PROJECT PLANNING AND

MANAGEMENT

Assignment -1

THE CHUNNEL TUNNEL PROJECT

Department of Architecture and Planning

Indira Gandhi Delhi Technical University for Women

Submitted By: PRIYA NAIR

01708142020
3 Sem., M.Plan
rd
 THE INCEPTION PHASE

■ Evaluation of project management during this phase of the

project

Inception
Project
Phase – Supported Statements
Management
Ratings
Area
Scope Management 2 • Lack of defined scope
• Scope defined in Lump sum basis
• Difficulty in Resource planning
• Formation of IGC

Time Management 1 • Hasty bidding and concept development

• Not enough time provided to complete
detailed design studies

Cost Management 2 • Estimated cost of USD 5.5 bn.

• Initial cost estimates were not detailed out.
• Financing arranged via equity and capital
market

Quality Management 4 • Difference in standards -> Higher Standard

• Latest laser and computer technology
proposed to bore the tunnel.
Human Resource 2 • Team work envisaged
Management • Good structure with proper responsibilities
formed.
Communication 2 • Difference in languages of two countries
Management
Risk Management 2 • Technical risk only considered
• Process and approval risk were not envisaged
• Both governments denied to provide financial
• guarantee.
• Social cost benefit analysis not done.

Procurement 2 • Rigorous time constraints caused hasty

procurement plan/contracts.
Management • Procurement of rolling stock and associated
major equipment finalized on cost plus
percentage fee basis

Integration 3 • Various international agencies took part

Management for conceptualization.
• Mistrust among agencies since both govts.
didn’t provide guarantee but placed
requirements.
■ Major areas of strength management of this phase of the project.

• High level design and respective rough order of magnitude of estimates were appropriate .

•Schedule planning included activity definition, sequencing and duration to develop base line

project schedule.
•Risk management to have reviewed the scope of the euro-tunnel initial risks with perspective

of Engineering risks.
• Quality management included quality planning, assurance, and control.
•Team work was explicit given the fact thousands of workers, machinist and engineers worked

very well over a period of 3.5 years.

• Communication perspective related to project planning, negotiations and its flow was achieved

and technical problems was solved smoothly.

• Monitoring of project objectives and its progress was accomplished.
•There was a significant value of an effective in decision making following “ best practices” to

include all key stakeholders.

■Major opportunities for improvement in the management this phase of the

project.

• Enough time should have been provided for low level design keep the project cost effective and

w.r.t initial estimation.

•Contractual assessment could have been more precise which led to additional claims to 2.25

billion USD.
• Risk management of know or unknown and change control methods could have been more

rigorous .
•Incomplete requirements, scope changes and risk responses should have been mitigated to

reduce likelihood of negative schedule and cost variance.

•Communication within organizational structure, contracts and finances were addressed with

conflicts.
•Monitoring of project should have been managed to industry specific practices and agreed upon

international standards.
• Decision making along with roles and responsibilities of a project management office should

have been validated.

 THE DEVELOPMENT PHASE

•Evaluation of project management during this phase of the

project
Inception
Project Supported Statements
Phase –
Management
Ratings
Area
Scope Management 2 • Enormous scope.
• Measures to prevent the scope creep was not
put in place.
• Project planning, cost estimation, funding
was
affected due to scope change.
Time Management 3 • Change in requirement by IGC caused delay
• Approval of drawings mandated from both
governments
• Very good tracking with hefty status report
Cost Management 2 • USD 2.25 Bn claim against Eutotunnel by
contractor was not anticipated
• Use of sophisticated equipment not
anticipated
Quality Management 4 • Good PAC was framed.
• No margin for errors
• Formation of IGC
Human Resource 2 • Every British team member had French
Management counter part.
Communication 2 • Limited communication between two teams
Management since both of them were trying to meet in
middle.
• This lead to difference of opinion at later
stages.
Risk Management 2 • Over management of risk – advanced
techniques considered
• Contingencies and margins were barest
minimum.
• Contractors forced to consider best
situation.
• Risk assessment plan was not made.
Procurement 2 • Procurement delayed since scope/
Management specification was changing.
Integration 3 • 46 contractors were deployed for design.
Management • 7 lakh shareholders, 220 lending banks were
involved for financing.
■ Major areas of strength management of this phase of the project.

•The project was delivered with a relatively high degree of quality because the free reign given

to the IGC.

•The project office did an adequate job and followed the planning, designing and retailing

phases required in this phase of project. Project management in this phase was hopeful and
project management practices in place did provide an mechanism for achieving success.

•The project team did a very reasonable job in planning the technical equipment and

understanding the complexity involved.

•The focus on fairness was followed by the both governments involved (teamwork concept was

lost in later phases).

•The schedule planning during the development phase seemed to be adequate - the project

finished a year late but due to things beyond the project team control.

■Major opportunities for improvement in the management this phase of the

project.

•Communication plays a very vital role in a project, not only for the project managers but also

for the rest of the team members - this is one of the factors driving a project to success or
failure.

• There was much debate on the free reign given to IGC because of the delays and cost

increments caused by the decisions of IGC.

•Scope, functional requirement and technical specifications need to be defined and validated at

an early stage - although the data from past projects was taken into account and studies, the
learning from those projects was not implemented when planning of the project was being done;
because of need to do too much in too little time.

•Risk management definitely needed looking into because it was either over managed or under

managed.
 THE IMPLEMENTATION PHASE

•Evaluation of project management during this phase of the

project
Inception
Project Supported Statements
Phase –
Management
Ratings
Area
Scope Management 2 • IGC had major control over scope
• Frequent change in scope
• Door and A/c system contributed to major
scope changes.
Time Management 2 • Faster Tunneling
• Rail and car systems were delivered late
• Alteration of passenger door sizes caused
delay for 9 months.
Cost Management 2 • Unnecessary use of costly technologies in
some cases like grouting.
•Wrong selection of TBM.
Quality Management 5 • Stringent requirements from IGC
• Very high accuracy maintained.
Human Resource 3 • Managed 15,000 workers in good manner
Management •Workers from different cultures were engaged
with high level of efficiency
Communication 2 • Since there were a large number of parties
Management involved , the project structure became
complicated and many logistical and
communication challenges arose.
Risk Management 2 • Fast tracking of design and construction
processes done without risk analysis.
• New unproven technology increased
risk
• Banks were involved for minimizing the risk,
however IGC was controlling.
Procurement 3 • Fixed price contracts with several contractors
• Differences in goals since many contractors
Management were having equity.
Integration 3 • Huge resources, huge scope of work were
Management managed in best of industry standards.
• Logistical and communication challenges.
■ Major areas of strength management of this phase of the project.

With the consortium of construction companies implementing the project, it was aimed that
project to be completed at the minimum cost and the profits to be generated under the BOT
agreement for 55 years.

■Major opportunities for improvement in the management this phase of the

project.

•Again, the scope was not clear and there was not proper research prior to the scope of the

project being laid down. Same was the case for the subcontractors bidding for the projects. The
scope was not clear for them as well.

•Fixed price contracts were being used to tie in the subcontractors to conform to the specified

budgets. Given the level of risk and uncertainty involved in this project, any legal claims had to
be in favor of the subcontractors had there been any event confirming that the claimed
variations were due to the unclear scope of work.

•The impact of delay in the delivery of the project was far greater than that of a simple cost

overrun. Even then the costs were targeted to kept to minimal rather than focusing on timely
completion.
 THE CLOSE OUT PHASE

•Evaluation of project management during this phase of the

project
Inception
Project Supported Statements
Phase –
Management
Ratings
Area
Scope Management 2 • Even when the tunnel was deemed to
complete, there were discrepancies over scope
of some works.
Time Management 2 • Cascading effects of previous phases
• 19 month delay
• Project management team could not be held
responsible.

Cost Management 1 • Efforts were driven towards settlement of

claims rather than analyzing on sources of cost
overrun.
Quality Management 5 • Quality parameters achieved were above
industry average.
Human Resource 2 • Most of the persons were demotivated due to
Management non settlement of claims.
• Win-win situation was lost.
Communication 1 • Negotiations not proper at Closeout since
Management bankers did not settle for claims.
Risk Management 2 • Courts ruled in favour of contractor.

Procurement 2 • Cascading effect of implementation created

17 months delay.
Management • Non settlement of extra claims
Integration 2 • Teams not integrated due to poor
Management communication.
• Each party tried to focus on their own
interests.
• International chamber of commerce
engaged for dispute resolution
■ Major areas of strength management of this phase of the project.

• The time delays were brought forward from earlier phases and closeout phase was rushed in

meeting its deadline.

•Good quality was measured for the project by the end of this phase. The tunnel operated

successfully and the workplace accidents during the project were less than the industry average.

•The variations proposed by the relevant stakeholders were executed in a good way and staying

without any cost overruns.

■Major opportunities for improvement in the management this phase of the

project.

•Scope for the close out phase was subject to a lot of variations signifying that the research was

not carried out properly.

•Towards the end of the project, there was a lot of debate as to the cause of the cost overruns.

This explains a lot about the communication problems.