Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Page 1
Page 1
CONTENTS
PAGE
1.
Content
2.
Introduction
3.
4.
5.
6.
8,9
7.
Conclusion
10
8.
11
9.
Bibliography
12
Page 2
4,5
Page 2
2. INTRODUCTION
Many government initiated massive constructions of public building projects have failed over past many years.
For example, projects such as British Library, the Scottish Parliament, the Channel Tunnel and the New
Wembley Stadium were highly criticized for its cost over-run and huge delay in final handing over which
resulted in unfulfilled project objectives the stakeholders expectation. Form the lessons learnt from the failed
projects, application of project management techniques could have been successful to deliver the projects on
time and within the budget. Even thought for the last 50 years, there have been lot of research and development
(R&D) on the subject of Project Management to improve the performance of the construction industry together
with the collective construction industry experience gained over years, the projects failure continues.
The new Scottish Parliament Building project is an example. The project failed in terms of cost, time and
stakeholders expectation however the finished project achieved a high quality criteria and the project on
completion in 2004 was welcomed by the millions of Scottish and visitors. The project cost approximately 414
million against the initial cost of 40 when it was completed in August 2004 that is 42 months later than original
completion date.
There were many reasons inflicted to the cost overrun of the Scottish Parliament Building Project. First of all,
none except one of the shortlisted architect adhered to the proposed budget and brief and all others failed and the
one who adhered was not awarded the Project. Initially the cost estimates were prepared for an incomplete
2
design. During the course of the project, the architect added another 4,000 m to the initial scope of work which
increased the cost. Therefore the original budget of 40 million was not realistic for the original scope at that
time and that cannot be compared with the final project cost. The increased scope, the complexity of the design
consumed a lot of time and the project delayed. Project Cost and Project Delays are always come together,
This
report
analyses
the main
reasons
Parliament
Building
failure. And
Recommending an alternative method of procurement method that may have been considered. Section 2 outlines
overview of the project. The following two sections detail the numerous delays occurred in the project from
inception to completion and associated cost overrun due to additional design development and prolongation.
Section 5 and 6 describes the project management roles and strategic project management techniques that could
have been adopted to have delivered the project with a success. The last sections brief about the lessons learnt
from the project failure following a conclusion at the end
Page 3
Page 3
July 1997 with gross area 20,740 m . Final cost of the project was 431 million and completed in August
2004
after 42 months delay. Total trade contracts awarded were 58 numbers.
: June 1999
Completion Date
Page 4
Page 4
Main Buildings
MSP Building
Queensberry House
Tower 1 and 2
Tower 3 and 4
Canongate Tower
Debating chamber
Lightwell/Public stair
Key Project Team
Client
Project Architects
Construction Manager
Service Engineers
: EMJM
Page 5
Page 5
The client requirement for additional net usable area of 4,000 m in August 1999 required an extended design
period. This caused the Architect to issue almost 2,000 design changes and also for the original incomplete
design. The Architect was also facing a pressure in progressing against unrealistic target dates assigned by the
Client.
Effective communication in construction project is very important skill required for a delivery of projects on
schedule. This was not the case in the Scottish Parliament Building. The both Project Architects, EMBT from
Spain and RMJM from Scotland from two different cultures and working from their own locations added
problems in communication to resolve the issues arising at the Holyrood Site. The problem became much more
when the Client changed from the Scottish Office to Scottish Parliamentary Corporate Body (SPCB) in 1 June
1999 and introduction of Presiding Officer and Architectural Advisor.
Another major reason was the selection of construction management as a procurement route. This was
considered as unusual in the Scottish Construction Industry. None of the advantages and disadvantages was
reviewed by the Client before adopting it to deliver this complicated project. The following are some of the
disadvantages of Construction Management that contributed to the schedule delay;
Since there is no main contractor present, the client must carry all the risk of the activities of almost 60
individual trade contractors deployed at site at a peak time thus delaying or disrupting each others
activities.
The construction management primarily doing a coordination roles between trade contractors, the Client
and the Architects and never assume risks other than his negligence and again he put the risk on the
client.
The Client was responsible for design coordination and bears the risk of delays and disruption caused by
the trade contractors.
It was not possible to conclude the final project cost until the last work package was awarded.
The political interventions time to time throughout the project put pressure on the Architects and
other trade contractors delaying the project even worse.
Date
Date
Jul 1997
40 50
Mar 2002
266
Apr 1998
50
Oct 2002
294
Jun 1999
109
Jan 2003
323
Apr 2000
195
Jun 2003
375
Aug 2000
209
Sep 2003
401
Nov 2001
241
Aug 2004
414
A project success is always linked to time, cost, quality, scope and risk parameters. As discussed above the
Scottish Parliament failed in terms of Time and Cost. The project cost increased by more than 350 million
and delayed by 42 months due to failure of managing the scope and risk. But the quality was achieved.
Selection of construction management procurement route without a proper understanding of the risks involved
was adversely affected the complete construction process later on since all the risks were transferred to the
Client. This is a procurement management failure of project management roles.
Construction Management was not suitable for the project since it does not take full responsibility of huge risks
involved, complexity of the project and managements of tens of subcontractors. The overall role was just a
management and coordination only. The more the Construction Manager stay in the project, the more he earned
his fees. And also Bovis was rejected and excluded in the shortlist but appointed later for the Construction
Management role with political influence.
It was clear that key stakeholders such as Members of the Scottish Parliament, Scottish Executive civil servants
and Scottish Parliament official were not involved in procurement selection, and approval of revise budget and
scope changes. This affected the lack of monitoring and controlling of the complete construction process
Communication management was failed due to lack communication between the key players such as
Project Architects EMBT and RMRJ. The Lead Architect was working outside the country where the
project was located.
Value Engineering (VE) exercise is a process during any stage of a projects design development cycle that gives
all stakeholders the opportunity to be involved in the decision-making process and seeks to achieve the essential
functions of a project at the lowest total cost, consistent with required levels of performance and quality. It
constitutes an examination of all relevant options for the design and construction of the project, leading to a
refinement of the design brief and identification of any budget constraints. The VE exercise carried out in the
Scottish Parliament Building project suggested many recommendations that could have saved at least 25
million but it was failed because of successive new design variations
7 . CONCLUTION
The above report examined the most likely reasons for the failure of Scottish Parliament Building
Project in terms of time and cost even though it was successful in quality issues. Anyway the project
was criticised by many people and it was a real failure. Political intervention, not clear design brief,
multi-headed
appointment of project team, lack of clarity in project objectives at the initial stage are some many reasons
discussed.
The project management techniques could have been exercised to have completed the project on time and
within the budget. With the proper procurement route suitable to allocate the risks involved in such
complex project, assigning the roles and responsibilities to the right project team, preparing a realistic
project budget, defined leadership and communication skills would have been adopted.
9. BIBILIOGRAPHY
1. Fraser of Carmyllie Q.C., Rt Hon Lord (2004) The Holyrood Inquiry, Scottish Parliament
Body, September
2. Auditor General (2004) Management of the Holyrood building project: prepared for the Auditor
General for Scotland: Audit Scotland, June
3. Auditor General (2000) The new Scottish Parliament Building: An examination of the
management of the Holyrood project, Audit Scotland, September
4. Morris, P. W. G. Research at Oxford into the preconditions of success and failure in major
projects. Proc. Project Management Institute Seminars/Symp. On Measuring Success,
Montreal, 1986, Project Management Institute, Drexel Hill, PA, 1986.
5. William G. Ramroth, JR., AIA. (2007) Planning for Disaster, How Natural and Manmade
Disasters Shape the Built Environment,
6. Morris , P W G. The Management of Projects, Thomas Telford Ltd. 1994, ISBN: 0 7277 1693 X
7. http://www.building.co.uk/buildings/architecture-news/scottish-parliamentthe-true- story/1011961.article (last accessed on 20 March 2011)
8. Major Project Association (MPA, 2003), www.majorprojects.org