Creative Construction Conference 2013

July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

A STUDY ON THE OPERTATIONAL READINESS OF MEGA

CONSTRUCTION PROJECT
Jumah Rashed Al Mazrooie
The British University in Dubai, Dubai, UAE, 120020@student.buid.ac.ae

Arun Bajracharya
The British University in Dubai, Dubai, UAE, arun.bajracharya@buid.ac.ae

Abstract
It is important that the transition between construction and operational phases be managed
properly. It is crucial especially for prestigious mega projects in which large mass of public is
served from day one of the real operational phase. Faulty and dysfunctional elements in the
completed project systems would not only create interruptions and delays but it could also
tarnish the public image of the project. The costs of such consequences could be high and it
would be an additional unforeseen cost burden for the project.

Generally mega projects are planned with fast track approach with high pressure to start-up
the operations at earliest time. There would be overlaps in the schedules of the last stage
construction activities and the activities related to operational preparations. The interference
between the two sets of activities might create interruptions, errors, and consequent
reworks at both sides. The errors that creep into the operational preparations might be
discovered only after the real operational phase, and it might create surprise rework and
interruptions. This research attempts to develop a model that can portray the interaction
between the workflows at the last stage of construction and the operational preparations.
System dynamics approach has been utilized to develop the model. Observations in one of
the mega projects in Dubai that recently came in operation have been used to structure the
model. Experimental study with the model revealed that the key to avoid the majority of the
interface problems is to integrate the operational preparation activities into the construction
activities. The client should appreciate the operational preparations as part of the whole
project and thus the operational readiness program should be integrated in the project plan
to eliminate any reluctance or uncertainties by the main contractor.

Keywords: Interface management, construction and operational phases, operational

readiness, mega project, dynamic modeling.

1. INTRODUCTION
In the past decade demand for large scale infrastructure projects such as airports, railways,
seaports has increased rapidly to accommodate the increasing needs and requirements of
public services. Many large scale infrastructure projects or mega projects have been
constructed and operated in a fast track manner that enabled the clients and governments to
have a quick beneficial use of the service and facilities. Some of the mega projects prolong
the operations ramp-up in a long time span. However they still fail or struggle even though
they have a longer ramp-up period. According to Richard (1994) the government in Denver
Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

had to bear a total cost of $33 million/month because of delay in airport opening due to
major problems in baggage handling system.
According to a general understanding in project management, a project life cycle starts from
the conceptualization of the project idea and it gets terminated when it has been handed
over to the client. However, the operational phase of the project is often overlooked to be
integrated with the execution phase. Wit (1988, p.166) has clearly stated that “Project
management books usually omit the operational phase because they tend to be written from
a consultant’s or contractor’s perspective”. Dvir et al. (2003) argued that problems may start
to surface in the initial phase of operations that may result in drifting or low level of
performance of the services. This results in the reputational and financial impacts on clients
as shown in Figure 1 .

Figure 1 : Losses Due to Operational Problems (Source: Honeywell (2012))

A review by Dvir et al. (2003) also stated end-user satisfaction is one of the elements of the
project success. Such satisfaction will only be achieved if the operational phase of the project
has been carefully started after the execution phase. The followings are some of the
indicators of the project failure during operational phase:
• Defects start to arise in systems installed in the project.
• Defects start to arise in facilities of the project.
• Human errors due to lack of training and familiarization on the operational systems.
• Absence of operational model and procedures.

Project clients need to introduce an operational readiness program to identify and minimize
the risks of operational failure after handover of mega projects (Alessendri et al., 2004), and
as such the mitigation of the identified risks should be in place. In order to enable the
operational team to get trained and familiarized, the operational readiness programs need to
run in parallel with the execution and closing out phases (see Figure 2). Another reason for
running the operational readiness program is to allow the operational team to establish and
confirm the intended model of operations for the project before start up.
Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

Figure 2 : Project Life Cycle

Operational readiness program is a set of operational activities and trials that need to be
performed on mega projects such as airports before going live. Usually these activities and
trials are not in the main contractor’s scope of work and it requires coordination between
relevant stakeholders. Below are some examples of the activities that will be carried out in an
operational readiness program for an airport:

Tasks Type End-Users

Fire certification and training Training & familiarization Airport fire department
Lost bag process Trial Airport operational team
Fire evacuation drills Trial All airport users
Aircraft maneuverability Trial Airside operational team
Security system training Training Airport police department
Baggage handling process Training Airport baggage team
Airport’s Staff Access Training All Airport staff
Passenger and crew handling Trial Airline operational team
Cargo and Mail handling Trial Airline operational team
Facilities and systems Training Airport maintenance team
Airport security
management Trial Airport Police
Table 1 : Operational Activities in Airport Project

In this paper we examine the impact and complexities of operational readiness program in
an airport project that was built and operated by government. The choice of airport project
for this study is important because of the following reasons:
• Demands in the aviation industry are exponentially increasing which forces
governments to construct airports in fast track projects where airports get
completed but cannot be operated or it fails on first day of operations.
• Reduce life and safety risks by ensuring all life safety systems and procedures have
been fully operationally trialed.
• Ensure high quality services delivery from day one to airport customers and airlines.
• High rate of return to government’s investment by providing full and optimal
operations from day one.

Figure 3 shows the impact of operational readiness program on operations and how it will
assist in ramping up the production capacity and the utilization of mega project’s assets in a
short time.
Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

Figure 3 : Operational Readiness Impact (Source:Deloitte (2011))

2. PROBLEM ARTICULATION
Introducing operational readiness program in an airport project might create interruption
and delay to contractors working at site because of the activities that need to be carried out
by the operational team as well as the rework activities that will arise as a result of these
activities. Simultaneously, the operational team will not be able to carry out further
operational activities unless the contractor is providing the facilities in the project and
complete the rework generated from the operational readiness activities which makes the
relationship between the contractor work and operational readiness dynamic and complex.
In many cases, the airport project may reach a good level of completion as per the contractor
scope of work but it would not yet be ready for operations and the airport authority need to
take a decision on how long they should wait to operate the project after completion. Figure
4 shows the contractor’s progress as well as the operational readiness progress in a project
and as stated above the operational readiness progress will only start at the last phase of the
project life cycle. The graph clearly shows the gap that is created between completion of
project and project operations. The purpose of this research is to create a model using
system dynamics approach to study how to reduce the gap. It would help to provide a basis
for clients to operate the project, and it would also help assist project managers in identifying
potential risks.
Progress
Rework Generated by
Operational Readiness Program
100%
Original
Scope

Project
Completion

Operational Gap that Needs

Readiness to be Reduced

Time
Planned Start of
Completion Operation

Figure 4 : The Reference Mode

Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

In this paper, a closer attention has been given to some major elements such as the facility
availability and human resources competency. The following key variables have been
identified and will be used for the dynamic model:
• Rate of construction (task/week)
• Project completions (tasks)
• Operational trials execution (trial/week)
• Training & familiarization execution (T&F / week)
• Operational readiness (scale 0-100) where 0 is not ready to operate with high risk of
failure and 100 is fully ready to operate with low risk of failure.

3. DYNAMIC HYPOTHESIS
In order to explain the dynamic hypothesis, a set of feedback loops has been developed
(Figure 5) that in order to present an initial understanding of the operational readiness
relationship with the project schedule of completion.
The diagram consists of a balancing feedback loop (B1) that shows the interruption of the
construction rate by operational trials that will be executed by the operational team, the
more the operational trials we conduct the lower the rate of construction will be which in
effect will also reduce planned project’s completion tasks and in turn the facilities for the
operation team to train and trial on will not progress well. Unavailability of facilities will
reduce the operational readiness of the project and in turn will not allow further operational
trials to execute and vice versa are also applicable. In response to the B1 loop of the dynamic
model, a pressure to operate will start to rise as the operation readiness of the project
increases which in turn will require operational staff hiring for the trials, system trainings and
site familiarizations. Rework cycle will start to erupt as an effect of the operational trials that
requires essential changes to suit operational requirements and final mode of operation. The
dynamic hypothesis now includes more feedback loops as stated above that have caused
more effect and responses. B2 (More Work is Added) loop is the second balancing causal
loop that has been created because of the rework that has been generated by the
operational trials. Ying & Timothy (n.d, p.3) stated “In complex projects where activities are
closely related to each other, the longer it takes to find the mistake, the more additional
work can be created in the process of correcting the mistake and the more the total project
performance can be degraded.” This suggests that B2 loop will definitely help improving the
mistakes correction for the value of both contractor and project’s owner or client; it’s always
preferable by the contractor to fix any pending issues before live operations as more
formalities and permissions will be required after operations. B3 (creating competency) is
the third balancing causal loop that was created because of the availability of the facility in
the project, operational staff needs to access the facility and train to become competent and
become ready to operate which in turn should increase the level of the operational readiness
of the project. R1 (Add more resources), a reinforcing loop as the pressure to operate
increases, operation team is required to hire more operational staff to train and familiarize,
the increase of operational staff will require more training and familiarization to be
conducted on the project areas which in turn will increase job competency in the newly hired
staff. The increment in the level of competency of hired staff, level of operational readiness
will in turn increase. The causal loop diagram has been further developed incorporating the
response to the new actions where the approval time to changes has been added to B2 loop.
Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

Figure 5 Dynamic Hypothesis

B4 (Site Engagement) is the fourth balancing loop that is created by the staff accessing the
site for training and familiarization which interrupt the contractor work rate and delay the
completions. The more we have teams for the operations more training and familiarizations
will be required to be conducted which in turn will reduce the construction rate and cause
delays to the project.

4. Simulation Model and Validation

Using the modeling software STELLA, the dynamic hypothesis has been converted to stock
and flow diagram. For simplicity and model validation two stock and flow diagrams have
been designed. Construction stock and flow diagram as shown in Figure 6, for the model
simulation total project tasks of 10,000 has been used.

Figure 6 : Construction Stock & Flow Diagram

Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

The diagram in Figure 6 consists of four stocks that contain the construction tasks for a mega
project with four flow controllers to control the flow of the tasks until all the tasks are
completed. All the tasks shall be processed throw the work progress valve using the normal
work productivity which is the cases where we have no interruption to project site and once
the project status reach 80% , operational readiness program will start delaying the progress
and generate rework that will require approval, and time to complete. The second stock and
flow diagram is the operational readiness as shown in figure 7, and in this diagram we have
used a measurement of task of readiness that stem from the total readiness activity which is
1000, the number has been selected based on brief discussion with the readiness team from
Dubai international airport. The readiness tasks then split to readiness from operational trials
or from training and familiarizations.

Figure 7 : Operational Readiness Stock and Flow Diagram

In the operational readiness diagram, five stocks has been identified and five flow controllers,
the flow of the operational tasks will only be triggered once a construction project status
reach 80% to start the training and familiarization and once the project completion reach
90% the trials will be executed. The percentage chosen above was based on discussion with
operational team from Dubai international airport. The model has three handles that change
model variable for validity and behavioral tests, trials execution rate, training and
familiarization rate and hiring rate are the key handles of the model, detail descriptions of
the model handles are shown in Table 2.

Name Range Description

Trials rate 0-7 / week The execution rate of the operational trials on the project
facilities can be no trials (0) or full week of trials (7) or any
Training and 0-7 / week value in between
The execution rate of training and familiarization for the
familiarization operational team in the project’s facilities. It will have either
rate
Hiring rate 0-10 / week no
Thevisit (0) or
hiring fullof
rate week
the visit (7) or anyteam
operational value ranges
in between.
from no
staff hiring (0) to full staff hiring (10) staff per week or any
Table 2 Model Handles value in between.
Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

To validate the model we have set the time range to 200 weeks and assume the normal work
productivity to be as 65 tasks / week and set all model handles to zero values, the model has
responded with a completion of the project in the 153 week. The results shows that without
operational readiness interruption the project will run normally as (Total Tasks/Productivity
rate = completion time) which matches the model timing (10000/65 = 153). Another logic
validation has also been run for the model with both trials execution and training and
familiarizations execution are set to 7 and hiring rate is set to 0, even if you try to run trials
and training but you have no staff to execute these activities, there will be no interruption to
the project and it should finish on the 153. To validate the model concept and handles input,
the trials rate was set to 3 and training and familiarization to 3 and hiring rate to 5, and the
result is shown in Figure 8.

Figure 8 : Model Simulation with Middle Values

From the simulation graph above, we noticed that project progress was slowed down once
the operational readiness program was introduced and with the value setting above, the
project completion will shift to week 169.The fourth case tested in this model was with trials
and training rates set to maximum (7) and hiring remain the same (5), we noticed the time
has been extended for one reason that we have engaged and interrupted the project site
more with less staff to train and trial which resulted in more time for the contractor to finish
as well as for the operational level to reach its desired value. The last test case to run for the
model was with all handles variables to be set to its maximum values trials rate (7) , training
and familiarization rate (7) and hiring rate (10) which resulted in the graph shown in Figure
10.
Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

Figure 10 : Full Values on Handles

In the above graph we noticed that completion time (week 161) is the closest time we can
get to the ideal project completion time, the above values should help clients set the values
for the operational readiness program to be align with the construction program.

5. Recommendation
Based on the dynamic model results and analysis shown above, the followings are
recommended:
- The client should recruit some of the construction and design team to operate the
project rather than hiring new staff to reduce delays in hiring and the learning curve
of the new staff as it was stated as a problem by (Morgan, 1987) for the project
manager at the end of the project. The same has also been recommended by
Thompson (1991) in his study where the project’s team shall continue to work for the
operational phase.
- The client should introduce the operational readiness program in the project’s plan
to eliminate any resistance or surprises by the project contractor.
- Sensitivity analysis to be conducted with the variable of normal working rate to vary
based on the contractor performance over time.
- The model to be simulated for smaller size projects to test their behaviors with
operational readiness programs and how it will affect the project’s plan.
- More improvement should be applied for the model by adding variables related to
other construction factors and delays; it was ignored in this model for simplification.

6. CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion a project can be considered successful when it is fully handed over
operationally ready to its final end-users and they make high return value of its investment.
To reach a level of operational readiness that will satisfy the project end-users, an
operational readiness program shall be introduced at the last stage of the project. This
research paper presets a dynamic model that was developed using the system dynamics
approach to see the effect of the operational readiness programs. On the basis of the
Creative Construction Conference 2013
July 6 – 9, 2013, Budapest, Hungary

model’s simulations certain recommendations have been made to be incorporated to have a

smooth transition from construction phase to operational phase with few uncertainties and
lower risk.

REFERENCES
Alessandri, T., Ford, D., Lander, D. Leggio, K., and Taylor, M., 2004. Managing risk and
uncertainty in complex capital projects, Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance. Vol. 44,
No. 5, pp. 751-767.
Dvir, D., 2005. Transferring projects to their final users: The effect of planning and
preparations for commissioning on project success. International Journal of Project
Management, Vol. 23, No. 4 , pp. 257-265.

Dvir, D., Raz, T. & Shenhar, A. J., 2003. An empirical analysis of the relationship between
project planning and project success. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 21,
No. 2, pp. 89-95.

Lars, R. F., 1991. Project start-up in tough practice: Visions and experience from project
launching in the Norwegian offshore oil industry. International Journal of Project
Management , Vol. 9, No. 1, pp. 10-14.

Morgan, B. V., 1987. Benefits of project management at the front end. International Journal
of Project Management, Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 102-119.

Munns, A. K. & Bjeirmi, B. F., 1996 . The role of Project Management in achieving project
success. International Journal of Project Management, Vol. 14, No. 2, pp. 81-87.

Richard , D, N., 1994. The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons. Journal of Air
Transport Management, Vol. 1, No. 4, pp. 229-236.

Pinto, J. K. & Mantel, S. J., 1990. The causes of Project Failure. IEEE
Transactions on Engineering Management, Vol. 37, No. 4, pp. 269-276.

Pinto, J. K. & Slevin, D. P., 1988 . Project Success: Definitions and Measurement
Techniques. Project Management Journal, Vol. 19, No. 3, pp. 67-73.

Shenhar, A. J., Dvir, D., Levy, O. & Maltz, A. C., 2001. Project Success : A
Multidimensional Strategic Concept. Long Range Planning, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.
699-725.

Sterman, J. D., 2002. All models are wrong: reflections on becoming a systems
scientist. System Dynamics Review, Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 501-531.

Stewart, R. W. & Fortune, J., 1995. Application of Systems thinking to the

identification, Avoidance and prevention of risk. International Journal of
Project Management, Vol. 13, No. 5, pp. 279-286.

Thompson, P. 1991. The Client role in project management. International

Journal of Project Management, Vol. 9, No. 2, pp. 90-92.

Ying, L. & Timothy, R. B. T. (n. d.). The Impact of Design Rework on Construction Project
Performance. pp. 1-15.

Wit, A. D., 1988. Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project

Management, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 164-170.