Introduction
This critiquing project risk process paper focuses on considering the vital strategic considerations regarding the Scottish Parliament Building. This building is of critical importance as it symbolizes democratic power in the country and serves as a meeting place for the government. It is very different from the generally accepted buildings in which the government of other countries sits, which gives it uniqueness.
The Scottish Parliament Building was built in 2014, which also characterizes it as one of the most modern (“About the Scottish Parliament,” n.d.). However, despite this characteristic and uniqueness, the Scottish Parliament Building meets criticism regarding cost, design, and construction. The lack of full-fledged risk appetite assessment, risk, and project management during construction can cause significant undesirable problems. Therefore, this paper aims to critique the project risk process failures of the Scottish Parliament Building project.
First, paying more detailed attention to what The Scottish Parliament Building is is necessary. Apart from the fact that it serves as the main building where the Parliament of the country works, it is located in Holyrood, “within the UNESCO World Heritage Site in central Edinburgh” (“Modern building of the Scottish Parliament,” n.d., para. 1).
The first drawings and the process of creating the building began in 1999. In 2004, Queen Elizabeth led the official launching of the Parliament Building (Sim, 2022). The principal architect who managed all the project development and procedures was Enric Miralles (Gilabert Sanz et al., 2022). The main building of the Scottish Parliament represents new architectural trends that blend the culture and nature of the country through its design.
Project Environment
Despite its beauty and novelty, the Scottish Parliament Building was met with a large wave of criticism. Dissatisfaction was expressed in the direction of the design, cost, and the place it was chosen to build it. Therefore, when carrying out this project, it is necessary to consider such an essential component as the environment and a critical assessment of the location of the Parliament Building using SWOT analysis.
Before starting the project, the Scottish Office studied several places that may fit the idea of the future Parliament. St. Andrew’s House, Victoria Quay at Leith docks, and the Haymarket were some of the leaders in this process. However, by 1999, the former Scottish and Newcastle brewery had vacated the Holyrood site, which was the choice of the creators of the future Parliament Building (“The Scottish Parliament,” n.d.).
During the competition, Catalan architect Enric Miralles was chosen as the architect. Thus, one of his designs was chosen after the vote, and it began to be built together with EMBT Ltd (). Its official website states, “The new Scottish Parliament drops literally into the hillside terrain, the lowest part of Arthur’s Seat, and appears to sprout from the living stone” (“Scottish Parliament building,” n.d., para. 3). Thus, great importance was given to the environment when bringing the project to life.
When assessing risks and project management, it is necessary to conduct a SWOT analysis. It is necessary to understand strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (Benzaghta et al., 2021; Minsky & Aron, 2021). Among the strengths of the architectural project environment, it is necessary to highlight the historical importance and the central location of the Holyrood site in Edinburgh.
On the other hand, the weak reason for choosing the location was quality control issues with the building, including leaks and structural problems, which required costly repairs and renovations. It follows from this fact that one of the threats to the construction of the Scottish Parliament is the risks associated with the structure and its deterioration due to natural conditions. However, the possibilities represent using it as a tourist destination due to its advantageous historical location to support the local economy.
Key Risks
Analyzing the construction process of the Scottish Parliament Building contributed to the identification of several key risks. Research stated that “construction industry requires more attention to some types of risks than others, so it’s important to be thorough in the planning stages to minimize risks to the project” (“What is risk management?” 2023, para. 11).
As part of this procedure, it is necessary to use the risk management process and critically analyze the situation to gain an understanding of what actions can help solve the problem (Siraj & Fayek, 2019). This process is a study of information related to the development process of the Parliament building project, resources and expenses, and issues and delays that occurred during the implementation of the project.
Despite the modernity and complexity of the building, it caused significant problems during construction, which led to delays and high costs. Architects had to change it during construction, which could lead to the omission of some shortcomings or errors. In 2014, it was reported that “the repair bill for the building has now topped an average of £141,000 per month” (Macleod, 2023, para. 11).
The subsequent risk is the possibility of requiring many costs. This is because the building is in a rather dangerous location, the natural conditions of which can harm the materials and the entire building structure. In addition, the risks from the financial side are due to the initial small budget, which could lead to the fact that some aspects of the construction were done poorly. This was also facilitated by the constant change in the project cost, which began at £50 million and stopped at £414 million (Macnab, 2019). This risk is also reflected in limited resources for construction, both material and workers. Because of this, there were significant delays in the construction process.
Project Planning and Implementation
When conducting a critical risk assessment within the framework of this work, it is worth paying attention to the process of planning and implementing the project under study. It is necessary to understand how the project was managed in risk cases and how it was limited. Henceforth, based on the previous information, it can be concluded that the Scottish Parliament Building project was not managed effectively regarding the occurrence or prevention of risk. This is because, during the construction work, the architect and developers faced constant additional expenses, which led to an increase in the budget to £414 million. Moreover, this activity transformation was reflected in many delays, which negatively affected risk management. It shows that risks such as the environment, resources, and costs have not been sufficiently evaluated and further treated.
Further, the construction project of the new Scottish Parliament Building was not managed effectively in terms of project management. This problem concerns the definition of the design of the future meeting place of the government and the qualification requirements for the candidates that will bring to life the architect’s idea. Initially, issues arose because it was necessary to build a new building as quickly as possible, which significantly compressed the time for the implementers of the idea.
Because of this, fewer resources may have been spent on the search and purchase of high-quality materials, which in the future may negatively affect the condition of the building. In addition, the unique and very complex design proposed by the architect required more financial and temporary investment, which the Scottish government was not ready for. This circumstance also negatively affected the speed and quality of project execution and showed failures in risk management.
Conclusion
In conclusion, implementing any project requires careful planning and consideration of such a critical part as risk assessment. It allows one to avoid many problems and achieve the most favorable results. In the case of construction, the Scottish Parliament Building project failed to manage risk productively, resulting in significant additional costs, delays, and loss of quality. Therefore, the project’s initial cost increased from £50 million to £414 million; the construction site suffered multiple delays due to lack of resources and did not assess the construction site well enough relative to the long-term perspective. Consequently, these aspects exposed the project to severe risks of inefficiency and process failures.
References
About the Scottish Parliament. (n.d.). The Scottish Parliament. Web.
Benzaghta, M. A., Elwalda, A., Mousa, M. M., Erkan, I., & Rahman, M. (2021). SWOT analysis applications: An integrative literature review. Journal of Global Business Insights, 6(1), 55-73. Web.
Gilabert Sanz, S., Giménez Mateu, L., & Serra Lluch, J. (2022). Enric Miralles. Revista de EGA, 27(46).
Macleod, C. (2023). Scottish Parliament building: 20 years since. Cobble tales. Web.
Macnab, S. (2019). Scottish Parliament at 20: £414m, endless recrimination, and finally, an iconic building. The Scotsman. Web.
Minsky, L., & Aron, D. (2021). Are you doing the SWOT analysis backwards. Harvard Business Review, 1-6. Web.
Modern building of the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, within the UNESCO World Heritage Site in central Edinburgh. (n.d.). Dreamsite. Web.
Scottish Parliament building. (n.d.). Benedetta Tagliabue – EMBT. Web.
Sim, P. (2022). The Queen and the Scottish Parliament. BBC News. Web.
Siraj, N. B., & Fayek, A. R. (2019). Risk identification and common risks in construction: Literature review and content analysis. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 145(9). Web.
The Scottish Parliament. (n.d.). Visit Scotland. Web.
What is risk management in the construction industry? (2023). Indeed. Web.