A significant proportion of large engineering projects fall short of meeting their expectations. In most instances, the planners underestimate the cost, hence use defective designs that would later require additional funding to improve. In addition, projects may lack contingency plans, which is associated to another obstacle of failure to put people first. Moreover, project planners are culpable of failure to do feasibility of the projects and these factors are usually attributed to a persistent trend of poor planning and execution of mega engineering projects.
The first challenge large engineering project face the challenge of accounting for requests for more funds in the implementation phase after submission of budgets. Cases of such projects being plagued by cost overruns are widespread. For instance, Flint (2015) highlighted the case of the Boston Big Dig mega project whose cost ballooned from $2.6 billion to nearly $15 billion ($24 billion, inclusive of interest on the debt). The implication of such cost underestimation is that projects stagnate when sources of easy funds dry up. Rogers (2016) illustrated the case of California Big Dam projects that were shelved for lack of funding because allocated federal budgets proved to be insufficient. In addition, the recognition that completion of such projects entailed inflated costs led to introduction of punitive tax policies intended to plug the deficits (Pavel & Alexander, 2013). Underestimating the costs of large engineering projects can have effects that extend beyond failure of the project, causing deleterious outcomes to communities they were intended to benefit.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Secondly, large engineering projects cannot go through their life cycle without undergoing redesign to improve certain aspects, hence necessitating contingency plans for the same. Problems with large projects start right at the design process, which may fail to line up properly and can be a recipe for incidents that harm users (Flint, 2015). The challenge of executing large projects from scratch is demonstrated by Johnston (2018) who reckons that the process is as difficult as it sounds. This is particularly true for projects intended to be used directly by the public such as sidewalks and electricity grid, which may need expansion in response to growth in the population they serve. The need for contingency measures is best illustrated in the redesigning of the urban public space in Barcelona by converting it from linear and uni-purpose to dynamic and multipurpose (Brass, 2017). Such a project would not have been successful if contingency measures were not put in place in anticipation of such unprecedented developments that would require redesign of the existing project to serve a new purpose.
Additionally, people are the central component of most large engineering projects and failure to put their interests into the design process stipulates failure of the projects. Redesign of existing projects is often informed by the need to bring the project up to capacity to meet new and emerging thresholds. According to Flint (2015), Boston’s Big Dig project failed to address the intended problem of heavy traffic because it failed to recognize what people wanted. Such projects are what lead to redesigns such as the superilles in Catalan and superillas in Spanish —will create pedestrian-centric neighborhoods while addressing the health, sustainability, and pollution problems facing Barcelona (Brass, 2017). Johnston (2018) contends that the challenges are outcomes of secretive planning meetings that bypass the public, thus recognizes the need to put people first and not technology.
In some instances, projects fail because they were not well thought out in terms of feasibility in relation to execution and intended use. Rogers (2016) asserted that sometimes projects are shelved because they fail to make sense despite all factors showing they are necessary. Projects may fail to show good return on investment, hence failing feasibility test. Pavel and Alexander (2013) observed that feasibility extends to physical factors involved in the project such as surveys of suitability of the site of dams. As indicated by Brass (2017), a project may meet the feasibility requirement for use, but fail to meet the engineering specifications and implementation off faulty designs that do not conform to standards can lead to failure.
Thus, large engineering projects face a variety of challenges that can lead to failures. These range from low budgetary estimations, lack of contingency plans, failure to put people before technology, and non-conformity to feasibility requirements. Engineers need to ensure that their planning and execution of projects takes into consideration these diverse factors.
References
Brass, K. (2017). Redesigning the grid: Barcelona’s experiment with Superblocks. Urban Land. Retrieved from https://urbanland.uli.org/planning-design/barcelonas-experiment-superblocks/.
Flint, A. (2015). “10 years later, did the big dig deliver?” Boston Globe. Retrieved from https://www.bostonglobe.com/magazine/2015/12/29/years-later-did-big-dig-deliver/tSb8PIMS4QJUETsMpA7SpI/ story.html.
Johnston, R. (2018). “Building a smart city from scratch is as hard as it sounds”. Statescoop. Retrieved from https://statescoop.com/building-a-smart-city-from-the-ground-up/.
Pavel, S., & Alexander, V. (2013). “Challenges overcome in designing and building Son La Dam in Vietnam”. Hydro Review. Retrieved from https://www.hydroworld.com/articles/print/volume-21/issue-01/articles/dam-design---construction/challenges-overcome-in-designing.html.
Rogers, P. (2016). California drought: Why doesn’t California build big dams anymore? The Mercury News. Retrieved from https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/31/california-drought-why-doesnt-california-build-big-dams-any-more/.
