Miller Park Project Management - Case Study Example

Project Management a. Using the NTCP model, how can you evaluate this project before it starts? Novelty: Platform Miller Park was planned to be constructed as a brand new 42,500-seater baseball stadium to replace the 40 years old, County Stadium in Milwaukee. Other factors were also taken into consideration, which clearly backed the need for a new stadium (thereby bringing the Miller Park under the Platform projects). That is, before the start of the project, a market research showed that Milwaukee needed a new baseball stadium to keep both major league baseball and Milwaukee Brewers in town, thereby preventing ‘financial exoduses’. The other reason why the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park (SWPB), the public body behind the construction, wanted a new stadium is because the local people would financially benefit in the form of job opportunities. So, apart from the obvious sports activities, the new Stadium was expected to bring in returns to various section of the population. Technology: Medium Tech Technology was incorporated into the project in the form of a convertible roof, which was constructed to provide a more comfortable environment for the players and the fans alike, irrespective of the weather. Actually in the pre-project phase, the original proposal was to construct an open air US$120 million medium budget stadium. But, as convertible roof was an emerging technology, it was decided to incorporate that feature, with the help of the needed (medium) technological resources. But the problem with that roof is, the technology used was not thoroughly tested. Complexity: Array The construction of Miller Park involved many stakeholders, ranging from financial backers to actual construction workers (thereby coming under the Array model). Because of the sizeable budget of the project, the ownership was divided bringing in more stakeholders. That is, SWPB District, being the proponent of the project, held major share of the ownership, followed by Millwaukee Brewers and naming rights holder Miller Brewing Company. This model can also be evaluated as a positive measure because being a public utility investment; the stadium will attract maximum coverage giving the investors favorable returns. But, the main problem in the case of Miller Park is, there was no proper plan on how to handle the cost overruns, including who should bear those cost overruns. Pace: Fast/Competitive The official groundbreaking for the new stadium took place in November 9, 1996, with the target to finish the construction by March 1, 2000, on the basis of Fast/Competitive model. Before the start of the project, the field construction was planned to be started in September or early October. But, due to schedule delays, the field construction work could be started in the winter months of December only. The cold winter brought in set of problems, which became a big drawback in the initial stages itself. So, when the initial work itself got delayed, the pace of the project dropped behind schedule, leading to a bad start. Thus, there was no clear plan to start the project on time, and thereby set the pace for its eventual conclusion. b. After project completion, what appears to be the right model (justify your opinion)? Novelty: Platform After project completion, one can confidently assume that by constructing the new stadium and thereby following the model of Platform, the authorities followed the right model. That is, the authorities planned to construct the stadium with the positive targets (to make Miller Park the home of MLB in Milwaukee and to financially equip the Milwaukee people), and one surely assume that they have achieved those targets. Technology: High Tech The main problem in Miller Park’s construction that was discussed in various quarters after the completion, is the faulty and technologically inferior roof construction, dubbed as "disturbing pattern of design errors" (Walker). So, as a right model, the authorities should have gone for a higher technology roof mechanism. That is, when originally installed roof malfunctioned, they should not have gone for lesser quality roof parts, and instead waited for the higher technology and superior quality product, even if it meant delay. Higher technology in the sense, all the mechanism involved in the opening of the roof should function seamlessly. And if they have installed it in Miller Park; they could have avoided the resultant problems, as well as the time and the finances that were wasted to correct those problems. Complexity: Array The model that was followed in selecting and involving the stakeholders were correct, but the way, their participation was governed should have been changed. That is, in the MOU that was signed all the aspects particularly on how to handle the cost overruns should have been included. So, the right model is, the Project Proposal team should have anticipated the possibility of cost overruns, and should have formulated and incorporated the best possible options in the MOU itself. This way all the uncertainties and the resultant problems could have been avoided. Pace: Time critical The project originally started off following the model fast/competitive, but when the accident involving the Crane happened in 1999, there was pause in work for months. This led to the project dropping behind the schedule, with quality and safety being compromised in order to reach the 2000 target. So, the right model should have been Time Critical from the beginning. That is, if that model was adopted, the work could have been undertaken in a faster way, even while incorporating safety measures. And when the accident occurred, it could have no bearing on the project, with construction process ahead of the schedule. 2. How would you evaluate the overall performance of this project (project manager’s work, method and response to problems…)? The end result or success or failures of any projects carried out by group of people will be maximally based on the performance of the leader or the Project Manager (PM). In the case of the Miller Project as well, the ‘half success’ and the ‘half failure’ of the project can be attributed to the performance of the PM. “Half Success and Half Failure” in the sense, even though the Miller Park was constructed completely, there was financial, safety and quality problems during the construction and also after the construction in the form of faulty roofs. The three main problems that plagued the construction of the stadium are the cost overruns, faulty roof and the crane accident. In each of these problems, the PM could have played a better role through better communication and by following stringent safety and quality measures. Communications is an important aspect in a large construction project such as the Miller Stadium project. That is, PM should have been communicating with the stakeholders on the cost overruns and the variances from the MOU, via schedule and cost control analysis. But, the PM in charge of the Miller Park did not focus on these aspects, causing the costs to escalate over the set budgets. Apart from this discrepancy, the PM can also be accused of not focusing effectively on the safety and quality aspects. The faulty roof was one of the results of the PM’s bad decision making. That is, as discussed before, the decision to go in for inferior technology roof parts to finish construction had larger repercussions in the future. Then, the most notable discrepancy of the PM is, his/hers inattention to the events that preceded the collapse of a 567-foot crane on 14 July 1999, killing three workers. For example, 10 weeks before the incident, the site safety coordinator quit both the project and his position, citing that he was given inadequate authority to carry out his safety responsibilities. But, the PM did not listen to him and also did not investigate the issues. PM should have taken precautionary steps during the extension of the crane, but he did not take it, compromising the safety of the employees. But, to the credit of the project manager, there were few accidents prior to the crane incident. Also, once the crane accident occurred, the project manager implemented greater safety standards. Importantly PM also made constructive efforts to rephase the project to minimize the possibility of losing workers to other jobs due to construction delays. So, the overall performance of the project manager was a mixed bag because even though the project was completed, with the PM contributing a lot, there were discrepancies. 3. List the main risks, using the risks severity matrix, rate them; propose contingency plan 1. Cost Overruns 2. Crane Accident 3. Performance of the Project Mangers 4. Failure to meet deadline 5. Lack of Quality Contingency Plan Every project, which is being implemented in some part of the world, will have risks inbuilt in them, even if the plan is made foolproof. To overcome these risks, contingency plan has to be put in place, to get quick and positive results. In the case of Miller Park, the risk of Cost Overruns could have been averted, if there is proper planning during the MOU stage itself. That is, if the Project Proposal team estimated the possibility of cost overruns, they could have had plans in place, on how to cut the cost escalation and even if there is escalation, who could have footed the extra costs. The Crane Accident that occurred in 1999 turned out to be a moderate risk, with the work coming to the standstill. This risk could have been averted, if the Project Manager put into place optimum safety standards. That is, they were certain discrepancies in the lead up to the accident and so as part of the contingency plan, the PM should have implemented necessary safety standards while handling all the risk filled things, used as part of construction. The under performance by PM also turned to be a moderate risk, as the whole project was based on the decisions and strategies of the PM. In the case of Miller Park, PM performance should have been monitored by higher authorities. The risk associated with the failure to meet deadline can be neutralized by speeding up the construction process, even without compromising the quality and the safety standards. Finally, the contingency plan to deal with the major risks associated with lack of Quality can be in the form of establishing quality management teams during the construction process. “Quality is about building reputation, performance and an attitude of winning in everything we do.” (Zafirovski). This could have easily averted the repercussions. So, all the risk associated with the project, whatever the severity may be, could have been averted, if there were contingency plans in place during the construction process itself. Reference Walker, D, Design flaws noted in Miller Park roof, viewed on June 3, 2008. http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=36057 Zafirovski, M, Quality and Customer Satisfaction, viewed on June 3, 2008 http://www.nortel.com/corporate/programs/gcvm/index.html Project Management 1.a. Evaluation pre project: Using the NTCP model Novelty - Platform The construction of Miller Park in Milwaukee was started in 1996 as a replacement to the 40 years old, County Stadium (thereby coming under the Platform model). Even though the main motive of the Project proposal team before the start of the project is to construct a new stadium for baseball, other financial and social issues actualized the project. That is, with the new stadium, the authorities planned to house Milwaukee Brewers as the home team, and thereby earn financial profits. Also, the new stadium was expected to bring job opportunities for the local population. So, the new Stadium was expected to benefit people from various walks of life. Although, the stadium followed the Platform model, the retractable roof being a unique mechanism comes under the Breakthrough model. Technology - Medium Tech The Miller Park project decided to install one of a kind convertible roof with the help of a slightly ‘under tested technology’. That is, before the start of the project, the Project proposal team decided to install this technology, to make the Miller Park an “all-weather” stadium. The technology helps to open the roof radially and importantly helps to shield the crowd and the batters from the sun, as well as to keep them during winters. But, the assumption before the start of the project is, the technology used in the roof cannot ‘weather’ the needs of the stadium. Complexity - Array The Miller Park project being a public utility project had many stakeholders. So, there was Array of participants, when the paper entered the inception stage. That is, before the start of the project, the Wisconsin Legislature created the Southeast Wisconsin Professional Baseball Park (SWPB), giving it, the authority to issue revenue bonds and impose local sales tax to provide the public funding for the new stadium. SWPB District held 64% of the ownership of the completed stadium, while Millwaukee Brewers, the single largest private player, intended to own 36% of the park. As a Third player, the Miller Brewing Company gave the Millwaukee Brewers close to $41 million for the naming rights of the new stadium, hence the name, Miller Park. Further, to construct the park, the Miller Park Joint Venture entity selected three building contractors: Hunzinger Construction Company, Clark Construction and Hunt Construction. So, to construct the stadium, all the optimal stakeholders were included. Pace - Fast/Competitive The foundation for the new stadium was laid in November1996, with the intention to complete the construction in 2000. This target oriented planning process comes under the Fast/Competitive model, but the project did not have the best of starts, to reach the target deadline. With the winter hampering the project initiation, even before the start of the project, the pace of the construction did not come under the Fast/Competitive model. So, with the initial plan being delayed and pace slackened, the project went behind schedule, with the stadium being constructed one year after the set deadline. b. After project completion, what appears to be the right model (justify your opinion)? Novelty - Platform When the initial targets or the purposes of the project were analyzed after it was completed, it was clear that the new stadium followed the Platform model aptly. That is, the constructed stadium became the home of MLB in Milwaukee, gave many job opportunities and importantly was a clear advancement over the old stadium. But, regarding the roof and the Breakthrough model, it is clear that it was not the right model, firstly, because it took seven to eight months to get the roof parts. And when the roof folded in half and needed to be replaced, there was no time to wait another seven to eight months for a replacement, leading to the purchase of a roof with lesser quality. So, the right model could have been to wait till the quality roof parts are sourced, as it would have resulted in long term benefits. Technology - High Tech As mentioned above, preferring a below quality and technologically inferior roof lead to host of problems. “Just a few years into its existence, Miller Parks retractable roof suffered several problems with its drive system" (Motion System Design). So, the right model, the Project team could have adopted is to wait for quality roof parts. If that model was adopted, the reputation and the performance of the Miller Park roof could have been optimum, leading to the prevention of current problems like uneven shadows cast by the roof, leakages during rain, noise in the pivot, etc Complexity - Array Even though involving quite a good number of able stakeholders is a correct model, non-definition of their roles in MOU appears to be the fault in that model. The problems in this Array model of management arose, when there were cost overruns and this problem was accentuated even more with the lack of plans in the MOU to counter these escalations. So, the right model should have had a proper plan regarding the sources of income and importantly a plan to handle the cost overruns. That is, the SWPB, Milwaukee Brewers and Miller Trading should have prepared and signed a most favorable MOU, taking care of these issues. Then during the construction stage, the construction companies particularly the PM should have played a strategic role to reduce the cost escalation. Pace - Time critical After the project got off to a delayed start in the winter months of 1996, the pace again nosedived with a major accident involving the Crane, killing more than 3 persons. So, when the construction got suspended in the succeeding months after the accident, the model of Fast/competitive became unfeasible, with the already delayed project, delayed further. Thus, the right model that could have increased the pace of the project is the Time Critical model. If the time critical model was followed, it would have allowed for tightened controls required to meet the deadline 2. How would you evaluate the overall performance of this project (project manager’s work, method and response to problems…)? Any organized human activity, which is done in-group, will be most times constituted into an organization. Organizations of modern times are structures, where a ‘collage’ of employees will do their allocated work, under the management of a leader or manager. So, the success or failure of an organization or any other organized human activity depends on the role, the leader or manager plays. In the case of the Miller Park Project also, the role of Project manager were prominent. But, when his overall performance was analyzed, it was clear that he did not perform up to the expected levels in certain aspects, even though the stadium was fully completed. The PM under performed in the financial aspects as well as in safety and quality aspects. Even though, the Project Manager is not directly and fully responsible for the financial problems particularly cost overruns, they were responsible for other problems. That is, the main project manager was from one of the construction firms, coming into the scene only at the construction stage. So, as he was not part of the group which formulated the MOU particularly the financial aspects, the PM did not have a preset plan to counter it. But, he/she could have taken secondary measures to downsize the cost overruns as much as possible. Then, the PM’s performance regarding their ability to communicate with all the stakeholders also came under scrutiny. That is, the PM is only duty bound to communicate sufficiently with each stakeholder to make them aware of the status of the project, and when their financial contribution is required This way, they can focus on the loopholes, where the funds are ‘leaking’ and thereby control it. But, the performance of the PM in the Miller Park Stadium Project in this aspect was also not up to the expected levels. Then regarding the quality aspect, the PM could have gone for quality products for its convertible roofs, instead of the quick delivery inferior parts. Then, when various shortcomings related to the Crane accident was revealed, it became clear that PM underperformed there also. That is, two weeks prior to the accident, the crane had been extended from 467 ft (142 m) to 567 ft (173 m) without any additional ballast added to offset the additional boom, but the PM, even though being in charge of all these activities, did not take the relevant steps . Even though, the PM was indirectly involved in the Crane accident, he picked up the pieces and brought in immediate safety measures to prevent the incident from reoccurring. Also, they relocated the workers to other section of the construction and thereby bolstered their morale, leading to the eventual completion of the project in 2001, a year later than originally planned. So, the performance of the Project manager was not up to the mark, even though the project was completed. 3. List the main risks related to the project, and, using the risks severity matrix, rate them and propose a contingency plan. 1. Shortfall in Quality 2. Escalation in the total budget 3. Crane Accident and deaths 4. Project Mangers and their discrepancies 5. Not able to follow the set Deadline Contingency Plan The Miller Park Project had various risks during all the important phases. These risks could have been managed, if correct contingency plans were implemented, when it was needed. The first risk became evident, when the authorities focused on buying low quality roofs, instead of high technology roofs, thereby fully compromising the important aspect of quality. Quality is the key for any organization or activity because any process completed, without the expected quality will be abhorred by the intended customers, leading to problems for the organization. So, Quality Management is the management function, which should have been incorporated as part of contingency plans in all the processes that happened in during construction. Also, separate quality management team should have been formed, to regularly and thoroughly check the construction process, including the products used. When it comes to the risks associated with the cost escalation, a contingency plan should have been put it place in the beginning stage itself, when the financial budget is formulated and funds are allocated. This way the cost escalation can be countered with the influx of extra funds, as specified in the budget. The risks and the resultant deaths that happened because of the Crane could have been averted, if a contingency plan focusing on the safety precautions, while handling high risk equipment, is spelled out to the workers. That is, if the safety standards are spelled out, the workers could have been prepared for any worst case scenario. The discrepancies of the Project managers and the resultant risks could have been neutralized if the PM is made accountable for all their actions, with a guiding authority to oversee them. Finally, if the deadlines are not followed, the risks could be manifold, with risks creeping in from various quarters. So, as part of contingency plans, the factors that delay the project should be removed and importantly if a worker or a team of workers completes their work within the set deadline, they should be rewarded with incentives, promotions, etc. The organizations can achieve their goals and intended profits by consistently linking rewards and punishments to the activities of the candidate. (HRM guide). From this analysis, it is clear that Miller Park Stadium Project had some Moderate and Minor inbuilt risks from the beginning. But, these risks are solvable by implementing a slew of Contingency plans. Works Cited HRM Guide, Developing yourself, viewed on June 4 2008. http://www.hrmguide.co.uk/hrm/chap11/ch11-links4.htm Motion System Design, Raising the roof at Miller Park, viewed on June 4 2008 http://motionsystemdesign.com/mag/raising_roof_miller/ Read More