Management of Project: Brighton Bypass, Tasmania - Case Study Example

BRIGHTON BYPASS PROJECT, TASMANIA Student’s name Code & Course Professor’s Name University City Date Contents 1.0 Introduction 3 2.0 Stakeholder’s Analysis 3 3.0 Management of Project 4 SWOT Analysis 5 4.0 Critical Analysis of Project Outcome 5 Reference List 6 APPENDIX 8 Brighton Bypass Project, Tasmania 1.0 Introduction Historically, the Brighton Bypass Project in Hobart Tasmania is the largest road infrastructure project. With the construction of northern and southern section, two joint ventures were selected to construct each location involving participants from Government Department of Infrastructure, energy, and resource department. In addition, the participants were to develop the scope of the project, preliminary design, and the cost estimates (Thiess 2013). The project construction began in 2009 and was completed in 2012 with of 1800 employees in which the entire project cost was $ 191 million with Australian Government funding $ 186.2 million and the rest from donors (Thiess 2013). Objectives were to reduce the time travel between the highway street of Hobart and Launceston (Pitt & Sherry 2011). Improving safety, amenity, and efficiency of Midland highway, Township of Brighton and Portville as the most dangerous and worn out roads was among its objectives (DIER 2012). In addition, the project objective advocates safer and convenient movement of general traffic and freight from northern and southern sides of the country. The scope of the project outlined the construction of dual carriageway highway, separated interchanges of three level grade, efficient crossing of Jordan River and minor waterways, construction of underpass and overpass of roads, service roads, realignment of secondary roads, main line railway and ramps. 2.0 Stakeholder’s Analysis Stakeholders influence the success or the failure of the project. The success of project is realized through phase implementation and feedbacks from various stakeholders. The project success was linked through the involvement of major stakeholders like TGDIER, VEC Thiess JV & JHHB, and Local Aboriginal Community. The TGDIER main agenda was to confirm the business needs and initiate the project. In addition, its role was to provide data for Midland highway, which include travel destination, the volume of vehicles and crashes recorded. From the report gathered by TGDIER strongly advocates for the construction of Brighton bypass project. The VEC Thiess JV & JHHB are two ventures involved in management and construction of both sections of the project with each involved in designing and constructing of 6.5 km of dual carriageway in northern section and construction of 3.4 km road and 6km new railway with maintenance facilities respectively (DIER 2012). With the availability of limited skills, Thiess employed a new skill by a mix of teams both the experienced workers and the newcomers to industries. The local aboriginal community protested during the evacuation of stone artifacts with the committee continual with construction. The protest resulted in the stop of the project and the redesigning to protect the interest of the community though it proved to be unsafe and too costly. They involved stakeholders were able to work together after undergoing intensive training hence having the ability to recognize all involved companies strength. The proposal of stakeholder’s consultation strategy in the project analysis report assisted in managing emerging issues like gathering of information to be submitted to stakeholders, good communication that will maintain positive relationship between stakeholders due to the scale of the project. The strategy ensures coordination between stakeholders. In addition stakeholders engagement plan was designed to engage actively the involved community in the project, minimize arise from disruption and inconveniences within the community and stakeholders to curb hold-ups to the construction of the project. Active involvement of the community to the project was among the stakeholders management team. The community members were encouraged to share ideas through websites, posters in local areas, newspapers advertisements, and public display of information to be viewed by a special committee (See Appendix). 3.0 Management of Project The implementation of the project involved four major activities, which include early contractor involvement in project design, pricing, and award of construction award, the commencement of design and construction, hub completion, and the complete bypass construction. According to the Engineering Manager, VEC Thiess joint company worked hard according to the project plan, design, and the preparation of works. The manager attributes the company for making the project go smoothly according to the plan (ANCR 2013, p. 237). The company is also commended for its hard work planning which shows the project being delivered ahead as per the schedule with effective cost, quality, time, and safety outcomes from the project (ANCR 2013, p. 236) hence receiving two awards (CCF, 2011). Prior to ground challenges through evacuation of artifacts, landscaping, earthquakes, and drainage the companies had enough information and techniques on how to curb the challenges through preparations for the detailed procedures. The detailed procedures enabled companies to reduce any risks to stakeholders hence achieving the goals with no surprises (ANCR 2013, p. 237). The project initial cost was estimated at $ 164 million but after its completion, the cost was $ 191 million. The additional costs are attributed to the redesign of the project to preserve the Aboriginal heritage site. However, with additional finances the project produced outstanding results using reliable budgets, direction, and team accountability and minimizing risks availability (McIntosh 2013). SWOT Analysis SWOT analysis as a tool was used to determine the strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats. To achieve the projects strength, the materials used for constructions were of high quality, using the leading companies and constructors for design, construction and availability of resources thus the land to construct the bypass. The weaknesses was based on too many funds was required for construction, the demolishing of community members houses for construction. The opportunities are attributed to the beneficial of communities through ease of traffic congestion, road safety plan, education programs concerning infrastructure construction, the employment of the green corps who rehabilitate and landscaping of the area after construction of bypass. Threats to the project are increase in road crush of vehicles from the smooth highway; earthquake attack can bring the bridge down and cause fatal accidents. Inadequate funds could contribute to the lengthily extension of project completion. In addition, Chances of construction accidents from machine failures can record the fatal death. Availability of miscommunication between contractors hubs the efficiency of project smooth running decisions made influences the outcome of project hence 4.0 Critical Analysis of Project Outcome The project achieved remarkable results, providing efficient transport systems from both the southern and northern location. The archeological sites are protected due to protests by the community hence attracting tourism visits to the site in Tasmania (ANCR 2013, p. 237; Marr 2006). The project outcome includes the diversion of heavy tracks to improve amenity, community social, social benefits and easy accessibility to businesses location. The transport time is reduced in-between the midland highway at the northern and southern region of the country. The project installed a safer road network for all mechanical vehicles associated with the deficiency of the existing highway through clear instructions given to motorists and drivers through display on the road. The project can accommodate the growth of traffic which is expected to double by the year 2022 (DIER 2012). The project has boosted the Tasmania economy as the main beneficiaries being Tasmania construction industry and the broader community involved during construction. Connecting the developing Brighton industrial estate and Brighton transport hub improves the economy growth in both estates due to good infrastructure. In addition, the project is attributed to its outcome on the seamless connection between road/rail fright via Brighton Transport Hub. Construction of both sides, northern and southern, were accomplished few months ahead of the contractual time frame with the northern side completing the project several months ahead of the expected 3 years and the southern side completing the project 15 months ahead of the 2years and 6 months expected time. This shows the outcome of the project met its initial purpose, objectives designed and its scope making the project successful. Involving different stakeholders assisted in the success of the project. The involvement and cooperation between companies made the project achieve its objectives (Goold et al., 1994: Ansoff and McDonnell 1990). Though with many achievements, the project experienced challenges especially the redesigning of the initial program due to the arising decision-making that were ignored in archeological and heritage site (DEIR, 2012). As a manager, one should take the entire information in all phases of the project with the purpose of indicating deliverables, timeless, budget and resource allocation to the project (Hartly, 2011). As a manager, conclusive decisions should be made not to portray a bad picture of the project companies involved. Arguably, that Brighton bypass project failed as a project, and the same should not repeat in future projects concerning preserve of Tasmania history (Living Black 2011). Involving diverse stakeholders as a manager increases the success of the project from problem identification to project implementation. Each phase of the project should greatly put into accountability with failing to do so, the project is likely hood to face redesign that will incur additional costs, time, labor hence dragging the completion of project as per the objectives. Reference List Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) (2012) The Making of the Brighton Bypass, Tasmania Government, viewed on 3rd May 2015. http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/82583/Brighton_Bypass_Booklet.pdf> Pitt & Sherry (2011) Autumn Issue 2011, Pitt & Sherry, viewed October 7 2013, . Thiess. (2013) Brighton Bypass (Northern Section), Thiess, viewed 8 October 2013. Marr, B. (2006) Strategic Performance Management, Elsevier Ltd., 1St Edition. Ansoff, I., and McDonnell E. (1990) Implanting Strategic Management, 2ndEdition, Prentice Hall, Hemel Hempstead. Goold, M., Campbell, A., Alexander, M (1994) Corporate Level Strategy, Wiley, New York APPENDIX The community Involvement Approach Such an approach makes ensures the accountability of decision make involving community through enquiries and community options. Technical committee designed software to monitor issues arising throughout the construction of bypass. Opportunities register was designed to pursue opportunities available to the project and inform the stakeholders. Read More