Review Of Powerlines Undergrounding Project, London 2012

What went wrong with the project objectives?

The case study for the report is Power line Underground Project (PLUG). The project was taken up to clear out a way for the Olympic Games 2012 and as a long term plan. The project was initiated before the London Olympic was confirmed. Once the games was declared the timeline was decreased to fast track it. The project consisted of constructing two tunnels under London and relocating the pylons on the street. 52 such pylons were demolished and made into underground cable system. The project was initiated on July 2005. It was one of the first major construction for the construction of an Olympic park in London. The tunneling was completed in 424 days with a total cost incurred of £250 million.

The report discusses bout the objectives of a good project management and the objectives followed by the managers of the project. Following tis there is a brief learning outcome from the project. A dummy project based on this project is created to detail the working of time management of a project.

To conclude there are recommendations for future large scale projects, which can be followed to make a project into successful one.

Objectives are an integral part to be followed by any project during its evaluation process. The main objectives to be followed to make a good project management are as follows:

• The managers should accept what the project requires to be done and the final deliverable of the project.
• Agree to abide by the scope of the project, the cost to be incurred during working and good quality of the outcome of the project.
• Maintaining the project time schedule is important for fast delivery of the project.
• The managers should take into concern to share the project timeline, timely reports and progression updates throughout the whole life cycle of the project with the stake holders.
• Efficient management of risks and issues regarding the project.
• Management of political influences, tools and techniques and good relationship with the workers and people involved in the project.

The objectives that were followed by the project handlers are as follows:

• To meet the exact project program.
• To deliver a quality assured project
• Effective management and removal of risk in the project
• Ensure complete safety of the workers and officials in during the project.
• To show the value for money work.
• To keep London and the supplies of the project switched on.

The managers distributed the workers according to job sites. Contractors looked after the sub-contractors in the separate site offices which lead to the correct form of project governance and project organization. The project managers agreed to comprise the framework with LDA, EDF energy and NG. Clean and effective communication between the stakeholders and the working officials of the project. Daily report sharing was done to provide everyone with the progress of the project. The risks involved during the progress was maintained by the IMT and ODA. Close possible risk maintenance was effectively cleared. IMT and ODA had the main concern of protecting the health and welfare of the workers. The managers maintained mandatory eyewear for the on-site workers and safety suggestion box. Intelligent use of soil dug up from the site was reused at the Olympic village. Car sharing was initiated for transport for the workers as a green travel plan initiative. The working team to finish the work in the stipulated time closely followed the plan and the actual objective.

Lessons learned

The main objective behind the project was to relocate 52 electricity pylons, which are tall electrical poles carrying high tension wires over long distances, across the Olympic park in the lower lea valley. They needed to be cleared out and made it into underground lines. The project was sanctioned to make room for the creation of stadiums for the Olympic Games in 2012. After assessment it was considered that two 6km long deep boring and a 850m long spur tunnel to be dug out so that the lines around the Olympic park to be carried underground. The infrastructure was made out by the EDF energy and the National Grid. The working was carried out under high scrutiny of the government and engineering assistance. The project was to be submitted with in 2012, before the Olympic Games. Any delay would make the government to lose confidence on ODA and the delay in the Olympic Games.

For such a large project teamwork and coordination with the government officials were crucial. There was no consideration of individual success in this project. The project management was divided into six distinct phases which made the working of the project in ease. Feasibility study and concept clearing, definition of the actual working method, initiating the tunneling process, substation construction, pylon removal from the locality and final cabling of the wires, handing over the project with effective testing and final termination consisted of the phases of the project.

From the case study it can be learnt that the officials in charge of the project had drawn out the project details in clear format. The timeline was made into an effective one keeping enough time in hand. Use of appropriate working machines for the tunneling work ensured smooth work flow. The project consisted of 420 workers working round the clock for 424 days to complete the project on time. A total of 13km tunnel was dug out to lay down approximately 200km of power lines. Considering the final cost of the project as £250 million, the task was completed with complete ease.

The officials in charge said that the project was delivered in half the time with a budget costing. A ground breaking project such as this is considered as one of the largest work done in Europe. The effective following of the deadline is an impressive objective to be followed by any projects.

The following is a project management time chart created for a similar project of Under Ground power-line setup project like the case study. The full project has been completed in an average 424 days. The timeline of the project has also been provided in the following section:

WBS	Task Mode	Task Name	Duration	Start	Finish
0	Auto Scheduled	Powerlines Undergrounding Project	424 days	Thu 13-07-17	Tue 26-02-19
1	Auto Scheduled	Project Starts	0 days	Thu 13-07-17	Thu 13-07-17
2	Auto Scheduled	Requirement Analysis	24 days	Thu 13-07-17	Tue 15-08-17
2.1	Auto Scheduled	Meet The Stake Holders	5 days	Thu 13-07-17	Wed 19-07-17
2.2	Auto Scheduled	Know Basic Concept	5 days	Thu 20-07-17	Wed 26-07-17
2.3	Auto Scheduled	Discussions	4 days	Thu 27-07-17	Tue 01-08-17
2.4	Auto Scheduled	Document Requirements	7 days	Wed 02-08-17	Thu 10-08-17
2.5	Auto Scheduled	Share Report With Stake Holders	3 days	Fri 11-08-17	Tue 15-08-17
3	Auto Scheduled	Market Analysis	56 days	Wed 16-08-17	Wed 01-11-17
3.1	Auto Scheduled	Technical Feasibility	7 days	Wed 16-08-17	Thu 24-08-17
3.2	Auto Scheduled	Organizational Feasibility	7 days	Fri 25-08-17	Mon 04-09-17
3.3	Auto Scheduled	Budgetary Feasibility	7 days	Tue 05-09-17	Wed 13-09-17
3.4	Auto Scheduled	Political Feasibility	7 days	Thu 14-09-17	Fri 22-09-17
3.5	Auto Scheduled	Environmental Feasibility	7 days	Mon 25-09-17	Tue 03-10-17
3.6	Auto Scheduled	Legal Feasibility	7 days	Wed 04-10-17	Thu 12-10-17
3.7	Auto Scheduled	Document Reports	7 days	Fri 13-10-17	Mon 23-10-17
3.8	Auto Scheduled	Share With Stake Holders	7 days	Tue 24-10-17	Wed 01-11-17
4	Auto Scheduled	Planning	23 days	Thu 02-11-17	Mon 04-12-17
4.1	Auto Scheduled	Technical Requirements	5 days	Thu 02-11-17	Wed 08-11-17
4.2	Auto Scheduled	Resources Management	4 days	Thu 09-11-17	Tue 14-11-17
4.3	Auto Scheduled	Budget Estimation	3 days	Wed 15-11-17	Fri 17-11-17
4.4	Auto Scheduled	Time Estimation	4 days	Mon 20-11-17	Thu 23-11-17
4.5	Auto Scheduled	Document Reports	2 days	Fri 24-11-17	Mon 27-11-17
4.6	Auto Scheduled	Share With Stake Holders	2 days	Tue 28-11-17	Wed 29-11-17
4.7	Auto Scheduled	Stake Holders Approves	3 days	Thu 30-11-17	Mon 04-12-17
5	Auto Scheduled	Develop Project Plan	110 days	Tue 05-12-17	Mon 07-05-18
5.1	Auto Scheduled	Tunneling	40 days	Tue 05-12-17	Mon 29-01-18
5.2	Auto Scheduled	Boaring	10 days	Tue 30-01-18	Mon 12-02-18
5.3	Auto Scheduled	Clearing Out	15 days	Tue 13-02-18	Mon 05-03-18
5.4	Auto Scheduled	Sub-Station Construction	15 days	Tue 06-03-18	Mon 26-03-18
5.5	Auto Scheduled	Cabling	15 days	Tue 27-03-18	Mon 16-04-18
5.6	Auto Scheduled	Pylon Removal	15 days	Tue 17-04-18	Mon 07-05-18
6	Auto Scheduled	Implement the Project	197 days	Tue 08-05-18	Wed 06-02-19
6.1	Auto Scheduled	Architecture	120 days	Tue 08-05-18	Mon 22-10-18
6.2	Auto Scheduled	Design	30 days	Tue 23-10-18	Mon 03-12-18
6.3	Auto Scheduled	Develop	40 days	Tue 04-12-18	Mon 28-01-19
6.4	Auto Scheduled	Stake Holders Review	7 days	Tue 29-01-19	Wed 06-02-19
7	Auto Scheduled	Project Handover	14 days	Thu 07-02-19	Tue 26-02-19
7.1	Auto Scheduled	Operational Testing	2 days	Thu 07-02-19	Fri 08-02-19
7.2	Auto Scheduled	Stake Holders Signoff	2 days	Mon 11-02-19	Tue 12-02-19
7.3	Auto Scheduled	Project Documentation	2 days	Wed 13-02-19	Thu 14-02-19
7.4	Auto Scheduled	Handover Documents	2 days	Fri 15-02-19	Mon 18-02-19
7.5	Auto Scheduled	Archive Documents	2 days	Tue 19-02-19	Wed 20-02-19
7.6	Auto Scheduled	Payment Procedure Completed	2 days	Thu 21-02-19	Fri 22-02-19
7.7	Auto Scheduled	Resource Release	2 days	Mon 25-02-19	Tue 26-02-19
8	Auto Scheduled	Project Ends	0 days	Tue 26-02-19	Tue 26-02-19

                                                             

Conclusion

To conclude this report, the lessons learned from the case is that if there is a good management in work with a project any project can be completed within the stipulated time and in budget. Delay of project is not a plus point of a project. The recommendation for such projects cannot be found. A project with such good risk management is hard to find. Other projects should learn from this and include them in their live projects in the future.

References

Apm.org.uk (2017) <https://www.apm.org.uk/sites/default/files/powerlines%20undergrounding%20project,%20london%202012.pdf> accessed 13 July 2017

Fleming, Quentin W., and Joel M. Koppelman. “Earned value project management.” Project Management Institute, 2016.

Hanson, D. J., et al. “A STATCOM-based relocatable SVC project in the UK for National Grid.” Power Engineering Society Winter Meeting, 2002. IEEE. Vol. 1. IEEE, 2002.

Hey, Tony, and Anne E. Trefethen. “The UK e-science core programme and the grid.” Future Generation Computer Systems 18.8 (2002): 1017-1031.

Larson, Erik W., and Clifford Gray. Project Management: The Managerial Process with MS Project. McGraw-Hill, 2013.

Mohammad, Imran, et al. “Showing relationships between tasks in a Gantt chart.” U.S. Patent No. 9,336,502. 10 May 2016.

Ong, Hong Yeow, Chen Wang, and Nurshuhada Zainon. “Integrated Earned Value Gantt Chart (EV-Gantt) Tool for Project Portfolio Planning and Monitoring Optimization.” Engineering Management Journal 28.1 (2016): 39-53.

Raco, Mike. “Delivering Flagship Projects in an Era of Regulatory Capitalism: State?led Privatization and the London Olympics 2012.” International Journal of Urban and Regional Research 38.1 (2014): 176-197.

Sefton-Green, Julian. “What future for the non-formal learning sector?: an analytic review commissioned by the London Development Agency.” (2008).

Syrett, Stephen, and Robert Baldock. “Reshaping London’s economic governance: the role of the London Development Agency.” European Urban and Regional Studies 10.1 (2003): 69-86.

Toke, David. “The UK offshore wind power programme: A sea-change in UK energy policy?.” Energy Policy 39.2 (2011): 526-534.

Wade, Neal, et al. “Energy storage for power flow management and voltage control on an 11 kV UK distribution network.” Prague, Czech Republic, CIRED paper 824 (2009).