Understanding Project complexity and drawing complexity maps.A case study on Big Dig Project (Central artery tunnel project) Boston.

1. “Big Dig” Project
THE CENTRAL ARTERY/TUNNEL PROJECT (CA/T)
A CASE STUDY ON PROJECT COMPLEXITY.

2. Project Description
Located in Boston, MA, on the
northeast coast of the United
States.
 Includes tunnels, highway
interchange connections, bridges
and pedestrian facilities

3. Project Map

4. Project Description
Rerouted the Central Artery (Interstate 93),
into a 3.5-mile (5.6-km) tunnel.
 Construction of the Ted Williams Tunnel.
 Construction of the Leonard P. Zakim Bunker
Hill Memorial Bridge over the Charles River.
 Construction of the Rose Kennedy
Greenway in the space vacated by the
previous I-93 elevated roadway.

5. Project Description
 Planning Phase started in 1982
 Construction work – 1991-2006
 Estimated Completion - 1998
 Actual Completion – Dec 31, 2007
Estimated Cost - $2.8 billion
Final Cost - $14.6 billion
Cost over run – 190%
Official project owner - Massachusetts
Turnpike Authority
 Joint venture of Bechtel and Parson
Brinkerhoff
Source: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com

6. Why Boston Needed the Big Dig?
Traffic improvements and
substantial reductions in
congestion
 Improving mobility in
downtown Boston
 Reconnect neighborhoods
severed by the old elevated
highway
Source: http://www.massdot.state.ma.us

7. Central Artery: Before and After
Source:http://www.bigdig.com

8. Problems faced
Escalating costs
Scheduling overruns
Design flaws
Charges of poor execution and use of
substandard materials
Fatal Ceiling Collapse
Criminal arrests and one death
Source: http://www.roadtraffic-technology.com

9. Complexity Factors - Cost
Contingency Usage
◦ Construction Contracts
◦ Management Contingency
◦ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority CEO Contingency
Risk Analysis
◦ Location
◦ Utilities
Estimate Formation
◦ Ted Williams Tunnel
◦ Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge
◦ Center Artery (I-93)

10. Complexity Factors - Cost
Figure. Big Dig Project Cost Growth (National Research Council 2003)
55%
15%
8%
7%
5%
3%
2%
5% Inflation
Environmental/Mitigation
Scope Growth
Accounting Changes
Traffic
Schedule Maintenance
Contingency for Unknowns
Other

11. Complexity Factors - Schedule
Timeline Requirements
◦ Community Conflicts
Milestones
Schedule Control
◦ Software Programs

12. Complexity Factors - Technical
Scope of Project
Owner’s Internal Structure
Design Method

13. Complexity Factors - Context
Public
◦ Economic Value of Boston
Utility Coordination
◦ 29 Miles of Underground Utility Relocation and Updating
Land Use Impact
◦ 300 acres of Green Space

14. Complexity Factors - Financing
Federal Funding
State Funding
Borrowing Against Future Funding

15. Project Dimension Complexity
Ranking
DIMENSION RANK
Context 5
Cost 4
Technical 3
Financing 2
Schedule 1

16. Project Dimension Complexity
Rating
DIMENSIONS SCALE (0 – 100)
Cost Dimension
Complexity
99
Schedule Dimension
Complexity
90
Technical Dimension Complexity 95
Context
Dimension Complexity
100
Financing Dimension Complexity 92

17. Complexity Map
The Big Dig Project
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Technical
Cost
FinancingContext
Schedule

18. Critical Planning and
Analysis Methods
Method 1: Define Critical Success Factors
◦ Community Needs
◦ Political Restrictions
◦ Federal and State Funding
◦ Major Project Components
◦ Center Artery (I-93)
◦ Ted Williams Tunnel
◦ Zakim Bunker Hill Bridge

19. Method 2: Assemble Project Team
Communication
Collaboration
◦ Example
◦ Ted Williams Tunnel Ceiling Panel Collapse

20. Method 3: Project Arrangements
Design-Bid-Build
Value Engineering
Dispute Resolution
Dispute Resolution Board

21. Method 4: Early Cost Model
and Finance Plan
Incorrect Initial Cost Model and Finance Plan
The cost model would have included
◦ Inflation
◦ Project Risk- Account for Cost Overruns
◦ More detail over Design Costs

22. Method 5: Develop
Project Action Plans
Major Obstacles
◦ Restrictive Legislation
◦ Acquisition of ROW
◦ Cooperation of Utilities
◦ Community Support

23. Tools for Managing Complex Projects
The following tools were used in the Big Dig Project:
•Public involvement plan
•Critical permit issues
•Offsite fabrication
•Co-locate team
•Dispute resolution plan

24. Public Involvement Plan
◦ Project planners worked with community groups, government & business leaders to
create a consensus of how the project would be built
◦ Mitigation: The process of keeping the city open and making certain all
affected groups would be treated fairly
◦ Informed, organized interest groups press for their demands
◦ Public involvement plan produces early project wins of consensus but at the
expense of late project soaring project costs

25. Critical Permit Issues
◦ Bechtel/Parsons Brinkerhoff (B/PB):
◦ Engineering authority that approved, permitted, and released designs for construction
◦ Construction managers in charge of contractors & sub-contractors
◦ B/PB operated the project with the philosophy of getting this done, ask questions later
◦ Many plans that were permitted and released for construction were incomplete, contained
numerous errors, and lacked proper subsurface exploration
◦ The lax oversight produced an estimated $750 million in construction over-runs

26. Offsite Fabrication
◦ Utilized successfully on the CA/T project
◦ Several examples are:
◦ Immersed steel tubes for the Ted Williams Tunnel
◦ Steel box girder sections for the Bunker Hill Bridge
◦ Utilized successfully on the CA/T project
◦ Offsite fabrication of box girders and steel tubes produced accurate sections per specification that could
be test connected at the factory to insure smooth and timely installation
◦ Quicker assembly time at the job site with smaller construction crews as compared to onsite fabrication
◦ Exposure of construction workers to difficult job environments was reduced as compared to onsite
fabrication

27. Co-Locate Team
◦ Co-Locate elements of the project team to produce a cohesive team effort to complete a project
◦ Perhaps the most controversial tool
◦ In 1998, State of Massachusetts combined B/PB with state workers into one integrated project
organization
◦ Massachusetts Turnpike Authority was at the top of the organization chart
◦ State of Massachusetts designated B/PB as “owner’s representative” in several instances
◦ Who is in charge?

28. Dispute Resolution Plan
◦ Two noteworthy dispute resolution plan techniques were utilized on the CA/T project:
◦ Partnering
◦ Mediation
◦ Partnering was practiced on the CA/T project for construction projects with a duration of least
one year and a value of $1 million or more
◦ Mediation was utilized to resolve the dispute of responsibility for leaks at the Fort Point
Channel tunnel area

29. References
◦ Bartlett School of Planning (UCL). (2011). “The Central Artery/Third Harbor Tunnel Project (‘The Big Dig’), Omega Centre.” Bloomsbury, London.
◦ Gelinas, N. (2007). “Lessons of Boston’s Big Dig.” City Journal Autumn. New York, New York.
◦ Greirman, V. (2010). “The Big Dig: Learning from a Mega Project.” NASA, <http://appel.nasa.gov/2010/07/15/the-big-dig-learning-from-a-mega-project/>
(November 13, 2013).
◦ Hsu, J. Mckay, S., McKnight, M. (2003). “Cost-Benefit Analysis of Boston’s Central Artery/Tunnel Project” Carnegie Mello University. Pittsburgh, PA.
◦ Lewis, R. and Murphy, S. (2003). “Artery Errors Cost More Than $1b.” The Boston Globe, <http://www.boston.com/globe/metro/packages/bechtel/>
(November 13, 2013).
◦ Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT). (2013). “The Central Artery/Tunnel Project-The Big Dig.” MassDOT Highway Division.
<http://www.massdot.state.ma.us/highway/TheBigDig.aspx> (October 5, 2013).
◦ National Research Council. “Completing the "Big Dig": Managing the Final Stages of Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Washington, DC: The National
Academies Press, 2003.
◦ Poole, R.W., Samuel, P. (2011). “Transportation Mega-Projects and Risk.” Reason Foundation Policy Brief 97. Los Angeles, CA.
◦ Saltzman, J. (2009). “Big Dig Contractor Modern Continental Pleads Guilty.” Boston Globe.
<http://www.boston.com/news/local/breaking_news/2009/05/modern_continen_2.html> (October 5, 2013).
◦ Salvucci, F. P. (2008). “Unearthing the Big Dig.” Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Cambridge, MA.
◦ Wood, D. (2001). “Learning From the Big Dig.” Federal Highway Administration: Public Roads,
<http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/01julaug/bigdig.cfm> (November 13, 2013).