Sydney Opera House is a theater or multi-place centre of arts in Sydney, Australia. It is regarded as among the world's landmark buildings and has become Australia's global emblem. Though the groundwork for the House introduced in the 1940s, an initiative was taken in 1956 when Joseph Cahill declared an international competition to build Sydney's opera house. The design called for a layout of double theatres – a great hall for opera, dance, and full-scale symphony shows with the ability of accommodating three thousand to three thousand five hundred spectators, and a smaller hall for theatre, chamber music & recitals, adept with seating of about one thousand two hundres spectators.
There were 233 prototypes submitted for the contest in particular. In January 1957, the bid was awarded to Jorn Utzon. His architectural principles were derived from the ancient Chinese centered on the ship sails and gull wings. The project was constructed in three phases. Step 1 (1959-63) composed of the upper podium being constructed. Step 2 (1963–67) saw the exterior shells being designed and step 3 (1967-73) was the planning and building of the interior.
The Sydney Opera House can be seen as a catastrophic financial and management failure in the construction project. This is still regarded as an architectural triumph (Murray, 2003).
The Sydney Opera house, though a masterpiece in architect, is considered as a disaster in terms of finance and management owing to various reasons (Bourne, 2007), some of which are discussed below:
The Opera project was launched without any proper plan for the architect to follow. Furthermore, soon after the construction began, the floor plan was improved by the client from double theatres to multiple, which caused a major issue in project planning and implementation. In addition to this, there was no designated head of management and each member of the management team had a distinct perspective and objective which caused difficulty in reaching unanimous decisions.
Another issue that contributed to the failure of the Opera house project is that there was no demarcated budget for the project. The change in the floor plan at the beginning of the construction led to an escalation in the project cost. Additionally, the site survey conducted turned out to be wrong which also resulted in budget expansion. Moreover, the ideal vision of the construction set by Utzon was to segregate the project whole in three segments: the podium, the outer shells and the interiors of the house. However, by the completion of the first segment, the project monitoring committee appointed by the government to oversee payments put a hold on the flow of payment until the completion of the project which became a major reason for a financial disaster of it.
At the beginning of the project, the initial stakeholders the state of the New South Wales, ex officio the government of Australia and were the lead architect Utzon. However, a few years after the initiation of the construction, a new government was elected which became a new stakeholder in the project. This government did not like the vision set by Utzon which lead to various interference and modification in the project that ultimately resulted in the resignation of Utzon. Transfer of further construct to Australian engineers required change in plan. As a consequence, the project observed a postponement in the completion and expansion of the cost from the proposed project.
This article provides an insight into the scandal of the project planning and management of the Opera House Project. At the beginning of the article, the author has discussed that a contributing reason for the failure of the project was the design vision by the head architect Utzon. The article reveals the complexity of the structure proposed by the architect. The lack of any clear plan for the project caused trouble for team members to build it piece by piece. Further, the author has discussed the political as well as management issues that arose during the construction of the Opera House.
The change of government that led to the resignation of Utzon and its consequences has been discussed in the article. Moreover, the struggle of Sidler to re-enforce Utzon in the project is also discussed and the opinion of those lobbying against it. It is clear from this article that a change in the stakeholder of a project can be disastrous for its planning and implementation. It deals with further deals with the issue of difference in the objectives of the management team members as well as those playing an imperative role in the construction and management of a project.
In this study, the authors have discussed the importance of project organization and its management. Further, it demonstrates the relationship between the success of a project and its risk management and requirement management of a project. As per the result drew in this research, the most important factor that is directly linked for project success is project organization. The essential factors that are an integral part of project organization, as described by Berssaneti & Carvalho (2015) are planning and control effort, budgeting and control of subcontractors and schedule and work definition.
It states out the relevancy of adequate project planning and initiation and its relationship with project success. Furthermore, the competency of the project manager, who is a stakeholder in any construction project, is considered to be the second most important factor in determining the success of a project as the execution and initiation of the planning is dependent upon the manager. Moreover, factors such as project risk management, project team competency and requirements management are put at third, fourth and fifth place of important factors respectively. In the case of Opera house, the project clearly lacked adequate project planning and management which resulted in the failure of the project.
This article deals with the planning and initiations presently being taken for administration and management of the building. It deals with ways that are used by the house to attract an audience. It shows the importance of budget management for the efficient working of the house. Furthermore, it has identified a connection between the attracting audience and customer satisfaction. The public of the city and the country are the last and unrecognized stakeholders of the project. Moreover, the House has created various ways to increase and maintain human resource management such as learning teams program and the real program and recognition of management struck.
To do so, the structure of the management has also been changed The organization's composition was also changed in accordance with these attempts to engage workers further and seek their feedback, with the formation of units responsible for five sets of similarly related roles. Sales and promotions, for starters, take the accountability not just for the products. The challenge the Chief Executive has set for the SOH is branding terms has to do with the secondary characters of good brand-the expectations of potential consumers about the quality of their goods. Customers are also a stakeholder in any project their satisfaction is equally necessary.
This article discusses the decision-making process at the Sydney Opera House and sets out descriptions as to how the new strategy works in practice. Architect Jørn Utzon's recent re-engagement offers incentives for Sydney Opera House's development to proceed in the spirit of the architect's theory of architecture. Considering that the project was constructed by others in 1973, several years since Utzon's contentious exit, it is important to recognize both the heritage importance of the building and well-articulated strategies for maintaining such values.
This article deals with the effect of change in leadership and management of the Opera House project and its effect on the failure of the project. It highlights the impact of mismanagement and its consequences. Additionally, it shows the journey of the Opera house. The re-introduction/engagement of the head of the project Utzons into the sub-consequential planning and management of the project are also discussed. It further states that change and modification in project plan and initiation is an issue faced during the construction of every project, as long as the basic structure is not changed as major changes in basic structure can lead to various consequences that may be disastrous for the project.
Provide critical review and evaluation of reasons for failure attributable to lack of adequate care in project initiation, planning and stakeholder engagement
An effective project needs well-defined objectives that meet the time, expense and efficiency constraints (Linton, 2014, p.19). In the situation of the Sydney Opera House project, it was not clear what objectives and goals would be achieved. In addition, the change in plans throughout the whole project was the key causes the project turned out to be a catastrophic disappointment. Moreover, the policy of the Australian Government to launch the project before the final plan was produced was the key elements that underwrote to the project's failure (Camilleri, 2011).
a) The basic reason for the failure of this project in planning and management was justified as there was no clear plan of construction of the project, to begin with. Furthermore, as argued by the head architect, Utzon, the prototype proposed was not designed for the required structure. The Australian Government nevertheless persisted on initiating the project and regularly started calling for drastic changes to be implemented in the plan. Such modifications took time for implementation, and thus the project was subsequently delayed.
b) Another problem that has emerged has been the non-planning of the budget of the project (Nowotarski, & Paslawski, 2015). Owing to the continuous modification in the plan, the project cost escalation was inevitable. It resulted in a lack of a clear picture of the project budget by the architect and the project team. The consequence was that the completion of the first stage involved incremental costs of about 5.2 million Australian dollars and the timeline stretched by nearly a year. Further, the second stage of the development proved to be the most contentious portion. The payments fell to a stop from the government because no projected growth was observed.
c) The change in the stakeholder of the project in the major reason for the failure of the Opera House project. The change in government, first stakeholder, led to conflict in the vision of the project as the new government was displeased with the said vision of the head architect. Furthermore, it is clear that change in stakeholders leads to change an opinion which can create major issues in the implementation of planning and initiations of the project that ultimately results in delay in completion and budget expansion.
Many aspects that could have been done differently or an improved manner for the project to succeed. First and foremost regarding stakeholder management, the project suffered from multiple changes in hands during the course of the project. Initially, the project responsibility and ownership should have been well defined and continued in the manner previously planned (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007).
Single point of responsibility. Furthermore, in regards to project planning and initiation, there must have been well defined and not easily changeable project guidelines. This could have saved millions of dollars and years of time from being wasted.
Additionally, project ownership not dependent on the political party in power but rather the contact should have been made between the government boxy and the architect. The lead architect should have been retained. Efforts should have been made to reach an agreement with the lead architect so that no changes in the architect helming the project was needed.
There were a variety of contributors behind the project's failure. In the outset of any project, the client must clearly identify the objectives and goals in order to offer a framework for the project incorporate. The project was not properly definite, and the floor plans were frequently modified. The lack of patience and decision by the Australian Governments to initiate the construction of the House before the finalization of models and drawings was a significant factor in the project failures. It, in turn, made it very challenging for the design and development teams and also increased the cost of the project.
The absence of a project manager played a significant role in the project's collapse. For most building projects a project manager is completely necessary, and definitely a project of this scale. Overall the project manager is accountable for the overall project progress. The shortage of leadership and direction proved to be a big concern during Opera House construction. Without a main project manager, there was no definite superviso and thus no one for the workers to liaise with except for Utzon, who appeared to have his hands filled with frequent plan revisions and adjustments in the event of problems or complaints on some part of the build.
O'Neill, H. (2013). Chapter 13. In A Singular Vision: Harry Seidler (pp. 214-225)
Patricia Hale & Susan Macdonald (2005). The Sydney Opera House: An Evolving Icon, Journal of Architectural Conservation, 11:2, 7-22, DOI: 10.1080/13556207.2005.10784942
Essays, UK. (2018). Sydney Opera House Construction Project. Retrieved from https://www.ukessays.com/essays/construction/sydney-opera-house-construction-project-construction-essay.php?vref=1
Colbert, F. (2003). The Sydney Opera House: An Australian Icon. The Company Profile 5(2).
Tsiga, Z, Emes, M & Smith, A. Critical Success Factors For The Construction Industry PM World Journal, 6(9).
Murray, P. (2003). The saga of Sydney Opera House: the dramatic story of the design and construction of the icon of modern Australia. London: Routledge.
Bourne, L. (2007). Avoiding the successful failure. In PMI Global Congress, Asia Pacific, Hong Kong (pp. 29-31).
Camilleri, E. (2011). Project Success. Critical factors and behaviours, Gower Publishing Limited, England.
Shenhar, A. J., & Dvir, D. (2007). Project management research—The challenge and opportunity. Project management journal, 38(2), 93-99.
Remember, at the center of any academic work, lies clarity and evidence. Should you need further assistance, do look up to our Management Assignment Help
5 Stars to their Experts for my Assignment Assistance.
There experts have good understanding and knowledge of university guidelines. So, its better if you take their Assistance rather than doing the assignments on your own.
What you will benefit from their service -
I saved my Time (which I utilized for my exam studies) & Money, and my grades were HD (better than my last assignments done by me)
What you will lose using this service -
Unfortunately, i had only 36 hours to complete my assignment when I realized that it's better to focus on exams and pass this to some experts, and then I came across this website.
Kudos Guys!Jacob "
Proofreading and Editing$9.00Per Page
Consultation with Expert$35.00Per Hour
Live Session 1-on-1$40.00Per 30 min.
Doing your Assignment with our resources is simple, take Expert assistance to ensure HD Grades. Here you Go....