The Scots Parliament is a symbol for the UK democracy which is characterised by its fantastic architectural facade. The edifice won several local and international awards for its alone facade such as the Civic Trust award in 29 March 2006. The Secretary of State for Scotland announced, on 9 January 1998, that Holyrood would be the lasting place for the new Scottish Parliament edifice ( Mccallum & A ; Wakefield, 2003 ) . The grounds behind the choice of Holyrood as Donald Dewar identified in January 1998 are its metropolis Centre location and its historical links ( White and Sidhu, 2005 ) .
Despite these facts, the Parliament is besides considered as an illustration of a failed undertaking in UK. For any undertaking, failure is the inability to run into the undertaking bringing marks which are set at the beginning merely ; clip, cost and quality. In this instance – the Parliament project- although more than the pre-set quality was achieved the undertaking was overly delayed ( 3 old ages tardily ) and over budget ( ?391M over budget ) . There are several grounds behind the undertaking failure and different parties contributed by a manner or another to make to this state of affairs. This study explores and analysis the grounds behind the Holyrood undertaking failure. It explores the relationship between these grounds and the function of the undertaking direction. It besides identifies the strategic actions that could be taken to increase the opportunity for a successful bringing. Finally, a decision is set which identifies the cardinal lessons that any undertaking direction can larn from the experience of this undertaking.
Is the design appropriate for the initial budget?
A figure of contentions and unfavorable judgment was thrown to the undertaking of building the new Scottish Parliament Building. To get down with, utilizing the populace ‘s money in order to make the said undertaking already sparked contentions. Furthermore, as clip passed by, the cost of the undertaking increased dramatically. In fact, the cost increased about 10 times its original estimated cost of ?10 to ?40 million in July 1997. By the terminal of the undertaking, it was determined that the concluding cost of building the edifice about reached ?430 million.
The initial figure of ?10 to ?40 million is merely based on the construction that would house the Members of the Scots Parliament. The cost projections did non take into consideration other facets of the undertaking like the design or location of the edifice. ( Fraser, 2004 )
A twelvemonth after, upon happening the winning design for the new edifice, the cost projection was adjusted to conform to the design Drew by Miralles. At that clip, the revised cost was ?50 to ?55 million ( Fraser, 2004 ) . This figure was derived by sing the usage of 16 thousand square pess of land in Holyrood or Leith, Haymarket. It assumed that the land is already cleared and ready for usage. Furthermore, value added revenue enhancements and other costs attributable to the procurance of the land were non considered. In June 1999, Donald Dewar made further accommodations to the estimated cost of the undertaking in order to give commissariats for other costs like consultancy fees, destruction costs, value added revenue enhancements, cost of geting the site, and other commissariats for hazards and unanticipated events. After doing the accommodations, the estimated cost reached ?109 million. Further alteration to the cost projections drove it much higher up to ?195 million in April 2000 ( Fraser, 2004 )
Finally, in November of 2001, the official cost of the undertaking is made known to the populace. It reached ?241 million after sing major alterations. The design and the infinite needed for the undertaking were changed. Furthermore, the undertaking was pressured by rescheduling the completion of the undertaking earlier to May 2003. In consequence therefore, assorted troubles were encountered. This gave led to more additions in the cost of the undertaking. The undertaking directors told the Scottish Parliament ‘s Finance Committee that the alterations made in the design and agenda made the costs even higher. At that clip, the official cost of the undertaking was ?241 million.
The design development is the development of the design throughout the undertaking. Design development might include little parts of the design such as functional facets ( Gray and Larson, 2008 ) . In this undertaking it included architectural, structural and edifice service issues. This caused breaks to the trade contractors and clip extensions were guaranteed. An illustration of the design development is the anteroom roof. In 2001 the design of this portion was wholly changed from the original design and in early 2004 it was once more wholly changed ( Auditor General, 2004 ) .
The design growing had affected both the charge and the program plan. Around 10,000 alterations had been approved by the undertaking direction throughout the life of the undertaking with a entire cost of ?68 million ( Audit General, 2004 ) . The briefed gross country on which the ?50 million budget had originally been based had increased from the initial 17,500 to 23,000 metres squared in the latest design proposals. This addition was to suit big Numberss of staff in the visible radiation of better cognition of the manner the Parliament would run. Furthermore, the demand to integrate an extra formal entryway to the edifice had been recognized and imposed extra infinite demands and therefore costs ( White and Sidhu, 2005 ) .
“ Delaies result in extension of undertaking clip, which leads to extra operating expenses that increase the cost ” ( Faridi & A ; El-Sayegh, 2006, p.1167 ) . In this undertaking the hold in building and clip extensions given to the trade contractors was besides a important factor for cost addition. Time extension besides led to widening the design services and the building director contract. The sum due to the building hold amounted ?73 million ( Audit General, 2004 ) .
“ No building undertaking is risk free. Hazards can be managed, minimized, shred, transferred or accepted. It can non be ignored ” ( Latham, as cited in Hackett, 2007, p.47 ) . The selected building direction procurance mob was associated with many hazards. These hazards were non identified by the undertaking direction and no allowance for suiting them was included on the undertaking budget. It is good known that hazards should be taken by the best parties to pull off them. Although, the client of this undertaking has no experience on building industry and it is non the best party to pull off these hazards by choosing this procurance path it accepted all the hazards. It seems that the building direction was selected for securing this undertaking for one ground merely which is rushing up the building procedure to run into the specified mark completion dated without any consideration to the hazards associated with such path. It seems that the client was informed tardily of the hazards and their effects on the undertaking. This is an undue defect from the undertaking direction which prevented the client to take its duty to recognize and pull off the hazards every bit much as it can.
By utilizing the building direction procurance for the undertaking, the client held direct contracts with the trade contractors for single work bundles. The manner in fact these bundles were procured contributed to the cost addition of the undertaking. Most of these bundles were tendered without sufficient design information for commands readying. This made the bidders reluctant to take part due to the high uncertainness. The client found itself with few bidders and higher monetary values than estimated. Some of the bundles were tendered as two-stage tendering which means the bidder submits its offer based on the available design information and subsequently in the 2nd phase the offer will be revised based on the extra information. But unluckily, due to the design complexness and the slow design information production the information available were besides non plenty which led to high monetary values and small opportunity for dialogue. The haste in presenting these stamps was to run into unattainable mark completion day of the month.
In most instances, building direction is inappropriate for building undertakings in the public sector peculiarly for those are really complex. In a undertaking with a complex and esteemed features viz. Scots Permanent undertaking, important changes are extremely expected. Under the building direction attack the altering orders are more likely to go on. This due to the deficiency of equal relationship between design squad and contractors, which in bend consequences in bring forthing designs that the contractor is non able to build ( billability job ) . At the same clip, the client entirely bears the full duties for those alterations
Before choosing the procurance path, the undertaking direction could measure the path exactly taking in consideration the complexness of the design and the client experience. The undertaking direction could for illustration evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of such a path from past executed undertakings delivered by the same manner. The hazards could be managed by implementing a good scheme which includes hazard designation, hazard appraisal, hazard response development and hazard response control. Project direction could research other options such as design and physique and direction catching which besides could rush up the building procedure and took away the hazards from the client ‘s side. PFI procurement path was politically discarded because it would non accomplish the mark completion day of the month.
To reason, there were many factors that have led to the hold and cost overproduction in Scots parliament undertaking. Nevertheless the most important ground is ( I ) the battle in contracts before the elaborate design and accurate specifications were completed, which resulted in uninterrupted design changes after the start of building stage. Another of import factors are ( two ) the choice of building direction procurance despite the deficit of building expertness and experiences of the PM squad, ( three ) unrealistic and really tight undertaking program, consequently some work was out of sequence and non productive, and this added to the holds, and in conclusion but non least ( four ) the hold in supplying the drawings of the changes to contractors. The really extended hold and cost overproduction should hold been much minimised if several actions have been taken, peculiarly the following strategic actions ; ( I ) set uping a procurance that does non lie all the hazards on client side, and at the same clip could present the undertaking within the extraordinary quality ( dainty catching or PFI seems the most appropriate ) , ( two ) disbursement equal clip at the planning phase in order come out with a really clear and dependable planning and appraisal, ( three ) naming PM squad that is extremely qualified and capable of commanding complex undertakings expeditiously and efficaciously, and ( four ) placing a clear functions for the undertaking parties and individual point of leading and control.