The Chunnel Tunnel Project

Submitted By: Group No 7 Members: FT 13422 Divya Ananthram FT 13219 Gagandeep Uppal FT 13125 Gajendra Sisodia FT 13221 Gaurav Parikh FT 13127 Gaurav Varshney

5 KM undersea double rail link connecting England and France. • Major Challenges – Cooperation of two national governments – Bankers underwriting the funding for the project Bankers underwriting the funding for the project – Numerous Contractors – Several regulatory agencies Several regulatory agencies – Overlapping design and construction – Under ground construction . – The largest privately funded project ever undertaken.Background • Introduction – An underground tunnel 51. – Bankers underwriting the funding for the project.

3-Good.A. Inception Phase:Historical background. and pre-feasibility studies.Excellent. political climate. 4-Very Good. overall objectives. 2-Poor. 1-Very poor Project Management Area Scope Mangement Time Management Cost Management Quality Management Human Resource Management Communications Management Risk Management Procurement Management Integration Management 3 5 3 5 2 2 2 3 4 Inception Phase . • • Evaluation of Project Management during this phase: Rating scale: 5.

Areas of strength: • Project was included to accommodate both through trains and special car and truck carrying shuttle trains • Appropriate high level design and respective rough-order-of-magnitude estimates • Time estimate to complete the tunneling was finished three months ahead of schedule • Each team member had a responsibility for quality .

Major opportunity for improvements: • Detailed design would have included the tunnel air-conditioning • Accommodating well defined scope and scope changes • Procurement planning process needed improvements • The way in which requirements were documented and risk response strategies were formulated .

4-Very Good. 3-Good. 2-Poor. feasibility studies.B. 1-Very poor Project Management Area Scope Mangement Time Management Cost Management Quality Management Human Resource Management Communications Management Risk Management Procurement Management Integration Management Development Phase 2 2 2 5 3 2 3 3 3 . financing. and conceptual design.Excellent. • • Evaluation of Project Management during this phase: Rating scale: 5. Development Phase:Overall planning.

The project finished a year late but due to things beyond the project team’s control • The project was delivered with a relatively high degree of quality because the free reign given to IGC. the quality aspects were handled well • Most advanced technological equipment and very little margin of error allowed for quality to be an extremely important attribute • The focus on fairness was followed by the both governments involved .Areas of strength: • Project team did a good job in planning the technical equipment and understanding the complexity involved • The schedule planning during the development phase was adequate.

Major opportunity for improvements: • Two different companies on two different sides. resulted in the frustration of trying to do too much The project management team must be given enough authority to act in the best interest of the project and not to be subject to undue influence from outside parties Assessment of thorough project scope and the proper precautions needed to prevent scope creep • • • • • . speaking two different languages. managing by two different directors delayed communication until/near the end of project Lack of communication during the development and design phase in early stage lead to differences of opinion in its later stage Learning from previous projects needed to be implemented Lack of continued focus on scope.

• • Evaluation of Project Management during this phase: Rating scale: 5.Excellent. construction. installation. 4-Very Good. Implementation Phase :Detail design.C. 2-Poor. 3-Good. testing. and commissioning. 1-Very poor Project Management Area Scope Management Time Management Cost Management Quality Management Human Resource Management Communications Management Risk Management Procurement Management Integration Management Implementation Phase 1 2 2 4 3 1 1 2 2 .

• The project which faced many financial and operational issues has only one reassurance factor which is quality. . • The high degree of quality ascertained that project management practices were in place.Areas of strength: • This phase gave opportunities to learn lessons for future implementations.

Alignment of the project specifications was absent in this phase.Major opportunity for improvements: • • • • Proper Communication between the stakeholders is must. This could have been worked upon so as to deliver a quality product. There has to be predefined rules/body formed to resolve the disputes. keeping in interest all the stakeholders Project Scope should be well defined. which in this case was missing The conflicts aroused between client and contractors could have been resolved before the phase started. The approach of overlapping design and construction in hope of crashing the time required to deliver was very. Scope for contingency margins should have been provided in this phase. In many instances there were delays in decision making as the controlling power was with government. • • • • . Government put pressure on the TML for cutting cost and issued fixed price.

Closeout Phase :Reflection on overall performance.D. • • Evaluation of Project Management during this phase: Rating scale: 5.Excellent. financial status. settlement of claims. 2-Poor. 4-Very Good. and post-project evaluation. 1-Very poor Project Management Area Scope Management Time Management Cost Management Quality Management Human Resource Management Communications Management Risk Management Procurement Management Integration Management Closeout Phase 3 3 2 5 4 3 3 2 3 . 3-Good.

Areas of strength: • Quality and schedule were two of the components that had significant impact on the overall good impression of the project in the eyes of public and all stakeholders. • Scope of the project was increased in this phase • Effective Change Management • Safety measures helped in maintaining accident rate below industry average • Hurdles on account of unavoidable conditions were overcome effectively • This phase also had lot of areas from which lessons could have been learnt and would have helped in implementing in future assignments. .

• . This could have been worked upon and delivered on time Communication was better than the previous phase but still needed improvement There has to be predefined rules/body formed to resolve the disputes Alignment of the project specifications was absent in this phase. keeping in interest all the stakeholders The completion of the project was rushed to allow operations to begin before the entire project was completed.Major opportunity for improvements: • • • • • • Identification of root cause of cost overruns was missed due to the blame game Scope was improved but still not fixed. This can be worked upon so as to deliver a quality product. This needed improvement Delivery was delayed.

00 2. 4-Very Good.75 3. 2-Poor. 3-Good.25 4. 1-Very poor Project Management Area Scope Management Time Management Cost Management Quality Management Human Resource Management Communications Management Risk Management Procurement Management Integration Management Inception Phase 3 5 3 5 2 2 2 3 4 Development Implementation Closeout Phase Phase Phase 2 1 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 5 4 5 3 3 4 2 3 3 3 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 3 Average 2.00 2.25 3.00 2.5 3.25 2.Excellent.Summary of Overall Project Assessment and Analysis • • Evaluation of Project Management during this phase: Rating scale: 5.00 .

• They followed intensive safety measures throughout the project.Major Areas of Strength in Management of this Project: • No matter how much conflict parties had internally but externally they showed unity and shared success equally. This was very important from public relations point of view. • Impressive Quality throughout the project. .

Clearly defined dispute resolutions and procedures with all parties agreed and familiar on the same would have helped to run the project smoother. understandable legal contract was missing.Major opportunities for improvement in the management of this Project: • • Efficient ways of communication which lacked in this project in every phase. structured. As multiple stakeholders from two countries were involved in the project. well defined. Decision making power should have been handed over to team which was actually executing the project and not to government. Deciding clear goals and objectives and linking them to contractor’s rewards could have saved the project from financial crisis. • • .

The situation could have been improved by clear view of the project and fixing the scope. This was missing in project. In a huge project like Chunnel tunnel. • • • . Uniting the teams and working towards achieving common objectives should be the need of hour. Even at the last stage of the project there were many requirements came which were not covered in the scope of the project. It should have been avoided. effective change management was needed to demand the corresponding funding for the change demanded. By the end of the project efforts were focused on analysing the source of cost overruns and attempting to assign blame to one or more participating organisation. Efforts should have been put in analysing the causes and reason behind it and not repeating the same in future.Major Project Management Lessons Learned from this Project: • • Margin for error/cost overrun/schedule and contingency must be planned for every project By the end of the project every party involved in the project started working for their own interests and not for whole team.

Thank You .