Abstract
This report reviews the Edinburgh Tram project. The review compares the game theory with the project management approach used by the stakeholders. Each stakeholder used the “Chicken Game” to influence on the project. As a result, the report shows that politics influenced the project’s completion period. The effect of politics increased the negotiating strength of contractor (BBS) during the project, which caused unnecessary delays and increased expenditure.
Edinburg Tram System
The Edinburg Tram project was introduced in 2001 as a construction proposal. The proposal scheduled three transport routes in Edinburg. After much bureaucratic protocol in the House of Commons, the Edinburgh Tram system was approved in 2006. The project objective was to construct a three-phase line to eliminate traffic congestion in Edinburgh. The client approved a 5-year timeline for the completion of the project.
As a result, the project deliverables were awarded to competent builders and construction agents. The contract marked the climax struggle and political manoeuvers. The proposed routes were shortened to a one-way transport that likened Newhaven and Edinburgh. As a result, the construction project divided between three giant construction companies. Bifinger Berger Consortium handled the engineering section while Siemens managed the electrical design.
Consequently, CAF provided the transport cars for the tram station. The hitches encountered prior and during the work delayed the completion and launching of the transport service. The challenges of the board members affected the project management. As a result, stakeholders held different views on the benefits of the project. Consequently, the project description affected the implementation process. Most contracts expired before the project deadline because of the conflicting remarks.
An analysis of the project management
The paper will analyze the challenges, management, monitoring phases, risk management, and lessons of the tramway project. The project approval committee established two phases of the Edinburgh tramway. The first terminal was to link Newhaven to Andrews Square. However, 15 stopovers would be created within the linkage. Consequently, the second phase would link the Edinburgh tramways at the country’s airport.
However, both faces create different challenges for the government, management, and site agents. Traffic disruption, ground conditions, technical hitches, and bridge constructions affected the progress of the Edinburgh project. In summary, the challenges of the Edinburgh project were logistical, technical, and political. As a result, the project team manager challenged the competence and efficiency of the lead site agent.
The reason for the conflict was unspecified, however, the effects of the dispute affected the project timeline. As a result, the government considered the revocation of BBS licence for the project. The purpose of the mega project includes traffic decongestant, safe transportation, social benefits, control, environmental impact, economic growth, and accessibility. The project had two financiers and two sponsors. Consequently, Bilfingeer Berger Siemens was the principal contractor for the project.
Overall approaches
The project specification was recommended as a solution to traffic decongestant in Edinburgh. Thus, the specific objective of the project was to ease transport and decongestion. As a result, car ownership in Edinburgh reduced by 30 percent. The cost of transport in the densely populated city influenced the project recommendation and approval. Consequently, the city expansion created pressure for bus transportation and railways. The council of state, conservatives, and labour party influences the approval of the Edinburgh Tramway.
As a result, the CEC awarded various contracts to its business arm. Thus, the TIE monitored and evaluated the project management initiative. The stakeholders for the Edinburgh project include System Device Services, Multi Utilities Diversion Framework, Infrastructure and Maintenance Contract and Vehicle Supply and Maintenance. As a result, the contract stakeholders managed specific job description. Brinkerhoff handled the System Device Service, while McAlpine handled Multi Utilities Diversion Framework contract. A Spanish organisation, CAF managed Tram’s Infrastructure and Maintenance contract.
Risk management
The risk management for the Edinburgh project utilised different variables to analyse the management processes. The management process includes risk register, assessment report, environmental management plan, environmental impact assessment, financial risk assessment, and implementation plan. Risk management plan describes the integration of various project processes to ensure sustainability.
The components of the risk management plan include identification, planning, observation, recognition, and qualitative analysis. As a result, the Edinburgh utilised the qualitative risk analysis of risk management. Unreasonable planning and benefits characterised the risk analysis of the project. As a result, the cost of one tram vehicle surpassed the cost of 12 transport buses. Thus, the project was destined to fail from the beginning. Consequently, the benefits of the project will not account for the project cost.
Project organisation
The project organisation of Edinburgh tramway describes the project deliverables, responsibilities and planning. As a result, the Edinburgh organisational plan comprised of board members, stakeholders, project deliverables and project processes. Thus, the project processes describe the responsibility of stakeholders to ensure completion. Project process for the Edinburgh Tramways includes risk management team, human resource team, procurement team, integration management team, scope, cost management team, quality management team, and the communication process.
Project Maturity
The capability of the Edinburg project determined the project maturity process. As a result, project maturity determines the timeline of the Edinburgh tramway. Project maturity matrix includes service strategy, service design, operation, and transition. The service strategy includes catalog management, capacity management, information technology, supplier management, and availability management.
Service transition management includes change management, transition, release, deployment, service asset, configuration, and service validation process. Thus, the maturity model guides the component of the project maturity matrix. Consequently, service operation, service improvement, and maturity model influences the project timeline.
Monitoring and reporting process
The monitoring and reporting process of project facilitate the completion time. As a result, the monitoring process is a strategic tool for project management. However, the operational process controls the implementation process of the project. The Edinburgh project utilised three operations tool in monitoring the project timeline. The tools include project work plans, an individual work plan, and the plan of operation. An official statement that enumerates the limitations, goals, and achievement of the project is called report.
As a result, the reporting document assesses the project management, facilitates capital funding, and sustains the implementation process. Consequently, the monitoring and reporting process identifies the project deliverables, risk profile, and events. Thus, the integration of these components will facilitate the project development. The challenges of the Edinburgh tramway exposed the weakness of the monitoring team. As a result, the project was terminated for unspecified reasons. The project processes influence the monitoring and reporting timeline. The initial work started in 2007 by the MUDFA management.
However, the project phase was delayed to accommodate the conflict resolution team. Consequently, the huge amount approved for the project lost its values with inflation. The monitoring team could not access the major hindrance after weeks of evaluation. This challenge affected the implementation of the project timeline. A major challenge of the Edinburgh project was the polarized influence that characterised its approval. Thus, various sections of the community believed that the project would not benefit the society.
Project closeout processes
Project Evaluation and Auditing
The Edinburgh Tram Network project was evaluated and audited based on the completion time of the different stakeholders. The project was divided into four major phases and the activities in each phase were delegated to different stakeholders. Stakeholders’ successful completion of these stages within the deadline was the yardstick used to evaluate their performance. This evaluation method exerts pressure on TIE, the contractor responsible for ensuring the preliminary phase of the project. The inability of TIE to complete its tasks within its deadline gave room for BBS to influence the decisions during the entire project.
Project Termination
The completion process for the project spanned from 2013 to 2014. The completion process was relatively smooth, but it was interrupted by a controversy involving the funding of concessionary travel by all citizens of Scotland. This dispute was eventually resolved and Edinburgh Council was delegated with all payments for Scottish cardholders, provided the cards were issued in Edinburgh. The project construction phase of the project was completed in the last quarter of 2013 and testing ran from November 2013 to March 2014. The tramway was launched on May 31 2014 (“City chiefs to get Leith prepared for Tram line” par. 3).
Problems faced
During its implementation, several factors exposed the Edinburgh Tram project to some problems. One of the major problems causing factors was the observation of formal changes. In 2010, BBS claimed that majority of the change notifications were withdrawn (Henderson par. 2). TIE may have benefited from the first claim; however, BBS went on to benefit from the majority of the subsequent claims. TIE became suspicious of the dispute resolution procedures and considered suing the project managers. BBS’ claims became so high that they surpassed the construction aspects if the INFRACO project.
Time overrun is another significant factor that affected the smooth running of the project. INFARCO’s delayed project completion, which was comparatively higher than other contractors, was caused by the efforts of the Scottish Government to terminate the project in 2007 (Millet 38). The delays were responsible for the postponement of the completion dates for 2012 and 2014 by TIE and BBS respectively, which delayed the initial proposed completion date by five years. The negative effect of time overrun on the completion of the project was significant because it delayed the commencement of BBS’ tasks by three years.
The stoppage was another significant factor that affected by the efficient deployment of the Edinburgh Tram Systems project. CEC claimed that BBS was unwilling to continue any part of the project without fully resolving all issues rather than allowing the despite management procedures to run concurrently with the project. BSS’ decision to discontinue all project works is attributed to a perceived lack of confidence in dispute resolution panel.
CEC’s representative blamed BBS of using this strategy initially, when BBS received a late approval for an increase of £12-£15 million for higher steel costs. This claim reduced after the CEC formally complained (Aitken par. 4). CEC and TIE made efforts to suspend BBS from the INFRACO project due to the dissatisfaction they had experienced, and replace BBS with Siemens. The controversial BBS threatened to sue the companies and INFRACO for a breach if their contract was untimely terminated.
INFRACO’s reaction to the issues contributed to some problems. INFRACO failed to consider the influences of its actions and the needs of its stakeholders in the overall success of the project. Its failure to communicate effectively with all stakeholders made the stakeholders to become suspicious of the intentions and actions of INFRACO.
This made major stakeholders, such as CEC and TIE, become less motivated to accomplish their project goals influenced the successful implementation and timely completion of the project. INFRACO’s inhabit to manage risks and pay attention to planning, monitoring, and controlling the project affected the efficient implantation, and timely accomplishment of the project.
Analysis of the project management of this project against theory
The implementation strategy of the Edinburgh Tram System project, and the influence of applying this strategy, contributes to the understanding of a significant theory of project management. The management of the project is related to the game theory for strategic decision-making. The manifestation of the game theory is notable in the stalemate between two stakeholders involved in the project, BBS and TIE.
BBS and TIE’s argument are comparable to Game Theory’s ‘Chicken’ game (Osborne and Rubenstein 19) because the two stakeholders argue with each other without making efforts and success both depend on the opponent’s failure. The game theory that manifested between a BBS and TIE spanned from the commencement of the project to 2010. The illustration below (Fig. 1) represents the disagreement between the two stakeholders.
One of the characteristics of the game theory applied by the two stakeholders is that it does not present an absolute strategic stability solution. A stakeholder must create a mixed approach to sustain the opponent’s suspense. The Chicken Game theory applied by the two stakeholders caused the project to span a long period. The situation would have been avoided if one of the stakeholders (TIE) realised that the other stakeholders (BBS) were willing to go the length in playing the Chicken Game. BSS held firm to its position and was eventually granted over 90% of its requested compensation.
Conclusions
This report presented an overview of the Edinburgh Tram project. The analysis indicated the effect of the game theory of the project management strategy applied by the stakeholders involved in the project. The stakeholders used the “Chicken game” as a project management method. The stakeholders believe that they possessed the strongest bargaining strength to influence the choice of this game theory. The delays in the Edinburgh Tram project shows of how a major project may become more complicated if it is influenced by politics. The contractor (BBS) obviously misused all apparent communication connections between the major stakeholders.
Recommendations
Problems may emerge from all projects however, the proof from the Edinburgh Tram project shows how a contractor (BBS in this case) may use public sentiments to cause delays and make claims. It is difficult to approve and implement projects of such capacity without politicisation them. Project politicisation is popular in Scotland and this is obvious from the issues that emerged during the Scottish Parliament construction. The success of implementing major projects in Scotland is better achievable if the projects are not politicised. The government must make deliberate efforts to avoid politicising projects in the country. This will reduce the number of delays and unnecessary disputes that are popular amongst public projects.
Works Cited
Aitken, Emmanuel, 2009, Tram brinkmanship is not a new ploy, Web.
City chiefs to get Leith prepared for tram line. Web.
Henderson, Daniel, 2010, Trams running two years late and £100m over budget, Web.
Millet, Chris. “Carillion hits delay on £500m Edinburgh Tram works.” Contracts Journal, 8.2 (2009): 33-59. Print.
Osborne, Michael and A. Rubenstein. A course in game theory, Boston: MIT press, 1994. Print.