Background

Discuss about the Risk Analysis and Mitigation Project.

Boston Big Dig Project was one of the learning projects based on which various learnings can be gained and practiced in the present and future project as a learning. The project was highlighted globally because of complexity, technical challenges, and other factors those lead the project delivery delayed by almost 8 years with the enhancement of budget from 2 million to 15 billion that was more than the seven times estimations (Shenhar and Holzmann 2017). The estimated budget of the project was $ 2 billion during the estimation and planning phase and the project was closed at $ 15 billion.

The project was initiated in the 1984 and was expected to be delivered by 1998 however; due to uncountable uncertainties, the project was delivered successfully in 2007. With the passage of the time, many complications and challenges were faced for the successful accomplishment of the project (Flybjerg 2017). The major factor for the escalation in the budget and schedule that was reported was the failure in the identification of the underground surfaces, mitigation costs, and enhancement in the scope of the project. The estimated time was six years however; the project was delivered in fourteen years that was way away from the estimation and hence, the project cannot be expected to be delivered within the scope.

The project was initiated considering the intention of reducing the flow of the traffic by the Boston’s city through depressing portion of the I-93 highway other than construction of the harbor tunnel (Pinto 214). The sense behind this project was to introduce a new gateway towards the city in addition with the improvement in the infrastructure through establishing new civic spaces and adding parks.

Many difficulties were faced during the development of the project that includes the following:

Cost escalation: due to failure in the identification of the past constructions, under surface conditions, design and construction, schedule enhancement, reconstructions, politics, delayed integrated project management, improper communication with the stakeholders and many more (scheduInvernizzin et al. 2017).

Schedule escalation: same elements had been resulted in the enhancement of the schedule of the project including the improper planning and underestimating many factors. It should be made sure that every stakeholder attends the meeting and everyone put his or her perspective and thoughts related to the project execution for the effective and efficient execution of the communication related to the aspects of the project.

Lack in management skills was another major factor that leads the project to be delayed so much and escalated the cost (Verwij 2015). Complex processes, and resources displacement was another major lagging factor for the delivery of the project.

Common People: the citizens of Boston and the America were the key stakeholders in manner to utilize the services being offered to them related to the delivery of the project.

Project Manager: Project manager would be responsible for the management of the project constraints and due to the vast size of the project; there were project t managers who were handling the growth and development of the project.

Challenges faced during the project development

Suppliers: The resources are the most crucial factor for the development of any project and suppliers are the key stakeholders responsible for managing the resources (Flvberg and Budzier 2018).

Government: The funds, budget, and allowance of the construction was the responsibility of the government.

Contractors: Contractors are responsible for managing the labors and accomplishment of the activities under their sections.

The above mentioned risks can be eliminated through following steps and procedures:

Risk identification: this is the first phase of the risk management strategy that emphasizes on the identification of the risks those might affect the overall growth and development of the project through affecting the project constraints (Pinto and Winch 2016). It includes the consideration of every phase involved in the project development ensuring the identification of the actions and sections those might affect the project development or any one phase of the project.

Risk Prioritization: Prioritizing the risk is the second major phase for the listing of the risks those need higher concentration than others as these risks are capable of influencing the project at the maximum level (Cole 2017).

Risk handling: Risk handling is another major factor that includes the management of the risks that whether risks needs to be eliminated, mitigated, transferred or ignored. There are many course of actions and identification of the proper action is the crucial part for the successful execution of this phase (Winch 2017).

Monitoring and controlling: This phase should concern the project at the same level as the changes needs to be applied accordingly in the project and proper evaluation should be done in manner to identify whether the imposed strategy is capable of minimizing the impact of the risk or not (Kerzner and Kerzner 2017).

Following are the techniques and processes those are capable of eliminating the risks from the project:

Proper communication: This strategy can be utilized for the effective and efficient growth and development of the project considering that every involved stakeholder is well aware of the constraints of the project including the scope, objective and aims for delivering the project. Regular meeting can be held, video conferencing can be arranged of some stakeholders cannot attend the meeting physically, questionnaires, surveys, and many more are some of the techniques for communicating with every stakeholder.

Proper Planning: the planning was made poorly in the condition of the case study as it lags in identifying the age of the buildings, pipes, and conditions of the underground surface those can be considered as the vital factor for such a big loss. Planning includes the consideration of every aspect of the project and that is what the project managers fail in the case of the Boston Big Dig (Winch 2017). Planning should also focus on the estimation of the risks those are capable of affecting the project. Leaving behind the aspects of the project during the planning phase results in the biggest risk for the project during the execution as identified in the case study and hence, all the corners should be evaluated while planning the project.  

Key stakeholders involved in the project

Estimation of Every Aspect: As explained earlier underestimating the aspects of the project results in the evolvement of the risks and those risks could affect the project severely and hence, will be affecting the overall growth of the project (Shenhar and Holzmann 2017). It includes the consideration of the causes and their relative causes on other phase and being prepared to tackle them in future without any hesitation. Being prepared for the future consequences is better strategy for the mitigation of the identified risks and uncertainties resulting in the effective and efficient delivery of the project with high quality. It also emphasize on the estimation of the risk impact on the project and if the mitigation strategy is not capable of eliminating the risks to the extent level, risk handling should be executed again in an efficient and effective manner.

Stakeholder identification: It includes engaging the stakeholders as per their capability and assigning them proper role and responsibilities throughout the whole project. It will be helpful in making sure that the individual performance is being increased and thus, resulting in the enhancement of the overall growth of the project with high standard. Stakeholder identification also emphasizes on the selection of the stakeholders capable of delivering objectives and responsibilities being assigned to them (Flyvberj 2017). It assures the efficiency of the project as every individual would be contributing his or her part and hence, the whole project will be delivered in an efficient and effective manner.

Proper managerial and leadership: this was another major factor for the failure of the Boston Big Dig project as the experienced managerial and leadership can be experienced considering the slow growth and large investment on the project. Manager should must be experienced and the project manager including the tough decisions those are capable of managing the scope and delivery of the project should do better decision-making (Pinto 2014). A proper leadership quality is the most crucial key for the delivery of the successful project ensuring that the project is being delivered in an efficient and effective manner.

Monitoring and Controlling the Project: Regular audit and monitoring helps in managing and manipulating the activities and schedule of the project sub activities in manner to make sure that the ultimate delivery is within the estimated time and cost. It focuses on identifying whether the milestones are being delivered within the expected schedule or not and if not additional resource or human power can be adjusted within the project for the delivery of the project within the estimated time and budget (Dimitriou et al. 2017). This was one of the lagging factor in the Boston big dig project, which resulted in the many drawbacks including the escalation of the budget and the cost.

Guidance from an experience player: Experienced managers who have handled similar types of project can be communicated for the guidance and acquiring their learning for the enhancement in the performance and output of the project. It results in gathering their knowledge that can be helpful in identifying the opportunities among the risks and utilize them within the project for enhancing the quality of the project. The above risk matrix can be prepared from the experienced player, it is one of the tool for prioritizing the risks, and the risks identified in the red section are capable if influencing the project in negative manner and stopping the growth and development of the project.

References

Boateng, P., Chen, Z. and Ogunlana, S.O., 2015. An Analytical Network Process model for risks prioritisation in megaprojects. International Journal of Project Management, 33(8), pp.1795-1811.

Cole, C., 2017. Project Management Evolution to Improve Economic Success of Infrastructure Projects. In Proceedings of the International Conference Theory and Applications in the Knowledge Economy (pp. 483-497).

Davies, A., Dodgson, M., Gann, D. and MacAulay, S., 2017. Five rules for managing large, complex projects. MIT Sloan Management Review, 59(1), p.73.

Dimitriou, H.T., Ward, E.J. and Wright, P.G., 2016. 3 Megaprojects and mega risks: Lessons for decision-makers of large-scale transport projects. Socioeconomic Evaluation of Megaprojects: Dealing with Uncertainties, p.44.

Dimitriou, H.T., Ward, E.J. and Wright, P.G., 2016. Megaprojects and mega risks: lessons for decision-makers of large-scale transport projects: OMEGA Centre lessons derived from European, US and Asia-Pacific case studies. In Socioeconomic Evaluation of Megaprojects (pp. 62-79). Routledge.

Eriksson, T. and Kadefors, A., 2017. Organisational design and development in a large rail tunnel project—Influence of heuristics and mantras. International Journal of Project Management, 35(3), pp.492-503.

Flyvbjerg, B. and Budzier, A., 2018. Report for the Edinburgh Tram Inquiry.

Flyvbjerg, B., 2014. What you should know about megaprojects and why: An overview. Project management journal, 45(2), pp.6-19.

Flyvbjerg, B., 2017. Introduction: The iron law of megaproject management.

Invernizzi, D.C., Locatelli, G. and Brookes, N.J., 2017. Managing social challenges in the nuclear decommissioning industry: A responsible approach towards better performance. International Journal of Project Management, 35(7), pp.1350-1364.

Pinto, J.K. and Winch, G., 2016. The unsettling of “settled science:” The past and future of the management of projects. International Journal of Project Management, 34(2), pp.237-245.

Pinto, J.K., 2014. Project management, governance, and the normalization of deviance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(3), pp.376-387.

Rolstadås, A., Tommelein, I., Morten Schiefloe, P. and Ballard, G., 2014. Understanding project success through analysis of project management approach. International journal of managing projects in business, 7(4), pp.638-660.

Shenhar, A. and Holzmann, V., 2017. The Three Secrets of Megaproject Success: Clear Strategic Vision, Total Alignment, and Adapting to Complexity. Project Management Journal, 48(6), pp.29-46.

Verweij, S., 2015. Once the shovel hits the ground: Evaluating the management of complex implementation processes of public-private partnership infrastructure projects with qualitative comparative analysis.

Winch, G., 2017. Megaproject Stakeholder Management. The Oxford Handbook of Mega-project Management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, pp.339-361.