1a) Network Diagram & Gantt Chart:
The critical path for the Nottingham Rugby Stadium project is:
Clear site – Drive support piles – Pour lower concrete base – Build roof supports – Construct roof – Install roof – Inspection
This means these activities have no slack and therefore any delay in them will lead to the whole project being delayed. Project Duration
The project commences on the Monday June 2nd 2008, and finishes on Friday January 14th 2011, which means work covers 670 days. Milestones
Milestones are shown on the Gantt chart with a pink star, and on the network diagram as a diamond shape. These are the key tasks at which the project team should assess its progress.
The first milestone is clearing the site. This is the first activity of the project and therefore it would be wise to check that the project is still on course after this and to make sure the site is completely cleared as the rest of the project depends on this. The second one is pouring the lower concrete base. This would be a good milestone because a lot of activities depend on it e.g. the crucial roof, and also progress will not have been checked since clearing the site. The next milestones are pouring the main concourse/constructing upper steel bowl as these both finish together and the whole infrastructure and interior of the stadium depend upon them being completed so it would be sensible to check progress here. The construction of the roof should be a milestone as because the roof is such a long, significant feature of the stadium, West Construction must check the progress before they install it. Constructing the steel canopy should also be a milestone because then all the seats, boxes, etc can be checked before the lighting goes ahead, and also West Construction do not want a repeat of Wembley Stadium’s issue of having to re-install the seats. The final milestone is the inspection as the entire project’s progress can be assessed here. At all these milestones the Project Manager should assess progress against the primary project objectives and communicate this to the rest of the team and other necessary stakeholders.
1b) Project Over-run:
A thirty day project over-run will equal £1.5million penalty for West Construction. Project schedule over-runs are “one of the most complex challenges confronted by today’s Project Managers” (Kumar, 2005), and to combat this the Project Manager (PM) could choose many different options.
The Iron Triangle demonstrates the primary objectives of a project in terms of cost, quality (project specification) and time:
With time now being more important, and becoming the dominant objective for West Construction, there will have to be sacrifices or trade-offs with the cost and quality aspects of the Nottingham stadium.
The PM could get the construction team to work overtime. They have the lighting available to work late in the winter, but this will obviously mean the project cost will increase by paying them an overtime rate. There could be an issue of the team not wanting to work overtime, or enough overtime necessary to overcome the delay. Due to this the PM will have to pay a significant amount to make overtime worthwhile for the workers.
They could on the other hand employ more people to work on the project. In this way the team would not have to work over the standard eight hour day, and so the workload would be shared between more people, rather than added to existing workers as in the above option which may add to the stress of each person’s work and to the project as a whole. However, there needs to be additional people available to work on the Nottingham stadium at fairly short notice, and this may be a more expensive option than overtime pay.
It may be sensible for the PM to combine the above two options by first asking the current construction team to work overtime. Through seeing who is willing to do this, and therefore whether this...
References: 3. Basu (2003), “CPM Scheduling in construction: A case study”, AACE International Transactions, p.PS41
4. BBC News, “BA postpones long-haul move to T5”, 11.4.08
9. BBC News, “Valleywood Studio is £15m in red”, 22.4.06
10. Bishop (1992), “Creating a ‘Sense of Urgency’”, Research Technology Management, Vol
11. Breidenstein (2001), “On-site project management: The impact of delays”, Professional Builder, Vol. 66, Iss. 10. p.69-73
12. Bubshait & Cunningham (2004), “Management of Concurrent Delay in Construction”, Cost Engineering, Vol
13. Casinelli (2005), “Project Schedule Delay vs. Strategic Project Planning”, AACE International Transactions, p.PS191, 7pgs
14. Ciccarelli (2007), “Additional Practical Applications of Window Analysis”, AACE International Transactions, p.CD81, 8pgs
15. Collison & Gallagher (1985), “Project Planning Aids Real Estate Appraisals”, The Appraisal Journal, Vol. 53, Iss.2, p.278-285
16. Craig (2006), “Why a project’s matrices matter to you”, Contractor, Vol.53, Iss.3, p.68-70
17. Douglas (2004), “Project Planning – Then Scheduling”, AACE International Transactions, p.PS71, 5pgs
18. Eldin (2005), “The Effect of Early Freezing of Scope on Project Schedule”, Cost Engineering, Vol.47, Iss
19. Epsom Guardian, “Building makes its last (grand)stand”, 19.7.07
20. Galloway (2006), “CPM Scheduling – How the Industry Views its Use”, Cost Engineering, Vol
21. Hatfield & Noel (1998), “The case for critical path”, Cost Engineering, Vol.40, Iss.3, p.17-19
22. Herroelen (2005), “Project Scheduling – Theory & Practice”, Production and Operations Management, Vol
25. Kursave (2003), “The necessity of project schedule updating/monitoring/statusing”, Cost Engineering, Vol. 45, Iss. 7, p.8
26. Lee (2007), “Delay Analysis Using Linear Schedule in Construction”, AACE International Transactions, p.CD181, 6pgs
27. Lynch & Cloutier (2003), “5 Steps to Success”, ASQ Six Sigma Forum Magazine, Vol.2, Iss.2, p.27-34
28. Maylor (2007), “Beyond the Gantt chart: Project Management moving on”, European Management Journal, Vol.19, Iss.1, p.92
29. Meredith & Mantel (2003), “Project Management: A Managerial Approach, John Wiley & Sons
30. Mott Macdonald website, www.mottmac.com/projects/?id=8017, www.mottmac.com/projects/?id=290
31. Rakos (1992), “The Virtues of the Time-Bar Chart”, Computing Canada, Vol. 18, Iss. 17, p.32
32. Street (2000), “The Pitfalls of CPM scheduling on construction projects”, Cost Engineering, Vol.42, Iss.8, P.35-38
33. Turner & Townsend website, www.turnerandtownsend.com/_featuredproject.asp
34. Wilson (2003), “Gantt charts: A centenary appreciation”, ENR, Vol.149, Iss.2, p.430
35. Woolf (2007), “Faster Construction Projects with CPM scheduling”, ENR, Vol. 259, Iss. 6, p.23
36. WSPGroup website, www.wspgroup.com/en/Sectors/All/Property/London-Bridge-Tower-UK/
37. Yakura (20020, “Charting time: Timelines as temporal boundary objects”, Academy of Management Journal, Vol. 45, Iss.5, p.956
38. Yang (2007), “How the Critical Chain Scheduling Method is Working for Construction”, Cost Engineering, Vol
Please join StudyMode to read the full document