Construction of Wembley stadium was supposed to be completed by May 2006, but completed in March 2007. There were several controversial between client, contractor, sub contractor, designer etc. and some cases end up in the court. The causes for these controversial were identified mainly due to adversarial contracts, unreasonable risk allocation, cash-flow problems, design changes, poor performance, poor site management and litigations.
Several reasons were adduced for the successful delivery of the Emirates football stadium but the most overarching and notable of the reasons was the effective and selective supply chain created by the main contractor (Exceptional Performer, 2007).
In both case studies one can clearly see good and bad practices demonstrated. While both cased had the same procurement routes, with only slight modifications to allow client to have greater input in design, they both had different outcomes.
In all respects the Emirates Stadium is surely the winner as the most successfully executed project of the two. In both cases there were many challenges as well but it is how they were met with that determined their fate. The Wembley Stadium case was clearly a disaster in planning, financing and execution. This may be attributed to the lack of knowledge and experience on the part of the contractor, Mutliplex about the UK construction industry, which is why they possibly formed a consortium with Bovis in the beginning.
Due to lack of a firm establishment in the UK industry, Multiplex was faced with much distrust from locally well established firms. The fact that so many disputes arose in terms of payments and court proceedings did not help much either. The Emirates Stadium on the other hand was a perfect example of best practice. They incorporated sustainability, collaborative working, and effective and selective supply chain management. The supply chain was a crucial ingredient that Sir Robert McAlpine had established through experience...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document