Mega Project Case Study

Case Study

Learning Team C

University of Phoenix

Case Study

A project is defined as “a complex, non-routine, one-time effort limited by time, budget, resources, and performance specifications designed to meet customer needs” (Gray & Larson, 2005, p. 15). Project management crosses all industries and is present in every corner of the globe. “The basics of project management are universalвЂ"making sure a project is done correctly, on time, and within budgetвЂ"ensuring every element of any undertaking is accomplished in step with the rest” (Brath, 2008, p. 26).

In this case study, Learning Team C will conduct an analysis of the Big Dig. There will be a description of the project and selection process based on portfolio management priorities. The phases of the project will be identified with a high-level timeline. Team C will conduct a SWOT of the organization as it impacts the strategic selection of the project.

The strengths and weaknesses of the Big Dig will be identified. Principle learning objectives of strategic project implementation will be identified to describe the salient points that were either done well or led to project problems. There will be a discussion on alternatives that could have been or were activated to improve results. Finally, the case study will be summarized to describe how the findings can influence future strategic choices and implementations.

Dissect Case

The idea for the Big Dig, also known as the Central Artery/Tunnel (CA/T) project, was conceived in the late 1960s in Boston, Massachusetts to alleviate traffic congestion on the Central Artery. The Central Artery was a 6-lane above-ground highway designed to carry approximately 75,000 cars per day and was completed and placed into service in 1959. Before the Central Artery was replaced, it carried close to 200,000 cars per day and it had a 10-hour per day rush hour, one of the worst in the United States. The traffic congestion, pollution, and costs associated with the long rush hour were affecting the quality of life for Massachusetts residents. In addition to the traffic problem, the Central Artery cut off the residents on the North side of Boston and the waterfront from downtown, limiting the residents’ ability to participate in the economic benefits available in downtown Boston (Massachusetts Turnpike, Project Background, 2007).

Organizational Background

The Massachusetts Department of Public Works and the Massachusetts Highway Department initially owned the CA/T project. In 1985, Bechtel/Parsons Brinckerhoff (B/PB), a joint venture of Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco and Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., of New York, provided the design and construction management consulting for the CA/T project (Massachusetts Turnpike, Project Background, 2007). As the owner’s representative, B/PB’s primary function was to oversee the day-to-day administration of the design and construction contracts. “The owner retained the authority to make actual decisions, but B/PB had substantial control over design and construction” (National Academies, Project Management, 2003, para.1).

However, several years into the CA/T project, the Massachusetts Legislature created the Metropolitan Highway System Act: "assigning the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority the responsibility of overseeing the CA/T Project and all other CA/T roadways upon completion" (Massachusetts Turnpike, About Us, 2007, para. 5). The CA/T project is currently managed by “an integrated project organization (IPO) composed of Massachusetts Turnpike Authority staff and B/PB staff mixed in at various levels into one single organization” (National Academies, Project Management, 2003 para. 3).

Due to the allocation of federal funds via the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) performs independent reviews of the “project’s management and organizational structure, cost savings, effectiveness and efficiency, and change order process” (National Academies, Project Management, 2003 para. 4).

Organizational Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats

Normally an assessment of the internal and external environments of an organization is done to help influence strategic choices. The Big Dig project was created in an effort to improve the greater Boston area’s traffic and environmental problems. Because the project directly affected the general welfare of the city of Boston, an internal and external assessment of the greater Boston area was likely performed. The assessment of the external and internal environments is known as the SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats) (Gray & Larson, 2005 p. 26).

Internal Assessment. Internal assessments consist of the strengths and weaknesses of an organization. In this case, the strengths and weaknesses considered are of the city of Boston in the early 1980s. One of Boston’s greatest strengths was, and continues to be, its strong economy. A big part of this successful economy is due to the number of higher learning institutions. For at least 100 years, the region has been home to the highest concentration of higher educational institutions in the country (Bluestone & Stevenson, 2000, p. 3). Having these institutions in Boston attracts some of the best technology and fund companies to be based in Boston, as well as keeping existing businesses such as Fidelity Investments Inc. The mutual fund industry was invented in Boston in the mid-1920s (Bluestone & Stevenson, 2000, p. 4). Another big strength of the Boston area is the availability of advanced medicine. Boston’s health and hospitals, including Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and the teaching hospitals connected to Harvard, have constituted one of the nation's premiere centers for advanced medical care (Bluestone & Stevenson, 2000, p. 4).

Despite the strengths listed above and many others not mentioned, the greater Boston area was not without its share of weaknesses in the early 1980s. The biggest weakness of Boston was that it was a city choking with traffic. The main obstruction was the Central Artery, which has been discussed in detail earlier in this case study. A key to Boston’s economic health is the city’s ability to transport residents, workers, and visitors efficiently and safely to their intended destinations,