/WhatisProjectManagement.aspx [Accessed March 13, 2012] Pompee, Pierre-Jean, n.d, Channel Tunnel: Overview, [Online] http://www.batisseurs-tunnel.com/amicale/doc%20UK/1%20Le%20Projet%20Tunnel%20sous%20La%20Manche_C.pdf [Accessed March 13, 2012] Rafael T., 2009, Critical Analysis of the Construction of the Tunnel Channel. Ontario: Freedom Press House Rosenberg J., 2012, The Channel Tunnel. [Online] http://history1900s.about.com/od/1990s/p/Channel-Tunnel.htm [Accessed March 11, 2012] Strategic PPM, 2010, Project Failure: Channel Tunnel [Online] http://strategicppm.wordpress.com/2010/11/16/project-failure-channel-tunnel/ [Accessed March 11, 2012] Time Management Guide, 2002, What is Planning? [Online] http://www.time-management-guide.com/planning.html [Accessed March 12, 2012] Universite Nice Sophia Antipolis, 2012, Tips for better project management [Online] http://www.unice.fr/crookall-cours/projects/project_management_tips.htm What is Risk Management, 2011, What is Risk Management? [Online] http://www.whatisriskmanagement.net/ [Accessed March 12, 2012] Read More