Introduction
The Scottish Parliament Building serves as the domicile of the Parliament of Scotland. The building is located in Holyrood, Edinburgh. The area is inside a UNESCO World Heritage Site (The New Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, Audit-Scotland, 2000). They started constructing the building in June 1999. The building is first used by the Members of the Scottish Parliament in their debate on a Tuesday, 7th of September 2004. Queen Elizabeth led the official launching of the Parliament Building on October 9, 2004. The architect for the project is Enric Miralles from Catalan. He is the one responsible for the design of the building but unfortunately, he passed away earlier than the end of the project (BBC Scotland News, July 2000).
Before the opening of the new Scottish Parliament Building, the General Assembly Hall of the Church of Scotland accommodates the debating chamber and committee rooms of the Scottish Parliament. It was situated on The Mound in Edinburgh. Other offices for the administrative support of the parliament are housed in different buildings that are being rented by the Council of the City of Edinburgh.
When the building was completed in 2004, it combined all the various components of the parliament in its own location. The 129 Members of the Scottish Parliament and its over a thousand staff are all accommodated by the Scottish Parliament Building (Scottish Office, March 1998)
Since the beginning, the building itself and the construction thereof, become very controversial and very much criticized. All aspects of the project have been scrutinized – location, design, architect and the contractor. Politicians questioned every detail of the project. The media and the public gave negative comments about the extravagance of the whole idea. The project missed its expected completion time of 2001. Instead of 2001, the building was opened over three years overdue in 2004. Furthermore, the total cost incurred in constructing the building reached an estimated amount of £414 million which is almost tenfold higher than the original budget of £10 million to £40 million.
In 2003, a formal inquiry led by former Lord Advocate, Peter Fraser was formed. Fraser established a major and highly publicized public inquiry regarding the management of the construction of the building. The inquiry ended in September 2004. The panel drew negative remarks on how the construction of the building is managed. Unfavourable comments were also given on the way the project managers handled cost increases, and also the instigation of the major design alterations of the building (Bain, 2004)
In spite of the criticism that the building received, it was still considered an architectural marvel by experts and critics. A poetic convergence of the landscape of Scotland and the people and culture of the city is perceived by the design and look of the building. Because of this, the building received not only criticisms but awards as well. In fact, it receives the prestigious Sterling Prize (Boztas, 2005)
The whole compound of the Scottish Parliament Building occupies an aggregate area of 1.6 ha or equivalent to 4 acres. The perimeter measures 480 m or 1570 ft. The location of the complex is just 1 km east of the City of Edinburgh. Before the building was constructed there, the area used to be the main office and operation centre for the Scottish and Newcastle brewery. (Balfour and McGrone, 2005)
Besides the complexity of the building is the Palace of Holyroodhouse. Between the Parliament building and the palace is the wide and beautiful Holyrood Park. The steep slopes of the Salisbury Crags and Arthur’s Seat is located just south of the parliamentary complex. Before the commencement of the construction of the building, the west side of the area was developed into a commercial centre. These areas comprise the Holyrood and Dumbiedykes areas. These areas give space for retail, office and hotel spaces. (Bain, 2004)
In September 1999, the final project design for the Scottish Parliament Building was made public.
During the time when the Kingdom of Scotland still has its own legislative body, they house their parliament at the Parliament House located in the Royal Mile in Edinburgh. The Kingdom of Scotland was still a sovereign independent state back then.
In 1707, the passing of the Act of Union between the Kingdoms of England and Scotland combined the parliament of Scotland and England into a single legislative body. They call that unified political union the Parliament of Great Britain. The Parliament of Great Britain held its meetings at the Palace of Westminster in London. In effect, therefore, the 292 years of English political governance over Scotland left Scotland with no legislature of its own. Thus, there was no need for having its own Parliament building.
On the 11th of September 1997, the Scottish electorate passed a referendum that creates a separate Scottish Parliament. The said parliament would handle the majority of the local affairs in Scotland. In line with this, Donald Dewar, Secretary of State for Scotland, thought that the time to build a new structure that will house the Scottish Parliament has come.
In searching for the best location of the Scottish Parliament, three sites were highly considered. First was the previous home of the Scottish Office which is called St. Andrew’s House. The other two choices for the possible location of the new Scottish Parliament building were the Victoria Quay at Leith docks and the Haymarket located at the west of Edinburgh. Initially, the Holyrood site does not belong to the top choices for the location due to the fact that the site is not available at that time. Holyrood at that time was owned by the Scottish and Newcastle brewery. After some negotiations, the owner of the land said that by early 1999, the land would be available for use. Because of this breakthrough, Holyrood was included in the list of choices for the possible location of the new Scottish Parliament building.
After feasibility studies done by the Scottish Office in late 1997, it was concluded that the Holyrood site is the best location for the new Scottish Parliament building. (Bain, 2004)
After finalizing the location of the new Scottish Parliament building, a contest was held to find the architect that would design that very important building. Secretary Dewar spearheaded the contest as the chair of the design committee of the project. He was given the authority to choose among the chosen possible designs. Different architects submitted their own designs including internationally acclaimed architects like Richard Meier, Rafael Viñoly and Michael Wilford.
In March 1988, twelve designs get through the screening process then the following month, further screening trimmed down the list to only five designs. The final five designs chosen were displayed for public viewing in the whole country. Public comments indicated that the design made by Catalan architect Enric Miralles is a frontrunner. The architects of the final five designs each made their own presentations about their suggested design.
Exactly on the 6th of July 1998, Enric Miralles’ design was affirmed as the winner of the contest. On the other hand, the construction of the building was awarded to the EMBT/RMJTM (Scotland) Ltd. This company is particularly established just for the project of building the new Scottish Parliament. The construction began in June 1999. After demolishing the Scottish and Newcastle brewery, setting up the foundation of the building started.
Problems: delays and cost increases during the project
A number of controversies and criticism was thrown to the project of constructing the new Scottish Parliament Building. To start with, using the public’s money in order to create the said project already sparked controversies. Furthermore, as time passed by, the cost of the project increased dramatically. In fact, the cost increased almost 10 times its original estimated cost of £10 to £40 million in July 1997. By the end of the project, it was determined that the final cost of constructing the building almost reached £430 million.
The initial figure of £10 to £40 million is only based on the structure that would house the Members of the Scottish Parliament. The cost projections did not take into consideration other aspects of the project like the design or location of the building. (Fraser, 2004)
A year after, upon finding the winning design for the new building, the cost projection was adjusted to conform to the design drawn by Miralles. At that time, the revised cost was £50 to £55 million (Fraser, 2004). This figure was derived by considering the use of sixteen thousand square feet of land in Holyrood or Leith, Haymarket. It assumed that the land is already cleared and ready for use. Furthermore, value-added taxes and other costs attributable to the procurement of the land were not considered.
In June 1999, Donald Dewar made further adjustments to the estimated cost of the project in order to give provisions for other costs like consultancy fees, demolition costs, value-added taxes, cost of acquiring the site, and other provisions for risks and unforeseen events. After making the adjustments, the estimated cost reached £109 million. A further revision to the cost projections drove it much higher up to £195 million in April 2000 (Fraser, 2004)
Finally, in November of 2001, the official cost of the project is made known to the public. It reached £241 million after considering major changes. The design and the space needed for the project were changed. Furthermore, the project was pressured by rescheduling the completion of the project earlier to May 2003. In effect, therefore, various difficulties were encountered. This gaveled to more increases in the cost of the project. The project managers told the Scottish Parliament’s Finance Committee that the changes made in the design and schedule made the costs even higher. At that time, the official cost of the project was £241 million.
As the project progresses, other needs of the building were considered. Due to the fact that the building will house the Scottish Parliament, it will need claddings that are bombproof as fabrics outside the building walls. Delays and other hidden costs in the construction further raise the cost of the building. The project failed to meet its expected opening date once again. In December 2002, the cost of the building already reached the £300 million mark.
George Reid was appointed as the new Presiding Officer for the project in July 2003. He submitted the first monthly report of costs and timetable for the building construction. According to the report, the cost of the project as of that date was already £373.9 million. The increase was blamed on the number of consultancy fees that cost over £50 million. Further problems primarily in the internal design and structure of the building pushed the cost over the £400 million marks.
A series of other problems occurred sometime in early 2004 that further raised the cost to £430 million. The opening was actually moved the next year. Fortunately, the building managed to be finished and ready for opening by October 2004.
The Scottish Parliament Corporate Body revealed the ultimate cost of the building in February 2007. The figure amounted to £414.4 million (Fraser, 2004)
The characteristics that made the Scottish Parliament great in terms of architectural wonder also brought with it the problems associated with that kind of architecture. The design changes and rising costs made things difficult for the already difficult project of building the Scottish Parliament.
Aside from the cost of the construction itself, other aspects of the Scottish Parliament Building was questioned. There was the issue about the need itself of having to build a new building. The selection of the site was also intrigued.
The choice for a non-Scottish architect and for Bovis as the head of the construction were all questioned. In fact, Bovis was not even part of the shortlist for possible construction managers. With regard to the site choice, controversy sparked when the Royal High School on Calton Hill was rejected. For many years back then, it has been the very first choice for the location of the Scottish Parliament. On the 30th of May 1997, Dewar visited the Royal High School and found out that it was not conducive as the location of the Scottish Parliament because of its size and location.
On the 1st of June 1999, the Scottish Office transferred control over the project to the Scottish Parliamentary Body. The said body is composed of different people from different parties. Sir David Steel was chosen as the Presiding Officer of the project. This all happened during a time when constructions costs are increasing. These increases in costs can be attributed to considering the need to have other structures that will specifically accommodate the staff of the Members of the Scottish Parliament.
Originally, overcrowding problems are being encountered at the previous Scottish Parliament site in Royal Mile. Another cost object of the project was the necessity for a formal entrance to the building. Media interest rose as the cost issues of the project were uncovered. The Members of the Scottish Parliament went into a debate regarding the construction of the building. Some members thought that the construction should be stopped. The debate resulted in a favourable verdict for the Scottish Parliament Building.
The design of Mirelles for the Parliament asks for an increase in the size of the park by another 4,000 sq. m. The downside of the design change led to an increase in project cost to £115 million on an assessment made in September 2009. During the 1st quarter of 1999, an architect, John Spencely performed an audit of the project as requested by the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body.
According to the report created by John Spencely, 20% of the total cost could have been saved only if the project was completely abandoned or by transferring to another site. In fact, by doing so, £30 million could have been spared.
The ineffective communication between the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body and the construction officials also added to the cost problems. In spite of the negative feedback from the report of Spencely, the Members of the Parliament is still decided to go on with the project. This debate occurred just three months before the death of Miralles in July 2000.
The death of the architect of the project makes matters worse for the project. Further problems that led to increase costs are the condition of having a confusing line of authority over the project from the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, the presiding officer and an architectural advisor.
The acts of terrorism in the United States on September 11 called for more design changes, especially for the security aspect. More changes mean more costs. On the other hand, project officials argued that the changes made for security purposes were not the “single biggest” component that escalated the costs of construction.
By the completion of the project in March 2004, the cost almost reached the amount of £430 million which is ten times higher than the original estimates. The increasing costs and delays for the project can be attributed to the poor management of the project. It is believed that if only the person behind the project managed it better, the cost could have been dramatically reduced. Furthermore, the more than 2000 design changes are a critical component of the escalating costs.
Relationship between the problems and the role of project management
A project with this size and complexity should be managed properly to ensure its success. The value of time should be recognized in managing projects especially for big projects like the Scottish Parliament Building. It is really very challenging to maintain a schedule for a project. The consequences of poor project management are very high. Poor scheduling and poor project controls are the main reasons for the delays and additional costs of a project.
Project management involves three phases: planning, scheduling, and controlling (Kerzner, 2003)
Good project planning sets the goals of the project. The necessary team that would work on the project should also be identified. (Heizer and Render, 2005) In the case of the Scottish Parliament Building, there were already confusion and questions on whether a new building should really be put up for the Scottish Parliament. Questions also arose on what is the purpose of the building. The original plans only asked for a structure that will house the Members of the Scottish Parliament. Further revisions in the plans, included other components of the legislature. Meaning, early on, the project is not well planned.
In choosing the team that will work on the project, the responsibility falls in the hands of the project manager. A good project manager should be a good coach and communicator. The government has no person ready for a project this big. They do not have trained specialists for this kind of project. The project manager chosen were not really the best they can get. Over time, the project manager of the construction changed. They resigned due to frustrations. This even made the project more problematic. The choice of managers was also questioned. Bovis is not included in the original choices as managers, but Bovis was still appointed. This gives rise to the question of whether Bovis is really competent enough to manage the project.
Scheduling the project is very uneasy. The client requires that the building should be finished in a very limited time. Furthermore, the frequent design changes made scheduling even more difficult. More changes mean more costs. This pressure pushed the construction team to hurry up their work. At that point, managers are faced with the problem of meeting the deadline but at the same time not compromising the quality of the building. There is no other choice but to increase the cost. Cost and time are trade-offs. Though cost really increased, it did not help the project finish on time because much of the cost increases are attributable to other factors.
The increase in the construction costs of the project can be traced to the changes in the total area of the project. The final area occupied by the building is 31,000 square meters which are 47 per cent higher than the original estimates. (The Report of the Auditor General for Scotland, 2000)
The complex design of the building proved to be one of the major reasons for the unanticipated cost increases. The complex design for the building is not foreseen in the feasibility stage of the project in 1997. The design chosen for the building is generally of much more quality and thus more expensive to build.
It was reported that 48% of the direct construction costs can be attributed to the special features of the building. In effect, the increase in construction costs also increased the project overhead costs. From £40 million, it increased by £47 million. Other costs attributed to the special design of the project are the auxiliary costs for the road realignment and remodelling the land which further increased the costs.
The delays of the project were very much traceable to the execution of the very complex design of the building. Some of the problems arose when the client demanded that the building should be finished early. Furthermore, unanticipated design changes asked by the client gave the project team more difficulties. Maintaining the quality of the design while tightening the schedule really requires more resources, thus it increased the cost dramatically.
Another project management issue in the project is the weaknesses in the procurement strategy. Also, problems in the reporting of project costs and accounting for risks gave more problems to the project. Given the very distinctive and intricate features of the building, these problems should have been properly addressed if the project is managed appropriately.
The project managers really failed in estimating the costs of the project. They missed out on important points during the cost projection. Thus, the initial estimates are really understated. Initially, Donald Dewar was suspected that he intentionally understated the cost projection in order to make it easier for approval. However, the Fraser Inquiry reported that there is no direct and concrete evidence the Dewar really intended to trick the Members of the Scottish Parliament. Dewar only put reliance on the figures and details he receives from senior civil servants. Whether deliberately done or not, it poses a question if only the Members of the Scottish Parliament knew how much the project would really cost, would they still approve the project.
Communication between the people working behind a project is very important. The problem is the Scottish Parliament Building projects is that authority over the project is distributed over the Scottish Parliament Corporate Body, the presiding officer and the architectural advisor. Two heads are really better than one but too many heads can be devastating.
In deciding which procurement vehicle should be used for the project, the project managers opt to adopt construction management. (The Holyrood Inquiry, 2004) Construction management is a way of construction procurement that ensures the speed of the construction process. The traditional way of contracting is that design should be done first before any offer is made to contractors. The chosen contractor will have the responsibility of doing the work. If they do not have the capacity to do the project alone, they have the freedom to sub-contract others for a fixed price.
On the other hand, construction management call for the mix of the design and activities related to the actual construction. Coordination between the designer and the contractors are very important. The actual workloads are divided into separate packages. The client offers each package to contractors. This method of project procurement promises fast track construction. With this method, even if the final design is not yet decided, other packages can be started. It also gives way to changes and revisions on the design of other packages before they are offered to contractors. The client also has full control over the design. Furthermore, if one contractor is not performing well, they can be replaced easily by other contractors.
On the other hand, the risk of failure is greater for the client when construction management is used. Furthermore, this method needs competent people that can handle the complex job of dividing the whole project into relevant packages. The Scottish Parliament Building has 60 packages. It is also more challenging to handle delays and other unforeseen events when construction management is used. Most of all, it is relatively more expensive. There is no lump sum amount for the whole project and it is very difficult to identify the actual cost of the project.
Strategic or operational project management actions for the projects’ success
In choosing the design for the project, more consideration should have been taken. The qualification requirements for the candidates should be evaluated. For the panel that selects the best design, the members of which should be consistent in order to ensure that all candidates are evaluated on the same basis.
Project management calls for a harmonious relationship between the project management team. Since the architect chosen for the project was not Scottish, the project encountered problems in relation to the incompatibility between the cultures and practices of the men behind the project. The step should have been taken to ensure that the people working on the project are well-matched.
First Minister Donald Dewar wants to have a new Parliament building as soon as possible. In order to deliver the building within the desired time, they opted to adopt the method of construction management. This decision made the project very risky for the government. No adequate evaluation and consultation to the ministers were taken in implementing making the decision.
During the construction of the building, every time there is a trade-off between quality and cost, quality is never compromised. On the other hand, trade-offs between completion and cost resulted in a favourable decision for completion. Ironically, although steps were taken to achieve the target completion date, it did not work.
The cost limitations of a project should be considered before the selection of the procurement route. The Scottish Parliament Building is a project of the Scottish government thus public fund is used for its construction. It is normal that a fixed price is to be appropriated for this kind of project. The choice of construction management approach is not a very good decision especially when the cost is an important factor.
All rules regarding procurement should be strictly followed. If the only candidate for contractor slots knew the guidelines set by the European Union regarding procurement, the project could have saved a lot of costs.
The design of the building itself is just really very ambitious thus really requires a lot of time and resources which are not anticipated by everyone. Because of that fact, cost projection failed dramatically. Resources were not managed properly. The original cost projection is very unrealistic. Better forecasting of cost could have been done. If Dewar has a competent support team that would give him the right and complete information, the initial cost projection could be better.
There should be experts and trained individuals that will advise ministers regarding projects like this. This will ensure that the ministers are making the best decisions possible.
Project management calls for a definite definition of the project. Since the project managers were not sure about the final outcome of the building, a lot of design changes occurred. These changes in the design increased the cost dramatically. Alongside the increase in cost, further changes extended the time of construction. A lot of costs could have been prevented if only the design was finalized first.
Conclusion
Project management really calls for definite project goals and the definition of the project. Without that, a project would have a small chance of being successful. The government is keen to have its own structure that will house the Members of the Scottish Parliament. Basically, the initial figure of £10 million is intended for the renovation of the Old Royal High School and not for a newly built structure. The Old Royal High School would be adequate enough for housing the Scottish Parliament. Due to the changes in the circumstances, the idea became irrelevant.
Cost projection is really important to project management. It determines the initial allocation of resources. The project managers and promoters failed to deliver the necessary information to estimate the costs appropriately. The feasibility studies made did not make sense. It just gave a very unrealistic budget for the Parliament Building.
At the start, it is very unclear whether quality or cost or the completion date is the priority. As the building progresses construction, it became clearer that the primary objective of the project is to deliver the building on time but not compromising its quality. With this fact, it is very obvious that cost would have to be pushed to its limit in order to make the project successful.
Furthermore, when the competition for the designer was implemented, the budget was not really the basis. When the architect was finally chosen, they put reliance on the attestation of the designer that it could be built with a budget of £50 million. It is not advisable for future projects to rely on the designer because of course, they would try to underestimate the cost in order for them to be chosen.
The project team also failed in meeting the requirements set by the client. The changes made were not consistent with what the Brief expects the project should be. Future projects should always adhere to the guidelines set for that specific project. Deviations to that would mean failure.
The Scottish office is very risk-averse and keen to observe a fixed budget in its public projects. It seems to be anomalous to choose a procurement route which obviously calls for a very flexible budget. Of course, planners argued that the speed of completion is very important. The bottom line is, it still failed to meet the deadline and at the same time missed the budget a lot. For future projects, the procurement method should always be compatible with the budget of the client.
A project’s success is very much dependent on the construction manager. To start with, confusion already exists in connection with the criteria for choosing the appropriate construction manager.
The design of a project should be concrete and final enough in order to avoid costly design changes. When the project was handed over to the Project Team, the design was not finalized yet. There were major increases in the space requirement. Furthermore, the budget set by the designer is not even true to reality. Communication is also very important in project management. The project team failed to communicate to the Ministers the necessary information about cost and the controls being taken.
In all projects, the timetable must also be realistic. The Project manager’s timetable for the project is somewhat untrue because it is made in order to meet the expected deadline. The programme of the project is very tight and delays to that timetable can be very devastating. Thus when design changes occurred, the programme lost its track so as the costs.
The increase in space of the building is very extraordinary. It is very conclusive that the project team and the designer did not consider the user requirements for the building. Most of the cost increases were attributed to the increase in the space needed. It is as if the budget is the one trying to adapt to the project and not the other way around.
Value engineering practices were implemented in order to reduce the costs of the project. It is clear that the exercise implemented went wrong and the project still suffered from more cost increases.
The death of the designer caused more discord for the project. Although at that time, the project is already in an advanced stage, it still caused much of the delay. Miralles is very much in control of the design of the building, without him, the project team lost its momentum for some time. Project management should consider the ability of the key persons involved in the project to handle the project throughout its construction.
After the resignation of the first project manager, subsequent project managers deliberately made programmes that do not conform to the true progress of the project. The main concern of the managers in developing the programmes is still their ability to meet the expected deadline set by the Ministers. This emphasizes the fact that project managers should offer the client realistic information in order to give the client the appropriate basis for their decisions. Furthermore, a very tight timetable is a crucial factor in the failure of this project.
In general, the construction of the new Scottish Parliament Building failed dramatically by 3.5 years and £300 million over budget because of the very complex nature of the project and the delays with the design added the pressure of the Ministers to complete it in a very stiff time frame and the choice of a strange procurement route.
Bibliography
Audit Scotland. (2000). The New Scottish Parliament at Holyrood. Web.
Bain, S (2004). Holyrood – The Inside Story. Edinburgh University Press Balfour, A & G. McGrone. (2005). Creating a Scottish Parliament. StudioLR.
BBC Scotland News (BBC). (2000). Scots Parliament architect dies. Web.
Boztas, Senay. (2005). Holyrood is ‘without parallel’ in 100 years of architecture. Sunday Herald. Web.
Fraser, Peter. (2004). The Holyrood Inquiry. Scottish Parliament. Web.
Heizer, Jay and Barry Render. (2006). Operations management, 8th ed. Pearson Education, Inc., Prentice Hall.
Holyrood Project History. Scottish Parliament. Web.
Kerzner, H. (2003). Project Management: A system approach for planning, scheduling, and controlling, 8th ed. New York: Wiley.
Scottish Office. (1998). Scotland’s Parliament to start life in General Assembly Hall. Web.
Shtub, A. F., et al. (2005). Project Management, 2nd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Taylor, Brian (2002). Scotland’s Parliament, Triumph and Disaster. Edinburgh University Press.
The report of the Auditor General for Scotland. (2000). Auditor General for Scotland. Web.