Berlin Brandenburg Airport Project

Berlin Brandenburg Airport Project

Abstract

The Berlin Brandenburg Airport project failed because of the delayed opening of the airport. Bad project management practices have caused delays. There is an introduction to the project which describes it and gives the scale of the project. There is also an analysis of the academic theory versus the project. There is a clear comparison between the two to bring out the project management issues. After all the description and discussion, there are lessons learned from this project and other projects that are the same. Finally, there is a highlight of the conclusion and recommendations about the project.

Berlin Brandenburg Airport Project

Introduction

This is a scheme that, upon completion, will bring into existence an international airport in Berlin, which is worldly-known as Germany’s capital city. The project is also known as Willy Brandt airport. This is because credit is being given to the former chancellor of Germany between the years 1969 and 1974 (Fiedler and Wendler, 2016). It is also interesting to note that the location of the project is near Berlin Schonefeld airport. The initial objective of this airport is to replace the adjacent airport and the Tegel airport and be the greatest commercial port offering the air transport services to the inhabitants in Brandenburg and Berlin. This objective would later undergo a change in that it would not do any of the replacements of the airports mentioned above because of two significant reasons. The first reason is that there is an increase in the number of passengers traveling in and out of Berlin, and therefore, Schonefeld is undergoing an expansion to cater to this day-to-day increase. The second reason is that there is a possibility of Tegel remaining in existence to serve people immediately after the carrying out of a referendum (Fiedler and Wendler, 2016). There is a projected increase in the number of passengers who travel by air in Germany top around thirty-four million. This figure indicates that this airport will be the third busiest in the country, after the two mentioned above. The other airways expected to use this airport after completion include are Lufthansa, EasyJet, and Eurowings.

The planning phase for this project was 15 years. The building of the airport got initiated in 2006. The plan was that the launching and opening of the airport were to be at the end of 2011. It is sad to note that there has been a lot of challenges and delays, some of which have been caused by cost hikes. The other causes of the delays include corruption, wrong construction procedures, and a lousy level of management. Considering all these delays, there was a shift in the year of opening the airport to 2020. Initially, the expected year was 2019, but it looked unachievable. However, there are rumors that there might be further delays delaying the opening of the airport to 2021. Therefore, from all this information, it would be wise to say that this is a big project in terms of scale because of the many complications that have come along with it (Kostka and Anzinger, 2016).

Description of the project

It is expected that there shall be two runways at the airport. The spacing between these runways is six thousand two hundred feet. The main reason for this large spacing is that it shall allow free flight operations avoiding the disturbance of the turbulences. There has been an enormous renovation of the two runways of Schonefeld airport to make it easy for adaptation into this airport. The major renovation has been in terms of increasing the length. The improvement is also essential as it enhances the security of air traffic.

There is also a need to understand the passenger terminals in the expected airport. According to the planners of the project, the passengers will need self-check-in machines that are more than one hundred. This is a high number because of the high number of passengers expected to be using the airport (Bubalo and Daduna, 2011). There are other extensions in the check-in areas that have various security checks. The cargo-handling capacity of the airport is 60,000 tones annually. After the completion of the project, there shall have been significant expansion works, making the airport handle ten times its current capacities i.e., 600,000 tones annually (Bubalo and Daduna, 2011).

The bulk of air transport activities shall be shifted to the Berlin Brandenburg airport. It is currently at the airport of Cologne Bonn. There is a plan to come up with a terminal for government use. This means that is shall be used by the foreign dignitaries and government officials only. There is also a projected increase in the number of passengers traveling, and this calls for plans to expand the airport for it to be able to accommodate these large numbers. The expected terminal capacity shall be 45 million, and it is expected to be able to handle approximately fifty million passengers on an annual basis (Beria and Scholz, 2010). The following are the main stakeholders of the project:

• The Brandenburg state
• The Berlin citizens
• German federal government
• Airlines
• City manager
• Passengers
• The other two airports in Berlin

The deliverables, which also serve as the main objectives of the project were to facilitate both the travel of the air passengers together with cargo. It was supposed to be the busiest airport in Berlin. It is supposed to serve more than forty-five million passengers on an annual basis.

Description of project management

There has been a lot of issues in the project management of this airport, and this has led to the delays in its opening. There were different teams working on the various areas of the project. There are private companies that got terminated from the project. Surprisingly, these companies were supposed to finance some part of the project and later operate it. The management brought about an argument such that there was no need for private companies to get benefits from the project. The main aim of firing these companies was to save finances and help in the promotion of the local industries. However, it is sad to know that the people who carried out the process of firing these people never had any information about the requirement of such a megaproject. In the end, the supervisory works ended up being done by the politicians and union members. The lack of technical expertise in this mega project, intense confusion of the progress, and a lot of cost hikes have caused the delays in this project (OECD, 2015).

The project followed the Projects IN Controlled Environments (PRINCE2) methodology, which developed a defined and structured process when managing the project. The methodology emphasized the justification as well as a product-based approach with clearly defined manageable stages. The project managers were able to adjust or respond appropriately to the prevailing circumstances hence ensures great control over the outcome even for the projects that are risky. The first stage was the initiation and conception phase, where the thought of the airport project came up, and there arose a definition of the whole project. The planning phase followed where all the objectives of this project were tabled. The third stage is execution, where the project is t. The actual work is done. After this, there is a belief that there shall be monitoring and regulation and closing of the work. However, bad management has caused all these delays, despite following this project management methodology.

Analysis of project management against the theory

A basic understanding of any project should be left to the experts. The moment that the different stakeholders come into play and overstep their roles, then there is a high poribabili9ty that the project might fail. For example, this airport project as left in the hands of politicians after kicking out the private companies that had the various experts carrying out the work. There was also a lot of inaccuracy in the budget estimates of the project. The initial amount was underestimated. Without the proper finances, there arises a lot of problems in terms of management up to the execution stage. The underestimation of the initial cost increased the political mileage of the politicians involved. According to various experts, projects in democratic countries always experience this kind of problem because the politicians have the behavior of lying to the general public about the cost of the project. Therefore, there is always the expectation of having cost overruns. The problem I as that the politicians keep these costs to be very low, knowing in mind that in case of the adverse consequences, no one will ever question them (Priemus, 2010). This tendency is always deliberate.

Another cause of failure of the project was the unexpected changes and variations. Some of these changes were not necessary, and they came with a lot of extra costs. In the theory-practice, there should be minimum changes and variations from the management team (Hanif et al. 2016). One of the significant changes that took place was the shifting of the jetway for Airbus 380 to the Air Berlin area of departure. Initially, it was supposed to be on the main terminal. This significant change brought in an opportunity for some abuse of the finances. It also brought about the delays in execution. Therefore, it would have been in the best interest of the project if this change never happened.

There was also a communication breakdown in the communication of the different stakeholders involved. For a project to be successful, there should be excellent communication between the management team and governance. There was no internal communication because of the inadequate supervision that was evident in the project. The leading cause was that there was no technical expertise.

The planning of the project was weak, and procurement was not done within the acceptable standards. There were a lot of changes in the governance structure, and this increased the loss of time in the project. There was also a modification of the plans for bidding, and people had to bid again for tenders. It is unfortunate to know that the contracts got given in 2009, and yet the opening of the airport was supposed to be in 2011. The planning documents were not completed on time to enable the effectiveness in the process of giving out the tenders. It is because of poor planning that contracts got given without going through the stage of bidding. There was a violation of the procurement rules set out by the European Union.

There are various things that went wrong, and most of them are referenced to the project management team. There was improper construction of the smoke exhaust system together with the fire alarm. There was the incorrect numbering of more than 4,000 doors. There was also an incorrect installation of some cables. The check-in desks were also less as compared to the number in the plan. There was also a miscalculation of flight paths together with sound protection zones. The weight of the roofing of the airport was two times the initial calculated weight. The different parts of the project were given to some contractors, and there was very little coordination between them.

Lessons learned and the links to the airport project.

The first lesson is that there should be proper project management in terms of planning and execution of a project to avoid failures. Without having appropriate plans, there may be several variations during the project which, may delay the time of execution, just like in the Berlin Brandenburg airport project. There are also similar projects across the globe that have suffered this type of predicament. An example is the London Heathrow airport project, where poor planning brought about congestion of passengers and delayed completion of the expansion process (Davies et al. 2009).

The second lesson is that politicians always play a negative role in most of the projects because they rule out the experts as they want to gain political mileage because of the project. The project management teams should not allow politicians to take over as they bring in challenges and problems, which the stakeholders involved always become answerable. There is a great need to include experts and professionals in projects for the realization of proper completion and success. The Denver International airport project underwent many challenges because of the politicians’ involvement (Montealegre and Keil, 2000).

Conclusion

Project management is an area that calls for a lot of expertise and knowledge for the realization of the planned projects. Any mistakes by the stakeholders may lead to project failure. Therefore, excellent project management practices are essential in the well-execution of a project. The chief aim of project management is to bring to realization all goals of the project. Timeliness and excellence are some of the critical areas of project management. Meeting the objectives of a client is also essential for his satisfaction. Therefore, all the stakeholders must play their roles effectively for the success of projects.

Recommendations

Some of the recommendations for the completion of this project are:

1. Politics should be scrapped off from the project.
2. All stakeholders should act according to the specifications laid in the design manual.
3. Supervisory work should be done with the utmost effectiveness.
4. Experts and professionals should be involved in the project.

References

Beria, P., & Scholz, A. B. (2010). Strategies and pitfalls in the infrastructure development of airports: A comparison of Milan Malpensa and Berlin Brandenburg International airports. Journal of Air Transport Management, 16(2), 65-73.

Bubalo, B., & Daduna, J. R. (2011). Airport capacity and demand calculations by simulation—the case of Berlin-Brandenburg International Airport. NETNOMICS: Economic Research and Electronic Networking, 12(3), 161-181.

Davies, A., Gann, D., & Douglas, T. (2009). Innovation in megaprojects: systems integration at London Heathrow Terminal 5. California management review, 51(2), 101-125.

Fiedler, J., & Wendler, A. (2016). Berlin Brandenburg Airport. In Large Infrastructure Projects in Germany (pp. 87-145). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Hanif, H., Khurshid, M. B., Lindhard, S. M., & Aslam, Z. (2016). Impact of variation orders on time and cost in mega hydropower projects of Pakistan. Journal of Construction in Developing Countries, 21(2), 37.

Kostka, G., & Anzinger, N. (2016). Large Infrastructure Projects in Germany: A Cross-sectoral Analysis. In Large Infrastructure Projects in Germany (pp. 15-38). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham.

Montealegre, R., & Keil, M. (2000). De-escalating information technology projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport. Mis Quarterly, 417-447.

OECD (2015), Effective Delivery of Large Infrastructure Projects: The Case of the New International Airport of Mexico City, OECD Publishing, Paris.

Priemus, H. (2010). Decision-making on megaprojects: Drifting on political discontinuity and market dynamics. European Journal of Transport and Infrastructure Research, 10(1).

Rose, K. (2005). Project quality management: why what and how. J. Ross, Pub.