The building covers about 1. 8 hectare (4. Acre) of its 2. 2 hectare (5. 5 acre) site. It has about 4. 5 hectare (1 1 acre) of usable floor space. It is approximately 185 m (611 Ft) long and mm (380 Ft) wide at its widest point. The highest roof vault (above the Concert Hall) is mm (221 Ft) above sea level. The entire building weighs 161,000 tones. 120 distribution boards regulate the power supply, equivalent to the needs of a town of 25,000 people (gratuitousness, 2014). “In 2007, the Sydney Opera house declared a world heritage site by UNESCO” (SOHO,2014).
The story of the Sydney Opera house is one that started as a fairy tale, had a tragic middle and is emerging s a tale of reconciliation and love of art and creative work” (matronly, 2014). Project overviews/Background ands The Sydney Opera house project started March 1958 and completed on June 1973, total fourteen years (3. 5 time more) to construct against its original four years and construction cost amounted to nearly Status $ MM (14 time more) against the initial budget of Ass $ MM.
The project face problems at every step, very few projects in the world got famous though passes through such trauma. An opera house project is a classic case of Project management catastrophe. It’s totally fail with respect to Project management, while successful with respect to the People of Australia’s view of point as mention at starting. The entire project was done in three stages. Stage 1 would involve construction of Podium. Stage 2 would involve construction of outer shell and roofs and stage 3 would involve the interior of the project and wall glasses.
Major Stakeholders for the Project The State of New South Wales (Client) COSEC (The Sydney Opera House Executive Committee) Corn Outgo (Architect, 1957-1966) Hall Todd & Littler (Architect, 1966 onwards) Eve ARP & partners (Structural, Civil & MAP Engineers), Public & Lottery (Indirect Stakeholder) Civic & Civic (Contractor, Stage 1) Hornier Group Pity Ltd. (Contractor, Stage 2 & 3) External Companies & Consulting Firms (Various Companies) Chronology of Sydney Opera house major events (SOHO,2014). Sir.
Year Month Major Event 1955 December Cahill announces an international design competition for a national opera house to be built in Sydney. Penology Point is approved by the NEWS Cabinet as the future site 2 1957 January At the National Art Gallery, Premier Cahill announces design ‘218’ as the winner 3 July Premier Cahill announces that the Government will proceed with building the Opera House. Allocates Australian pounds (A$7 Million) of public funds, which are to be raised by lottery four times a year. 1958 March The Red Book is presented to COSEC by Jёurn Outgo and Eve ARP in Sydney 5 April A new cost estimate for the Opera House of 4,880,000 Australian pounds is supplied by the quantity surveyors 6 1959 A new cost estimate of Australian pounds (A$1 is supplied to Outgo. 7 February Stage 1 works commence on the site by Civic & Civil. 8 1963 Stage 1, the building of the podium, is completed for It took 5 years 9 1965 September Hughes announces the new cost estimate of 24. 7 million Australian pounds (A 49. 4 million) and pushes the completion date forward from 1967 to 1969. 0 1966 Outgo meets with Davis Hughes. He stands frustrated and angry before the minister and threatens to resign. Hughes shows an apparent lack of empathy and this is too much for Outgo to bear. He walks out. 11 Davis Hughes appoints a new panel of architects to complete the Opera House: Peter Hall, Rudder, Lionel Todd and Ted Farmer 12 1967 Stage 2 is completed for $1 3, 165,955 million Australian pounds. 13 1972 The final cost of Sydney Opera House is calculated at $102 million. 14 1973 June Stage 3 of the Opera House is completed for A$80,383,130 million. October The Sydney Opera House is officially opened by Queen Elizabeth II Major Key Points which contribute to Project failure Political reasons and unnecessary intervenes: The Project thought process begun among Politician during late 194(Yes, nothing happens in the next 7 years. The NEWS premier then took the initiative and declares competition in December 1955. The project starts prematurely though proper design drawings were not available. They wanted the project started before elections in March 1959- this would be reduced risk of stopping the project in the case Labor party lost the election (Risk-Management-Len-
Construction-Engineering, 2014). “Change in power in 1965. After arrears in power, the Labor Party is defeated in the NEWS election by a Liberal coalition led by Robert Asking and Country Party leader Davis Hughes” (theoperahouseproject, 2014). Hughes chooses to become the new Minister for Public Works. There is no proper handover between client/Stakeholders; new client/stakeholders see everything with a different pair of eyes, with prejudice intension forces to leave an Architect to Project. Project without Project management and Project management processes.
The Project from day one handles without a dedicated Project manager. The old Project management theory was adapted for such gigantic Project at that time, where an Architect is responsible for everything. He took control of everything, Design, Engineering, Document control, Site execution, etc. No define objectives or other words keep on changing of objectives, against which project would measure No dedicated time line & cost control An architect was keenly interested for an aesthetic view of project and quality, give very less importance of time and cost.
The entire project was funded by the public lottery system, thus the Government had to pay nothing directly from their treasury. Scope creep The project was initiated with few line sketches, there were no proper define scope till the project completion. Scope creep is a significant factor for project cost overrun and time delay. Role of COSEC The role of COSEC, a body which made to control and keep eyes on the project, proved very inefficiently. The body was mostly political and less technical know how. They never ever able to give their input to the team effectively instead they accepted all changes suggested by architect and engineers.
Their role on the project just like a postman, who pass the information between the politician and an architect and engineers. Initial Stage issue At the completion of the stage 1, the project was 47 weeks behind the schedule mainly premature starting of the project without construction drawings, worst weather condition, diverting o existing storm water line to the next location, contract document changes were a major contributor to the stage 1 delay. This chaos leads Civic & Civic contractor to take the Government to the arbitrator for their pending invoices.
En-number of changes in design Initial stage of stage 1, when an Architect present Red book for scope of work, the government changes the requirement to four theatres from the initial two heaters. At Stage 1, supporting foundations and columns were constructed and later stage, it’s demolished, finding that; the roof shells were too heavy and they were not able to take a required load. Resulted to demolish of existing foundations and columns and redesign and rebuilt of sets of column. In 1 967, the proposed Opera hall changed into the concert hall, cause of future revenue purpose.
After a replacement of An Architect, major changes suggested in furnishing items by new Architect to prove their efficiency. The Initial Podium cladding and paving was a prefabricated plywood mullion system were replaced with glass. The main hall (the concert hall or multipurpose opera) converted completely to the concert hall Adding of Two more theatres. Redesigning and movement of en-number of rooms had significant impacts on the acoustics of the building. Change of architect in the middle of project In March 1966, the middle of construction of Stage 2, prominent stakeholder, architect Mr..
Jёurn Outgo was replaced by a team of Australian Architects. Mr.. Jёurn Outgo took all sketches, relevant drawings with them, which forced to the new team to start work from scratch. The new team encounter number of problems cause of non availability of existing drawings. They redeveloped entire scope with respect to existing structure, which was time consuming and proved pathetic for future work. Few Good things The use of an advance Technology at that time CAD three dimension system was used the first time Uses of computer to analyses the internal load effect on the member that would support the roof structure.
First time use of the Tower crane in Australia. Three tower crane imported for the project from France. Recommendation for effective project management for the SOHO case study Poor finalization of the scope was the mother of all the issues of the SOHO project. Sydney opera house (SOHO) Project needs to start only and only after finalization of an entire scope. To freeze scope, an Architect had to transform his entire works on paper and need to make all required architectural drawings, on the base of that drawing, an engineer team had to make structural, Civil MAP and specialized services drawings.
All structural aspects need to clear before starting of execution of work on the site. Foundation design was very vital for all projects, as an entire load of building transfer to the foundations. The SOHO project started without considering all this aspect, resulted in lots of rework. The Premature start of the project under political pressure was the root cause of the ruin the project. For defining scope, the need to collect requirements from all the stakeholders and for that, need to meet or conduct interviews of all or required stakeholders, brainstorming with other stakeholder to find out hidden scope, problems, etc. Tit respect to SOHO project, the NEWS government had to hire a Project manager who coordinates with all stakeholders including with them and define the crystal clear scope. The unwritten scope was the prime reason for the SOHO project catastrophe. After finalization of scope, project manager to make work breakdown structure to deliverable level. With respect to SOHO project, could be considered, which was not part of WEBS were not part of the project. All WEBS would be part of a WEBS directory. All WEBS needs to break down till the activities which were able to schedule, monitored and managed.
All activities need to sequences in such a way, it’s executed and monitored. With respect to SOHO project, it would be advisable to make proper WEBS and activities so that avoid future problems. The SOHO project manager with the help of available CPM or PERT method at that time, plus with available resources, make planning comments which describe a genuine time frame for the project which was acceptable to all the stakeholders. This planning baseline against which the project manager monitors the project progress as well as compare changes.
The SOHO project manager had to prepare budget, which include the cost at the activity level, any direct and indirect cost associated with the project. This budget act as a cost baseline against which the project manager monitors the cost as well as compare changes. The SOHO project manager had to produce a proper communication plan with all the stakeholders. It could be made with the help f power/interest grid. Who had influenced the project and how to handle them need to documented in the plan. Finalist meeting schedule interval with key stakeholders to avoid eleventh hour surprises.
Schedule a briefing to the press for project progress for such a project to get buy in public support for the project as well as to avoid unnecessary politically intervene. Change within scope must need to go through a board, which monitor changes. All changes need to identify, was it required for the SOHO project or not? Any scope change presented before the board, project manager and his support team need to analyses thoroughly ND tried first for elimination of scope change, in case of it’s en vital to the SOHO, need to analyses thoroughly for the impact on the project respect to cost, time, quality and other parameter.
After approval of change by the board, it needs to document and need to revise all respective baselines against which project would be monitored furthered. With respect to SON, if all scope changes go through a change board, it’s sure all the stakeholders would understand the impact of change on the project. The SOHO project manager had to list out RISK associated with the project in the risk register. Risk register would be prime comments which would show in the case of risk emerged, who had to take action and how and it’s impacts.
With respect to SOHO project, project manager show in advance impact of any risk to the stakeholders. The political interference needs to take care at different platform. Need to draw clear role and responsible matrix to identify a clear role of each and every stakeholder. Need to make a clear communication plan to pass the information or gathered information to/from the required stakeholder at the appropriate time. Proper use of the stakeholder influence process would be more effective to control the project by at large. The SOHO project manager had to draw clear boundaries as per the stakeholder register for political intervene.
The project manager and support team would be doing the SOHO project successfully if they would be delicate the necessary authority to control Scope creep and thus gain full control of the project. Change of an architect in the middle of the project needs to avoid at any cost. Project history shows that replacing the architect at the middle not only cost heavily to the project, but also escalate time duration of the project. The politically motivate changes always affect project team moral and always have active impacts.
During the SOHO project, it’s observed that, the requirements of an architect for the roof was an advance and at that time, such technology were not readily available. Such type of scope would be analyses upfront by the project Manager in an advanced stage, and would be suggest to change the scope requirement as per available technology at that time to avoid reworks at a later stage in the project. The SOHO project Manager had to explore the latest technology and try to accommodate the requirement of an architect if it’s practical. Value engineering for the project would be added on advantage for the project.
Cite this Famous Project Failure
Famous Project Failure. (2018, May 27). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/famous-project-failure/