Brighton Bypass Project, Tasmania
Transcript of Brighton Bypass Project, Tasmania
INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 2 of 15
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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 East Derwent Highway 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 Brighton
Transport Hub.
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 9 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 10 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 11 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,
<http://www.ancr.com.au/brighton_bypass.pdf>.
Civil Contractors Federation (CCF) 2011, Tasmanian branch 2011 Earth Awards, Civil Contractors
Federation, viewed 8 October 2013, <http://www.civilcontractors.com/tasmanian-branch-2011-
earth-awards>.
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) 2008, Brighton Bypass – Project Proposal
Report, Tasmanian Government, viewed 6 October 2013,
<http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/52685/Final_Brighton_Bypass_Proje
ct_Proposal_Report.pdf>.
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) 2009, Midland Highway Brighton Bypass
Project Proposal Report Construction, Tasmanian Government, viewed 8 October 2013,
<http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0007/52684/Brighton_Bypass_Project_Pr
oposal_Report_Construction_16_03_2009_low.pdf>.
Department of Infrastructure, Energy and Resources (DIER) 2012, The Making of the Brighton Bypass,
Tasmanian Government, viewed 7 October 2013,
<http://www.transport.tas.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/82583/Brighton_Bypass_Booklet.pdf
>.
Hartley, S 2009, Project Management: Principles, Processes and Practice, 2nd edn, Pearson Education
Australia, Sydney.
Living Black 2011, Brighton Bypass, video, YouTube, 12 December, viewed 8 October 2013,
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3yNwyBE8EY>.
McIntosh, KA 2013, The Top Ten Benefits of Planning in Project Management, Demand Media,
viewed 8 October 2013, <http://smallbusiness.chron.com/top-ten-benefits-planning-project-
management-24388.html>.
Ogilvie, RA 2010, Early contractor involvement hastens Brighton Bypass up to 15 months, viewed 8
October 2013, <http://www.earthmover.com.au/news/2010/august/early-contractor-involvement-
hastens-brighton-bypass-up-to-15months>.
INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 12 of 15
Pitt & Sherry 2011, Autumn Issue 2011, Pitt & Sherry, viewed October 7 2013,
<http://www.pittsh.com.au/assets/files/PS%20Journals/PS%20Journal%20Autumn%2011.pdf>.
Thiess 2013, Brighton Bypass (Northern Section), Thiess, viewed 8 October 2013,
<http://www.thiess.com.au/capabilities/projects/brighton-bypass-northern-section>.
Wikipedia 2013, Brighton Bypass, Wikipedia, viewed 6 October 2013,
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brighton_Bypass>.
INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 13 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
community
From Living Black’s (2011) video, in 2008 before the construction of the project,
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 14 of 15
Appendix B – Opportunities Register
(DIER 2008)
INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 15 of 15
INFS 2022 Project Management: Principles and Strategies xxxx Assessment 2 – Project Analysis Report Page 16 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