Writing
The Three Gorges Dam Risk Megaproject Management And Analysis

Question Description

Term Paper Brief

  1. A) Select ONE ONLY of the following projects ▪ The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) (NOT the Channel Tunnel Project)
  2. ▪ London Heathrow Terminal Five
  3. ▪ The 2012 London Olympics
  4. ▪ The Boston Central/Artery Tunnel (The “Big Dig”) (Boston MA, USA)
  5. ▪ Thames Tideway Tunnel
  6. ▪ Crossrail
  7. ▪ High Speed Two (HS2)
  8. ▪ Three Gorges Dam (People’s Republic of China)
  9. ▪ Another large project or programme approved by the Module Leader.
  • B) Briefly describe the project and demonstrate using available literature: the key challenges of the project/programme and its management noting in particular any aspect which has made the project/programme more difficult by the size/scale/complexity. (30% of marks)
  1. C) Analyse ONE ONLY of the following aspects of the project/programme (40% of marks):
  2. 1) Governance
  3. 2) Stakeholder Engagement
  4. 3) Risk Management
  5. 4) Benefits Realisation Management
  1. D) Discuss the findings from your analysis regarding the chosen project/programme and justify your proposals for how the aspects of the project or programme management analysed in C) could have been improved. (20% of marks)
  1. E) Presentation. (10% of marks)

In analysing and presenting your arguments, you are strongly advised to consult multiple sources, including industry and government publications and academic literature. You should aim at a minimum of descriptive material in favour of analytical text.

Please refer to the Course Guide for the generic Term Paper assessment criteria and requirements for presentation.

Length: 3,000 words

At least 10 references.

Attached ppt are provided to understand what the course is.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

University College London Faculty of the Built Environment Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management MSc Project and Enterprise Management MSc Construction Economics and Management 2018-19 Option Module BCPM0048 – The Management of Large Projects and Programmes Juliano Denicol Module outline and reading list AIMS OF THE MODULE To equip students:A) To go beyond “normal” project management to understand the external interrelationship of large projects and programs with their environment and the internal relationships of the constituent parts of a large project or program. B) To think dynamically, holistically and strategically about managing large projects and programs using a varied set of approaches based on a combination of academic research and practitioner-led input. C) To analyze and critically discuss major issues arising in real programs and large projects and be capable of making suitable recommendations INTENDED LEARNING OUTCOMES To understand:1. The dynamic complexity inherent in large projects and programs and the problems which this poses for their successful management 2. Different ways of understanding and practicing management in a dynamically complex project/program environment 3. The roles, relationships and active engagement of different stakeholders in the communication of requirements, the shaping of a sustainable vision and accountability for outcomes 4. The importance and means of realizing and evaluating benefits throughout the project/program life-cycle including the operating phase 5. The importance and means of maintaining purposive coherence, technological consistency and systems integrity in the dynamic unfolding of the project/program and the associated changes in both scope/requirements and the project/program environment 6. The importance and means of capturing/applying lessons learned, developing competency and progressing towards capability maturity within the project/program life-cycle Seminar content 1) Problems of scale and complexity in managing large projects and programmes 2) Managing risks and uncertainties 3) Governance, stakeholder engagement, sustainable vision and accountability 4) Managing large projects and programmes in practice (guest) 5) Benefits Management Core Reading Books Flyvbjerg, B., Bruzelius, N., and Rothengatter, W., (2003) Mega-projects and risk: an anatomy of ambition Cambridge, CUP (multiple copies in library) Morris, P.W.G., and Pinto, J.K., (Eds) (2004) The Wiley guide to managing projects Hoboken NJ, Wiley (multiple copies in library) OGC (2007) Managing successful programmes (2nd edition) London, TSO OGC (undated) Managing benefits: an overview http://www.ogc.gov.uk/documents/ManagingBenefitsV101.pdf Pryke, S.D., and Smyth, H.J., (Eds) (2006) The management of complex projects: a relationshipbased approach Oxford, Blackwell (provided free to students for core modules BENVGPM1/BENVGPM2) Journal Papers (all available via UCL ejournals service) Aaltonen, K., and Jaako, K., (2010) A project lifecycle perspective on stakeholder influence strategies in global projects Scandinavian Journal of Management 26 381-397 Aritua, B, Smith, N.J., and Bower, D., (2011) What risks are common to or amplified in programmes: evidence from UK public sector infrastructure schemes International Journal of Project Management 17/4 237-241 Bosch-Rekveldt, M., Jongkind, Y., Mooi, H., Bakker, H., and Verbraeck, A., (2011) Grasping project complexity in large engineering projects: the TOE (technical, organizational and environmental) framework International Journal of Project Management (Article in press) Fowler, A., (1993) Models and applications of configuration management International Journal of Management Science 4 425-431 Genus, A., (1997) Managing large-scale technology and inter-organizational relations: the case of the Channel Tunnel Research Policy 26 169-189 Geraldi, J.G., (2008) The balance between order and chaos in multi-project firms: A conceptual model International Journal of Project Management 26 348-356 Ivory, C., and Aldreman, N. (2005) Can project management learn anything from studies of failure in complex systems? Project Management Journal 36/3 5-16 Lycett, M., Rassau, A., and Danson, J., (2004) Programme management: a critical review International Journal of Project Management 22 282-299 Marrewijk, A. van, Clegg, S.R., Pitsis, T.S., and Veenswijk, M., (2008) Managing public-private megaprojects: paradoxes, complexity and project design International Journal of Project Management 28 672-682 Pellegrinelli, S., Partington, D., Hemingway, C., Mohdzain, Z., and Shah, M., (2007) The importance of context in programme management: an empirical review of programme practices International Journal of Project Management 25 41-55 Remenyi, D., and Sherwood-Smith, M. (1999) Business benefits from information systems through an active benefits realization programme International Journal of Project Management 16/2 81-98 Ruuska, I., Ahola, T., Artto, K., Locatelli, G., and Mancini, M., (2011) A new governance approach for multi-firm projects: lessons from Olkiluoto 3 and Flamanville 3 nuclear power plant projects International Journal of Project Management (Article in press) Sauser, B.J., Reilly, R.R., and Shenhar, A., (2009) Why projects fail? How contingency theory can provide new insights: a comparative analysis of NASA’s Mars Climate Orbiter loss International Journal of Project Management 27 665-679 Shehu, Z., and Akintoye, A. (2009) Construction programme management theory and practice: contextual and pragmatic approach International Journal of Project Management 27 703-716 Additional Reading Books Altshuler, A, and Luberoff, D.E., (2003) Mega-projects: the changing politics of urban public investment Washington DC, Brookings Institution Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B., and Sutherland Rahman, S., (Eds) (2002) Unfolding stakeholder thinking: theory, responsibility and engagement, Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing Andriof, J., Waddock, S., Husted, B., and Sutherland Rahman, S., (Eds) (2002) Unfolding stakeholder thinking 2: relationships, communication, reporting and performance, Sheffield, Greenleaf Publishing Binnekamp, R., van Gunsteren, L.A., and van Loon, P-P. (2006) Open Design, a stakeholder-oriented approach in architecture, urban planning and project management Delft, TU Delft University Press Bradley, G. (2006) Benefits Realisation Management: a Practical Guide to Achieving Benefits through Change Aldershot, Gower Cropper, S., Ebers, M., Huxford, C., and Ring, S., (Eds) (2008) The Oxford Handbook of interorganizational relations Oxford, OUP Department of Defense (2001) Military handbook – configuration management guidance Washington DC, DoD Faga, B., (2006) Designing public consensus, the civic theater of community participation for Architects, Landscape Architects, Planners and Urban Designers Hoboken NJ, John Wiley Federal Highway Authority (2003) Configuration management for transportation systems Washington DC, Department of Transportation Fonseca, J., (2001) Complexity and innovation in organizations London, Routledge Gourvish, T.R., (2006) The official history of the Channel Tunnel London, Routledge Grün, O. (2010) Taming giant projects: multi-organization enterprises Berlin, Springer Laufer, A., and Hoffman, E.J. (Eds) (2000) Project management success stories: lessons of project leaders New York, Wiley Margetts, H., Perri 6, and Hood, C. (Eds) (2010) Paradoxes of modernization: unintended consequences of public policy reform Oxford, OUP Miller, R., and Lessard, D.R., (2001) The strategic management of large engineering projects: shaping institutions, risks and governance Cambridge MA, MIT Morris, P.W.G. (1994) The management of projects London. Thomas Telford Morris, P.W.G., and Hough, G.H., (1987) The anatomy of major projects Chichester, Wiley Morris, P.W.G., Pinto, J.K., and Söderlund, J., (Eds) (2011) The Oxford Handbook of project management Oxford, OUP Prencipe, A., Davies and Hobday, M. (Eds) (2003) The business of systems integration Oxford OUP Reiss, G., Anthony, M., Chapman, J., Leigh, G., Pyne, A., and Rayner, P. (Eds) (2006) The Gower handbook of programme management Aldershot, Gower Remington, K., and Pollack, J., (2007) Tools for complex projects Burlington, Gower Shenhar, A.J., and Dvir, D., (2007) Reinventing project management: the diamond approach to successful growth and innovation Boston MA, HBS Press Stacey, R.D., (2001) Complex responsive processes in organizations: learning and knowledge creation London, Routledge Streatfield, P.J. (2001) The paradox of control in organizations London, Routledge Tan, H.C., Anumba, C.J., Carrillo, P.M., Bouchlaghem, D., Kamara, J., and Udeaja, C., (2010) The capture and re-use of project knowledge in construction Oxford, Wiley-Blackwell Watts, F.B. (2008) Engineering documentation control handbook: configuration management in industry Norwich NY, William Andrew Westfechtel, B. and van der Hoek, A., (Eds) (2003) Software configuration management Berlin, Springer Williams, D., and Parr, T., (2004) Enterprise programme management Basingstoke Palgrave Macmillan Williams T.M., (2002) Modelling complex projects Chichester, John Wiley Williams, T.M., Samset, K., and Sunnevåg, K.J. (Eds) (2009) Making essential choices with scant information: front-end decision making in major projects Basingstoke, Palgrave MacMillan Winch, G.M., (2010) Managing construction projects (2nd edition) Oxford, Blackwell Papers (all available via UCL ejournals service) Aaltonen, K., Jaako, K., and Tuomas, O., (2008) Stakeholder salience in global projects International Journal of Project Management 26 509-516 Alderman, N., Ivory, C., McLoughlin, I., and Vaughan, R., (2005) Sense-making as a process within complex service-led projects International Journal of Project Management 23 380-385 Antoniadis, D.N., Edum-Fotwe, F.T., and Thorpe, A., (2011) Socio-organo complexity and project performance International Journal of Project Management (Article in press) Aritua, B, Smith, N.J., and Bower, D., (2009) Construction client multi-projects – a complex adaptive systems perspective International Journal of Project Management 27 72-79 Artto, K., Martinsuo, M., Gemünden, H.G., and Murtoaro, J., (2009) Foundations of program management: a bibliometric view International Journal of Project Management 27 1-18 Baccarini, D., and Gateup, B. (2008) Benefits management in office fit-out projects Facilities 26 7/8 310-320 Bredillet, C.N., (2008) Learning and acting in project situations through a meta-method (MAP) a case study: contextual and situational approach for project management governance in management education International Journal of Project Management 26 238-250 Buuren, A. van, Buijs, J-M., and Teisman, G., (2010) Program management and the creative art of coopetition: dealing with potential tensions and synergies between spatial development projects International Journal of Project Management 28 672-682 Cano, J.L., and Lidón, I., (2011) Guided reflection on project definition International Journal of Project Management (Article in press) Canonico, P., and Söderlund, J., (2010) Getting control of multi-project organizations: combining contingent control mechanisms International Journal of Project Management 28 796-806 Chiocchio, S., Martin, E., Barabaschi, P., Bartels, H.W., How, J., and Spears, W., (2007) System engineering and configuration management in ITER Fusion Engineering and Design 82 548-554 Chung, J., Kumaraswamy, M., and Palaneeswaran, E., (2009) Improving megaproject briefing through enhanced collaboration with ICT Automation in Construction 18 268-274 El-Gohary, N.M., Osman, H., and El-Diraby, T.E., (2006) Stakeholder management for public-private partnerships International Journal of Project Management 27/4 595-604 Fortune, J., and White, D., (2006) Framing of critical project success factors by a systems model International Journal of Project Management 24 53-65 Fowler, A., (1999) Case experience of implementing configuration management in a UK shipbuilding organization International Journal of Project Management 14/4 221-230 Gareis, R., (2010) Changes of organizations by projects International Journal of Project Management 28 314-327 Geraldi, J.G., and Adlbrecht, G., (2007) On faith, fact and interaction in projects Project Management Journal 38/1 32-43 Geraldi, J.G., Maylor, H., and Williams, T.M., (In press) Now let’s make it really complex (complicated) International Journal of Operations and Production Management Geyer, A., and Davies, A., (2000) Managing project-system interfaces: case studies of railway projects in restructured UK and German markets Research Policy 29 991-1013 Hameri, A.-P., (1997) Project management in a long-term and global one-of-a-kind project International Journal of Project Management 15/3 151-157 Jurison, J., (1996) The temporal nature of IS benefits: a longitudinal study Information Management 30 75-79 Kadivar, S., and Kelsey, J.M. (2011) Stakeholder engagement in large hydropower and dam projects Proceedings of Hydropower 2011, 16-19th October 2011, Prague Kelsey, J.M. (2007) Complexity, uncertainty and risk in construction and civil engineering projects Paper for the OMEGA Centre for research into complexity, uncertainty and risk in Mega-Urban Transport Projects, Bartlett School of Planning UCL (under revision) Kelsey, J.M., and Roberts, A.H., (2010) Sustainability in world heritage and urban regeneration: the case of Bath Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Heritage and Sustainable Development, Evora, Portugal 22nd-26th June Vol. 2 Marrewijk, A., (2007) Managing project culture: the case of Environ megaproject International Journal of Project Management 25 290-299 Moløkken-Østvold, K., Haugen, N.C., and Benestad, H.C., (2008) Using planning poker for combining expert estimates in software projects The Journal of Systems and Software 81 2106-2117 Navarra, D.D., and Cornford, A., (2009) Globalization, networks and governance: researching global ICT programs Government Information Quarterly 26 35-41 Olander, S., and Landin, A., (2005) Evaluation of stakeholder influence in construction projects International Journal of Project Management 23 321-328 Pellegrinelli, S., (2011) What’s in a name: project or programme? International Journal of Project Management 29 232-240 Prencipe, A., (2003) Managing innovation in multitechnology firms, in Shavinina, L.V., (Ed) The International Handbook on Innovation, Amsterdam, Elsevier Science Rosenberg, D.M., Bodaly, R.A., and Usher, P.J. (1995) Environmental and social impacts of largescale hydro-electric development: who is listening? Global Environmental Change 5/2 127-148 Ruuska, I., Artto, K., Altonen, K., and Lehtonen, P., (2009) Dimensions of distance in a project network: exploring Olkiluoto 2 nuclear power plant project International Journal of Project Management 27 142-153 Sapountzis, S., Yates, K., Kagioglou, M., and Aouad, G., (2009) Realising benefits in primary healthcare infrastructures Facillities 27 3/4 74-87 Söderlund, J., (2010) Knowledge entrainment and project management: The case of large-scale transformation projects International Journal of Project Management 28 130-141 Summers, A.E., (2006) IEC 61511 and the capital project process – a protective management system approach Journal of Hazardous Materials 130 28-32 Turner, B.T., (1985) Managing design in the new product development process – methods for company executives Design Studies 6/1 51-56 Wateridge, J., (1999) The role of configuration management in the development and management of Information Systems/ Technology (IS/IT) project management International Journal of Project Management 17/4 237-241 University College London Faculty of the Built Environment Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management MSc Project and Enterprise Management MSc Construction Economics and Management Option Module BCPM0048 – The Management of Large Projects and Programmes 2018-19 Term Paper Term Paper Brief A) Select ONE ONLY of the following projects ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ The Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) (NOT the Channel Tunnel Project) London Heathrow Terminal Five The 2012 London Olympics The Boston Central/Artery Tunnel (The “Big Dig”) (Boston MA, USA) Thames Tideway Tunnel Crossrail High Speed Two (HS2) Three Gorges Dam (People’s Republic of China) Another large project or programme approved by the Module Leader. B) Briefly describe the project and demonstrate using available literature: the key challenges of the project/programme and its management noting in particular any aspect which has made the project/programme more difficult by the size/scale/complexity. (30% of marks) C) Analyse ONE ONLY of the following aspects of the project/programme (40% of marks): 1) Governance 2) Stakeholder Engagement 3) Risk Management 4) Benefits Realisation Management D) Discuss the findings from your analysis regarding the chosen project/programme and justify your proposals for how the aspects of the project or programme management analysed in C) could have been improved. (20% of marks) E) Presentation. (10% of marks) In analysing and presenting your arguments, you are strongly advised to consult multiple sources, including industry and government publications and academic literature. You should aim at a minimum of descriptive material in favour of analytical text. Please refer to the Course Guide for the generic Term Paper assessment criteria and requirements for presentation. Length: 3,000 words Hand-in date: Friday 10th May 2019 4pm Faculty of the Built Environment Bartlett School of Construction and Project Management MSc Project and Enterprise Management MSc Construction Economics and Management 2018-2019 Option Module BCPM0048 – Managing Large Projects and Programmes Session 1 – Size and Complexity Juliano Denicol Week 1 A key Problem Complexity in Large Projects and Programmes Managing and Leading Large Projects and Programmes Governance and Stakeholders Direction (Vision) of Large Projects and Programmes (LPP) Creating and continuously developing project direction Stakeholders (identification and management) Linking direction, activities and decisions Week 3 Week 3 Representation of some of the stakeholder’s groups Risk Management Week 2 Benefits Realisation Management Week 5 Governance Week 4 PRACTICE Session objectives • To introduce complexity theory – a black box? • Complexity and megaprojects – lethal combination? • To discuss with the group • Simplicity VS Complexity • Examples of failure in megaprojects • Systems thinking as an approach to solve complexity • How to unfold complexity • What Projects Managers do to deal with complexity WHAT IS COMPLEXITY? Complexity and Project Failure • • • • One of the reasons for project failure would be the increasing complexity of projects (Williams, 2002; 2005). Underestimation of the project complexity (Neleman, 2006). There are no well-defined frameworks in the literature that can be used to systematically describe the key dimensions and characteristics of [project] complexity (Xia and Lee, 2004). In the 1990s, complexity was characterized by a project’s strong technological complexity – little was known what factors cause complexity? Complexity has many more facets… For example: • Managers expect they can plan for all the variables in a complex project in advance, but they can’t. Nobody is that smart or has that clear a crystal ball (Matta and Ashkenas, 2003). What is Complexity? • • • • • “Complexity is a complexity that is very complex”(Morin, 2000, p. 45). Defining complexity would ‘kill’ it (Malik, 2002). However, a vague understanding of complexity hampers a serious approach of the subject – both in practice and theory. Commo ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment

Final Answer

This work is ready!😇 Please see the attached response and hit me up if you need assistance with edits.

Running Head: MEGAPROJECT ANALYSIS

1

Megaproject Analysis: The Three Gorges Dam Risk Analysis
Student’s Name
Professor
Course
Date

THE THREE GORGES DAM RISK ANALYSIS

2

Megaproject Analysis: The Three Gorges Dam Risk Analysis
Projects are done with the aim of achieving certain goals. A dam can be constructed for
fishing activities, enhancing the tourism industry, tapping water for use in drier seasons, and in
most cases, for hydroelectric power production. The Three Gorges Dam (三峡大坝) is a people’s
republic of China’s breakthrough in dam development. It is the largest dam in the world, made of
several materials, mainly concrete. The three gorges dam was proposed over 80 years ago, and
there were attempts to begin work on the project across the Yangtze River over the years, but
nothing significant was done until 1986. In 1986, the Chinese ministry of water engaged some
engineers from Europe and the World Bank to carry a feasibility study of the three gorges dam
construction. In May 1994, the project was approved (Gleick, 2009).
The dam was estimated to be completed by 2009 since its work commenced in 1994,
but this did not happen because of several challenges such as the instillation of the underground
power generators that took a lot more time than estimated. The dam was completed in 2012
(Morimoto, Hope, Morimoto, & Hope, 2013). According to Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius, &
Rothengatter (2003), most megaprojects have a tendency of exceeding the projected budget,
time, or face some major problems. These aspects may lead to failure of achieving the main
project objectives or long term goals. The project can be seen to fail in certain aspects for
instance cost, quality, socioeconomic benefits, time, profitability or safety (Flyvbjerg, Bruzelius,
& Rothengatter, 2003). The Three Gorges Dam is not an exemption. The dam’s size, its cost,
safety requirements, chemical and environmental impacts, physical displacements of human
beings and other species, and other effects should be analyzed against its perceived benefits.

Key Challenges that faced the Three Gorges Dam and its Management

THE THREE GORGES DAM RISK ANALYSIS

3

Some of the challenges that faced the construction of the three gorges dam project are
the size of the required barrier to a river that stretched over 2 kilometers wide (Jackson, &
Sleigh, 2000). This means that the dam had to be the longest dam build. Secondly, it is also clear
that the water had to be diverted in parts to allow for construction of the dam on dry land. The
amount of water in the river was also high, and the diversion was a huge project that could
consume a lot of concrete per se. The third challenge presented was that the river has been in use
by ships as a transport channel in China, and is one of the busiest Rivers in Asia. If the Chinese
government had to close the movement of ships up and down the river with the dam, then
another project, for instance a road, could have been needed alongside the River Yangtze
(Jackson, & Sleigh, 2000). This could have been a massive cost to the Government of the
People’s Republic of China’s Government, so a solution within the dam was to be created.
Additionally, there were people who lived along the area where the da was to spread its
waters and some parts of the land that were to be covered or affected by the process and presence
of the dam construction. These people were no longer safe around the region (Gong et al., 2006).
Moreover, given the fact that this was to be the largest dam in the world and the highest HEP
power production site ever made by man, there was a challenge of the financial costs. The
amount of concrete and other materials that were needed was enormous and too costly. To add to
the challenges, use of concrete was initially proposed (Gong et al., 2006).

Chemically, the

reaction of cement and water causes an endothermic reaction. An endothermic reaction generates
heat from within. This heat has the capacity to expand the concrete and lead to...

mariam90 (9741)
UIUC

Anonymous
Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Anonymous
It’s my second time using SP and the work has been great back to back :) The one and only resource on the Interwebs for the work that needs to be done!

Anonymous
Thanks, good work

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors