INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Brighton Bypass Project, Tasmania 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 Brighton Bypass Project in Hobart, 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 Australian Government $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 highway 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, dual carriageway highway, three grade separated interchanges, a significant crossing of the Jordan River, 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