A REPORT OF WORLDCUP FIFA 2010:- A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT ORNOT? PUNJAB COLLEGE OF TECHNICAL EDUCATION BADDOWAL
Every four years, the Federation Internationale de Football Association (FIFA) kicks off itslegendary tournament-“FIFA World Cup”. This sporting event brings 32 football teams andmillions of people around the world to compete and celebrate this great event together on a hostcountry. To be a memorable host of this stimulating program, assigned country has to prepare awide range of facilities including construction of football stadium. In 2010, those tasks wereorganised by Africans who were responsible as a host of World Cup 2010. (game plan….)According to “South Africa’s successful application for hosting the World Cup” (South Africanstadium project), fund was consequently spent into the construction of new stadiums andupgrading the existed stadiums, amounting to R12 billion ($1.48 billion) (the economist….).Because of being the first African country authorised to arrange the World Cup tournament, theyattempted to make over its image to people around the world. As the result, infrastructuredevelopment program was launched by South Africa’s government and this program wascontained several projects including to build five new football stadium and renovate five existedarenas.One of the five new World Cup stadiums located in Durban, the 2nd largest city in SouthAfrican, is Moses Manbhida stadium. As the part of 2010 World Cup program, the Municipalityof Durban embarked the project constructing “Moses Mabhida” stadium in 2005 and completedon time in 2009. In the view of government and engineers, this project was given credit as asignificant achievement of Durban city demonstrating African’s capabilities. However, somestakeholders argued that this project delivered seriously failure. As the result of suchdisagreement, this essay will critically discuss why could Mosses Mabhida stadium be defined as“project” and then evaluate this project success or failure. Lastly, possible recommendations toimprove its outcome will be provided.To begin with assessment whether Moses Manbhida stadium has proper characters being “aproject”, it is important to give the definition of project. According to the Project ManagementInstitute (PMI), project might be defined as “a temporary endeavour undertaken to create uniqueproduct or service”. Similarly, the British Standard Institute gives explanation that “a unique setof co-ordinated activities, with definite starting and finishing points, undertaken by an individualor organisation to meet specific objectives with defined schedule, cost and performanceparameters” (as cited in Smith, 2008, p 2). As the result, it might conclude that the crucialcharacteristics of project are having limited working period and resources, being unique, havingparticular goals and integrating many functions.As above definitions, Moses Manbhida stadium could be defined as construction project. This ismainly because it is uniqueness and having specific objective that was being “the-art landmarksports facility with excellent amenities, and a sustainable recreational and multi-disciplinarysporting venue” (“Mosesmabhidastadium” n.d., 2011) as well as being a part of the first world
football tournament in Africa continent. In term of uniqueness, this construction has beenawarded as a winner in design competition from many organisations because of its “iconicdesign creating unmistakeable silhouette on the Durban skyline”(“FIFAworldcup.durban.gov.za”n.d., 2010). According to its concept inspiring by the South African flag in order to represent theunity of different nations, this could be accomplished by building the 350 metres long and 105metres high span arch holding the roof of the stadium and the top of this arch is above the pitchby 106m (civilprojectonline). This construction contributes the high level of novelty onengineering and designing that had never constructed before in South Africa. It, consequently, isadmired as landmark of Durban city being comparable with Eifel Tower in France and LondonEye in the United Kingdom. Furthermore, this project was limited by time, which must completebefore the tournament beginning, and fund allocated by FIFA. In order to examine itscharacteristics intensely to ensure being a project, the further evidences could be summarised intable 1.Table 1: Evidence confirming Moses Manbhida stadium is project.According to the project fundamental by Maylor (2010), Moses Manbhida stadium could bedemonstrated as “project” as follows;Characteristics of a Project:-Moses Manbhida StadiumDefining start -complete date and limiting resourcesMoses Manbhida stadium was clearly set to start and finish in March 2006 and November 2009,respectively. In addition, limited financial resource also allocated by FIFA and South Africagovernment. This, therefore, could illustrate that this activity was not finite and have exactworking schedule.Being UniqueMoses Manbhida stadium could be valued as unique construction in South Africa because of itsoutstanding design and complexity of engineering. This might be described by the major archstructure which is high around 106 metres above the ground using as route deliver visitors to thetop of stadium experiencing with spectacular panorama view of city and Indian ocean which hadnot performed before in South Africa. (fifaworldcup.durban)Having specific missionThe particular aim for this construction was to build a multipurpose stadium hosting a widerange of sporting events such as FIFA World Cup and cultural activities in order to broadenopportunity being one of preferred destination for leisure.
Integrating different activitiesDue to its complicated design and engineering, this work required incorporation among theDurban government (as client), consultants (as engineer), contractors and suppliers. It wasbelieved that the achievement of this project mainly came from collaboration from African andGerman consultants, and almost 60 contractors.Moreover, this also demonstrated a good management and communication between differentteam. For example, there was a good coordination between African and German designer whowere responsible for foundations and major arch, respectively to ensure that the progress wouldbe completed as expectation.Risk and UncertaintyAccording to taking long period to construct, this work had problem about rising in materialpurchase price due to high inflation causing the project cost was over than budget. This problemwas one of uncertainty challenging project manager to resolve.Changing organisation or people being delivered toThis creativity differently benefits people in Durban comparing with other stadiums; forinstance, it is the first sport city complex facilitating people to spend their free time throughmany kinds of activity such as attending sporting event together with shopping with their familywhile other places, people can spend their time only for sporting program.By Harrison (1992), the way to describe list of activities that have to be performed for eachproject might be named as “work breakdown structure (WBS)”. This method may assist to dividea large work into sub-functions that could be assigned to one person or department beingresponsible for and then categorise such sub-units into a group of main activities for project.Resulting from well defining WBS, it generates reliable budget and clear tasks includingeffective resource allocation to accomplish the project smoothly. According to the type of WBS,it could prepare WBS by grouping based on activities, functions or feature such as hardware orsoftware (Maylor, 2005). For Moses Monbhida stadium project, its WBS could be broken downbased on activities, as detail in figure 1, since this kind of WBS would help to gain moreunderstandable about the construction process of the project.Figure 1: Work breakdown structure (WBS) of Moses Manbhida StadiumThough WBS has valuable advantages, it does not put each activity in order based on occurringtime (xxx). As the result, WBS might not clarify enough for activity sequence and does notidentify critical path of the project as well. This weakness could be solved by“Gantt chart”. Ganttchart could be defined as a tool linking between time and activities to explain process insequence of time and determining critical path. This chart is recognised as the simple way toprepare and understand guiding the project overview (Maylor, 2005). In order to gain more
understandable about relationship between tasks and time including time consuming for eachactivity, the progress of Moses Manbhida stadium can be illustrated by using Gantt chart asdetail in figure 2.Figure 2: The Moses Manbhida Stadium project Gantt chartResulting from having appropriate features being a project, the next section then discuss whetherthis project success or failure. According to the British Standard for project management (1996),the achievement of project is evaluated by committing its constraints which are time, cost andquality (TCQ) known as “the Iron Triangle” theory. This view was supported by Oisen (1950)confirming that the Iron Triangle is played as significant role to measure project success and thistraditional measurement is being used continually today ( as cited in Atkinson, 1999). Accordingto Maylor (2005), the Iron Triangle might be defined as the way prioritising time, cost andquality in order to set as desired objective to achieve. This trade-off among three elements willbe varied according to particular requirement from stakeholders.TimeFigure 3: The Iron TriangleCostQualityTo discuss about achievement of Moses Manbhida stadium project, it could be analysedseparately into three elements. The first part is time that generally measures by considering thatproject could be completed within allocated time (Albert, 2002). This project seems toaccomplish according to its schedule, on November 2009. This could value as crucial success forthe management team because during the construction process, this project had faced with strikeby its employee for more than two weeks. Furthermore, this project was interrupted by weatherand wind condition causing some working days would be inevitably erased from timetable butthis issue did not affected importantly to delay. Even this problems are not unique situation tothis project and can happen to other project, it represented a good cooperation in managementteam, finding the proper solution to turn the normal operation to be performed as soon aspossible and finally the team could deliver this project to client on time. This was one of a goodexample contributing from this project to illustrate the responsibilities that should be performedby project management to solve the immediate problems and compromise and the conflictbetween two parties facilitating project continued smoothly (Maylor, 2005).However, this project did not achieve obviously in term of cost as its budget was forecasted atR1.6billion but eventually actual spending climbed to be R3.1billion, accounting mostly 93%increasing (www.TheTime, 2010). One of the reasons for over budget was solving the strikeproblem by increasing their staff wages and bonus over as requesting by the protesters. The nextmain reason was significant rise in material price purchase during that time. Many specialistsmight believe that the construction project always pressures by situation being over budget.
However, it could be argued that the team should mitigate this problem by considering the riskmanagement process during the planning phase to identify and reduce possible problem. Thiswas supported by Holt (2004) that risk management is typically defined as control processfocusing to reduce uncertainty operation and prevent over budget problem.In term of quality of product, Hatush (1997) stated that “quality might be measured by technicalspecification, function, and appearance...required by product or service to satisfy a given need(as cited in Albert, 2002, p125). As a result, it could assess that this project conformed to itsrequired function and appearance containing almost 80,000 available seats with excellentfacilities to support the se-mi round of the tournament and being remarkable landmark of thecity.According to trade-off concept, this project might be balanced to focus on time and qualityachievement to support the World Cup tournament and as providing in previous paragraphs, itcould conclude that this project succeeded imperfectly according to over budgeting.Although delivering by the right time, quality and price is traditional assessment for projectsuccess (Albert, 2002), it could be argued by Maylor (2005) that the Iron triangle might not becompleted for measurement since TCQ concept tends to gauge during the construction process,whereas there are diversified requirements from stakeholders beyond the delivery stage. Similarwith Atkinson (1999), it could agree that the Iron Triangle is not appropriate enough to judge forsuccess. This is because such measurement lack to consider the benefit to organisation andstakeholders contributing by project during the post deliver phase. A good illustration fromMoses Manbhida stadium project is that this project might be measured being success at deliverystage in term of quality and time but this project has been criticised that it could not satisfy usersand generate profit to the organisation as expectation. As the result, many researchers haveintroduced new success criteria to mitigate such weakness from TCQ. For example, Atkinson(1999) suggested to measure by the Square–Rout method integrating the Iron Triangle with post-delivery stage criteria.One of the success criteria, that developed by Shenhar et al (2001), is a multidimensionalframework, focusing to measure project in different periods and perspectives of people relatedwith the project. This method separates criteria into four main dimensions distinguishingrequirements according to different stakeholders in different stages, as detail in table 2. In orderto improve effectiveness on the measurement of Moses Manbhidastdium project, four-successdimension will be discussed as follows;Success DimensionMeasuresTime to measure
Project efficiency-Meeting schedule goal-Meeting budget goalDuring a project’s execution and immediately after its completionImpact on the customer-Meeting functional performance-Meeting technical specification-Fulfilling customer needs-Solving a customer’s problem-The customer is using the product-Customer satisfactionShort-time after deliveryBusiness Success-Commercial success-Creating a large market share1-2 years after completionPreparing for the future-Creating a new market-Creating a new product line-Developing a new technology2-5 years after completion or longerSource:First dimension: Project efficiencyAs stated by Shenhar et al (2001), this dimension is established to measure whether project meetwith its constraints which, for instance, are time and budget during the execution. However, it is
worth to recall that the success from this part might not guarantee to achieve for long-termobjective and be valuable to the organisation as expectation.By the first dimension, it could analyse that the stadium may achieve in term of time but it failsaccording to cost controlling as explained in previous paragraph. The further investigation couldbe performed examining the main reason of over budgeting and might realise that it mainly camefrom inefficiency during planning phase that the team did not consider the risk of pricefluctuation on material. Consequently, there was no plan to mitigate this problem causing thecost of project double increase inevitably (African business, 2010).Second dimension: Impact on the customerThis dimension focuses on whether expectations including technical specifications andfunctional requirements from customer could be achieved by project. In the view of Shenharet a(2001), this factor directly relates with customer’s satisfaction. It is therefore one of the mostimportant parts measuring the achievement. According to assessing this project, it could benoticed that although there was no complaint relating with technical problem during the WorldCup tournament, this project could not be valued as successful project meeting requiredperformance. This is because this stadium initially expected to use as the new sport complexarranging the national sporting events, especially rugby and cricket which are the most favouritesports among African people, but its configuration could not meet with user’s requirements. Thisstadium was constructed being a football stadium without considering specification required byrugby and cricket team who mainly represented as long-term users to generate income to theproject. As stated by Brain, rugby representative, he criticised that “this project could be valuedas useless project and waste money donating by Durban people severely” (as cited intimeonline). As the result, this could be significant evidence to confirm that this project failed interm of meeting objective.Third dimension: Business successThis dimension tends to assess positive impact on the organisation as the resulting of projectimplementation. The benefits to the organisation contributing by project might be defined as, forexample, increase income and market share or improvement on product quality. In this case, itcould be measured that this project obviously failed to generate income to the organisation asexpectation. This failure is a consequence of inconsistency with user’s requirements, causing themunicipality, representing as an organisation, could not generate income covering themaintenance cost. As the result, the organisation has suffered from negative performance.Fourth dimension: Preparing for the futureThis part might be defined as the longest-term to measure how the organisation preparesthemselves to response the future opportunities. According to the main objective of MosesMabhida stadium, it was planed creating new chance for Durban being leisure destination for
local people and tourists. However, it could be argued that this expectation might be difficult toaccomplish. The main reason is the failure from the second and third dimensions from thismeasurement causing the organisation could not finance in order to extend the capability being asport complex with world-classed facilities as expectation or even maintain being the spectacularstadium. These problems might be the crucial barrier for creating innovations to compete withrivals around the world being the remarkable stadium.From the analysis, it could be seen that the Moses Mabhida stadium project delivered inefficientperformance, low customer satisfaction, not success in term of generating benefit to theorganisation and lack of preparation for the future. It, therefore, might be concluded that thisproject was a failure according to the four-success dimension theory.Apart from analysis of project success, the notable aspects affecting to the project outcome innegative way will be discussed in this section. There are some factors contributing negativeimpact on the project performance as follows.One of factor was lack of considering requirements from customers and involvement of mainusers to make decision about project specifications. In the view of Maylor (2003), it is importantfor the project team to understand and integrate the different requirements from stakeholders andimplement their work by focusing on customer delight, whereas, the Moses Mabhida team didnot mainly perform to meet with their main users. This could be supported by Hoskins, presidentof Rugby Union, confirming that there was no discussion between the project team and maincustomers such as rugby and cricket team (nationalsport, 2010). As the result, such practicecontributed unfavourable outcome causing the project suffered as failure project.Moreover, another factor that should be discussed is inefficiency of supply chain managementresulting the project run over its budget. The issue that should be highlighted is contract withsuppliers. It might assume that the management agreed to be quoted by cost-plus contract fromcontractors. According to floating price contract, the organisation might be more risky becausecontractors could transfer their uncertainty about material and labour cost to be responsible bythe project. As the result, the project might be charged by unreasonable time and cost, causing tofail in term of cost controlling.Financial overviewThe 2010 FIFA World Cup™ generated total revenue of USD 3,655 million for FIFA (excludingticketing revenue) and incurred total expenses of USD 1,298 million. Total revenue for the 2010FIFA World Cup™ comprised in particular income from the sale of TV rights of USD 2,408million, marketing rights of USD 1,072 million, hospitality rights of USD 120 million andlicensing rights of USD 55 million. USD 348 million of the total expenses was prize money forthe participating member associations. FIFA made a direct ﬁ nancial contribution of USD 226million to the Local Organising Committee. In addition, FIFA made available USD 100 millionas a World Cup legacy for South Africa. Further details of this can be found on page 40. TV
production accounted for USD 214 million. An expenses budget of USD 1,080 million had beendrawn up and approved for the 2010 FIFA World Cup South Africa™. The total costs amountedto USD 1,298 million and included USD 187 million in non-cash items. The cash-relevant coststherefore came to a total of USD 1,111 million and exceeded the budget by USD 31 million(3%).