3. •A project is a temporary endeavor undertaken to create a unique
product or service (PMBOK® Guide – 6th Edition, Glossary)
•A project is a "unique, temporary, multi-disciplinary and organized
endeavor to realise agreed deliverables within predefined
requirements and constraints (IPMA 2015 Individual Competence
Baseline)
Project
12. Appraise
&Select Phase
Client
Consultant
Analyzing different options available for the
project opportunity
May take it as a project to select the right project
for pursuing
Project Life Cycle – Phase 2
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
13. Define Phase
Client
Defining the project's scope and developing a
detailed technical and commercial scope
It includes:
• Detailed engineering
• Preliminary cost estimate
• Scope finalization
• Preparation of a tender document for the
selected project.
Project Life Cycle – Phase 3
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
14. Implement
Phase
Client Focusses on the Selection of Contractor(s)
Contractor Focusses on Project Execution
Project Life Cycle – Phase 4
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
15. Client
Contractor
Focuses on Technical and Commercial close-out
Focusses on completion and handing over the
facility to the Client
Project Life Cycle – Phase 5
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Close-out
phase
19. Integration
Scope
Schedule
Cost
Quality
Resource
Communication
Risk
Procurement
Stakeholder
19
Identify, define, combine, and coordinate the various processes and activities
Ensure the project includes all the work required, and only the work required
Includes processes required to manage the timely completion of the project
Includes processes involved in planning, budgeting, and controlling costs
Includes processes for incorporating the organization’s quality policy
Includes the processes to identify, acquire, and manage the resources needed
Includes processes to ensure timely and appropriate disposition of info
Includes processes of identifying, analyzing and monitoring risks
Includes processes necessary to purchase products, services, or results
Identify people, groups, or organizations that could impact or be impacted
Knowledge areas
20. Knowledge Area & Process Mapping
20
Integration Scope Time Cost Quality Resource Communication Risk Procurement Stakeholder
Closing
Controlling
Executing
Planning
Initiating
Develop Project
Charter
Develop Project
Management Plan
Perform Integrated
Change Control
Direct and Manage
Project Work
Monitor & Control
Project work
Close Project
or Phase
Collect Requirements
Plan Scope
Management
Define Scope
Create WBS
Validate Scope
Control Scope
Define Activities
Plan Schedule
Management
Sequence Activities
Estimate Activity
Durations
Control Schedule
Develop Schedule
Estimate Costs
Plan Cost
Management
Determine Budget
Control Costs
Plan Quality
Management
Manage Quality
Control Quality
Manage Team
Plan Resource
Management
Acquire Resources
Develop Team
Plan Communication
Management
Manage
Communications
Monitor
Communications
Identify Risks
Plan Risk
Management
Perform Qualitative
Risk Analysis
Perform Quantitative
Risk Analysis
Plan Risk Responses
Monitor Risks
Conduct
Procurements
Plan Procurement
Management
Control Procurements
Identify Stakeholders
Plan Stakeholder
Engagement
Manage Stakeholder
Engagement
Monitor Stakeholder
Engagement
Closing
Controlling
Executing
Planning
Initiating
Knowledge Area Process Groups
Manage Project
Knowledge
Estimate Activity
Resources
Control Resources
Implement Risk
Responses
Monitor Scope
22. 22
Percentage
of
time
overrun
Year
Source: Narayanan, S., Kure, A.M. and Palaniappan, S., 2019. Study on time and cost overruns in mega infrastructure projects in India. Journal of The Institution of Engineers (India): Series
A, 100(1), pp.139-145.
MOSPI reports status of 1736
projects
• 547 projects report delays
with avg. of 44.59 months
• 449 cost overrun of Rs. 4.29
lakh crore
But…projects suffer significant delays & cost overruns
23. Only 25% of the projects are completed
within the deadline and as few as 31% are
completed within budget
04-01-2024 23
Report from Mckinsey, Autodesk and FMI
24. How are Heritage Conservation Projects
performing wrt PM KPIs
Anecdotal evidence shows poor performance of heritage conservation projects on parameters of time, cost,
quality, safety, sustainability.
Time and cost overrun significantly higher than overall public works (Guccio & Rizzo, 2010 )
26. Problems in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Performance with respect to time & cost
• Delays and cost overruns in almost all projects (often to the tune of 100%)
• Cost over run > 100%( Rs. 7 Crore Rs. 18 crore), time over run > 200% (18
months5 years) in Ripon Building, Chennai
• ASI criticized by the state government and High Court for delay in restoration of
Jagannath Puri (Mohanty 2013)
27. Problems in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Performance with respect to quality & safety
• Collapse in walls and bastions in Jaisalmer fort (Project Jaisalmer Fort, 2012)
• Restoration plan for Konark Temple shelved due to conflicting opinion of
international experts (Restoration of Konark, 2008)
• ASI criticized by the CAG for pilferage in 92 monuments and relics, poor repair
works and non conformance (Mail Today Bureau 2013)
28. Problems in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Performance with respect to quality & safety
• Structural collapse of the Mairie building in Pondicherry
• Collapse of River Room of the Madras Club during conservation work in 2010
• Collapse of well in Dhar fort during restoration work
31. What is Heritage
• Etymology is from Old French Word Eritage,
derived from Latin word hērēs, meaning heir
• Means features belonging to the culture of a
particular society, or country, or group of
people, which come from the past, and are
still significant (Cambridge)
• Built heritage is a class of immovable tangible
cultural heritage which consists of the
elements of man-made built environment
which the contemporary generation resolves
as having ‘cultural values’ and needs to be
protected and passed on to the future
generations
Heritage
Natural
Heritage
Cultural
Heritage
Intangible Tangible
Movable Immovable
Archaeological
Sites
Built Heritage
32. Why conserve Heritage?
• Hangzhou Declaration of UNESCO in 2013, placed
culture at the heart of sustainable development
policy
• United Nations General Assembly, in 2015 adopted
the 2030 Development Agenda titled
“Transforming our World: the 2030 Agenda for
Sustainable Development”
• The Agenda sets 17 Sustainable Development
Goals (SDGs), further subdivided into 169 targets,
as a blueprint to achieve better future for the
people and the planet
• This is the first time the international development
agenda has referred to cultural heritage directly as
a definitive objective for a desirable future
33. What is Heritage Conservation
• Definition of Heritage Conservation as per ICOMOS Nara Document
• All efforts designed to understand cultural heritage, know its history and meaning, ensure its
material safeguard and, as required, its presentation, restoration and enhancement
• CPWD definitions
• Conservation means all the processes of looking after a place so as to retain its historical
and/or architectural and/or aesthetic and/or cultural significance and includes maintenance,
preservation, restoration, reconstruction, and adoption or a combination of more than one of
these
• Preservation means and includes maintaining the fabric of a place in its existing state and
retarding deterioration.
• Restoration means and includes returning the existing fabric of a place to a known earlier
state by removing accretions or by reassembling existing components without introducing
new materials
35. Lifecycle of Heritage Conservation Projects
(Leblanc, 2006)
• Initiation – The first phase is same as in PMBOK, whereby the project
goals or objectives are defined in collaboration with stakeholders
• Assessment – This phase involves the detailed investigation of the
physical condition of the structure and understanding the heritage
significance of the physical fabric
• Options – This phase involves studying the various options for
conservation and management, including cost and time estimations, to
decide the one most appropriate for the project as per requirements and
constraints of stakeholders
• Project Development – The drawings, specifications, budget plans, work
programmes, tender documents are prepared in this phase by
involvement of necessary professionals
• Implementation – The actual conservation activities are executed in this
phase as per the documents prepared in the previous phase, to achieve
project completion as per defined scope
• Operation – This phase is somewhat analogous to the closing phase of
PMBOK, whereby the site is handed over to operate for intended
purpose, with necessary maintenance and safeguard
36. Who are conservation professionals
• Niche profession – but needs multidisciplinary collaboration
• Any specialist engaged in the practice of conservation in accordance with
their respective professional principles and guidelines
• Historians, archaeologists, architects, engineers, material scientists,
conservator-restorers, urban planners, quantity surveyors, heritage site
managers, project managers, sthapathis (temple builders), shilpis (artisans)
• Fundamental role - to preserve the multiple values of a heritage structure,
utilizing the diverse bodies of knowledge (traditional knowledge systems,
modern scientific procedure) – Art or Science ?
37. Who are stakeholders in conservation
projects?
• Engagement of multiple stakeholders is a salient feature
• All parties involved directly in the project (primary stakeholders) as well as parties
whose interests are affected directly or indirectly due to the project (external
stakeholders)
• Client (owner or custodian), government authorities, consultants, contractor,
supplier, workers, local community, users
• Corporate and individual philanthropy, Non Governmental Organisations (NGOs),
international organisations for making policy and guidelines, academic and
research institutions, heritage enthusiasts, conservationists and activists, tourists
and tourism agencies, and civil society
38. Multidisciplinary collaboration at various
stages
Phase Professionals involved Primary Stakeholders External Stakeholders
Initiation
Assessment
Options
Project development
Implementation
Operation
40. •Measurement / Rate Contracts
•Lumpsum / Fixed Price Contracts
•Cost Reimbursable / Cost Plus Contracts
•Concessions
Types of Contract
41. Regulatory Framework
• UNESCO World Heritage Sites (WHS) – 32 cultural heritage, 7 natural heritage, 1
mixed heritage, 46 on tentative list
• More than 3693 monuments and sites of national importance
• Each state has a list of State protected monuments (number varying 50 – 500)
• Grade I, II (A or B), & III Heritage Buildings, enlisted as per Ministry of Urban
Development (MoUD), Govt. of India Regulations(Eg.: 324 in Mumbai)
• Religious Monuments (Living Heritage)
• Unprotected heritage sites
42. Laws and authorities for different categories
Heritage Category Governing Rules Authority
World Heritage Sites UN Convention on projection of World Cultural
and Heritage, Paris, 1972
Archaeological Survey of India
Indian Railways
National Monuments Ancient Monuments and Archaeological Sites and
Remains Act, 2010
Archaeological Survey of India
State Monuments State Acts on Ancient Monuments and
Archaeological Sites
State Department of Archaeology / State
PWD / Tourism Department / Heritage
Commission
Religious Shrines State Endowments Acts Endowments Department / Trust
Listed Heritage Buildings (Grade
I/II/III)
State Heritage Bye Laws / Town Planning Acts
City Bye Laws / Development Regulations /
Master Plans
Urban Local Bodies / Metropolitan
Development Authorities / Private
Owners
Unprotected Heritage Sites Owners / Community / NGOs (e.g.
INTACH)
44. Exploratory study on 50 projects
The projects were categorized based on factors such as ownership,
implementing agency, funding pattern and project delivery model
47. Project Governance Framework
Based on abovementioned factors, five contractual frameworks were mapped,
which give the most inclusive representation of project governance
frameworks used in heritage conservation projects in India
Owner / Client
arranged Funds
Funding by
Third Parties
Arrangement for Funds
Consultant
Implementing Agency
Execution Agency
Owner
48. Overview of Project Governance Framework
Type Funding Pattern Implementing Agency PDM No. Example
A
Central Budgetary
Funding
Archaeological Survey of
India
Departmental 5 Red fort, Purana Qila, Ellora
B
External Funding / State
Budgetary Funding
State Govt Department /
Statutory Authority
Unit priced 18
IDIPT, Mairie Building, MPMP, Writers Building,
Bani Begum Bag
C
Public Private
Partnership
Concessionaire
Public Private
Partnership
7 Nabha Qila, Baradari, Tijora fort, Jalmahal
D Owner / Donor funded
State Govt Department /
Statutory Authority /
Sponsor
Cost Plus / Lump
Sum Turnkey
5 Indian Coffee House (Pondycherry), Rajwada
E
Budgetary (Central /
State/City) + Owner /
Donor
Inter-organizational
Collaboration Committee
Departmental / Unit
Priced
15
Alambazar Math, Shaniwarwada, JN Petit Library,
Vivekananda Illam
49. Min. of Culture, Central Govt Funding
CRCI
(Conservation Consultant)
Archaeological Survey of India
(Owner/Implementing Agency)
Departmental + Supply Contracts
Project Governance Framework A
Name Funding Pattern Implementing Agency Mode of Execution
Red Fort, Delhi Central Budgetary
Funding
Archaeological Survey
of India
Departmental
50. Project Governance Framework B
Name Funding
Pattern
Implementing
Agency
Mode of
Execution
Infrastructure Development Investment
Program for Tourism (IDIPT), Punjab
External
Funding
State Govt Dept
/ Authority
Bill of Quantities
(BOQ)
Asian Development Bank
Loan Agreement with Dept of
Economic Affairs, Min of Fin.,
Govt of India
Shah Consultants
(Design & Supervision Consultant)
Punjab Heritage Tourism Promotion
Board (PHTPB) – Project
Implementation Unit (PIU)
Contractors selected as per
ADB procurement plan
Dept of Cultural
Affairs,
Archaeology &
Museums, GoP
Figure 4. Project Governance Framework for Nabha Qila Restoration Project (Type C)
51. Project Governance Framework C
Name Funding Pattern Implementing Agency Mode of Execution
Nabha Qila, Punjab Public Private
Partnership
Concessionaire Build Operate
Transfer (BOT)
Conservation Expert Committee
Independent Quality Control Consultant
Concessionaire (Nabha Fndn) +
PIU (PHTPB)
Contractors selected by
Concessionaire
Public
Works
Dept., GoP
Nabha Foundation ADB
(IDIPT)
Concession Agreement with
PWD + IDIPT loan agreement
52. Coffee Workers’ Cooperative
INTACH Pondicherry (LSTK)
Pondicherry Worker's Cooperative ( Union
Territory Govt)
Project Governance Framework D
Name Funding Pattern Implementing
Agency
Mode of Execution
Indian Coffee House,
Pondicherry
Owner funded State Govt Dept
/ Authority
Lump sum Turnkey
(LSTK)
Coffee
Workers’
Cooperative
53. Sample Contractual Framework E
Name Funding Pattern Implementing Agency Mode of
Execution
Alambazar
Math, Kolkata
Budgetary
(Central/State/City) +
Owner / Donor
Committee Departmental
Math Auth. Central Govt.
National Culture Fund
Continuity
(Consulting Architect)
Project Implementation Committee
(NCF + Math Secy. + ASI + Secy. Of Cul.)
Departmental
Math
Authority
54. Comparison of Modes of Project Delivery
Mode Advantage Disadvantage Suitable for
Departmental No compromise in
quality
No accountability Huge
time and cost overruns
Jobs with high
historical value
Cost+ (Non
priced)
Flexible contract
suitable for
uncertainties
High risk for client.
Difficult to get sanction for
govt jobs
Jobs with high
owner involvement
BOT (Non
priced)
Financially more
sustainable
Less social acceptability Jobs with less
community
involvement
BOQ (priced) Easy to get sanction
for project. Parties
well accustomed to
mode
Inflexible contracts
unsuitable for Restoration.
Variations & Extra Items
Jobs with
comprehensive DPR
LSTK (Priced) Client assured of
final price
Unavailability of
competent contractors
Small jobs
55. Problems in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Performance with respect to Social Impact
• Bhaktapur Development Project, a German funded restoration project in Nepal ,
had to be halted midway because of discontent among inhabitants about the
project (Grim, 2012)
• Inefficient conservation management of Charminar lead to violent protests and
communal tensions in Hyderabad (Srivathsan, 2013). Efforts to implement court orders
for conservation of Charminar flares up the communal tension (Khan 2013).
56. Uncertainties in Projects
• Main requirement of decision making for any engineering
project is to consider cost and time uncertainties, (Yost et al, 2014)
but time and cost are wicked problems of project definition
(Whelton, 2002)
57. Uncertainties in Projects
• Majority of project management processes seeks to effectively manage
uncertainties in estimating, project parties, stages of project life cycle
(Atkinson et al, 2006)
• Traditional project management tools or optimization tools for supply
contracts have limited effectiveness in projects with major uncertainties
(Kwon et al, 2010)
• Multiple uncertain information aggravates agency problems in a contract
(Wu, 2014)
59. Challenges in Restoration Projects
• Variations
• Scope Change
• Design Change
• Unforeseen site conditions
• (McKim et al, 2000)
• Degradation of material after defining scope
• Snowballing of change orders
• (Daoud, 1997)
• Hidden errors and latent changes (Lee et al, 2006)
• Pre-existing conditions identified late in the design process
(Mitropoulos et al, 2002)
• Ability of retrofit measure to adopt to changes in climate,
services, human behaviour, government policy, etc. (Ma et al, 2012)
60. Challenges in Restoration Projects
• Capacity Constraints
• Procurement problem
• Design coordination (McKim et al, 2000)
• Underpayment of A/E (Daoud, 1997)
• Financial constraints of owners (Ma et al, 2012)
• Ineffective communication between the client and contractors (Juan et al, 2008)
• Improper selection of contract and contractor (Daoud, 1997)
• Limited financial resources for large number of projects (Shohet et al, 2004)
• Mostly small firms involved (Albino et al, 1998)
• Lack of decision making process, time for planning, knowledge, clarity of
user’s needs, trust, risk assessment, learning from past, use of IT, change
management (Naaranoja et al, 2007)
61. Challenges in Restoration Projects
• Documentation issues
• Inadequate and erroneous information due to poor documentation and site survey
(Daoud, 1997)
• Lack of suitable design data
• insufficient condition data
• inadequate information on building condition
• (Juan et al, 2008)
• Failure to document and verify assumptions (Gao et al, 2014)
• Regulatory issues
• Regulatory requirement (McKim et al, 2000)
• Landlord Tenant Dilemma (Astmarsson et al, 2013)
62. Challenges in Restoration Projects
• Operational buildings
• Concurrent operations by owner (Daoud, 1997)
• Interruptions to operations (Ma et al, 2012)
• Concurrent use of building by user and worker (Lee, 2012)
• Constraints on project performance due to ongoing functions of facility (Shami et al,
1997)
• Need to integrate them (Whiteman et al, 1988)
64. Challenges in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Knowledge Constraint
• Lack of interdisciplinary
collaboration/integration
between the sciences, arts and
technologies of conservation
• Fragmented body of knowledge
especially on the management
context
• (Avrami et al, 2000)
• Ignorance of traditional
knowledge and techniques (Raheja
et al, 2013)
• Inability to extract local
knowledge (Su et al, 2012)
Flying Apsara mural in Ajanta
65. Challenges in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Regulatory issues
• Colonial laws to protect monuments in isolation from their
surroundings not feasible(Baig, 2006)
• Complicated management structure ( Su et al, 2012)
• Governance of conservation (Strange et al, 2010)
• Integration of heritage conservation with zonal planning, like
coastal management plan (Callegari et al, 2002; Goodhead et al, 2007)
• Lack of synergy between conservation program, urban planning
and community development (Badhreenath, 2010)
Alambazar Math, Kolkata
- 2nd monastry of
Ramkrishna Mission Order
66. Challenges in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Issues related to stakeholder
participation
• Need to establish a stake in
conservation within the
community, with a vision of
shared custodianship (Baig, 2006)
• Local community’s resistance
(Sutton et al, 2001)
• Vandalism and looting (Niknami, 2004)
• Problems of public
participation – lack of effective
mechanism, conflicting
interests of stakeholders,
power disparity, lack of
knowledge (Yung et al, 2011)
Graffiti in Charminar
67. Challenges in Heritage Restoration Projects
• Technical issues
• Uncertainty about
sustainability of conservation
(Yung et al, 2012)
• Complexity in managing data
and assessing hazards (La Rosa et al,
2012; Cataldo et al, 2004)
• Complexity of technical
factors relating to durability of
material, structures and
landscape (Sanna et al, 2007)
• Uncommon material or
systems (Erdem et al, 2014)
• Skill of Craftsmen (Perhavec et al, 2014)
Konark Sun Temple
68. Critical Challenges in India
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Inadequate
and Unviable
Documents
Competence
of Agencies
Problems in
Estimation
Resource
Constraint
Capacity of
Client
Lack of
Knowhow
Stakeholder
Problems
Problems in
restoring
functional
buildings
69. Attempt to analyze the problem by first categorizing
projects into a morphological framework and
identifying interrelations
70. Morphological Framework as a Foundation
for Grounded Theory Building
• Morphological framework is a duplex model to examine influence of any set of input
dimensions on other dimension(s) treated as output. Categories of Morphological
Dimensions :
• Strategic space internal world of organisation/system Factors which can be controlled to
mitigate challenges in the environment
• Transactional environment Factors external to organisation/system, but can be influenced by
organisation/system Project Characteristics
• Contextual environment Factors in external world which can influence the organisation/system,
but cannot be influenced Institutional Characteristics
• No rigid boundary between transactional and contextual environment, rather significant overlap
• The dimensions are disaggregate into possible logical states or variants (morphemes)
by inductive reasoning
• Some dimensions are ordinal Variants have natural order from a lower boundary state to an
upper boundary state Variants converted into a 5 point scale
• Some dimensions are nominal Variants are distinct categories but not in any order
70
71. Morphological Dimensions & Variants
(Strategic Space)
Project delivery method Project formulation and appraisal Approach to project management
1. Completely Transactional - Inflexible
priced contract with boilerplate conditions /
selection through public bidding with price
based selection of prequalified bids
1. Extremely less detailed project
formulation and appraisal - Only visual
survey for single phase project without
continuous 3rd party appraisal
1. Completely informal approach to project
management – Intuitive and informal
decision-making, led by ‘project champions’
without any significant awareness about
project management
2. Somewhat Transactional - Partially
flexible priced contract with bespoke
conditions / selection through public bidding
with multi-attribute evaluation
2. Somewhat less detailed project
formulation and appraisal – Detailed analysis
with NDT for single phase project without
continuous 3rd party appraisal
2. Somewhat informal approach to project
management – Intuitive and informal
decision-making, led by ‘project champions’
with some basic knowledge of project
management
3. Moderately Relational - Formalised non-
priced alliances with bespoke conditions and
well defined roles and responsibilities /
selection based on reputation or past
performance
3. Moderate project formulation and
appraisal - Only visual survey for single phase
project with continuous 3rd party appraisal
3. Moderate approach to project
management – Intuitive but formally
documented decision-making, led by ‘project
champions’ with some basic knowledge of
project management
4. Highly Relational - Open ended trust
based non-priced alliances with bespoke
conditions / selection based on prior relation
or acquaintance.
4. Detailed project formulation and appraisal
– Detailed analysis with NDT for single phase
project with continuous 3rd party appraisal
4. Somewhat systematic approach to project
management – Intuitive but formally
documented decision-making, led by
professionally qualified designated ‘project
managers’
5. Completely Relational - Departmental
Execution
5. Extremely detailed project formulation
and appraisal – Detailed analysis with NDT
for phased project with continuous 3rd party
appraisal
5. Completely systematic approach to project
management – Systematic data driven
decision-making led by professionally
qualified designated ‘project managers’
71
72. Morphological Dimensions & Variants
(Ordinal Environmental Factors)
Uncertainties
of project
performance
Project complexities Specificity of resource
Level of regulatory
oversight for conservation
1. Very Low
Uncertainty. No
variation
1. No complexity in project - Confident about structural
analysis and conservation techniques / Structure not in
use and seldom visited / Client funded project with no
regulatory agency
1. Very Low Specificity. Resource
common to all engineering and
construction projects
1. Unlisted heritage building not
under any regulatory oversight
beyond project governance
2. Low
Uncertainty.
Variation of less
than 25%
2. Somewhat complexity in project - Somewhat
confident about structural analysis and conservation
techniques / Structure not operational but in vicinity of
crowd / Involvement of Client and external funding or
regulatory agency
2. Low specificity. Resources
generic for all building restoration
projects
2. Enlisted heritage building under
local body regulatory oversight
3. Moderate
Uncertainty.
Variations
between 25 to
100%.
3. Moderate complexity in project – Neutral about
structural analysis and conservation techniques /
Operational building with peak days of movement /
Multiple clients or offsite decision-makers with or
without external funding
3. Moderate Specificity.
Resources required specifically for
all heritage conservation projects
3. State protected monument or
religious structure under state
level regulatory oversight
4. High
Uncertainty.
Variations
between 100%
and 1000%
4. Complex project - Somewhat uncertain about
structural analysis and conservation techniques /
Operational building with certain peak hours of
movement / Multiple decision-makers or funding
sources with extensive community involvement
4. High Specificity. Resource
specific to the category of
heritage, in terms of era /
person(s) associated / type of
heritage / region
4. Nationally important projects
under national level regulatory
oversight
5. Very High
uncertainty.
Catastrophic
variations of more
than 1000%
5. Very complex project - Uncertain about structural
analysis and conservation techniques / Operational
building with continuous people movement / Project
under litigation
5. Very High Specificity. Resource
specific to the site
5. Sites inscribed as or nominated
for UNESCO world heritage sites,
under international level
oversight 72
73. Morphological Dimensions & Variants
(Nominal Environmental Factors)
73
Heritage
values /
significance
Institutions influencing project
governance
Priorities of project Project objectives
Architectural
or aesthetic
significance
Government Quality Well defined, simple and
straightforward objectives
Historical
significance
Quasi Government Time Well defined but multi-
dimensional / complicated
objectives
Socio-cultural
significance
Private Entities with formal structured
organisation
Cost Multi-dimensional,
complicated and uncertain
objectives
Associational
significance
Private Entities with informal
entrepreneurial organisations
Health and Safety
PPP with formal structured organisation Stakeholder Satisfaction
PPP with informal entrepreneurial
organisations
Environment friendliness
Conflict Reduction
74. Factors affecting uncertainty
Theoretical Propositions for Archaeological Monuments 74
Emphasis on quality enhanced due to:
Uncertainty of scope
inherent. Increased due
to
oStrong emphasis on quality
with inadequate QA-QC
metrics;
oMore resource specificity;
oMore complexity
Primacy of Quality as success
criteria without scientific
metrics for QA-QC
Moderate to High
Resource Specificity
Maximum for materials
Medium for human resource
Minimum for capital assets
Moderate to Low
Complexity
Higher level of regulatory oversight
Altruistic / Reputation / Relation-building
objectives
Enhanced due to:
Architectural Significance
Parity in priorities due to:
Involvement of Government Department
Source: Ketak Nachinolkar
75. Strategies and their constraints
Theoretical Propositions for Archaeological Monuments 75
Relational method of
Project Delivery with
bespoke conditions
Detailed Project
Formulation and
Appraisal
Systems Approach to
Project Management
Type of
Organisation
Contract isomorphic, influenced by
institutional forces. Open Ended Bespoke
Contracts possible only when institutional
forces weak.
Less incremental benefits due to
inherent uncertain nature of job
Lack of competency in project
management
Inadequate standardization and
programmability
Integration of Conservation
Architect and Project Manager's role
76. Factors affecting uncertainty
Theoretical Propositions for Religious Monuments 76
Disparity in priority enhanced due to:
Uncertainty of scope
inherent. Increased due
to
oStrong emphasis on quality
with inadequate QA-QC
metrics;
oMore resource specificity;
oMore complexity
oConflicting objectives
Primacy of Quality as success
criteria
Stakeholder satisfaction at-
least equally important
Moderate to High
Resource Specificity
Maximum for materials
Medium for human resource
Minimum for capital assets
Complexity can range
from Low to High
Higher level of regulatory oversight
Altruistic / Reputation / Relation-building
objectives
Enhanced due to:
Architectural Significance
Parity in priorities due to:
Budget Limitation
Functionality
Enhanced due to:
Conflicting objectives
77. Lack of competency in project
management;
Inadequate standardization and
programmability;
Integration of Conservation
Architect and Project Manager's role
Strategies and their constraints
Theoretical Propositions for Religious Monuments 77
Relational method of
Project Delivery with
bespoke conditions
Detailed Project
Formulation and
Appraisal
Systems Approach to
Project Management
Type of
Organisation
Contract isomorphic, influenced by
institutional forces. Strong institutions
prevent open ended relational PDMs.
If no regulative compulsions, contract T&C
bypassed to make PDM more relational
Emphasis on project formulation
and appraisal related to
involvement of conservation
architect.
Underestimation is detrimental. But
less incremental benefits due to
inherent uncertain nature of job
78. In Buildings
If scope includes new building services
Factors affecting uncertainty
Theoretical Propositions for Operational Heritage Building 78
Emphasis on quality enhanced due to:
Uncertainty of scope
inherent. Increased due
to
oStrong emphasis on quality
with inadequate QA-QC
metrics;
oMore resource specificity;
oMore complexity
oConflicting objectives
Primacy of Quality as success
criteria
In Buildings, time and safety
also very important
Moderate to High
Resource Specificity
Maximum for materials
Medium for human resource
Minimum for capital assets
Moderate to High
Complexity
Higher level of regulatory oversight
Altruistic / Reputation / Relation-building
objectives
Enhanced due to:
Architectural Significance
Parity in priorities due to:
Budget Limitation
Functionality
Concurrent operations
Multiple stakeholders with conflicting objectives
Reduced:
Enhanced due to:
79. Strategies and their constraints
Theoretical Propositions for Operational Heritage Building 79
Type of
Organisation
Contract isomorphic, influenced by institutional
forces. Open Ended Bespoke Contracts possible
only when institutional forces weak.
If no regulative compulsions, contract TandC
bypassed to make PDM more relational
Projects with significant new building services,
should be broken into packages, with PMC for
coordination
Conservation professionals helps in
balancing multifaceted heritage values
and compliance to conservation
principles.
Inadequate mechanisms result in
underestimation.
Less incremental benefits due to inherent
uncertainty of scope.
Concurrence of competence in
project management and
heritage conservation is rare.
Tendency to integrate the roles
often results in lack of one of
these critical competencies
Relational method of
Project Delivery with
bespoke conditions
Detailed Project
Formulation and
Appraisal
Systems Approach to
Project Management
80. Multilevel Theoretical Model developed 80
Inherent Uncertainty of Scope in
Heritage Conservation
Priorities
Resource
Specificity
Uncertainty in
Project Performance
Complexity
Project Formulation and Appraisal
Project Delivery Method
Approach to Project
Management
oApproach to Project Management
oHeritage Type
oHeritage Values
oInstitutional Characteristics
oLevel of Regulatory Oversight
oProject Delivery Method
oType of Organisation
oHeritage Type
oHeritage Values
oHeritage Type
oHeritage Values
oProject Objectives
oComplexity
oPriorities
oProject Delivery Method
oResource Specificity
oType of Organisation
oLevel of Regulatory Oversight
oResource Specificity
oType of Organisation
oApproach to Project Management
oInstitutional Characteristics
oPriorities
oResource Specificity
oType of Organisation
81. Recommendations compiled by triangulation 81
Recommendations
1. Adoption of bespoke flexible contract clauses (A)
2. Continuous appraisal of works by independent consultant (C)
3. Segregation of project into phases with continuous updating of plan (C)
4. Implementation of systems approach to quality management to achieve primacy of quality with reduced variability (B)
5. Segregation of the role of project manager and conservation architect (B,C)
6. Selection of contractor based on competence and value (A)
7. Provision of contingency to mitigate cost overrun (A,C)
8. Integration of planning and control in the project management system (B)
9. Detailed site investigation (C)
10. Provision for revision of estimate (A)
11. Representation of conservation architect at site (B,C)
12. Emphasis on safety as integral part of project management system (B)
13. Adoption of formal process for involvement and coordination among stakeholders (B)
14. Segregation of work into packages, with separate contractor if specific competency necessary for specific package (A)
15. Formulation of conservative timeline with contingencies in duration (A,C)
16. Involvement of workmen in planning to utilize tacit knowledge (B)
17. Archival research for historical data about monument (C)
18. Utilisation of tacit knowledge by involving local contractors or subcontractors (A)
Relational method of
Project Delivery with
bespoke conditions
Detailed Project
Formulation and
Appraisal
Systems Approach
to Project
Management
A
B C
82. Counter-Intuitive Findings
Strategic approaches to mitigate uncertainty – not a 2 way relation
Very transactional project delivery method, informal approach to project management, and less detailed
project formulation and appraisal result in high uncertainties (Intuitive), but reverse is not true
Reason – inherent uncertainty (scope known only after opening up) and disparity in priorities
Less emphasis on project formulation and appraisal in Government projects
Operational Heritage Buildings - what specialisation is necessary?
Conservation more challenging than monuments (Intuitive), but because of structural / building services
related items
Current trend – integrated contract awarded to heritage specialist, who struggle in reconstruction / building
services works
82
Audio: We have seen the different phases of a project.
PMI defines project management processes into 5 groups which are initiation, planning, executing, monitoring & controlling and Closing.
Note to GD: Display the above flow diagram in a suitable infographics. Sync with Vo one by one.
