Scottish Parliament At Holyrood

Introduction

This study intends to reply – how a national iconic undertaking turned into “ … a enormously expensive and politically abashing debacle? ” ( Fortescue, 2004 ) – by analysing the grounds that led to detain, cost overproduction and quality issue in building of new Scottish Parliament Building. This study has utilized the researches available on the cyberspace, hearer ‘s study and other articles available from varied beginnings. This study will get down by debut to the background of Scots Parliament undertaking and will go on by discoursing the ground for holds and cost additions, function of the undertaking direction and at the terminal reasoning the lessons learned from this undertaking. The ground for choice of this undertaking is that the Scottish Parliament edifice was estimated to be completed in ?40m but finished at over ?400m which is an interesting parametric quantity to analyze ( BBC, 2004 ) .

Background to the Scottish Parliament Undertaking:

After the referendum in 1997, Scottish parliament was established as a devolved legislative assembly by Scotland Act 1998. Thereafter, Donald Dewar, Secretary of Scotland province adjudicated to hold a intent built installation to suit the Parliament in the Edinburgh metropolis. After holding a helter-skelter journey to completion, Scots parliament Complex was inaugurated on 9 Oct 2004 by Queen Elizabeth II. Remarkable characteristics of the complex consist of leaf-shaped edifices, flipped over boat shaped roof, a grass-roofed division meeting into next parkland and gabion walls made from the rocks. All over the edifice there are assorted perennial motives. Scots parliament is a complex edifice comprising of new and old edifices such as Dewar room, Canon gate edifice, Debating chamber, Garden anteroom, MSP edifice, Media tower, Main hall, Tower edifice, and Queensberry house. All of these edifices were renovated or constructed as per Architect ‘s vision. High terminal stuffs like Granite, Cattiness Stone, Oak Timber, Sycamore Timber, Steel Glass and Marble was used in the building. Detailed environment and sustainability survey was carried out which confirmed that propose built complex is environment friendly ( Fraser, 2004 ) .

Brief sum-up of the Undertaking: Road to Holyrood

Site Choice:

To get down with, Edinburgh City Council provided a long list of 27 sites in Edinburgh. In September 1997 functionaries short listed three taking options: two new physique options, either at Leith or Haymarket, or accommodating and developing the bing St Andrews House edifice ( old Royal high school ) . At this phase, an applied scientist Jones Lang Wootton was engaged by the Scots office to viably measure the acquisition costs of the shortlisted sites. Measurements of environmental issue and traffic issue were besides considered at this point. Haymarket was ne’er considered as preferable option and functionaries sensed existent ill will in Edinburgh to house the Parliament anyplace except centrally therefore cut downing the opportunities of Leith ( Auditor General, 2000 ) .

The Holyrood site was non considered at this phase as it was occupied by Scots and Newcastle brewery and was anticipated that it would non be completed within the needed deadline. However, an inadvertent meeting of a civil retainer on train with an functionary of Newcastle and subsequent dialogues resulted in the company showing that they would evacuate the site in early 1999. As a effect, on 8th December Holyrood was short-listed, and design and cost viability surveies undertaken. Davis, Langdon and Everest ( DLE ) , Cost Consultants were commissioned to supply initial cost estimation for proposed sites and the Holyrood site was selected in early 1998 from the short list based on the undermentioned cost estimation ( Auditor General,2000 ) . :

Design Choice:

Once, the location was finalized the Scottish Office announced an international competition to get a interior decorator for a new-fangled edifice to suit the parliament through a competitory choice process. The competition was appropriately setup with a imperativeness release on 26 January 1998. The concluding design squads named on 7th May 1998 supplying the undertaking cost as being in the scope of ?50 million excepting VAT ( Fraser, 2004 ) .

Under the chairmanship of Dewar, a design commission was allotted to take from a short list of interior decorator. Conceptual designs were cost and expose for public to see and supply their sentiment. Feedback from the populace depicted that the Catalan architect Enric Miralles ‘ designs were one of the most popular. The design squad considered public sentiment on the designs, and on 6 July 1998 the Enric Miralles‘s design was selected, with work being awarded to a Spanish Scottish design company viz. EMBT/RMJM ( Scotland ) Ltd, entirely created for the undertaking. Construction direction system of procurance was adopted and BLL was appointed as building director. In June 1999, building commenced, by pulverizing the Scots and Newcastle brewery and opening the foundation work ( The royal society of Edinburg, 2001 ) .

Journey of Estimate:

The building of the Scots Parliament Complex generated contention in several facets. Gyrating costs and the usage of public capital to fund the undertaking rendered most contention. By early 2004, the undertaking was estimated to be ?430m, some ten times higher. In my sentiment it is non just to compare concluding figure with initial figure of ?10m as it was ne’er an estimated monetary value but an declarative 1 ( Fraser, 2004 ) .

Time hold and cost overproduction

From the beginning, the complex and its building have been controversial. For case, Auditor General of Scotland expressed “ … in the recent history of Scotland there has non been public edifice undertaking as complex or as hard to present as the Holyrood Project” ( Prasser, S. , n.d. ) . Almost all aspect such as location, design, designer, building direction company, undertaking director all have been criticized by different cabals viz. , politician, media and general populace. Due to complexness of the undertaking, it is really hard to individual out one ground for hold and cost overproductions but infect it was compound and interaction of many factors that resulted in hold and cost overproduction ( Fraser, 2004 ) .

Location: Choice of Holyrood to be the place of parliament has contributed to detain and be overproduction. Holyrood was non an easy country to work due to the attack and being located in populated country. The choice of Holyrood added ?4.5m to the undertaking being the cost for site acquisition and glade. As the table1.1 ( Fraser, 2004 ) shows, harmonizing to the bing done by DLE Holyrood was non economically attractive.

Design and Design Development Factor:

Main cause of the hold to the undertaking was from Sept2000 due to the production of elaborate design fluctuations and the late supply of information during the building procedure ( Auditor General, 2004 ) . Construction started in June1999 but Stage D design was approved after a twelvemonth. Everyone anticipated that this will set an terminal excessively unsteadily and supply some kind of anchorage for the undertaking but it did non go on. The undertaking was dumbly populated, unusual and complex and was pitted against tight deadline. In some instances, trade contractors were responsible for portion design but both the designers and some trade contractors failed to present some critical elements on clip. Design development procedure added another ?80m to the cost of undertaking. It is a procedure of conveying sanctioned design to detailed design. This procedure runs parallel to Tendering and award of work bundles and subsequent work on site. From 2000 onward, client did n’t alter its demands significantly but the cost of conveying pictured design to world escalated ( Black, 2004 ) .

Addition in country: after several alterations and new demand were incorporated, entire country reached from 16000.00 M2s to 31,000.00 M2s ensuing in an addition of 47 % and accordingly set uping agenda and cost of the undertaking. Building user ‘s brief prepared by the governments well underestimated the demands which resulted in assorted alterations and therefore increase in country. For case, Mr. Stewart said that the original estimation was “ … perfectly, excessively optimistic for a public edifice of this nature… ” ( Fraser, 2004 ) . The experience and expertness in building direction was non to the full developed and was non present in the early phases of development.

Procurement vehicle: In 1998, Civil retainers opted for fast path method known as – building direction signifier of procurement – to construct the parliament composite ( Fraser, 2004 ) . It works by break uping complete occupation into several little bundles that are awarded, monitored and designed independently of one another. Its advantage is that the overall design does n’t hold to be complete at the start of edifice plants. In this signifier of contract, hazard corsets with the client, which is responsible for direction of each single work package-in this instance about 60. However, after maintaining in head importance and urgency of the undertaking, building direction procurance was the lone feasible option available. For case, Harry Thorburn articulated, “ … The world is that building direction was the lone contract option for a client desiring to do an early start on a undertaking that was still at the design construct stage” ( Fortescue, S. 2004 ) .

Communication and coordination was another issue which added to the enemies of already troubled undertaking. Fraser ( 2004 ) reports that there was a deficiency of communicating, coordination and apprehension between stakeholders, for illustration, declaration of many design issues was delayed due to misconstruing and deficiency of communicating between RMJM & A ; EMBT.

Landscaping is although minor portion of overall figure, still it reflects failure of system. Cost of landscaping amounting to ? 14 m came to the surface and was added when the undertaking was good underway during fall 2001 ( Fraser, 2004 ) .

Agenda: Time-table for completion by undertaking direction was really demanding and idealistic instead than realistic. Construction trough systematically tried to accomplish the set mark but failed. Harmonizing to Auditor General ‘s study ( 2004 ) , agenda set in Sept 2000 for completion by December 2002 was likely unattainable. Proper EU guidelines and processs were non followed for assignment of Bovis Lend and Lease as building director. BLL was non the lowest, yet they were awarded. BLL ‘s contract was supposed to be converted to Lump amount after finalisation of cost program but was non done. Conversion of fees would hold provided a powerful inducement to Bovis to use maximal asperity in relation to be control. No system was devised and implemented neither for public presentation measuring nor for cost coverage, analysis and fiscal control.

Queensberry House proved to be the most dearly-won point, in footings of cost per square metre ( Fraser, 2004 ) . However, Queensberry ‘s cost was relatively minor in context of the full cost of the Undertaking at completion. Golden trigon of quality clip and cost was ignored and quality was preferred against clip and cost, clip was preferred against cost. The undue importance given to clip and quality resulted in escalated cost.

Security issue and 9/11 factor besides played an of import function in hold and gyrating cost of the undertaking. Fraser in his enquiry agrees that security measure amounted to ?29.11. Design of anti-blast steps causes a amount of ?17.54m and hold associated with blast causes extra amount of ?11.57m. Another major factor to be recognized was building a really complex, unusual edifice, airy architecture was hard to convey to world. The Debating chamber roof, for illustration, was an highly ambitious undertaking both for interior decorators and builders ( Fraser, 2004 ) . Proper hazard analysis and cost direction surveies were non done. At the early phase of determination devising, no independent professional undertaking direction company was involved to rede the client.

Role of Project Management

Role of Project direction is to present the undertaking on clip, within budget and with acceptable quality ( Fraser, 2004 ) . In this instance, Project direction provided an exceeding composite of high quality but failed suffering in context to be and clip.

Black ( 2004 ) criticized public presentation of the undertaking direction or functionaries responsible for presenting the undertaking. Decision doing procedure and control over undertaking was non clearly recognized along with deficiency of leading. Normally project manager is responsible for leading and control, client delegate ‘s the authorization to project manager to render the undertaking. Here, project manager should hold had clear duty in doing determinations on reconciliation clip, cost and quality/performance of the undertaking. Auditor General ( 2004 ) affirmed that the client ( the Parliament ) did non clearly set up leading and control of undertaking. Leading parties could non hold on cost program which was a missing nexus in effectual undertaking direction, a bill of exchange program was made in late 2000, that was an index of the costs alternatively of available estimation of the cost.

Under building direction, design was obscure and lacking ab initio, therefore the hazards remained with the client ( Fig 1.1 ) . Project direction selected a high hazard path but failed to pull off it decently. Risk accounting was deficient in early phases and there was no quantified allowance for hazard confronting the undertaking. Initially project direction did present a procedure for quantifying hazard and conducted some reappraisals but the general attack was to accept the cost addition and increase in the prognosis as hazard materialized. No system or forceful action was adopted to cut down the addition in cost ( Fraser, 2004 ) .

Project direction did non to the full implement cost coverage and fiscal controls. Regular coverage of the entire estimated costs of the undertaking merely started in July 2003 ( Black, 2004 ) . Earlier fiscal coverage was neither comprehensive nor systematic. Once, the overall budget restraint of ?195m was removed by Parliament in June 2001, direction did non set up an alternate budget which gave them autonomy to accomplish high quality and tight deadlines without due considerations of cost deductions ( Black, 2004 ; Fraser 2004 ) .

Decision

Project direction plays an of import function in the success of mega and esteemed undertakings. Construction of Scottish parliament has put a negative grade on the function of undertaking direction. Delay and cost overproduction of the undertaking can non be attributed to the failure of undertaking direction merely, Fraser ( 2004 ) in his enquiry stated that it was the consequence of systematic failure and it is hard to individual out one scoundrel. Besides, there were several errors but the biggest 1 was involved in Procurement system. They were interconnected, increased exponentially, and had a ripple consequence which was seeable all throughout the period of building. Despite of all the jobs, Scotland has got an architectural treasure ; it ‘s an iconic edifice stand foring the land. In few old ages, the people of Scotland will be as proud of it as the people of Sydney are of Opera House, which was besides an illustration of undertaking failure when it was built ( Australian Government Department, 2006 ; Mosaic Projects, n.d. ) .

The full undertaking should hold agreed undertaking budget and proper set of public presentation indexs. Proper benchmarking should be done to mensurate the public presentation. If, competition is commissioned for choice of design, proper rating of pre making must be done and compatibility of working civilizations should be considered. While choosing the design, attending should be paid to be and execution jobs that may originate due to complexness of design.

Procurement path must ever be chosen with attention coupled with comprehensive rating.

Construction direction procurance path should be used seldom for public undertakings. Before building starts equal clip should be available for the planning phase. As Fraser ( 2004 ) studies that puting clip ab initio, to develop complete definitions reduces the opportunity of alterations subsequently. Good planning will affect ( a ) right sequence of building to avoid holds and excess costs, ( B ) hazard direction ( degree Celsius ) utilizing value direction to measure the function of each component of the building processes ( Black, 2004 ) ( vitamin D ) Choice of proper planning system “ … There must ever be sufficient clip for procurance to let the client ‘s demands to be adequately defined so that it may obtain fixed and house monetary values for the work in a competition… ” ( Black, 2004 ) . In all undertakings, public presentation payment inducements system should be initiated for contractors to execute against marks for quality, clip and cost.

Clearly defined responsibilities and individual point of leading with expressed authorization and duty should be ensured. Strong system of coverage and crystalline channels of communicating must be devised.

It is indispensable that full contracts, warrants and bond should be secured to forestall the hazard. Early engagement of contractors in design stage might assist in work outing the jobs subsequently on. Concurrent technology should be carried out to avoid complications during executing. Safety measures needs to be a considered as an built-in portion. In this peculiar instance, no 1 would hold anticipated the impact of 9/11. So it is better to hold some eventuality program in topographic point to undertake unanticipated events.

Bibliography:

1. Auditor General ( 2004 ) . ‘Management of the Holyrood edifice undertaking – prepared for the Auditor General for Scotland – Undertaking overview, the ground for later bringing and increased costs, project direction and control ‘ . Chapters 1-5. , pp 1-92. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2004/nr_040629_holyrood_project.pdf [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ] .
2. Auditor General ( 2000 ) . ‘The new Scottish Parliament constructing – an scrutiny of the direction of the Holyrood edifice undertaking – prepared for the Auditor General for Scotland ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2000/nr_000919_new_parliament_building.pdf [ Accessed: 3rd April 2010 ] .
3. Australian Government Department ( 2006 ) . ‘Sydney Opera House – Nomination by the govt of Australia ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.sydneyoperahouse.com/uploadedFiles/About_Us/Ad_Hoc_Information_Pages/WorldHeritageNominationDocument.pdf [ Accessed 8th April 2010 ]
4. BBC ( 2004 ) . ‘Timeline: Holyrood ‘ . Available from hypertext transfer protocol: //news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/3210729.stm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ] .
5. Black, R. ( 2004 ) . ‘Presentation by the Auditor General for Scotland, Robert Black to the Audit Committee of the Scottish Parliament, on his study, Managing of the Holyrood edifice undertaking ‘ Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/docs/central/2004/nr_040629_holyrood_projec_statement_pr.pdf. [ Accessed: 4th April 2010 ]
6. Black R. ( 2004 ) ‘Audit Scotland ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.audit-scotland.gov.uk/publications/pdf/2004/04pf07ag.pdf [ Accessed: 4th April 2010 ]
7. Black R. ( 2004 ) ‘Audit commission official study 29 June 2004 ‘ Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/committees/audit/or-04/au04-1402.htm [ Accessed: 4th April 2010 ]
8. Edinphoto ( n.d. ) . ‘Scottish Parliament Complex at Holyrood ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.edinphoto.org.uk/0_edin_t/0_edinburgh_transport_buses_terminus_36_holyrood_024373.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
9. Fortescue, S. ( 2004 ) . ‘The ?431 million inquiry ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.pennwood.org.uk/Level % 20Four/L402/Holyrood % 20example.pdf [ Accessed: 3rd April 2010 ]
10. Fortescue, S. ( 2004 ) . ‘The ?431 million inquiry – supply direction ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.supplymanagement.com/analysis/features/2004/the-431-million-question/ [ Accessed: 3rd April 2010 ]
11. Fraser, R. H. L. ( 2004 ) . ‘A Report by the Rt Hon Lord Fraser of Carmyllie QC on his Inquiry into the About Holyrood Project ‘ . SP Paper 205. Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-00.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ] .
12. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Events Prior to 1 May 1997 ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-02.htm. [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
13. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘White Paper to the Passing of the Scotland Act 1998 ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-03.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
14. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Selection of the Holyrood Site ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-04.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
15. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Appointment of the Architect ‘ Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-05.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
16. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘The Development of the Building User Brief. ‘ Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-06.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
17. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Construction Management ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-07.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
18. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘The Appointment of the Construction Manager ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-08.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
19. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Project Management 1998 to 1 June 1999 ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-09.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
20. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘The Undertaking from Handover to February 2000 ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-10.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
21. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Early 2000 and the Establishment of the Holyrood Progress Group ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-11.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
22. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘The Holyrood Project June to December 2000 -Stage D – The Cost Plan ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-12.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
23. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘The Undertaking from Late 2000 ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-13.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
24. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Planning, Queensberry House and the Role of Historic Scotland ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-14.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
25. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Programming and Design Delay- Factual Background- Construction Manager ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-15.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
26. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘Security Issues ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-16.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
27. Fraser, R.H.L. ( 2004 ) . ‘The Holyrood Project from Autumn 2003 Onwards ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/vli/holyrood/inquiry/sp205-17.htm [ Accessed: 2nd April 2010 ]
28. Meredith, J.R. & A ; Mantel, S.J. ( 2006 ) . ‘Project direction – a managerial attack ‘ 6th edition. John Wiley & A ; boies, New York.
29. Mosaic Projects ( n.d. ) . ‘Avoiding the successful failure ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.mosaicprojects.com.au/PDF_Papers/P046_Successful_Failure.pdf [ Accessed: 8th April 2010 ] .
30. Prasser, S. ( n.d. ) . ‘Parallels with Abroad Experience: The Holyrood Building Project, Scotland – Get the better ofing the White Elephant Syndrome in Big and Iconic Projects in the Public and Private Sectors ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //epress.anu.edu.au/anzsog/imp/mobile_devices/ch05s07.html [ Accessed: 4th April 2004 ]
31. Project Management Institute ( 2004 ) . ‘A usher to Project Management Body of Knowledge 3rd edition ( PMBOK Guides ) ‘ . Project Management Institute. Newtown Square. USA. : Philadelpia.
32. Roberts, D ( 2003 ) . ‘MSP says Holyrood builders are left idle ‘ Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scotsman.com/politics/MSP-says-Holyrood-builders-are.2459894.jp [ Accessed: 4th April 2010 ] .
33. Supply management.com ( 2004 ) . ‘The ?431 million inquiry ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.supplymanagement.com/analysis/features/2004/the-431-million-question/ [ Accessed: 3rd April 2010 ]
34. Scots Parliament, ( 2001 ) . ‘The Scots Parliament edifice ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scottish.parliament.uk/business/research/pdf_res_notes/rn01-64.pdf. [ Accessed: 5th April 2010 ]
35. The royal society of Edinburg ( 2001 ) . ‘Engineering the Scots Parliament edifice ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.royalsoced.org.uk/events/reports/2000-2001/rae_01.pdf [ Accessed: 4th April 2010 ]
36. The Scots Government ( 2007 ) . ‘The authorities economic scheme ‘ . Available from: hypertext transfer protocol: //www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/202993/0054092.pdf. [ Accessed: 3rd April 2010 ]
37. Westland, J. ( 2006 ) . ‘The Project Management Life Cycle ‘ . London: Kogan Page.