Introduction
Failed projects can offer critical lessons for best practices in project management. The Edinburgh Tram project was troubled for many years, so the initial objectives were not achieved. Even though most of the problems emanated from an unfavorable political climate, the project managers also played a critical role in handling the project. This report focuses on presenting real-life recommendations to help resolve problems and lead to a successful outcome for the Edinburgh tram project. The key areas emphasized in this report include forecasts, budgets, schedules, deviations from plans, project management practices, organization structure, key stakeholders, and administrative performance and planning.
Forecasts, Budgets, and Schedules
Forecasts, budgets, and schedules can dictate project progress from an early stage. These elements appear during the initial planning stages, including the business case presentation. The Edinburgh Tram project was large and complex, meaning that forecasts and budgets depended on numerous variables. Therefore, deviations from the master plan become inevitable. The case can be said of scheduling since multiple large and small tasks must be accounted for to the last detail. In this case, the CEC’s methods and techniques to forecast, budget, and schedule the project are unclear.
A key recommendation that would resolve the Edinburgh Tram project’s forecasting, scheduling, and budgeting problems is the work breakdown structure (WBS). The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) defines WBS as a hierarchical decomposition of projects to create the necessary deliverables (Jati & Latief, 2020). WBS would allow the project team to break down the entire project into individual tasks and allocate time and resources for each. Based on these calculations, project forecasts can also be derived from the time estimates for individual tasks.
Deviations from the Original Plan
Large and complex projects are often marred by uncertainties that often force a deviation from the original plan. The Master Project Plan in Table 44.1 of the Project Management Plan published by TIE indicates the original plan. In this case, the sectional opening of Scheme Operational 1a to passenger services was expected in December 2010. Route 1b was projected to commence in June 2011, but the actual completion date is not indicated, meaning the plan did not work.
An important aspect to consider is that even the proposals kept changing, often in terms of truncating originally planned routes and destinations. The finalized 2006 plan differed significantly from the original 2001 plans for Lines 1 and 3, proving that problems with the project deliverables started during the planning phase (Erdal, 2021). Besides project deliverables, the budgets also changed significantly from the original plans. For example, the project had exceeded the original 2008 £521 million by 2009. By June 2010, the CEC had already spent £600 million, and the project was far from completion (Erdal, 2021). Therefore, it is evident that the failures during the planning phase had trickled down to other project stages.
Arguably, few things went according to plan for the Edinburgh Tram project, highlighting the need for effective contingency planning. In project management, contingency planning involves developing a defined and actionable plan that can be implemented if identified risks become a reality. CEC was aware that such projects have often failed to materialize due to political opposition, including a preceding proposal in 1999 that was rejected (Erdal, 2021).
Large infrastructural projects were often politically polarizing, meaning that CEC should have identified the political risk and developed a contingency. Most importantly, the contingency plan should have emphasized the funding strategy in case the Scottish National Party came to power and implemented its plan to cut funding for the proposed project. This recommendation is based on the assumption that most disruptions that caused the deviation resulted from political problems.
Project Management Practices
Project management practices involve planning, organization, and resource management to enhance the performance and efficiency of a project. The Edinburgh Tram project was the brainchild of the CEC, but the management was allocated to TIE, CEC’s arms-length business firm (Lowe, 2010). Many project management practices were flawed from the beginning, especially regarding contracts. For instance, hurriedly signed contracts revealed such problems as paragraphs ending mid-sentence or disagreements with contractors regarding work costs (Marshall, 2022).
As a recommendation, several project management practices should have been conducted better, including communication, feedback, transparency, documentation, and setting realistic milestones. Communication between stakeholders should have allowed the CEC to develop a project with realistic milestones based on the political climate. Issues of transparency and documentation, especially regarding contracts, should have eliminated most of the disputes between TIE and contractors. Having an ‘arms-length’ contractor can prove challenging, especially when the project goals and objectives are not properly communicated. The flaws in project management practices indicated a disconnect between the CEC and TIE, which also meant that the CEC did not have sufficient operational control over contractors hired by TIE.
Administrative Performance and Planning
The administrative performance and planning of the Edinburgh Tram project can be described as a failure. Both CEC and TIE failed to display effective project administration and planning. While CEC allocated project management to TIE, its involvement in the planning stages is evident in the development of project proposals. The numerous changes in the project deliverables, including truncating Lines 1 and 3 planned routes, indicate poor planning. This problem could be resolved through the contingency planning recommended earlier.
TIE was the project manager, meaning the firm was responsible for assigning project deliverables to qualified contractors. The contracting process remains unclear, but the performance levels indicate that either the contractors were incompetent or the project scope was unclear. In this case, TIE should have displayed better administrative performance elements, including stakeholder engagement, to clarify project objectives and gather stakeholder support.
Relevance of Organizational Structure
The project’s organizational structure showed insignificant relevance to the Edinburgh Tram project. The rationale is that the project managers only had management or oversight roles while contractors undertook the actual work. The contractors can be regarded as firms outside the organizational structure. However, it is important to acknowledge that the organizational structure enabled the project manager to liaise with the contractors regarding the various project deliverables. The core functions and support roles did not directly contribute to the project execution.
Team Composition, Processes, and Procedures
The team composition proves irrelevant since contractors handled the entire project after the project plan was developed and funded. TIE played major oversight roles in ensuring contractors delivered on the project objectives. Processes and procedures are also difficult to discern because the major process undertaken by the project team was contracting the different project areas. However, the broader project process began with the project proposal by the CEC, followed by a parliamentary review for funding (Lowe, 2010). Processes and procedures involving actual work were at the individual contractors’ discretion as long as they complied with TIE’s governance requirements. A more active role by TIE in project implementation is recommended since it would eliminate many disagreements between TIE and contractors, especially disputes with BBS.
Key Stakeholders
Considering the political problems the Edinburgh Tram project faced, it can be argued that its biggest failure was stakeholder management. As a public work involving construction in a busy city, the project’s success and failure depended on the degree to which all stakeholders could agree. In this case, the key stakeholders included the CEC as the ultimate project owner, TIE as the project team or project manager, the contractors, the Scottish government represented by the Parliament and political parties, the general public, and premises owners and businesses along the project routes. The public may have different opinions regarding the project, including fears that resources would be diverted from other, more important areas (CEC, 2019).
Effective stakeholder management entails identifying and classifying stakeholder needs to ensure all interests are represented. While CEC should have handled the government and the public, TIE should have managed contractors and premise or business owners better. Rampant complaints and resistance from various stakeholders could have been eliminated, and the project could have delivered on its original objectives and milestones.
Conclusion
Multiple recommendations can be made based on the lessons learned from the successes and failures of the Edinburgh Tram project. In essence, the failures can be traced back to the planning stage, where ineffective project management practices failed to shape the project scope and deliverables effectively. Therefore, it can be recommended that WBS, contingency plans, project management best practices, and effective stakeholder management should be emphasized while managing projects the size and complexity of the Edinburgh Tram. With these recommendations, forecasts, schedules, and budgets could have been managed better to reduce deviations from the original plan. Lastly, stakeholder management practices should have boosted project success by ensuring support across the entire stakeholder spectrum.
References
CEC. (2019). Edinburgh Tram: Full business case for the tram completion project. City of Edinburgh Council.
Erdal, I. (2021). “Hell on wheels”: The miserable history of the Edinburgh Trams project, 2001 to the present. Retrospect Journal. Web.
Jati, D., & Latief, Y. (2020). Development of risk-based standardized Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) to improve time performance on high-speed railway construction project. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 930, 1-9. Web.
Lowe, J. (2010). Edinburgh Trams: A case study of a complex project. In C. Egbu, Procs 26th annual ARCOM conference (pp. 1289-1298). Association of Researchers in Construction Management.
Marshall, C. (2022). Hell on Wheels: How the Edinburgh tram project got back on track. Holyrood. Web.