Successful planning, construction, and completion of a large scale project like the one undertaken for completing the One World Trade Center is not easy since it requires a strategic focus on the construction plans in a realistic manner. Project leaders need to give external reviewers an opportunity to have an outside view of the whole project and suggest ways that can ensure completion within the stipulated time while avoiding deviations from the initial budget. The delays experienced during the construction of the Freedom Tower create the impression of how ineffective functional operations can lead to major changes in designs and costs involved in projects. Delays witnessed in the completion of structures as a result of failure to lay the steels on time are among the factors that hindered the success of the project. This paper, therefore, relies on the case of the One World Trade Center project in discussing the cause of delays and additional costs in projects as well as the PM tools and processes available to enhance project execution during the life cycle of a project.
Causes of Failure to Complete Construction within Schedule and Budget
Delays from Internal Politics
Delays in completion of the Freedom Tower were initially caused by some series of bitter negotiations between the Port Authority executives, the mayor and the governor of New Jersey. The fact that politics had interfered with the project led to questioning of the financial ability of some of the contractors to undertake the construction process. Political opportunism and commercial interests by some of the developers led to the inability of the construction to be completed within the stipulated time. Pataki’s administration was reluctant in negotiations while the developer was facing strained relationships by being given the option of opting out if he felt the authority was not receptive to his ideas. However, for Pataki, construction of the tower was a way of him leaving legacy in the city and would give him an upper hand in the run for presidency. The Port Authority believed that the contactor Mr. Silverstein did not have the financial capabilities to complete the task and hence the need to look for other contractors that showed potential to successfully complete the project. Bureaucratic competition was therefore a major reason why there was delay in the project take off since the Port Authority was reluctant in approving some of the task and requirements while complicated internal politics of authority led to the tasks being left under the control of the governors of New York and New Jersey. The management lacked the strength necessary to push the project according to the expectations. The internal politics and the fact that some decision were rejected by the governor create the impression of the cumbersome decision making process involved in the project.
Internal politics and political opportunism therefore limited the effectiveness with which the right designers and contractors could have been found thereby interfering with the ease with which success could have been achieved. Internal conflicts in projects interfere with ability to have effective lines of responsibility and the need to give supervisors autonomy to act. Failure to accommodate the interest of other leaders in a project is a route to possible resignation and withdrawal of parties that have high potential in contributing to completion of the project within the designated time and budgetary allocations. Logistic issues also point out poor governance during the construction of One World Trade Center since contractors such as DMC ran out of supplies and feared going ahead with laying of steel since the Port Authority was not giving them an assurance that it will approve additional cost involved in in the project. The delay in the completion of the construction could therefore be largely attributed to the fact that leadership structure had failed to conducting risk analysis on how the designing and constructing could interfere with logistical operations. The urgency with which Pataki felt for the project to begin in spite of financial limitations create the impression that there was a bit of rushing in laying down the foundation for the project. This means that proper considerations was not met in terms of the need to involved external reviewers in helping the parties come up with a suitable plan for the project. The fact that internal politics was evident in the project means that most of the consultants were from the management team hence limiting transparency in the project.
Delays caused by security concerns
The New York Police Department demanded fortification of the freedom tower in 2005 citing potential risk of truck bombs. To avoid incidences like 9/11 attack, designers had to go back to the drawing board to find solutions to the vulnerability of the building. However, the blame lies with the leaders at the project since they were privately informed of the susceptibility of the building to attacks but failed to take action until the NYPD officially addressed the issues in a report. The option was to reinforce the structure to make it more stable and secure thereby causing a delay from expected completion in 2008 to 2010.
Design competition and delays
Breakdown of talks also led to delays since it took time before there was an agreement on the design of the tower. While others questioned the idea of rebuilding the tower in a place targeted by terrorist, there were additional concerns on the designs of the building with the public casting doubts on the need for a cultural center at the building. Divergent master plans and overruling of decisions on the winners of the design competition proved to be adverse for the project hence delaying its takeoff. The complexity of the tower also led to addition of millions of dollars thereby making it difficult for timely completion of the project. Blocking of access to the underground loading area also seemed to have been caused by poor designing thereby adding to the costs of the project since temporary station for Port Authority Trans Hudson Subway had to be constructed to allow access to the underground loading area. The implication of the construction of the subway was additional costs of $ 700 million to the initial budget.
Competition and complexity of the design are attributed to the inability for some contractors to meet the demands of materials such as steel. Design competition also led to the wrong choice of designers as with the case of the designer involved in the construction of public transport terminus who by then was facing legal suits in Spain for the collapse of a building. The fact that Pataki wanted to leave a legacy in the city means that he was quick to see the project start and hence could not accommodate any suggestions that could stall construction process. The implications of his actions were that there were conflicts in the design works and that there were undetected flaws at the initial stages. Mandatory approval checks in terms of the capability of the contractors and sub-contractors seem to have been neglected possibly because of the political interference in the project. With such limitations, it was, therefore, unlikely that the project would match the expectation of its earlier completion and within the estimated budget.
Financial and legal problems by some of the contractors
Financial woes faced by DMC Erectors, the company responsible for laying steel also stalled the project and added to the costs incurred. The complexity of the design was attributed to the inability of the steel company to rightly lay the components as would have been desired. Additionally, the steel company claimed that the Port Authority was taking long before approving the additional costs to be incurred by DMC Erectors. However, the fact that DMC Erectors is one of the largest steel companies in the United States raises questions about the governance of the project. In spite of the claim that Port Authority took long to negotiate on additional costs, it was also documented that in some cases, Port Authority went the extra mile of paying DCM workforce involved in the project.
Cost overruns in the course of construction
Cost overruns was also a major problem in the construction of the One World Trade Center. Budget overruns were at some case the result of ineffectiveness among the constructors like the case of building the public transportation terminus. The task stalled because the designer was involved in court cases in Spain where a building he had designed crumbled. The stalling caused the opening of the terminus to be six years behind the schedule with an additional budget twice over the original one. The costs of construction of the tower had risen from the initial $ 2 billion to $ 3.8 billion thereby suggesting there was a misallocation of the funds. The increase in costs made One World Trade Center the priciest in the world behind the world’s tallest building, that us, the Burj Kahlifa in Dubai. Overruns of funds also saw the rail terminus becoming the most expensive in the history of the US.
The tools that could have used in the Freedom Tower project are embedded in the PM process that addresses a systematic procedure that if followed effectively improves ways through which resources such as time and money are utilized. The first step is to ensure those involved in the project agree on precise specifications including the experienced contractors to contact, budgets and the timescale for the project. To improve the ease for which there are effective agreements, it is important for projects to be free from political influence where decision are overruled by individuals with opportunistic interests. The fact that political leaders would want to use a project to leave a legacy in the city makes projects susceptible to individual influence and failure to give contractors the autonomy they require. Forced compromise in the designs and purpose of the project need to be eliminated to reduce incidences where there are divergent master plans that increase the complexities and costs of constructions at later stages of the process. The bureaucratic sluggishness of the local authorities and complicated internal politics are to a larger extent destructive and hinder long-term prospects of the project. To improve transparency and active engagement in the project, it is, therefore, necessary that everyone is encouraged to equally participate in negotiations to avoid situations where contractors are forced to start building process or pave the way for other constructors in case they fail to act quickly. Poor management is the reason for additional costs that hinder timely completion of the project hence the need to ensure good governance prevail right from the time designer submit their proposals to the financial stages of the project.
Bureaucratic sluggishness and individual control of the project led to a failure to identify and deal with limitations effectively. Managerial conflicts and breakdown of talks meant to solve problems have severe consequences on the project since they create situations where decision-making roles become ineffective hence limiting the ability of the leaders to identify obstacles that could affect timely completion of the project using the funds that were initially budgeted.
Tools used in PM
The next step in PM process is to effectively plan the project by taking into consideration the team to be involved in the activities, resources and time to be involved in each activity. The planning step calls for PM tools to be used. The PM tools include Project Evaluation Review Techniques where specific activities and milestones are identified. Determining specific activities and milestones is important since it is key to identifying any shortcomings in the performance of the activities as well as deviations from the initial plans. PERT tool also enables project leaders to identify proper sequence of activities so as to ensure the whole project is completed in full. Events such as delays in the completion of the transportation hub led to increased costs and delays thereby raising questions on the applicability of PERT model in the whole process. While identifying proper sequence of the activities, it is also appropriate to estimate the time required for each activity. In such scenario, project leaders need to set an optimistic time scale as well as likely time and ensure that the actions of contractors are in line with the identified schedule. PERT tool also ensures that Critical Path is taken into consideration due to the complexity of the One World Trade Center Project. Critical Path Analysis is important since it ensures successful completion of interrelated activities according to the time scale identified. With the Critical Path Analysis, it is easy to show the importance and interdependence of related but parallel activities like with the case of Freedom Tower.
The next step in the PM process is to communicate effectively with all stakeholders. Effective communication during negotiations is important since it brings everyone closer to the objectives of the project and allows for appropriate brainstorming of all the factors that could affect construction process. Failure to have effective communication structures limits the likelihood of creating an atmosphere where there are mutual trust and dependence and where group consensus is the order of the day. The fact that Pataki’s administration was reluctant on coming up with friendly negotiations creates the impression that the stakeholders were not involved well in the whole process. There were arguments over the design and purpose of the rebuilding the tower at the same location and the facilities to include in the building. The decision to put a memorial part, commercial center and transportation hub was the idea of Mayor Bloomberg and involved less consultation with relevant stakeholders. Such issues could have contributed to delays in construction and limited support regarding financial support. Forced compromise by the Mayor and the fact the Pataki was involved in overruling board decision means that collaboration and openness were lacking at the initial stages of the project.
Designing issues faced at the later stages means that external reviewers were not consulted in analyzing limitation of the designs thereby leading to divergent master plans that later led to increase cost of the project especially at the public transportation terminus. The ideas and impact of the contributions by stakeholders could therefore not be accommodated thereby making the project paying for failure to rely on possible innovative ideas that could have improved completion of the project. Failure to involve external stakeholders could also be linked to problems of contracting companies that were suffering financially and those whose designers were facing legal actions for collapsed buildings. A case of a designer who had pending court case led to delay of completion of the public transportation terminus by six months thereby contributing to increased costs of the project. Project leaders also need to improve ways through which they agree on decisions to be taken in the construction process while working hard to manage and motivate everyone to be part of the initial goals outlined.
Checking, measuring, monitoring and reviewing of the projects progress is important to ensure there are effective checks and balances. There were a serious limitation with the checks and balance in place during the planning and construction of the Freedom Tower hence contributing to delays and additional costs. Checking on the progress of activities against the plan was ineffective hence leading to issues such as difficulties in moving equipment across the ongoing construction hence limiting ability to build the top of the tower. The consequences of such failure was an increase in financial resources required to move machinery, more time required as well as additional technical skills which meant acquiring the services of an expert. Design competition also contributed to ineffective checks and balances due to divergent master plans that led to confusions.
The need for Port Authority to move fast in sorting out issues faced by DMC Erectors means that the bureaucratic nature of governance was interfering with ability to have effective checks and balances. However, the fact remains that it is appropriate to have effective checks and measures where there is transparency in accounting for the costs incurred in the project. However, the transparency cannot be achieved if a project is marred by internal politics hence the need for project managers to reduced complications of authority. It is inappropriate that the project managers acquired services of a contractors who caused delays extending to six years thereby raising questions on the scrutiny capabilities of those assigned to review progress of the project. It is therefore necessary to review performance regularly so as to confirm validity and relevance of the activities performed by those contracted. It is largely through effective checks and balances that project could be kept within the original terms of the reference.
Obstacles in Implementing PM management tools
Inadequate functional cooperation makes it difficult to create desirable changes. However, to solve the problem, project leaders need to engage those with proactive culture and willingness to jointly co-operate to achieve the goals of the project within the scheduled time and budget allocated. Poor communication could also be a limitation in improving the progress of the project hence the need to ensure everyone is accountable for their action and that there are flexible means of reaching out to one another.
Conclusion
The construction of One World Trade Center could have taken less time as well as cost were it not for the problems encountered during the planning and construction phases. Excessive control by the mayor and governor interfered with the need for effective brainstorming and identification of contractors with greater potential to deliver the goals of the project within the stipulated schedule. Delays from re-designing, financial woes from some of the provider and ineffectiveness of some of the designers contributed to increased costs of the project from the initial budget of $ 2 billion to approximately $ 4 billion. The idea of building a memorial, commercial center and transportation hub was a forced compromise by the mayor thereby contributing to design problems due to divergent master plans. However, PM tools provide solutions to the problems by addressing the need to have effective management structures free from individual influence. The need for effective consultation is also important since it brings everyone together and makes it possible to get reviewers to look at the project performance for an outside view. It is also important to have appropriate checks and balances to avoid shocks from ineffectiveness of some of the providers and look for ways to adhere to the timeline and budget.
Works Cited
Bagli, Charles and David Dunlap. "Developer told to build 9/11 site or stand clear." The New York Times 16 March 2006. Web. <mobile,nytimes.com/2006/03/16/nyregion/developer-told-to-build-911-site-or-stand-clear.html>.
Brown, Eliot. "Steel Firm's Woes Snag WTC." The Wall Street Journal 18 January 2012. Web. <www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052970204555904577167323343069432>.
Farago, Jason. "One World Trade Center; How New York tried to rebuild its soul." The Guardian 8 September 2014. Web. <www.theguardian.com/cities/2014/sep/08/-sp-one-world-trade-center-new-york-rebuild-ground-zero-twin-towers>.
Longman, Andrew and Jim Mullins. "Project management: key tool for implementing strategy." Journal of Business Strategy (2004): 54-60. Document.
Thornburgh, Nathan. "Freedom Tower: New Setbacks Over Setbacks." Time 10 May 2005. Web. <content.time.com/time/nation/article/08599105962300.html>.
Wysocki, Robert. Effective Project Management. New York: Wiley Publishing, Inc., 2009. Document.
