Introduction
Airports in the country can have far-reaching benefits that may lead to sustainable progress and development. Concerning the expansion and construction of the German Airports was an important decision made by the State. In Germany, the authorities that are at the state level and the government are responsible for making decision and regulations. Airports are important components of the infrastructure that contribute to increased economic standards. They accomplish this by raising the number of people travelling between points and the volume of cargo moved to and from various sites.
As a result, in 1990, after German reunification, a plan was proposed by the authorities for building a larger airport for accommodating the newly established Berlin’s needs. The authorities chose Juterbog and Spreneberg towns as the location for the Airport since they were both furnished with airfields (Sedlin et al., 2020). Six years after the reviewal of the plan, the Berlin State, in conjunction with the Federal government of Germany, declined the plan and opted for expansion of initially existing airports. Schonefeld airport was recommended for development not just for its economic benefits to neighboring countries, but also for its closeness to the city.
Therefore, Schonefeld was expanded to form Berlin Brandenburg International Airport.
During the expansion, the process to form Berlin Brandenburg International Airport involved the German federal government, the airlines, the city mayor, the Brandenburg state, the workers, Berlin citizens, and the passengers. The stakeholders played various roles in the course of the construction and had various influences on the project. During the construction project, successes and failures were also realized. Finally, many challenges were encountered during the process, which were addressed in different ways. Therefore, the remainder of this paper will fully discuss the preceding aspects of the Berlin Brandenburg International Airport construction project.
Project Overview
Berlin Brandenburg Airport is a large international airport situated in Schonefeld, south of Germany in Brandenburg State. Berlin Brandenburg Airport has two runways that are parallel to each other with a spacing in between them of 6200 feet (Wang et al., 2019). The spacing allows for flight operations without any interference from turbulence. The runaway of Berlin Brandenburg Airport from the north is the southern runaway of the initial Schonefeld Airport, and it has been functional for a long time. For people to get used to the newly established Airport, renovation and lengthening have been done from 9800 feet to 12000 feet (Wang et al., 2019). The southern runaway has also been expanded up to 13000 feet to increase its efficiency.
As stated earlier by the German local government, the initial scope of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project was purposely to serve as a backup and help fix the major problems experienced by the two Airports, Berlin-Schonefeld and Berlin-Tegel. The scope was the real means to an end of such problems. In his article, Hierarchy of Purpose, Antonio Nieto-Rodriguez argues that the sponsors of the project should have well defined the rationale of the project. He further argues that the purpose of the project should have been enabling Berlin to meet their demand of receiving many visitors through air traffics.
The Berlin Brandenburg Airport project has a lot of benefits to both the German local government and the German citizens. First, the geographical location of Berlin Brandenburg Airport offers very short times of flights to people visiting Asia. Trading between Germany and Asia becomes increasingly easier and more efficient in various sectors such as automotive and semiconductor industries. It also hastens the selling and disposal of perishable goods between the two geographical areas. Second, Berlin Brandenburg Airport creates a favorable economic environment for the German citizens with regard to payroll charges and taxes. Along with a strong economic background, the Airport serves as a hub for the sensible decision required for other cooperative initiatives. The Airport serves as an attractive property for German citizens because it is a place where modern offices, logistics space, and favorable and excellent transportation links are found. Therefore, it attracts most of the people within and outside Berlin.
Project Stakeholders and Their Roles
The performance of the program is highly dependent on the players’ involvement. Further, it starts by identifying the key and primary stakeholders, considering how important they are to the project, the outlook, and role in the project. The setting of mutual agreement and expectations calls for stakeholder management intervention. The primary stakeholders play a great role all around the project’s life cycle. The need for primary stakeholders varies depending on the information, inputs, decision making, and processing but the major focus and aim of these stakeholders is the achievement of the projects’ objectives and goals (Fasna, 2020). Therefore, in the whole lifecycle of the project, the stakeholders give immense support in the management of the project, and the endpoint of the project needs to meet the expectation set by stakeholders.
The stakeholders’ expectations can be vividly explained at the initial stages of project development due to various reasons. The expectations can be easily traced because of different perspectives among different stakeholders, provision of a wider view of the situation by the stakeholders, and different stakeholder expectations. Therefore, at the beginning of the project, it is important to understand every stakeholders’ requirement to create a strong relationship and develop confidence in them to safeguard the accomplishment of the project.
The active participation of each stakeholder in project development greatly depends on the close communication between the stakeholders and idea-sharing. Good communication and commitment by the stakeholders improve the channels for communication, save on cost, reduce risks of every kind, and define the requirements of the project (Thomson and El-Haram, 2019). Good rapport between the stakeholders also helps in the gathering of information regarding budgeting requirements feedback on the progress and success of the business. Some components are considered in the participation in the project. Some of the components are that every stakeholder must be allowed to express their views, every stakeholders’ participation and views should be considered while making decisions regarding the project. Each stakeholder must take part in the project as early as possible.
Several techniques are involved in the exchange of ideas between the stakeholders and the managers. These techniques ensure the involvement of stakeholders in the project as well as the strengthening of relationships. Some of the advantages of the involvement of stakeholders in the project are that; they enhance effective communication, facilitate sustainability of the project, and lead to reflection of a priority out of planning. Hence, in order to achieve real development in the project, the emphasis should be laid on people-centered and not process and result-centered
In the Berlin Brandenburg Airport developmental project, many stakeholders were involved. These are the people who had an interest in the development and the outcome of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport establishment project. The key stakeholders of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project are the Brandenburg state, the Berlin citizens, the German federal government, Airlines, the city manager, the passengers, and the other two airports in Berlin (Sölch et al., 2021). These stakeholders played various roles to ensure the successful establishment of Berlin Brandenburg Airport. The roles played by the stakeholders are as discussed below.
The first role of the stakeholders in the construction of the Airport is the role in the work breakdown structure (WBS). The work in the project can be easily broken down and decomposed depending on the hierarchy of the scope. Every task is different and easily distinguished from other tasks within the project. Breakdown and decomposing of the project tasks help in the assigning of duties and roles amongst the stakeholders. It also helps in recognizing the interdependency of the priorities that are work-based. Lastly, the work breakdown structure where the stakeholders take part helps in determining the time of task implementation.
The structure accuracy is possible after the incorporation of the ideas and views from stakeholders. The pool of meetings should be conducted to gather all the necessary arguments from the stakeholders. The stakeholders, in this case, should be allowed to define the project scope and make their own decisions. The involvement of the stakeholders as the project progresses hastens decision-making. In the initial stages of the project, the stakeholders become an ideal information source, and they play an active role in the work breakdown structure (WBS) charter. The outcomes in the WBS are based on the stakeholders’ inputs, which are achievable as the effort of the project. The production of WBS greatly depends on the experience of the stakeholder gained from the same type of project, such as the schedule of the project, requirements list, and budgeting (Udokwu et al., 2021). Therefore, the statements of the project are essential in determining the items to be included in WBS.
The second role of stakeholders in the management of scope. The scope of Berlin Brandenburg Airport includes the task that is supposed to be done and the objectives to achieve in order to accomplish the project goal. Thus, the scope of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project covers the project goals and features, functions, costs, tasks, deadlines, and outcomes. The project stakeholders can significantly control the scope and, therefore, becomes easy in drawing lines and avoiding the possible interference of the project’s progress. In most cases, the project manager conducts meetings with all the stakeholders when the project begins to define the project scope and assure each other of the meeting of project needs.
The third role of stakeholders in the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project is schedule management. The stakeholders can influence the management of the schedule significantly. However, as most impact relies on the power degree and influence of the stakeholders, they can as well affect the management of the schedule. Major stakeholders such as the Berlin state and the Berlin citizens impact the schedule significantly. Failure of meeting the stakeholders’ expectations delays may be evident in the required resources. Therefore, the stakeholders’ understanding is highly desirable as it encourages the timely conduction of actions and minimizes the chances of conflicts among them. Any project creates a schedule before it starts. Creating a schedule is purposely done to know the date of the project’s start and completion within the desired quality and budget. Thus, a keen and close examination of the schedule should be taken into consideration.
Failures of Berlin Brandenburg Airport Project
Against the stakeholders’ expectations, the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project has given Germany a bad reputation due to its failure. The failure of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project is a result of poor financial management and the incompetent administration of the public (Sedlin et al., 2020). The Berlin Brandenburg Airport project failed in budget estimation, planning and procurement, and communication. It has been pointed out that the initial costs for the project were highly underestimated. The underestimation of prices and construction costs of the Airport caused many problems throughout the project’s execution process. The political leadership is the people behind the overrunning of these costs. It is so because they kept on estimating the costs as low as possible in order to strengthen and achieve political support (McCarthy and Noseleit, 2021). Therefore, failure and inaccurate estimation of the budget leads to the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project failure as a whole. The failure was a result of financial constraints in the execution of the project.
The failure in the planning and procurement during the establishment of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project lead to its halt. The contracts for the construction of the Airport were awarded in 2009, but in the real sense, the Airport was to be opened in 2011 (Koseoglu et al., 2018). The Court Auditors from Europe recognized the weakness in the preparation process due to the lack of planning documents. The documents had to be modified during the processes of tendering, which lead to an overrun of costs. Due to poor planning, the operating agency severally awarded additional contracts without following the legal procedures of bidding. The award meant that the Airport had violated public directives, which halted every kind of progress in the execution (McCarthy and Noseleit, 2021). The project also failed in internal communication as this derailed delivery. The communication lines between the management entities and the governance were asymmetrical, particularly regarding the opening date of the Airport. The uneven communication line is due to poor project supervision and limited expertise (McCarthy and Noseleit, 2021). Lack of symmetrical lines of communication led to public communication issues hence management difficulties.
Challenges over the Course of the Project
The first challenge that faced the execution of the project was financial constraints. Financial constraints are a result of poor financial planning and a lack of budgeting for the project. The rough cost for the establishment of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project was 2.83 billion euros (Derakhshan et al., 2019). The budget was made by the federal government of Germany and the Brandenburg State. During the process, the money that had been set aside to run the project was found to be little in relation to the number of operations that required funding. As a result, most operations were halted, and the project’s progress tampered with hence failure.
Another challenge over the course of the project was the high number of stakeholders. The higher the number of stakeholders, the higher the number of views that every stakeholder puts across that are different. Every stakeholder in the project had different views concerning the establishment of the Airport (McCarthy and Noseleit, 2021). The differing views and perspectives among stakeholders hindered them from reaching a common goal. The more stakeholders in a project as well lead to poor management because every stakeholder gives their opinion as far as management is concerned (McCarthy and Noseleit, 2021). Since opinions from every stakeholder are considered while making decisions, it led to the making of decisions that are not satisfactory. As the saying goes, “too many cooks spoil the broth” (McCarthy and Noseleit, 2021, p. 25). The adage is in line with stakeholders being too many for the management procedures.
Innovations in the Berlin Brandenburg Airport Project Delivery
Innovation involves improving the processes, products, and services incorporated in the project’s execution process. In the Berlin Brandenburg Airport construction project, most of the innovations were incorporated to improve efficiency (Xiong et al., 2022). Some of the innovations incorporated in the Airport were equipping the modern gates and taxiways, construction of ICE train station with high speed, and installation of a control tower.
The Berlin Brandenburg Airport was equipped with modern gates and taxiways. The taxiways were the solution to jam problems since they accommodated a large number of superjumbos. Some of the superjumbos that were accommodated were A380. The Airport was also integrated into the new rail infrastructure. The new rails reduced the traveling distances and facilitated efficient communication among the people of central Berlin and the rest of Germany. The innovation of transportation facilities in the Airport also includes a motorway connecting to A113. The connection that was made gives the Airport full access to the German network.
Another innovation in the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project was the construction of the ICE train that had very high speed. The station was constructed underneath a terminal that had an accommodating potential of two ICE trains at a time. The train was purposely for the improvement of the transportation services which was likely to take the shortest time possible. An express connection of the train also had the capability of into the city center of Berlin in under 10 minutes (Udokwu et al., 2021). The train allowed for the differentiation of Berlin and the capital of Europe.
Advanced control towers are crucial to airport and aircraft safety. A modern control tower managed by DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung was additionally installed at the airport (Kostka, 2018). The tower is outfitted with cutting-edge automation technology as well as an intuitive and adaptable interface. Tailored to the needs, several air traffic control modules can be added into the interface. Additionally, DFS Deutsche Flugsicherung integrated its Phoenix radar data processing technology within the interface (Kostka, 2018). Through this system, the meteorological and situational data are shown for both the terrain and the air. Overall, these features were designed to separate Berlin Brandenburg Airport from others since not many airports had implemented similar technologies.
Conclusion
In conclusion, for the successful execution of the project into the final stages, the discussed aspects should be looked at very closely. The case study has analyzed the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project in detail using some characteristics. The case study has analyzed the project overview, the list of the stakeholders and their roles in the execution process, failures of the project, and finally, the challenges. The case study has also analyzed the role of innovation in the delivery of the Berlin Brandenburg Airport project.
Reference List
Derakhshan, R., Turner, R. and Mancini, M. (2019) ‘Project governance and stakeholders: a literature review.’International Journal of Project Management, 37(1), pp. 98-116.
Fasna, M.F.F. and Gunatilake, S. (2020) ‘Roles and functions of stakeholders in implementing energy retrofits in the hotel sector.’International Journal of Building Pathology and Adaptation.
Hinterleitner, M. (2019) ‘Salami tactics and the implementation of large-scale public projects.’Journal of European public policy, 26(11), pp. 1696-1714.
Koseoglu, O., Sakin, M. and Arayici, Y. (2018) ‘Exploring the BIM and lean synergies in the Istanbul Grand Airport construction project.’Engineering, construction and architectural management.
Kostka, G. (2018) Large infrastructure projects in Germany. Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
McCarthy, K.J. and Noseleit, F. (2021) ‘Too many cooks spoil the broth: on the impact of external advisors on mergers and acquisitions.’Review of Managerial Science, pp. 1-36.
Sedlin, T., Beckmann, V. and Tan, R. (2020) ‘Public participation and airport development: the case of the site selection for Berlin Brandenburg airport (BER) in Germany.’Sustainability, 12(24), p.10535.
Sölch, B., Nagel, E. and Hirsh, M. (2021) ‘Reviews of the built environment: the New Berlin in three parts.’Architectural Histories, 9(1).
Thomson, C.S. and El-Haram, M.A. (2019) ‘Is the evolution of building sustainability assessment methods promoting the desired sharing of knowledge amongst project stakeholders?’Construction Management and Economics, 37(8), pp. 433-460.
Udokwu, C., Norta, A. and Wenna, C. (2021) ‘Designing a collaborative construction-project platform on blockchain technology for transparency, traceability, and information symmetry.’ In 2021 2nd Asia service sciences and software engineering conference (pp. 1-9).
Wang, S. et al. (2019) ‘Understanding the social network of stakeholders in hydropower project development: An owners’ view.’Renewable Energy, 132, pp. 326-334.
Xiong, C., Tian, Y., Liu, X., Tan, R. and Luan, Q. (2022) ‘The different impacts of airports on the ecological environment under distinct institutional contexts.’Land, 11(2), p. 291.