Introduction
The role of managing major projects is a crucial one since it involves taking into consideration the basic components of the project. As a project manager one is, most a times, faced with the challenge of ensuring that everything is done to perfection since missing any detail could jeopardize the whole project. An in-depth analysis of the report reveals that the author puts the blame on a myriad of factors for the problems encountered in the Big Dig Project which all seem to stem from poor project management.
Author’s Analysis of the Problems Encountered
The poor management, according to the author resulted in technical and financial challenges. As a result, the project was plagued with massive budget overruns and missed deadlines. For instance, the project was initially estimated at $2.8 billion with the final cost being approximated at about ten times the initial estimated cost. Before beginning the project, the planning framework was not well formulated, and as a result, it was difficult for the engineers to build the tunnel without affecting the above roadway (Lewis & Murphy, 2003).
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Poor management also resulted in the subcontractors failing to remove underground debris before concrete was poured. An investigation was done after the completion of the project further revealed that substandard materials were used leading to the collapsing of the ceiling (Lewis & Murphy, 2003). Experts have stated that galvanic corrosion occurred due to the wrong material being used for light fixtures leading to the collapse of the ceiling.
Mismanagement of funds also seems like a factor that is being blamed as part of the problems of the project (Lewis & Murphy, 2003). In a number of instances, there were overruns in the estimated budget, and in most of these instances, the overruns were as a result of negligence on the part of the company in charge of the project. For instance, the Globe investigation reveals that engineers had raised concerns over the use of designs that had errors on the face of the record (Lewis & Murphy, 2003). However, their concerns were ignored, but the errors are occurring as a result of the same designs were fixed later when they were far more expensive with the engineering firm requesting the state to release more funds to enable the same to be corrected. This, according to the author, was a scheme by the involved parties to squander money from taxpayers at the expense of the project (Lewis & Murphy, 2003).
To further support this claim, the author gives another example of an overrun of $550 million which Bechtel Corporation claimed was used to fast-track the project which was scheduled to end by late 2007 to mid-2005, a claim which they brought up after the ballooning of the budget. Under normal circumstances, according to the author, such plans to fast-track the project would have been communicated earlier to the public rather than after issues were raised concerning the exaggerated budget (Lewis & Murphy, 2003).
Expert Analysis
The author seems to be right to the extent that he blames the problems of the project on poor management (Lewis & Murphy, 2003). One of the main components of managing a major project entails conducting informed research with regards to the project before embarking on it (Gido et al., 2018). However, the report reveals that Bechtel Company, which was the main engineering firm managing the project, failed to conduct crucial field surveys of the elevated Artery and to verify the locations of utility lines and buildings such as the Fleet Center (Lewis & Murphy, 2003). Instead, Bechtel relied on aerial photos taken in 1987 and 1988 and 1950s-era architectural drawings. Without such crucial information, it then means that work performed by the company was done without well-calculated risk which is blatantly negligent on the part of the company.
Due diligence also comprises a major proponent of efficiently managing a project (Gido et al., 2018). Further investigation reveals that the project began albeit that some of the designs relied on were incomplete whereas others were marred by errors. Some of the company’s engineers had tried raising the issue with the company concerning these designs, but their concerns were ignored. All this amounts to negligence on the part of the company. Lack of diligence is termed a display of an abhorrent of lack of judgmental character which is crucial for any project manager which shows they can make vital key decisions when required to which was not the case in this project (Gido et al., 2018).
A concrete communication strategy is very important in managing a major project more so where the project involves a number of parties such as the Big Dig Project (Gido et al., 2018). The communication strategy should be based on a well-articulated pyramid command system which runs from the project manager on top to the foreman at the ground level (Gido et al., 2018). This particular project contained five key segments with each segment being managed by a different contractor. The lack of the communication strategy is displayed by the fact that the investigating report revealed that the use of so many contractors made it hard to account for the types of materials used and assuring the same quality of work by each contractor.
In addition to all these, efficient project management requires adequate supervision. As earlier stated, a communication strategy with a well-established command system is core since it also helps in ensuring that there is adequate supervision (Gido et al., 2018). In the carrying out of the Big Dig Project, adequate supervision lacked, and this was as evidenced by the findings of Cashman Incorporation, the firm that took over the project from Bechtel, which revealed that there were major discrepancies between the designs formulated and the actual conditions workers confronted.
To the extent that the author seems to blame the project manager on certain overruns of the budget as part of the problem, blame cannot be fully placed in the project manager for this. Any expert in project management will attest to the fact that some projects usually have unforeseen financial expenses more, so projects are touching on unchartered technical territory such as the Big Dig project which was the first of its kind. As a result of this, certain costs cannot be taken into account prior to the beginning of the project (Gido et al., 2018).
Comparison with the US DoD approach in managing projects
In managing major projects, the US Department of Defense (DoD) uses an approach which is usually focused on added value and benefit realization. This approach is also commonly referred to as the extreme approach (Thomsett, 2012). If the Big Dig project had borrowed some aspects of this approach, there is the likelihood that the project would have been a little bit more successful. This approach usually involves project sponsors acting as the executive project managers. This, it had been adopted, would have helped cure the mismanagement of funds (Thomsett, 2012).
Past mega projects successfully completed having shown that project sponsors act as better managers since they are usually driven by a more motivating force in ensuring that the project is successfully completed. The powers granted by the state to Bechtel vide the contract technically gave the company authority to act as a virtual extension of the government whereas the common practice, same as the DoD approach, usually involves hiring specialists to oversee such projects (Thomsett, 2012). With authority given to it, Bechtel left nothing to chance in profiting itself, and as a result, the project was almost a flop.
The DoD approach also entails an integrated team structure whereby all stakeholders must closely work with each other (Thomsett, 2012). If the same had been adopted in the project, the errors done at the beginning of the project would have been avoided. These errors finally proved to be costly when they caused overruns in the budget running into millions of dollars. Some of the engineers of the company had raised issues with the company concerning errors in design, concerns which were overlooked and as a result, some of the structures collapsed. If the relevant stakeholders had worked in an integrated manner, this would not have happened (Thomsett, 2012).
Finally, the DoD approach adopts organic planning using micro plans (Thomsett, 2012). This ensures that all aspects of the project are carefully considered before being implemented. The engineering firm in this case study failed to conduct the basic planning prospects, and as a result, the project was wholly founded on suboptimal research. This was one of the main problems that the project was faced with (Thomsett, 2012).
Learning points
An in-depth analysis of the report gives a number of lessons with regards to successfully managing a major project. The main component of every project has a strategic plan which identifies the key milestones from which the success of the project can be measured. The plan should also entail a close liaison all relevant stakeholders in the bid to establishing the specific requirements and commonly agreed objectives (Burnett, 2012).
Communication is vital in the successful operation of a project. Lack of good communication in the Big Dig project resulted in some of the contractors performing under par which eventually proved to be costly. This communication should be made to all those who will be affected by the project or the outcome of it (Burnett, 2012). In the Big Dig project, the biggest beneficiaries of the project were the public at large and failure to communicate to the public that the project would be fast-tracked raised eyebrows due to the additional budget that would be incurred and of course failure to inform the public of the same.
Lastly, as a learning point, it has been shown that a successful project requires that adequate time is allocated to the project planning process (Burnett, 2012). One of the factors being linked to the failure of the project by Bechtel is that as late as at the beginning of the actual project process, some designs had not yet been presented and some which had been hastily drawn were filled with errors.
Conclusion
The project management process is a step-by-step process which requires diligent consideration of all steps so as to achieve a successful conclusion. Involvement of all key stakeholders in key decision making is also necessary and required so as to achieve favorable outcomes.
References
Burnett, K. (2012). The Project Management Paradigm . London: Springer London.
Gido, J., Clements, J. P., & Baker, R. (2018). Successful project management . Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.
Lewis, R., & Murphy, S. P. (2003). Artery errors cost more than $1b (pp. 10-16, Rep.). Boston, MA: The Boston Globe.
Thomsett, R. (2012). Radical project management . Upper Saddle River, N.J: Prentice Hall PTR.
