Block diagram reduction techniques in control systems.ppt
Project Complexity (Case study)
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
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
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
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
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
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).