INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report

Brighton Bypass Project,

xxx

Table of Contents

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 2 of 15

Executive Summary 4

Introduction 5

Project Stakeholder Analysis 6

How the Project was Managed 7

Critical Analysis of Project Outcome 8

Conclusion 10

Reference List 11

Appendix A – Principle Stakeholders 13

Appendix B – Opportunities Register 14

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 3 of 15

Executive Summary

This report critically analyses the successful completion of The Project in , Tasmania and how the project was planned and performed. It reinforces the importance of project definition and needs identification in the initial phase of the project life cycle. The Brighton Bypass cost the $191 million and construction took place from April 2009 to November 2012. The main objective of the project was to provide a safer and more efficient for both commuters and freight movers.

A project stakeholder analysis was conducted which identified the principle stakeholders as the client – the Tasmanian Government’s Department for Infrastructure, Energy and Resources; the two main contracted joint ventures which were responsible for constructing a section of the project each – Thiess and VEC Civil Engineering (VEC Thiess JV – northern section) and John Holland and Hazell Bros (JHHB – southern section); and the local Aboriginal community who wanted to conserve the land in which part of the project was being proposed to be built on. A Stakeholder Management team was assigned to engage the community in the project and mitigate any concerns or disruptions in the project.

The project was managed using an Early Contractor Involvement arrangement for procurement followed by a Design and Construction contract. Due to the meticulous planning of the project team, the project was completed three months ahead of schedule despite a slight overrun in costs attributable to the redesign of part of the project to preserve the Aboriginal heritage site.

Critical analysis of the project proved the project to be successful, delivering on all the proposed objectives in the planning phase. This was largely due to the close collaboration of the client and the main contractors, and the careful planning and knowledge of the project team including their risk management strategies. The most significant setback for the project was the lack of consideration and collaboration with the local Aboriginal community regarding the preservation of a heritage site. This caused a hold in the project resulting in a redesign and higher costs, however does not take from the success of the project.

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 4 of 15

Introduction

The Brighton Bypass Project in Hobart is the largest road infrastructure project in Tasmanian history. The project comprises a northern and southern section where two joint ventures were selected for the construction of each section. Both joint ventures worked closely with the client, the Tasmanian Government’s Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (TGDIER), to develop the scope of the project, preliminary designs and cost estimates. The entire project cost $191 million with the Australian Government funding $186.2 million; it began in April 2009 and was completed in November 2012, with over 1,800 people working on the project during its construction (Thiess 2013).

The project objective was to ‘improve efficiency and safety of the Midland Highway and improve safety and amenity for the townships of Brighton and Pontville’ (DIER 2012) as this was one of Tasmania’s most worn and dangerous sections of road. The Brighton Bypass aimed to provide a safer, more efficient movement of freight and general traffic between the north and south of the state, improve connection to the rapidly expanding Brighton Industrial Estate (Ogilvie 2010), and reduce travel time between Hobart and Launceston (Pitt & Sherry 2011).

The scope of the project included (DIER 2008): The construction of approximately 9.5km of new, highway, three grade separated interchanges, a significant crossing of the , crossings of minor waterways, some realignment of the Main Line railway, several overpass and underpass structures at road and rail crossings, realignment of secondary roads, construction of service roads and ramps, significant property acquisition and other accommodation works.

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 5 of 15

Project Stakeholder Analysis

A project Stakeholder is defined as ‘a person or entity that may or may not gain and benefit from the project, but can materially affect its outcome’ (Hartley 2009, p. 62). Stakeholders must be identified and managed as they can either support or hinder the project and will ultimately impact on the project’s success.

The principal stakeholders in the Brighton Bypass Project were the project sponsor/client – TGDIER, the two contracted joint ventures that constructed the project – Thiess and VEC Civil Engineering (VEC Thiess JV) and John Holland and Hazell Bros (JHHB), and the local Aboriginal community. Refer to Appendix A – Principle Stakeholders, for a detailed discussion of the aforementioned stakeholders’ role in the project.

There were of course other stakeholders including but not limited to land owners near the area, road users, archeologists, staff, sub-contractors, suppliers, competitors and the general public. Given the scale of the project, a Stakeholder Consultation Strategy was proposed in the project proposal report to ‘…provide a holistic, coordinated approach to consultation planning and communication and will assist in managing emerging issues; keeping stakeholders informed; maintaining positive relationships with stakeholders; and ensuring positive, proactive communication’ (DIER 2009). Part of this strategy included a Stakeholder Engagement Plan which aimed to ‘…actively engage the community in the [project]; minimise stakeholder disruption and inconvenience; [and] avoid project hold-ups due to stakeholder concerns and complaints’ (DIER 2009).

As a result, the Stakeholder Management Team encouraged active involvement from the community through websites, posters in local areas, newspaper advertisements, letters to directly impacted stakeholders, informal information days, and public displays so all community members felt comfortable to make enquiries and express their options, concerns and ideas relating to the project (DIER 2009). Consultation Manager Software was also adopted to monitor issues throughout the project and an Opportunities Register was developed as a means of pursuing opportunities to engage stakeholders as per Appendix B (DIER 2009).

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 6 of 15

How the Project was Managed

After the project development phase was completed, the project delivery/implementation phase began. The activities for this phase included (DIER 2009): 1. Early Contractor Involvement design development/pricing/Design & Construction contract award 2. Commence design and construction: Earthworks, drainage, structures, pavement, traffic facilities, landscaping 3. Hub completion 4. Complete bypass construction

VIC/SA/TAS/NZ Business Unit Engineering Manager, Dougie Wight, said, “The VEC Thiess Joint Venture has worked very hard…on the planning, design, and preparation for these works. After so much effort it was very gratifying to see [it] go so smoothly and entirely according to plan” (ANCR 2013, p. 237).

‘Thiess’ Regional General Manager, Rod Heale, also commended the team on its meticulous planning’ as the project was delivered three months ahead of schedule (ANCR 2013, p. 236-237). Their efforts were recognised after receiving two awards as CCF (2011) stated: An Early Contractor Involvement (ECI) project delivery strategy was used on the project, a first for Tasmania. The Project Team delivered the Southern Section Project using best for project and value for money principles and achieved outstanding cost, time, quality and safety outcomes.

VIC/SA/TAS/NZ Lifting Superintendent John Foster says, “Having an in-depth understanding of the challenging ground conditions has enabled us to plan and prepare down to the finest details…In eliminating or at the very least reducing the risks, we have been able to safely achieve our goal…with no surprises” (ANCR 2013, p. 237).

The project was initially estimated to cost $164 million however was completed at $191 million. A large part of this deviation is attributed to the $15 million redesign to preserve the Aboriginal heritage site and presumably other associated costs. Despite the cost, it is evident that careful planning of the Brighton Bypass Project produced remarkable results. The benefits of careful planning in this case have resulted in minimal deviations and a shorter completion time however other benefits include producing reliable budgets, direction and accountability of the team, maximizing and ensuring adequate resources, anticipating and minimizing problems, and completing projects successfully (McIntosh 2013).

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 7 of 15

Critical Analysis of Project Outcome

The Brighton Bypass Project has achieved a remarkable result, providing major improvements to the Midland Highway to the north of Hobart – protecting the archeological and heritage sites of the past, and providing for the future transport needs of Tasmania (ANCR 2013, p. 237). The outcomes of the Brighton Bypass Project included (DIER 2012):  A new dual carriageway between the at Bridgewater and the existing Midland Highway north of Pontville.  A highway system to accommodate Tasmania's growing freight task, which is projected to double by 2022.  A safer road network for all users by addressing many safety issues associated with the deficiencies of the existing highway.  Reduced travelling time on the Midland Highway between the northern and southern regions.  Diverts heavy traffic away from the Brighton and Pontville townships which improves amenity, community safety, social benefits and access to businesses.  Significantly improved connections to the developing Brighton Industrial Estate and .  Seamless connections between road/rail freight via the Brighton Transport Hub.  Major economic stimulus to the Tasmanian construction industry, economy and the broader community.  Duration of construction (north): several months ahead of 3 year contractual timeframe.  Duration of construction (south): 15 months ahead of 2.5 year contractual timeframe. The outcomes of the Brighton Bypass have met the initial purpose, objectives and scope of the project, making this a successful project.

As mentioned previously, careful planning provides many benefits to the project manager. The first stage of the project life cycle, the concept phase, is crucial in setting the foundation of the project’s success and ensures the project is completed as scheduled, on budget and as specified (Hartley 2009, p. 24). Planning of the Brighton Bypass began in 2007 when the Tasmanian Government ‘…released the Southern Transport Investment Program, a comprehensive Transport study which marked a clear plan and timetable for constructing the bypass’ (Wikipedia 2013). The Tasmanian government began environmental and heritage assessments of the project site years before the actual construction of the project, hence allowing them to have as much information as possible to make decisions, plan resource allocation and feasibility.

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 8 of 15

Project stakeholders are also important during the planning phase as it prevents ‘…the exclusion of any key information and the decision makers. Only with their initial help can the project manager hope to present indicative deliverables, timeliness, budgets and resource requirements’ (Hartley 2009, p. 67). A large contribution to the success of the Brighton Bypass Project was the close involvement and collaboration of the TGDIER, VEC Thiess JV and JHHB in delivering the project objectives. However with the lack of initial consideration for the archeological and Aboriginal heritage site, this required them to modify their original designs and ‘…develop new and innovative techniques to manage strict limitations on access to the heritage site’ (DIER 2012). Despite these modifications, the Aboriginal community and archeologists were still deeply upset by this situation. However the former Minister for Environment, Parks and Heritage, David O’Byrne, acknowledged that they need to do better and has stated that they are working very hard with the Tasmanian Aboriginal Land and Sea Council and other Aboriginal organisations in Tasmania to ensure that they don’t see a repeat of the Brighton Bypass in regards to preserving Tasmania’s history (Living Black 2011).

Risk management is another important practice in ensuring a successful project as there will always be risk present in every project. Due to the redesign of part of the project, this left the construction team confined within a river valley and bridge structure which created challenges for the team (ANCR 2013, p. 237). VIC/SA/TAS/NZ Lifting Superintendent, John Foster, said (ANCR 2013, p. 237): Due to the confined conditions, we had to change the lift methodology from a Critical lift to an Engineered lift. Precision in our calculations was a critical factor in the success of the lift and the room for error was extremely minimal. Also added onto this is the constant monitoring of both wind speed and direction. Conditions can change pretty quickly and although we cannot control these factors, we can prepare for them and manage them accordingly to ensure everyone remains safe at all times. This example shows that the team was prepared and had a plan to manage unexpected changes/risks in the project which resulted in them being able to safely and successfully complete the task in accordance with their contingency plan.

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 9 of 15

Conclusion

Reflecting on the project, it was a success as the project team had a proficient understanding of the objectives and requirements of the project as well as having done extensive research on the project site prior to construction. The largest contribution to the success of the Brighton Bypass project was the client, TGDIER, working closely with the two main contractors for the construction of the project, VEC Thiess JV and JHHB. This allowed the changing needs of the project to be continuously communicated with the team. The Brighton Bypass was an absolute success as evidenced by the awards it received. The only set back to consider in future projects was the lack of consideration for the heritage site and thus lack of collaboration with a key stakeholder group. This caused a hold in the project, and a redesign which resulted in costs exceeding the estimate.

Word count: 1,735

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 10 of 15

Reference List

Australian National Construction Review (ANCR) 2013, ‘Ancient Artifacts Inspire a Brave New First’, TAS Project Feature Brighton Bypass, pp. 236-241, viewed 8 October 2013, .

Civil Contractors Federation (CCF) 2011, Tasmanian branch 2011 Earth Awards, Civil Contractors Federation, viewed 8 October 2013, .

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) 2008, Brighton Bypass – Project Proposal Report, Tasmanian Government, viewed 6 October 2013, .

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) 2009, Midland Highway Brighton Bypass Project Proposal Report Construction, Tasmanian Government, viewed 8 October 2013, .

Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) 2012, The Making of the Brighton Bypass, Tasmanian Government, viewed 7 October 2013, .

Hartley, S 2009, Project Management: Principles, Processes and Practice, 2nd edn, Pearson Education , Sydney.

Living Black 2011, Brighton Bypass, video, YouTube, 12 December, viewed 8 October 2013, .

McIntosh, KA 2013, The Top Ten Benefits of Planning in Project Management, Demand Media, viewed 8 October 2013, .

Ogilvie, RA 2010, Early contractor involvement hastens Brighton Bypass up to 15 months, viewed 8 October 2013, .

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 11 of 15

Pitt & Sherry 2011, Autumn Issue 2011, Pitt & Sherry, viewed October 7 2013, .

Thiess 2013, Brighton Bypass (Northern Section), Thiess, viewed 8 October 2013, .

Wikipedia 2013, Brighton Bypass, Wikipedia, viewed 6 October 2013, .

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 12 of 15

Appendix A – Principle Stakeholders

Principle Stakeholder Role/impact on the project TGDIER The project sponsor/client, TGDIER’s primary function is to ‘…identify and/or confirm the business needs and initiate the project. They also invariably provide seed funding, resource allocations and (change) approvals’ (Hartley 2009, p. 63). TGDIER commissioned GHD Pty Ltd to prepare a report on traffic data for the Midland Highway which included travel destination, volume, crashes and public transport (DIER 2008). This report identified the need for the Brighton Bypass Project and subsequently the Australian Government funded the bulk of the project. VEC Thiess JV & JHHB The two joint ventures had to manage and coordinate the two sections of the project. VEC Thiess JV were responsible for building the northern section which involved designing and constructing 6.5km of dual carriageway, and JHHB were responsible for constructing the southern section and the transport hub which involved the design and construction of a 3.4km section of the Midland Highway, access roads, 6km of new rail, and locomotive maintenance facilities (DIER 2012). The joint ventures worked closely with TGDIER using an Early Contractor Involvement arrangement ensuring the success of the project. Local Aboriginal From Living Black’s (2011) video, in 2008 before the construction of the project, community the Tasmanian government began environmental and heritage assessments of the project site including excavation by archeologists which led to a discovery of stone artifacts dating back up to 10,000 years. The state government ignored this and began construction anyway which led to the local Aboriginal community protesting and further excavation revealing that the artifacts date back 40,000 years. This discovery resulted in a hold on the project with the local government proposing a $15 million redesign to preserve almost the entire site. However the Aboriginal community wanted a $140 million reroute of the road so all artifacts would remain untouched. This proposal was rejected as it was deemed unsafe and too costly. These external stakeholders had an enormous impact on the project and effort was made to meet stakeholder expectations however it is not always possible as in this case.

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 13 of 15

Appendix B – Opportunities Register

(DIER 2008)

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 14 of 15

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 15 of 15

Assessment Feedback School of Management INFS 2022 (2013) - Project Management: Principles and Strategies Assignment 2: Project Analysis Report (1500 Word limit) - 35 % of final grade

The Graduate qualities being assessed by this assignment are: Demonstration and application of a body of knowledge about project management skills and, in particular, project analysis (GQ 4 32.5%) that supports the use of a decision making model and critical thinking for problem solving (GQ3 55%). Issues pertaining to project communication are also assessed (GQ612.5%).

Key components of this assignment Y/N/? Comments 1. Content 1.1 Has the project been analysed critically and with depth? 1.2 Are the key issues addressed? 1.3 Is there a consideration of qualitative/quantitative information while assessing the environment and the project key issues? 1.4 Is there a logical analysis of the project management system and/or international trends? 1.5 Has the outcome of the project been discussed argumentatively and with adequate justification? 2. Language 2.1 Principles of effective business writing 2.2 Correct grammar 2.3 Correct in-text citation 2.4 Coherent and comprehensible

3. Structure 3.1 Introduction 3.2 Discussion 3.3 Conclusion writing 3.4 Recommendations 3.7 Appendices Grade

INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 16 of 15