Project Management - Burj Khalifa vs The Shard PDF

Preview

Summary

An assignment comparing the management of two construction projects (Burj Khalifa and The Shard). This includes methdological approaches and project management techniques/structures. This also analyses the various components within a project such as time, cost, and quality. A best practice approach ...

Description

Anonymous Project Planning and Management – BUS9041M Word count: 3261/3,000 (+/- 10%)

Table of contents

Pages 1

1.0. Abstract 2.0. Introduction to The Shard and Burj Khalifa 3.0. Project Management Structure 3.1. Methodology 4.0. Quality 4.1. Plan Quality Management of The Shard and Burj Khalifa 4.2. Performance Quality Assurance 4.3. Control Quality 5.0. Cost 5.1. Cost Estimation 5.2. Cost budgeting and control 5.3. Cost escalation 6.0. Time 6.1. Time Planning and Estimation 6.2. Time Control and Scheduling 7.0. Best Practice 8.0. References

3 3 4 6 6 7 8 8 9 9 11 11 12 12 14 15 16

1.0. Abstract

2

The purpose of this report is to analyse and compare two projects from a single reference class. The two selected are construction-based skyscraper projects. One is based in London known as ‘The Shard’, the other centralises in Dubai and is named ‘Burj Khalifa’. This report will examine the project management structure and methodologies used. In addition, project management areas of time, cost and quality will be analysed and compared against project management frameworks such as PMBOK and PMI. Notable project features will be highlighted to determine its overall effect on final project production. 2.0. Introduction to The Shard and Burj Khalifa Projects have identified starting and closing points with activities implemented inbetween. The Project Management Institute (PMI) identifies five processes of projects as illustrated in figure 1. This base guideline shows what is required of projects within each stage level. This report will primarily analyse the process of planning, execution and control, of cost, time and quality of the two selected projects.

The two selected projects are skyscrapers. The Shard is the tallest building in the United Kingdom at 1,016ft and consists of 95 floors (Press Association, 2012). The Burj Khalifa located in Dubai holds seven world records, most notably tallest building 3

in the world standing at 2,723ft with a total of 163 floors. (Burj Khalifa, 2016a). Both skyscrapers are seen in figure 2.

3.0. Project Management Structure As illustrated in figures 3 and 4. A multi-organisational matrix structure was used to manage both projects. Burj Khalifa and The Shard are large-scaled projects with substantial amounts of contractors and suppliers. Burj Khalifa have a balanced matrix structure where functional and project managers are hired for their expertise and have equal influence over the project. The Shard adopts a weaker matrix as the project manager coordinates the entire project but reports back to the functional manager as they have more power over the operations (Sneha, 2013). A matrix structure helps to manage large projects. Despite potential complexity this method highlights key work objectives increasing work morale as employees have a collective goal. The share efficient use of resources across the project generates less expense in comparison to other project structures e.g. pure project management. However, monitoring and controlling can be a disadvantage due to complex information flow and slow reactions (Stuckenbruck, 1979). .

3.1. Methodology Burj Khalifa and The Shard adopted a waterfall methodology. Due to project complexity, this approach breaks stages down and requirements are defined early on. For example, Burj Khalifa used wind and structural engineering to create base prototypes to test its functionality against wind. The prototype was modified numerous times before construction. They continue this method for the next iterative cycle (Huang, 2016). During the 3-day cycle-approach (mentioned in time planning) Burj Khalifa used the SCRUM method as no more than 30 days were needed to design, test and construct the next floor (Sliger, 2011). 4.0. Quality The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBoK) implies that the quality of a product or deliverable intends to be fit for purpose. Quality can contain multiple criteria’s including the overall performance, the reliability and safety of the project, the handling of logistical support and minimising damaging environmental impacts. Utilising one quality does not maximise overall excellence of a product. In summary, project managers should balance and fulfil all criteria to achieve optimal quality. (Nicholas and Steyn, 2012, 329).

5

4.1. Plan Quality Management of The Shard and Burj Khalifa As depicted in figure 5 there are three quality management procedures, this framework is crucial to both projects. The Shard required the settlement of mixedoccupancies including retail stores, offices, hotels, apartments, restaurants and a gallery (The Shard, 2015). The standard was to ensure that all aspects of the building is of highest quality. After the 9/11 terrorist attack, the specification was to improve overall stability and reduce evacuation time (Watson, 2012). The Burj Khalifa’s quality planning method included the identification of their suppliers and contractors, method of construction, the utilisation of logistics, resources, and training required. To efficiently optimise logistics, stock yards on site are in three locations to give easier access to all workers (Prasad, 2016, 12). To improve the overall quality of the project, management had planned three phases to maximise safety and performance as shown in figure 6.

The identified quality activities for The Shard was the removal of buildings on site e.g. Southwark Towers, to minimise settlement effects during demolition and construction, utilising logistics efficiently to bring resources and workers to the top, and reducing the disruption to nearby environment (Parker, 2012). Burj Khalifa aimed to enhance overall stability and functionality of the tower. They identified the quality activities needed to uphold impact caused by wind and utilising the practicality of elevators and water systems (Belleza, 2010). 6

4.2. Performance Quality Assurance The Shard maintained quality assurance throughout the project. Southwark Towers was gradually removed at a rate of one floor per week to minimise the disruption caused by dust and noise. Remaining materials were recycled but only 30 out of 1,100 lorries were taken daily to prevent congestion (Watson, 2012). The Shard had approximately over 12,000 workers on site which is challenging for logistics, work allocation and timing requirements (Raconteur, 2013, 15). However, specific companies such as Aggregate Industries would deliver on weekends to deliver goods sooner (Aggregate Industries, 2017). The top-down construction method created the basement first allowing easier access and improved logistics during early development stages (Bryne Bros, 2017). The Shard used a physical approach to optimise quality assurance whereas the Burj Khalifa used software’s to perform this function. To prevent problems and mistakes from occurring. The management for Burj Khalifa used project quality plan and inspection test plans with the incorporation of checklists to optimise quality objectives. A project management information system was used to construct daily activities allowing real time updates and information access everywhere. These resources assisted in performing quality activities (Prasad, 2016, 11). 4.3. Control Quality To maximise quality, an initial dry-run of the process was carried out to identify potential risks, allowing rectifications and final adjustments to the design prior to the final assembling of The Shard (Parker, 2012). Contractor Mace hired Fugro to maintain quality control through their engineering and meteorological services. For example, Fugro used penetrating radar (GPR) to detect voids behind walls, to assist in removing residual moisture and to target areas needing treatment. Above ground, Fugro analysed suitable positions prior to coring. They document and forecast the weather days ahead to ensure safety working conditions for workers, and to effectively operate activities (Fugro, 2017). Burj Khalifa had a more rigorous approach to quality control. At 823 metres tall, the skyscraper is subjected to stability issues caused from wind. A wind tunnel programme was implemented to determine pressures of wind and its aeroelasticity

7

(Baker et al, 2008, 5) thus developers of Burj Khalifa structured the building with a YShape with the use of wings to balance out the weight (Prasad, 2016, 10). The building used 330,000m3 of concrete which is essential to the overall structure of the building, thus control was crucial. The mix of five concrete materials of various parameters were tested before the process of pumping began. This reduced practical issues such as blockage when construction began. Monthly strength experiments were conducted on raw concrete resources and reported back to management. As the building grew taller, concrete with higher strength levels (C50, C60, C80) were used to construct vertical structures and horizonal members (Prasad, 2016, 16). An icar rheometer was used to test whether these concretes contain rheological properties as this could cause viscosity (Alfred, 2010, 68-69). Quality can be difficult to manage. Burj Khalifa had height issues but had the environmental space to carry out construction and logistical manoeuvres. Whereas The Shard has been recognised as one of the toughest project management ventures due to its height of 306 metres and its location on London Bridge Station. Due to confined working environments, the project had more challenges to carry out to successfully deliver a well-controlled project of excellent quality. 5.0. Cost The cost of a project is crucial and consists of three principles; estimation, budgeting and control. These elements are used to provide estimations for the entire process and displays the feasibility of the project (Nicholas and Steyn, 2012, 314-315) 5.1. Cost Estimation Cost estimation is a realistic assessment of total costs used from the start until the end of the project. The initial cost estimation for the Burj Khalifa was $876 million (Vasan, 2005). Towards the end of the project the cost came to the total of $1.5 billion (Telegraph, 2016). The estimation cost for the construction of The Shard was £350 million, within a year this increased to a grand total of £435 million (The Richest, 2012). The scope creep for both projects will be explained in cost escalation. No previous construction within both regions are of similar scale and both projects had been in planning for years thus analogous estimation and the top-down 8

approach was not used within the cost estimation process. Parametric estimation technique may have been used for defined elements such as cost per square (£60 to 85 per square feet for The Shard (Jefford, 2015)), property prices, current labour wages, and transportation costs. These are subjected to change on a yearly basis therefore a detailed estimation approach would provide more accuracy. The Turner team leaders used their previous experience from Taipei 101 to breakdown the work packages for Burj Khalifa giving them a better judgement and execution of project costs (World Economic Forum, 2017, 44). Common types of reoccurring direct and indirect expenses in cost estimation includes; labour, materials, equipment, services, software’s, hardware’s, facilities and contingency costs. Due to the lack of information on the estimation for these categories certain presumptions are made. Based upon figure 5 direct labour expenses can be estimated with maximum wages. For example, Burj Khalifa used 12,000 workers per day (figure 7)

The monthly salary of labourers in Dubai is 500-1,500 Dirham (approximately the equivalent of £122.30-£305.74 (Google, 2017)). Based upon maximum wage, labour would approximately cost £3,669,600 per month and within six years this would be £220,176,000. The Shard in comparison is difficult to calculate due wages for various ages but the figures of working labourers on site indicates that labour costs would be drastically lower. It is to highlight that labour expenses negatively influenced the Burj

9

Khalifa project, the low wages caused strikes in which halted work on the tower (refer to time management for more information). Due to 2,500 workers rioting the project suffered a damage of £500,000 (Whitaker, 2006). 5.2. Cost Budgeting and Control Cost budgeting includes setting fixed budgets, controlling those costs and allocating costs to project activities or work packages (Georgas and Vallance, 1986). Mace, the main contractor of The Shard intended to use £350million but costs spiralled above £400million therefore budgets required renegotiation. For example, budgeting was set for the six main work packages. The costs for demolition/groundworks, piling and cladding are unknown. The concrete package came to a total of £45million which is 20% more than initially estimated. Mechanical and electricals came to a total of 88 million and were going to be reworked on (Rogers, 2008). The figures are unknown, but Mace continued the project at a fixed-price with private funding from Qatar (JCT, 2016). The lack of information available in relation to cost budgeting and control causes difficulty in the analysis of Burj Khalifa. A presumption can be made that Burj Khalifa’s handling of these costs was not handled sufficiently as they did not reduce business expense. As previously mentioned Burj Khalifa was estimated for $876 million but the total came to $1.5 billion. 5.3. Cost Escalation Both projects are of large scale. This increases the difficulty of defining the project accurately meaning the chances of actual costs exceeding from initial estimates is significant higher. This is known as cost escalation (Nicholas and Steyn, 2012, 282). Economic factors caused cost escalation for both projects. For example, the financial crisis in 2008 increased the prices of raw materials and commodities including iron and cement (Christian, 2009, 1-6). The demand for these materials were high which halted the production of steel making as iron ore was limited (Galgóczi et al, 2015 , 367). Raw material was integral to the Burj Khalifa project. The skyscraper used a total of 330,000 m3 of concrete and 39,000 tonnes of steel for construction (Burj Khalifa, 2016).

10

The Shard had financial issues including debts from previous stages within the project. Similar to Burj Khalifa the financial crisis affected construction causing the project to halt due to financial instability. Qatari invested into the project and purchased 80% of the equity from CLS and Simon Halabi. This funding aided in debts and secured contracts, allowing construction to be continued. (Dangerfield, 2012). Other additional cost incurred in this project because of changes in requirements and design. The client Emaar Properties, initially proposed for the Burj Khalifa to be around 700 metres. The company requested a construction change by adding 100 metres to the building. At the end, the skyscraper staggered at 830 metres (Bowman, 2008). Height addition indicates more usage of materials increasing total costs. Height changes were made to The Shard, the expected height was 400 metres. The reduction to 306 metres is to comply with the Civil Aviation Authority’s height restriction. This was changed prior to construction thus no surplus of cost or resources (Watson, 2012). 6.0. Time Time in project management terms refer to having the ability to plan and finish the project within a timely fashion and is categorised into four processes; planning, estimating, scheduling and control (MacDonald, 1983) and has correlation to cost project management. 6.1. Time Planning and Estimation The Shard had been planned since 1998 and only begun after the government of the United Kingdom released a white paper that encouraged the development of tall buildings. ‘The Shard’ was initially rejected by commissioners and heritage bodies (Milmo, 2002) due to the belief of the diminishing impact it has on famous buildings such as St Paul’s Cathedral and the London Tower (Weaver, 2003). John Prescott arranged a planning enquiry to gain construction permission. This process lasted seven months from April to November 2003 with the project being approved (BBC, 2003). The estimation for project completion was three years and this requirement was met as the project begun on March 2009 and finished on the 30 th March 2012. With intention to finish the project in time. Burj Khalifa developers planned and adopted an intense ‘3-day cycle’ strategy where a story is built every three days 11

(Abdelrazaq, 2010, 2999) allowing workers to manageably complete work within time frame. Pre-packaged window panels increased daily installation rate from 20-30 window panels to 175. Incremental loads were added throughout, thus engineers devised the building into fifteen three-dimensional models to examine for defects of shrinkage and stiffness that causes creep to the schedule (Weigand, 2013, 86). Figure 8 displays a built Gantt chart based upon Burj Khalifa’s milestones. The graph shows the scheduling of activities with piling and superstructure taking the longest to complete. As the tower grows taller the longer it took to build. In total, construction took five years to complete.

A

Gantt

chart

is

useful when communicating project schedules as it provides insight to the overall timeline. It is an ineffective planning tool, as it fails to incorporate delayed activities and its affect in relation to other activities (Nicholas and Steyn, 2012, 197). Burj Khalifa’s bottom up building method is a linear process thus a network diagram is not needed. As an example, figure 6 shows all activities in chronological order, if excavation is not finished then activities followed cannot be completed. There are longer activity durations at a point in 2006 and 2007 which may be caused by labour strike delays. Reducing resources and prioritising certain tasks is not an option as quality is a specification. The activity delay pushes back the time for next task subsequently postponing the entire project. The Burj Khalifa was intended to be completed by September 2008 but failed to meet the planned deadline, the tower

12

opened on 4th January 2010 (Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, 2017) which is a year and four months later. The Shard’s approach to construction slightly differs from Burj Khalifa. As seen in figure 9, The Shard predominately follows a linear path but several independent tasks were undertaken. The Shard used a top-down construction approach in which the top 23 storeys of the skyscraper was built without a structure underneath. Prior to installation preassembling of the spire and pre-packages of sub structures were done. In terms of a network structure, delays in independent tasks may not effect overall project time but just on the task itself. Whereas events in the linear path are interdependent on one another and will delay the sequential activities.

6.2. Time Control and Scheduling The Shard optimises time by modularising steel members to the width of trailers allowing more components to be transported. Flooring panels were fitted prior to installation (Buxton, 2012). This module system minimises overall risks and aids in weather-related delays. Similarly, the spire of The Shard had to be assembled prior to installation at the top. Small segments of steelwork and flooring were put together for easier transportation. All assembled pieces managed to hit crane capacity thus reducing crane lifts from 800 to 100 allowing efficient installation. This decreases the overall project time (Hansford, 2011). Survey teams were on site to provide reports and results of the on-going construction progress. This gave analysis on potential drawbacks and kept construction schedule on track (Fugro, 2017). The Burj Khalifa had time constraint issues during its five-year construction procedure due to multiple challenges. For example, the height of Burj Khalifa caused 13

construction difficulties. As the tower developed, concrete had to be modified to adapt to the weight and pres...