Sydney Opera Project
The Danish architect Corn Outgo won the architecture competition set out by the NEWS government for the new building in 1957, and the construction started in 1959. The project was originally scheduled for four years, with a budget of ASS $7 million. The project ended up asking 14 years to complete and cost ASS $102 million. There appeared to be problems from the start of the project. Apparently Outgo protested that he had not completed the designs for the structure, but the government insisted that the construction get underway.
In addition, the government changed the requirements of the design after the construction was started, from two theaters to four, so plans and designs had to be modified during construction. The design created by Outgo was an architectural feat that had never been done before. Even after four years of construction, Outgo still altered the geometry of his sign, which was to save time and cost of the construction. The project was subject to many delays and cost over-runs that were unfortunately blamed on Outgo.
During the year of 1965 a new government was appointed in NEWS and they withheld payments for Toss’s plans as they opposed to his building methods. This forced Outgo to resign from the project in 1966 and a team of Australian architects were appointed to finish the construction. Page 3 There are nearly 1000 rooms in the Opera House, including the five main auditor. It is approximately mm long and mm wide at its widest point. The highest point of he building is mm above sea level. The roofs are made up of 2,914 pre-cast concrete sections; these sections are covered with exactly 1 Swedish ceramic tiles.
The entire Dulling wellness over 1 [JOE tons. Considering Tanat tens construction Degas In 1959, the building methods and design were nothing short of revolutionary and it is no wonder that this building has become the marvel it is today. In the project study of the Sydney Opera house, there were several important questions that arose. This analysis focuses on the stakeholders and the key players in this project that governed the decisions towards the events of this historical monument. The power matrix and stakeholder influence are examined, and the problems of project coordination and learning that caused the financial disarray are identified.
These aspects of the project will be analyzed to determine how the stakeholder management affected the outcome of the project. In order to adequately analyze stakeholders, a frame of reference must be established. Therefore, the report begins with a summary of five articles relevant stakeholder analysis. Next, the empirical project data is presented, which includes project goals, stakeholders, financial data, organization and time management, reject risks, and the end results and Page 4 evaluation. The empirical data sets the stage for the Opera House analysis, which is then examined in light of the chosen articles. . 4 Delimitation’s As a management project, the Sydney Opera House had so many issues and fall backs that nearly any aspect of the construction can be thoroughly analyzed. Time management could also be identified as a big issue for the project and its completion. Monetary issues were a main reason that Outgo was forced out of this project, which will be touched on later in this paper. However, these aspects of the reject were not analyzed as thoroughly since they were not directly relevant to the focal point of this report, the stakeholders.
We chose this focus because stakeholder analysis allowed us to focus our report while also encompassing the broadest range of issues. The Sydney Opera House is a historical project, the information gathered on the events and statistics of the project were obtained entirely through secondary sources. Journal and article databases were used as well as books documenting the subsequent events. Websites were referred to in this analysis; they were however seed at a minimum to ensure that all sources were firmly credible.
Several articles were used to aid in the critical analysis of this project. The first by Mitchell, Eagle, and wood, provokes tenure criteria Tort stakeholder Intercalation Ana collocations In relation to stakeholder salience. The next articles, by Newcomer, and Oleander and Landing, realize potential risks within stakeholders. Hobbs and Andersen’s article then assists with linking of customers and suppliers and defining their relationships. Finally, the article by SГ¶Darlene, Bergen, and Anderson identifies reasons for the reawaken of communication between clients and stakeholders.
Page 5 2. Theory / Frame of reference 2. 1 Mitchell (1997), “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts” “Toward a Theory of Stakeholder Identification and Salience: Defining the Principle of Who and What Really Counts” is a thorough guide to identifying stakeholders, and realizing what attention to give them. After extensive research of existing theories and methodologies, the authors are able to contribute to their own theories of takeover identification and theory of stakeholder salience.
Their theory of stakeholder identification sets out to answer “who or what are the stakeholders”(Mitchell, 1997; 853). Some analysts such as Freeman give broad definitions of stakeholders (“any group or individual who can affect or is affected by the achievement of the organizations 1997; 854), while Stanford Research Institute gives a more narrow definition (groups “on which the organization is dependent for its continued survival”). The authors of the article, Mitchell, Eagle, and Wood, strive for a balance of theories by giving each stakeholder a class as determined by three characteristics: power, legitimacy, and urgency.
Power is best defined by Hibernia ; “… The probability that one actor within a social relationship would be in a position to carry out his own will despite resistance” (Mitchell, 1997; 865). Edition also further distinguishes power into three categories; coercive (use physical force or restraint), utilitarian (use of monetary material resources), and normative (symbolic, such as status). Any party that has and uses one of these can be seen as having power. Legitimacy is often associated with power, which can be a mistake.
Those who may have legitimacy may not have power, while those who have power may not be legitimate. The combination of legitimacy and power is defined by Weber as “authority’. Legitimacy may be the hardest aspect to define, as it is variable within the context of a project. However, the authors accept Coachman’s definition, summarized as a perception that the actions of an individual or group are appropriate within social norms. The last attribute is urgency, requiring two factors, according to the autumns: when ten aspect Is time sensitive Ana went rattan stakeholder.
While these three attributes are r or not It Is Imp Page 6 variable among stakeholders, any party with one of these attributes can be seen as a stakeholder. A non-stakeholder is one who posses none of the three attributes. Those who do possess one or more of these attributes can be seen as part of one of 7 distinct classes based upon all the combinations of the three attributes. Through these seven classes, the importance and actions to be taken for each specific class become clearer. The classes are broken into three types, the first being latent stakeholders.
These are stakeholders who possess only one trait and may be less apparent stakeholders than the other two groups. The dormant stakeholder has only power and little relationship to the firm, must be noted but usually not acted with. However, if the dormant stakeholder gains legitimacy or urgency, he may become a threat. The next type is a discretionary stakeholder who has only legitimacy. This usually comes in the form of volunteers or nonprofit organizations, preaching corporate social responsibility. Managers may choose weather to engage with these stakeholders.
Next is the demanding stakeholder, which is no more than a casual annoyance since they hold only urgency. The example given is a picketer protesting that the end of the world is near and that the company is to blame. The second group is expectant stakeholders. These stakeholders hold two of the three attributes, and usually must receive attention. Dominant stakeholders hold power and legitimacy. Because they have the power to act on their legitimate claims, dominant stakeholders usually have a formal medium in place that realizes their importance, such as a human resource department or a public affairs office.
They also are the reason for documents such as annual reports and environmental reports. Next are pendent stakeholders, who hold both urgency and legitimacy. They use others with power to carry out their will, possibly through acting alongside government or top management. The last of this group are dangerous stakeholders, who have urgency and power but no legitimacy. The title is indeed relevant, as usually these stakeholders use coercive power to obtain their objectives, including terrorist attacks, vandalism, kidnapping, and theft.
Dangerous stakeholders must be identified without acknowledgement. The last group of stakeholders is the most salient, and they are definitive stakeholders. They posses all three traits and usually move from being a dominant stakeholder by obtaining urgency. There is no question that this group must be dealt with as quickly and efficiently as possible to avoid drastic repercussions. The The Sydney Opera House page 7 example given is stockholders who have power and legitimacy obtaining urgency through the drop of stock prices.
The identification of stakeholders and the degree of salience of stakeholders so Intentional allows managers to netter unreason winner tenet Toots snouts Ill authors stress that common practice ignores urgency and power while focusing on legitimacy. Only through this realization of all three factors can managers “serve the legal and moral interests of legitimate stakeholders” (Mitchell, 1997; 882). 2. 2 Hobbs & Andersen, 2001, “Different alliance relationships for project design and execution” During the second half of the asses, a study was performed by the MIMIC program among 60 large engineering projects.
The aim of the study was to identify the best practice of management of such projects. Hobbs and Andersen (2001) summarize the alliance relationship aspect of these studies and propose a model in which they define four different types of relationships. Distinction is made between traditional, arm’s-length contracts and relational co-operations during the execution phase of the project and between internalized and coalitional processes in the front-end phase. These four configurations/ types of customer relations’ management all have their advantages and disadvantages, depending on the nature of the project.
We will list the four configurations, describe some of their characteristics as well as advantages and disadvantages. 2. 2. 1 Traditional sponsorship This is the first type of arms-length contract, meaning that suppliers are awarded contracts through a bidding process. They are expected to provide an already specified good or service to the project owner, and have little opportunity to influence project development or design, which is internalized. Here the owner maintains tight control, and the cut-off point comes late in the project, after the design process.
The cut off point is where the suppliers are integrated into the project. This type of relation can be advantageous to a firm that needs control over the whole project and has a specified need The Sydney Opera House Page 8 concerning the design and functionality of the end product. However, it limits innovation, requires extensive management efforts and puts most of the completion risk on the owner. 2. 2. 2 Partners in ownership Like in a traditional sponsorship, this configuration nears that supplier relationship is kept at arm’s-length distance.
The main difference is that the supplier enters the project early in the design process and thus has a greater possibility to influence design. The completion risk is shifted largely to the supplier and a more limited management effort is required from the owner. 2. 2. 3 Partners in design and execution As opposed to the previous two configurations, these collaborations take on a elation approach. One criterion for this configuration is that the project is characterized by some form of relational contracting between a large owner and the firms it hires for project design and execution.
Another criterion is that it’s an experiment initiated by the owner and that it springs from necessity. I nee autumns mere Lustiness Detente Tour Deterrent sets AT practices. We wall glove a very brief description of all four: Partnering: “an arrangement between an owner and contractors after contracts have been competitively bid” (Hobbs and Andersen 2001). Relatively close collaboration, immunization, team-building and good management of change requests are key features. This practice has shown great improvement in cost reduction, more efficient schedules, quality and litigation.
However, the disadvantage is that it tends to leave potential gains in design and construction unexploited. Frame agreements: stands for long-term contractual relations that cover either a number of projects or a range of products/ services. Trust is a very important feature as the project owner seeks to use all resources available in the supplier organization and reduce the number of suppliers. This practice leads to gains in operational efficiency and helps avoid delays and cost overruns since the competitive bidding process is left out.
The Sydney Opera House Page 9 However, it leaves the owner heavily dependent on the supplier’s competencies and good will. One-off Integrated Project Teams: Here teams of suppliers come together for a specific project and owners are large organizations with formal processes for selecting projects. The suppliers are brought in at an early stage, sharing their ideas and knowledge and a feasible design is decided upon commonly. The contract tragedy often involves fixed-price contracts or cost reimbursable contracts with a guaranteed maximum price.
This practice has often led to exceptional performance and technical innovation. It requires a long period for the design phase and usually involves a great number of participants which is costly and time-consuming, although it’s expected to give outstanding results. Sticky Informal Networks: Relations are based on informal exchanges and expectations instead of formal contracts. This type of practice is highly influenced by history and culture and particularly common in France and Japan. It is therefore not suitable for projects where the parties are from very different cultures. . 2. 4 Relational development and execution In this configuration the same firms are involved in both front-end development and the design and executions phase. Projects like this tend to either form separate companies or Joint ventures. It is the most common configuration today and often used in infrastructure building projects, financed by the public. The owner’s role in these projects is limited and the suppliers form groups who take on the responsibility for executing the whole project. Superior performance is often required to give the project legitimacy in the public eye.
This configuration has a number of factors contributing to superior performance. Among these are scrutiny by various pressure groups, pressure from peer firms with similar knowledge, an integrated business perspective and efficiency in the execution phase since the executing firms participated in the design process. These types of projects can be very lucrative, but their magnitude also implies a great risk by putting pressure on ten owning Tall to Loveliest rolls on toner projects themselves in a very uncertain position. Tennessee teen may Tina page 10 2. 3 Newcomer (2003), “From client to project stakeholders: a stakeholder mapping approach” In this paper, Newcomer begins by affirming that the concept of client is obsolete, replaced by the idea of project stakeholders. Instead, there are sorts of “multiple clients”, which involves taking into account not only the client but also the whole community. These multiple clients have interest in the organization, thus it is important that the project’s and stakeholders’ objectives match.
Newcomer defines the project stakeholders as “groups or individuals who have a take in, or expectation of, the project’s performance and include clients, project managers, designers, subcontractors, suppliers, funding bodies, users and the community at large” (Newcomer, 2003; p. 3). Thus, they can be people inside or outside the project. Stakeholders interact especially within two fields: the cultural arena, where they share values and reinforce co-operation; and the political arena, which can be subject to expectations’ and objectives’ and conflicts between stakeholders.
One of the main purposes of Newcomers article was to make an analysis of the stakeholders through mapping. To assess the importance of stakeholders’ expectations, one must answer three questions: how likely each stakeholder group is to enforce its expectations on the project, his nears, and the impact on future project strategies. Two methods are developed: the power/ predictability matrix and the power/interest matrix. The power/predictability matrix The power/interest matrix Source: Newcomer, 2003; p. Page 1 1 Stakeholders of different zones may interact, and when a decision is made it can have repercussions on the behavior of another group of stakeholders. Zones A and B, even if they have less power, can influence the other zones. Managing them is very important too because it helps avoid the tendency of re-positioning (especially from zone C to D). Newcomer also mentions the fact that a group can change position during the development of the project.
To sum up, these mappings allows the project manager to assess the cultural and political context AT a project, Ana erasers ten quietest AT repositioning Ana maintaining the level of certain stakeholders or not. Project managers also have to deal with some ethical issues. For instance, there is the problem of deciding whether o give in to some stakeholders’ demands instead of staying impartial and logical. Moreover, to expedite decisions, the project manager can resort to an alliance with outside stakeholders.
The more ethical Kantian approach states two principles: all the stakeholders should have benefits in the project and the project manager should be the trustee interaction between stakeholders and the project. Implementation of construction projects” To complete the article of Newcomer, we used the article of Oleander & Landing. They give a definition of stakeholders and add that they can be a threat or a benefit. The mint is to identify “stakeholders who can affect the project, and then manage their differing demands through good communication in the early stages of a & Landing, 2005; p. ) Bonked and Winch also developed a stakeholder map, which includes proponent and opponent stakeholders, problems identified by them, and their suggested solutions to the problems. Two examples are taken in the article, which deal with external stakeholders’ issues. The first project analyzed is the housing project in Lund. The main problems were with residents in the vicinity because buildings affected their environment and with page 12 roofs for the preservation of the cultural and historical image of the city.
The municipality persisted in supporting the real estate developer. The second project was a railroad project in Lund. All the alternatives for the location of the railroad track had not been envisaged (the chosen option was to build it along the existing single track route) and residents were strongly opposed to this solution as they would be affected by the growing traffic. Both projects were appealed in court because of such strong opposition. The main consequences were delays and cost overruns.
In both cases, the mapping of power ND interest evolved during the progress of the project. 2. 5 Bergen, SГ¶Darlene & Anderson (2001), “Clients, Contracts and Consultants: The consequences of organization fragmentation in contemporary project environments” The article ‘Clients, Contracts and Consultants: The consequences of organization fragmentation in contemporary project environments’ highlights many issues that have come across several companies during their respective projects.
While management issues have usually focused on the actual project team and their client, it has become more and more apparent that in today’s competitive environment the Ochs needs to be on the relationships between the parties involved in a project. It is now more common Tort external consultants or engineers to De anneal on Dental AT ten client. This methodology is known as the Agency theory (SГ¶Darlene, Bergen & Anderson, 2001). Where a principle hires an agent to perform tasks affecting the principle(for example a client hiring a lawyer to govern the best decisions on their behalf).
The method centers on the problem of handling the risk of opportunistic behavior of the agent as they are the ones who are required to act. Another case heron cross referenced is that of the transaction cost economics by Williamson. Transaction cost economics analyses the boundaries of a firm and when activities should be performed in house or contracted out. This theory predicts that if uncertainty and the degree of uniqueness are high, then activities should remain within the firm to avoid opportunistic behavior from an outside firm.
These theories are based on dyads, the case studies analyses in this article have a triad relationship. This The Sydney Opera House page 13 caused the problems of control, cooperation, and opportunism to become substantially more difficult. Upon viewing these triad relationships and the organizational fragmentation it created with the three case studies in the article, three situations arose: 1. The problem of co-ordination 2. The problem of the absent customer 3.
The problem of learning Comprehensive contracts and plans are not enough to navigate and coordinate large projects in this day and age. Complex engineering and interdependent activities will most likely have a high degree of uncertainty and will require other forms of coordination. This will often lead to a bureaucratically of communication that will in turn increase the control costs. As more consultants and technical engineers are hired to supervise a project, it becomes hard to distinguish who has the ability to give what orders.
This in turn introduces rigidities to the project and obstructs innovation in project execution as the management flow is lost. If the client or operator of a firm delegates all responsibilities to external consultants, suppliers lose opportunities to reach tradeoffs between project cost and operation benefits. When the communication from the client is cut, it becomes difficult to identify what solution they might benefit from most, and the goal of the project may e led astray from other firms representing the customer.
The absence of the clients input will complicate the relationships between the hired firm and delimit the possibility of future transactions. Knowledge building is a key component in building successful companies. It is important to draw on previous experiences in order to move forward in the project. Contractor outsourcing of on site management roles eliminates the possibility of interpersonal feedback channels since the experience learned in a project will be taken when the hired firm leaves. For example if an external firm is hired to