State Aquatic and Leisure Center Management Major Analysis - Literature review Example

State Aquatic and Leisure Center Management Major Report Name: Subject: Instructor: Institution: Date Background Information about the Facility Situated in the city of Marion, South Australia, the South Australia Aquatic and Leisure Center (SAALC) is a massive aquatic sporting and recreation facility. The facility was constructed after recognizing a rise in the demand for more inclusive water sports amenities in the area. Through the support of South Australia’s local government, the SAALC was developed to host national as well as international water sporting events. The need to attract elite aquatic sporting into South Australia was a major motivation for the project. The center hosts a range of water sporting events and boasts of a range of recreational facilities designed to serve the public throughout the year. Besides the aquatic center, the SAALC is equipped to operate health and fitness programs that engage and benefit the entire community (Government of South Australia Office for Recreation and Sport, n.d. n.p). The facility hosts a 50 meters competition swimming pool, a 55 meters diving and water polo pool, a 1000 square meters of recreational and leisure water, a six-lane 25 meter community program pool with access for the disabled, a dedicated learn-to-swim pool, play equipment, two outdoor water slides, a toddler pool, and a spectator seating capacity of 4,500 people. In addition, the center offers high performance competition and training by hosting cold and hot spas, a recovery facility, a stretching area, a conditioning and strength area, and a dedicated dry-land training facility for aerial sports courses and divers. The center also hosts the Aquatic Sporting Hub along with the Stated Aquatic Sport Offices for Diving and Water Polo, Swimming, and the South Australian Sports Institute (SASI) aquatic program offices (Government of South Australia Office for Recreation and Sport, n.d. n.p). Other facilities at the center include a community gym, a café, and a 560 capacity car park (City of Marion, n.d. pp.1-2). The center is owned by the South Australian government and YMCA is the appointed manager of the facility. Despite the impressive standards of the facility, it has been acknowledged that there were a number of problems facing the facility. Some of the issues facing the SAALC are concerned with the initial planning and design aspects of the project. A second set of issues is concerned with the operational and management aspects of the center. Analysis Initial Planning & Design Problems It has been acknowledged that the SAALC project encountered a number of problems concerning the initial design aspects. The Australian Leisure Management (2016 n.p) has noted that one of the problems with the initial planning and design of the SAALC regards the design of the north-east facing glass wall. According to the Australian Leisure Management (2016 n.p), the glass wall was poorly designed and this problem with the design resulted in creating glare on the swimming pool thus creating challenges for lifeguards. Additionally, in 2011 the facility experienced a chlorine leak that resulted in a shutdown of the pool and the hospitalization of three people (Australian Leisure Management, 2016 n.p). Planning problems have also been mentioned with regard to the project. It has been noted that the main contractor in charge of constructing the SAALC (Candetti Constructions) collapsed towards the end of 2011. Furthermore, many contractors who worked on the project were not paid. One such contractor is Peddle Thorp, a Melbourne-based architectural company who later sued the South Australian Government for failure to pay $500,000 in design fees. In December 2013, the company lodged a statement of claim in the South Australian Supreme Court. Although the South Australian Government refuted liability, the Melbourne-based architectural company mentioned that they repeatedly advised the South Australian Government not to use Candetti Constructions due to its lack of resources and expertise to successfully handle this kind of a project (Australian Leisure Management, 2016 n.p). Other analysts have pointed out some planning issues with the project, particularly with the construction company in charge of building the center. Dorin (2011 n.p) also noted that the delay in payments with regard to the new center, which would be the venue for the 2012 Olympic Trials, got the construction company in charge of building the center in financial troubles. The company was later placed under voluntary administration at the request of the chairman, Alex Candetti. Initial observations revealed that the company was in debt to the tune of approximately $7 million, with most of the debt relating to sub-contracting operations on the center. The state government had indicated that it was negotiating with the main contractor to correct some of the problems that had been detected at the new facility (Dornin, 2022 n.p). Naughton (2013 n.p) has also acknowledged some planning problems with the construction phase of the center. Naughton (2013 n.p) noted that an audit of the project revealed a series of breaches and flaws. The annual report by the auditor general exposed a litany changes and shifts in the project it defined as highly risky. The auditor general’s report also questioned financing and approval processes, as well as operating and management arrangements. According to the auditor’s review of the appointment of the lead contractor, the process underwent fundamental and significant changes after approval by cabinet. Furthermore, documents did not have key details, while the decision to select the lowest bidder entailed the greatest risk given the demonstrated capacity of the contractor to deliver projects of such complexity and size of the contracted work (Naughton, 2013 n.p). Naughton (2013 n.p) also pointed out that the scope of the work and as a result the specifications and design of the project had not been settled when Cabinet gave the project a green light. Approval for the project was also done without establishing an approach to operating the facility, establishing the financial impact of running the center on the state’s budget, or getting approval for financing of the operations. Moreover, the procurement process seems to have been defective and sloppy. Naughton (2013 n.p) further noted that when the swimming pool was opened to the public in April 2011, the cost of the project had rocketed from $40 million to $100 million. There were also some unusual additions as well as a dispute over which party was responsible for paying what. It is evident from the above accounts that the SAALC project lacked proper planning in a number of ways. Kuscombe (2014 n.p.) has noted that planning is important because it helps to determine the proper provision or allocation of valuable resources to ensure the success of a facility. It is clear from the above accounts that Candetti Constructions failed to properly plan for the allocation of resources. It is safe to suggest that perhaps this was one of the reasons the company was experiencing cash flow problems with respect to paying off subcontractors. Additionally, Luscombe (2014 n.p) has noted that proper planning is important when it comes to determining where to build a new facility and what to build. The fact that the SAALC was originally meant to be a pool but later additions and alterations were made to the plans to include other facilities is evidence of poor planning. Luscombe (2014, n.p)has further pointed out that proper planning often results in a facility that not only meets the present needs, but also predicts future needs. Luscombe (2014, n.p) also pointed out that when the initial design and planning is done appropriately, the less costs are incurred in the long term. The initial design and planning for the SAALC project seems to have been done inappropriately and inadequately. Emmerson (2011, n.p) noted that design problems emerged just one month after the SAALC opened. According to Emmerson (2011, n.p), one of the problems that were detected immediately after the project was opened include problems with the storage of gas and chlorine. The other problems are actual and potential corrosion of light as well as other fittings, problems with fire safety, excess light during the day, inadequate light during the evening, humidity and temperature control, temperature problems with the competition pool, and problems with the supporting duct fittings. The cost of redesigning and handling the repair works would later be estimated at around $3 million (Emmerson, 2011, n.p; Wills, 2011, n.p). The problems identified above further illustrate that there were inadequacies and inefficiencies in the initial planning and design for the project. Furthermore, these issues demonstrate that the parties who were responsible for the initial planning and design of the project did not adhere to life cycle cost and sustainability principles. Luscombe (2014, n.d) has written that one of the life cycle principles is to recognize that a project for facility development starts at the concept and pre-planning phase and is complete at the point where the asset is disposed off or sold. Another principle is to examine the total cost of each component of the project across the life of the project instead of choosing the cheapest option. The other life cycle cost principle is to consider all the financial and economic costs related to the construction, procurement, operation, and maintenance of a facility to the extent which it was initially planned. In addition, sustainable facility design entails making informed decisions regarding the tradeoffs between materials, building performance and resources for both the long term and the short term. Sustainable facility design also entails recognizing that systems and materials that are considered in the theoretical planning and design stages will impact on the original costs and the life-cycle costs (Luscombe, 2014, n.p). Naughton (2013, n.p) noted that a audit of the project revealed that the process of appointing the main contractor (Candetti Constructions) underwent some significant and essential changes after the Cabinet approved the project. The documents did not contain key details while the decision to select the lowest bidder entailed the greatest risk given the demonstrated capacity of the contractor to deliver a project of such magnitude and complexity. Additionally, the scope of the entire works and as a result the design as well as the specifications of the project were not clearly nor fully settled when Cabinet gave the project a green light. Lastly, the project was given a green light without establishing an approach to operating the facility, establishing the financial implications of operating the facility through the State Budget, or getting authorization for financing for the operations. All these failures in initial planning and design led to some of the problems already mentioned in this discussion. Some of these problems include a dispute between the contractor and the State Government over who should pay for the additional costs resulting from the variations, repairs, and additions. Other problems include escalating costs, failure to pay sub-contractors, and design problems with several facilities/fittings/amenities in the center (Naughton, 2013, n.p). Recommendations In light of the problems that have been identified above, SAALC and YMCA can adopt and implement an asset management system. The recommended asset management system is program known as BEIMS. According to Medical Search(n.d, n.p), BEIMS is a computerized maintenance management system or a facility management software that assists with various issues in facilities management that range from work requests and asset management to intended preventive maintenance in large as well as small facilities. The software can be useful when it comes to assisting with the management of vital services compliance, managing service contracts, asset life cycle costing, and management of capital projects. It can also assist in ongoing accounts management and helps to ensure that facilities maintain a single register for both finance and engineering (Medical Search, n.d, n.p). Planned Maintenance According to the SA Aquatic & Leisure Center (n.d, pp.3), a planned maintenance system can help to minimize the risks of necessity for reactive maintenance and enhance the performance as well as effectiveness of a facility. This shall be accomplished at a time that will reduce or avoid any disruptions to the facility events and users. It will also function within the asset management system and the electronic facility. It shall include routine maintenance of emergency equipment, all fitting, equipment and furnishings, as well as ecologically sustainable systems. BEIMS Web- Work or Fault Request System The BEIMS Web work request system will ensure that individuals and departments can request or report works to the maintenance teams through the internet. It will have a feedback loop that allows the individual placing a request to instantly see the status of the request as well as the kind of actions that have been taken directly on the remote request system or through an automated e-mail notification. The work or fault request system shall help to improve the levels of service delivery and cut phone calls between facility staff and maintenance teams (SA Aquatic & Leisure Center, n.d, pp.3). A Tool for Asset Management The BEIMS asset management system or tool shall maximize SAALC’s assets and allow the facility to arrive at informed decisions by facilitating effective and inclusive records of assets service histories. It will also help to ensure effective and inclusive records of financial information on assets, contract details, asset components and warranties. Additionally the asset register shall enable the facility to generate all acquisition, replacement and disposal forecast reports directly on the BEIMS (SA Aquatic & Leisure Center, n.d, pp.3). Storage of Asset Documentation The BEIMS will help to provide a secure location for storing the collection of all the facility’s asset documentation to make sure the records are accessible and available whenever they are required. The system will also act as storage for manufacturer data sheets and information, specific licenses as well as requirements within, test certificates, maintenance records, subcontractor agreements, licenses and liability insurance, and location plans, titles and boundaries that relate to the facility (SA Aquatic & Leisure Center, n.d, pp4). Overall, the BEIMS asset management tool will help to build the facility’s competitive advantage by reducing costs and increasing service levels. It will also help to build the facility’s competitive advantage by optimizing asset performance, ensuring the effective allocation of resources, and improving workflow. Additionally, the asset management system will leverage the facility’s competitive advantage by helping in the management of compliance inspections and helping to improve staff as well as client satisfaction (Medical Search, n.d, n.p). Conclusion In summary, the South Australia Aquatic and Leisure Center experienced several problems in the initial planning and design phase. These problems include issues such as irregular awarding of the construction contract, poor design for some amenities and fittings, lack of safety measures, poor planning for financing the project, and poor planning with respect to financing operations of the new facility. The failures in initial planning and design led to various problems that forced the facility to shut down shortly after opening to the public to perform some repair works. Additionally, the project did not have a clear plan on the facilities or amenities that would be included in the center. As a result, the project costs burgeoned significantly and the lead contractor was unable to pay some subcontractors on the projects. It is important to acknowledge that while these problems were later fixed and the facility is now operating, it is recommended that the center should implement a comprehensive asset management system, particularly the BEIMS. List of References Australian Leisure Management. 2016. SA Aquatic and Leisure Center Marks Fifth Birthday. Available at: http://www.ausleisure.com.au/news/sa-aquatic-and-leisure-centre-marks-fifth-birthday/ City of Marion. 2011. Splashdown! SA Aquatic and Leisure Center gets off to a Flying Start. City Limits Magazine. Available at: https://www.marion.sa.gov.au/webdata/resources/files/City_Limits_Magazine_August_2011.pdf Dornin, T. 2011.Pool Delays Put Company in Hot Water. Available at: https://finance.nine.com.au/2016/10/26/21/39/pool-delays-put-company-in-hot-water Emmerson, R. 2011. Candetti’s Walls Come Tumbling Down. Available at: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/business/candettis-walls-come-tumbling-down/news-story/be96eada5da0e3d3c8df209085b6350b Government of South Australia Office for Recreation and Sport. N.d. SA Aquatic & Leisure Center. Available at: http://www.ors.sa.gov.au/infrastructure/project_examples/saalc Luscombe, A. 2014. Sport and Recreation Facilities Management. Lecture Notes Medical Search. N.d. BEIMS- Facilities Management Software- Computerised Maintenance Management System (CMMS). Available at: https://www.medicalsearch.com.au/beims-facilities-management-software-computerised-maintenance-management-system-cmms/p/24093 Naughton, K. 2013. Audit Slams Swim Center Project. Available at: http://indaily.com.au/news/2013/10/18/audit-slams-swim-centre-project/ SA Aquatic & Leisure Center. N.d. Asset Management Plan. Lecture Notes Wills, D. 2011. Marion Swim Center Needs $3m Fix. Available at: http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/marion-swim-centre-needs-3m-fix/news-story/e0c0790baad3b78247e6d6817c279fa0 Read More