cause all quality benchmarks were identified and attended by establishing a code of business conduct; for human resource management a rating of 4-very good is given, as the dewatering procedure based on human resource was successfully undertaken by the construction contractor; for communication management a rating of 5-excellent is given because of strong communication among team members; for risk management a rating of 3-good is given, as technical risks were identified and analysed, and for integration management a rating of 3-good is given based on the evaluation of the project management overall (Anbari, 2006).
For procurement management US$12 million in funds were allocated by the Glasgow Science Center for the tower project. Due to receiving of funds in the account of Glasgow Science Center from different sources, it seems that arranging the funds could have been a cause of delay in the project completion. Some of the funding sources included sale of National Lottery tickets and budgetary distribution received from the European Union. The problems pertaining to procurement management emerged due to wrong timing of allocation of funds – at the time of the designing of the tower project without comprehending the overall total costs. It could have been a major blunder causing delay in the completion of the tower project. One can argue that at the initial phase total spending cannot be derived but designing part of the project is not the right platform to estimate its cost until detailed study on the required funds is made keeping in mind the rising expenses according to the project deadline for procurement purpose. So a rating of 1-very poor is given on this count (Anbari, 2006).
Major strengths for all project management areas other than procurement management lied in time management by tightening the loose ends of the construction schedule. Had there been a review of the funding after the designing to chalk out the cost, there would have emerged a point