Table of Contents
In the construction of Heathrow Terminal 5, stakeholders played an integral role in the successful completion of the terminal. Major stakeholders in the construction of the Terminal 5, according to Brady and Davies (2013), include the UK government and its agencies, British Airport Authority (BAA), Project Manager, Construction Company and the general public. The construction companies involved in the construction of the terminal include Laing O’rourke, AMEC and MACE. During the construction of the terminal, British Airport Authority was sold to a Spanish construction company which was led by Ferrovial in 2006 (Yu & Vasigh, 2015). After the purchase of BAA, the consortium which was led by Ferrovial saw itself as among the leading construction private sector developers of transport infrastructure. The various stakeholders were very instrumental in the construction of the terminal by ensuring that the project was executed on time and within budget. British Airport Authority which was one of the major stakeholders suggested an alternative procurement method to meet the objectives of the project through its two year study that involved major construction projects in UK.
According to Wu and Lee (2015), the study was conducted to investigate whether every major construction project in the UK worth over £1 billion for a period of 10 years, including airports that opened over 15 years, was successful. The investigation conducted by BAA was important as it enabled T5 to be completed on time and within budget the three major construction companies. The stakeholders were again important to the construction of the terminal because the project has set a new standard in delighting traveller at Heathrow Terminal 5. The project which was constructed at the cost of £4.5billion has a new terminal, satellite building, new tunnels river diversions and road that connect to the terminal (Davies, Dodgson & Gann, 2016). Heathrow Terminal 5 now caters for over 30 million passengers a year with an additional terminal and capacity for packing aircraft. As part of delighting travellers, T5 provides features of a classic transport interchange connecting road, rail and air transport. Travellers using T5 can now be transported from the terminal by a driverless tracked transit system to the satellite buildings. Stakeholders were also important to the project due to their financial assistant and inclusion in total risk in all contracts for the project and developing the concept of integrated teams that reflect a partnering relationship (Kerr, Lowson & smith, 2014). According to Zerjave, Edkins and Davies (2015), British Airport Authority is one of the stakeholders that absorbed the overall risk in all contracts for the project. This was done in order to manage and reduce any risk that will occur in the construction of the project. The success of T5 was largely due to the involvement of its stakeholders especially BAA’s use of the soft skills to develop and sustain the delivery teams to achieve success (Shanghavi et al, 2017). The stakeholders in the construction of T5 had different interests in the construction of the project.
The stakeholders were managed using the stakeholder mapping. Since stakeholders involve different groups with different objectives, the stakeholder mapping was used to identify the different areas of interest and focus between the stakeholders and managers of the project. Using stakeholder mapping, Cizaire and Valerdi (2014) explained that a systematic approach was adopted to manage the relationship between the various stakeholder involved in the project. This was a key to achieving the project success when their positive impacts were increased and the negative impact reduced. The stakeholders were again managed using plan stakeholder management to develop strategies that enabled them to engage with each other. Cullen & Parker, (2015) explain that the stakeholder management plan was used to share responsibility and also to define which form their responsibility will take and what their responsibility is intended to achieve.
Triple Constraint Triangle
Most of the major projects are conducted under the triple constraint triangle which ensures that projects are delivered within cost, on time, meet the agreed scope and must meet quality requirements. This model has been summarized in the chart below with subsequent explanation.
The use of this constraint triangle is very important for project accomplishment because of how it provides a comprehensive measurement for most of the projects. Now, the total cost for the construction of the Heathrow Terminal 5 was estimated at £4.3billion and to ensure that the project was done effectively in order to meet budget, the project team used the cost management of the project (Davies, Dodgson & Gann, 2016). Using the balance scorecard, the project team was able to recognize capacities and applications needed to access performance by identifying and improving the various internal functions and external result of the project. The project team’s ability to use system integration, technology, supply chain, productivity and safety and materials needed for speed and efficiency to plan the project and implement it determined how successful the team constructed the project within the stipulated budget and time (Kerr, Lowson & Smith, 2014). The project was also executed by the team with an effective time management to schedule the project to meet the proposed deadline of six years and seven months reserved period (Bryde, et al, 2013). In March 2008, Heathrow Terminal 5 was completed and opened to the public.
Using Just-in-Time logistics, the project team was able to utilised large amount of materials needed to complete the project effectively and efficiently (Cullen & Parker, 2015). Furthermore, to ensure that the project was done within time and budget, the team used an effective tools and framework to achieve success. The construction of Heathrow Terminal 5 was controlled by two major indicators namely cost performance indicators and schedule performance indicators. When these two indicators were used to monitor the project, it gave them an insight into the project and also helped them to deal with negativities associated with the project (Shanghavi et al., 2017). In order to give the project the best chance of success, an integrated baseline review was conducted in a period every six month. The aim of the integrated baseline review was to identify and discuss problems that may arise in the construction of the project (Bryde et al., 2013). Using quality to judge the success of the project can be observed in different forms. Whether the project was delivered on time but failed to meet the budget allocated or met the budget but failed to be delivered on time. Some projects are constructed within budget and on time, however, these projects fail to meet the purpose and benefits for which they were constructed (Wu & Lee, 2014). In this instance the quality of the project did not correspond to consumers’ and shareholders’ expectation. On the basis of terms and specification in the development of the T5 project and the use of test plan that ensures a standardized work done, the project team was able to manage the tensions and also made the right decision in the construction of the project.
- Brady, T., & Davies, A. (2013). Governing Complex Infrastructure Developments: Learning From Successful Megaprojects. New York: Ultimate Press
- Bryde, D., Martí B. and Jürgen M. V. (2003). “The project benefits of building information modelling (BIM).” International journal of project management vol. 31 no. 7, pp. 971-980.
- Cizaire, C., & Valerdi, R. (2014). Heathrow Terminal 5: Cost Management for a Mega Construction Project. In Case Studies in System of Systems, Enterprise Systems, and Complex Systems Engineering (pp. 731-749). CRC Press.
- Cullen, K., & Parker, D. W. (2015). “Improving performance in project-based management: synthesizing strategic theories” International Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, vol. 64 np. 5, pp. 608-624.
- Davies, A., Dodgson, M., & Gann, D. (2016). “Dynamic capabilities in complex projects: the case of London Heathrow Terminal 5” Project Management Journal, vol. 47 no. 2, pp. 26-46.
- Kerr, T., Lowson, M., & Smith, A. (2014). “Heathrow airport’s personal rapid transit system proves to be a viable transport solution” Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers, vol. 167 no. 2, pp. 66.
- Shanghavi, H., Straw, J., Patel, R., & Winsor, D. (2017, January). Heathrow Terminal 2B: delivering the biggest airside basement at Britain’s largest airport. In Proceedings of the Institution of Civil Engineers-Civil Engineering (pp. 1-6). Thomas Telford Ltd.
- The Project Management Blueprint (2017). Scope and the Golden Triangle of Quality, Schedule, & Budget [Online] Available at http://www.theprojectmanagementblueprint.com/?p=244
- Wu, C. L., & Lee, A. (2014). “The impact of airline alliance terminal co-location on airport operations and terminal development” Journal of Air Transport Management, 36, pp. 69-77.
- Yu, C., & Vasigh, B. (2015). “Slot premium: London Heathrow versus London Gatwick” International Journal of Aviation Management, vol. 2 no. 3, pp. 274-288.
- Zerjave, V., Edkins, A., & Davies, A. (2015). Painting the Picture of Performance and Success in the Operational Delivery of Heathrow Airport Terminal 2. New York: Ultimate Press