Project Management 10 Project Management of the Sydney Harbour Opera House

Project Management 10 PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF THE SYDNEY HARBOUR OPERA HOUSE by Student’s name Course code+name Professor’s name University name City, State Date of submission Introduction Project management has, for a very long time, been regarded in terms of evaluating the success or failure of the project in concern. The blowout in cost brought a lot of issues that contributed to the success or the failure in terms of risk, change, and governance. Successes and failures in terms of the

Project Management 1
PROJECT MANAGEMENT OF THE SYDNEY HARBOUR OPERA
HOUSE
by Student’s name
Course code+name
Professor’s name
University name
City, State
Date of submission

Project Management 2
Introduction
Project management has, for a very long time, been regarded in terms of evaluating the
success or failure of the project in concern. The Sydney Opera house is often considered as a
masterpiece of twentieth-century architecture. Despite all the underpinnings of the project, it is
both nationally and internationally admired. As such, it garners a lot of tourists who play a
beneficial role in the structure. It is a multi-venue iconic masterpiece in Australia with
accommodation of various genres of arts. Opera house started its construction in 1957 under the
supervision and knowledge of a Danish architect called Utzon (Landorf, 2019).
He managed to land this project by winning an architectural competition organized by the
south wales government. The most intriguing thing about this project is how it was under-
budgeted at 7 million, and then it skyrocketed to over 100 million dollars. The blowout in cost
brought a lot of issues that contributed to the success or the failure in terms of risk, change, and
governance. Consequently, this paper shifts its focus on evaluating the success and failures of the
Sydney harbor opera house. It focuses on the three primary risk factors, as well as change and
governance.
Successes and failures in terms of the three areas of risk of the Sydney harbor opera house
Failures
Even at the start of the project, various factors were mandatory for consideration. In this
context, there were a lot of uncertainties and risks associated with the opera house project. First,
Utzon won the project even though his design was not completed at that moment. It, therefore,
meant that risks relating to cost, scheduled timeline, and performance were not clearly outlaid.
Typically, risks relating to the price is crucial as it helps to know the estimate of the budget
required. Also, it helps to avoid escalation of the total cost, as seen in the Sydney opera house

Project Management 3
harbor project (Dwyer, 2017). Schedule risk is concerned with the duration through which the
project will take. Ideally, it can be significantly affected by cost risk if it is not clearly outlined.
Moreover, the entire project relies on its ability to accomplish specified objectives. If the project
fails to produce results that are consistent with the project specification, then the project will be
affected to a great length.
Nevertheless, various proponents of the Sydney project deceived the lawmakers by
lowballing the project to be given the contract. Doing this does not consider the risks of cost. As
such, as the project continued to advanced, extreme cost issues started to arise, which led to the
significant delay of the project. Financially, this project is considered the most disastrous project
in the history of architecture. For analysis purposes, failing to consider the cost factors means
that financial and management plans were not streamlined (Chiu, Kılınçer, and Tabrizi, 2019). As
mentioned herein, Utzon won the contract has not completed the design itself; as such, it was
challenging to make a concise decision on the project goals. There was no identification of the
cost limits, even as presented in the competition. A closer look into this project clearly illustrated
a total lack of financial goal setting mechanism regarding the project. For instance, during the
construction process, the sails that were used for the roofing were mostly made from pre-cast
concrete.
However, the resultant was not highly appreciated as it was considered heavy to the
extent that it had to be demolished and rebuilt. It sums up to the costal factors before extensive
failure. Besides, doing this affected the schedule of the project as it did not have to take a longer
time. Initial planning and execution processes created a significant setback that affected the
time, method, and cost of the Sydney opera house project. Either way, cost factors were coupled
with political disputes as a result of a dented relationship between the manager and the financer
of the

Project Management 4
project. As such, the government started relenting on providing funds for the project. As the
project continued, there were constant problems and arguments on the cost and the interior
design between Utzon and the government.
Choosing the very conceptual model design created exposure to various risks in project
management. On the side, inexperienced judges flopped in deciding since Utzon's diagram was
very schematic and rudimental. It means that the project had the uncertainty of scope and the
desired quality of the plan (Anderson and O'Connor, 2019). Either way, Utzon had limited
experience with large buildings. In essence, in the past, Utzon had not yet supervised the
construction of such a structure before. Besides, a bright look into his designs illustrates that the
plan did not meet the minimum requirements of the competition.
Furthermore, he had not consulted any specialist or structural engineer concerning the
baseline of the project. As such, his design was being operated on a shadow with no prior
knowledge of the plausibility of the construction. As such, poor judgment was a failure in
exposing the project to a considerable length of risks. It led to significant changes in the quality
and scope of the project. Regarding the project management risk, Utzon's designs were well
ahead of their time. As of 1959, when the project was beginning, there still existed no known
methods of construction (Abyad, 2019). To further complicate the existing problem,
complications regarding conflicts in the design erupted in many instances. Surprisingly, the
Sydney project had no project manager to run all the processes.
Even still, it was considered that Utzon would analyze and make decisions concerning the
project. Nevertheless, this was not the case, as the project structure kept changing over time,
depicting a lack of consistency. Redesigning the initial design seemed challenging and
expensive, to the point of affecting the project implementation procedure. The opera house

Project Management 5
project failed because it did not follow the given processes required in project management—the
lack of a project manager and a financial strategy to mitigate the risks relating to cost. Besides,
inadequate resource management and planning, even from the beginning of the project, created
an avenue for wastage of materials and delays in all the stages of the project. As these factors
were not considered, the risks involved could not be mitigated. The government did not give a
financial limitation for the project at the start, but after the four years, the funding started to be
limited. It caused great encouragement, frustration, and eventual withdrawal of Utzon from the
project in 1966 (Cheng et al. 2019).
Success
From a project management perspective, mitigating the risks forms a baseline for the
success of the project to a great length. A closer look at project management success integrates
the detailed analysis of cost, time, and quality. Despite a long time, it took for the project to be
accomplished as well as the extraneous cost factors involved, the project is seen to be a success.
It is the pride of Sydney as it stands tall on the harbor. Either way, research shows that cost,
timeline, and management are not quite sufficient in measuring the success of the project, but
rather the consideration of the end product.
Consequently, the project was celebrated over the years as a great achievement to the
extent that it won awards. Accordingly, it is now considered one of the world's heritage sites
(O'Neil, 2019). As such, people visit this place as the long-term objectives and benefits of the
project was accomplished. Even still, the project's success is regarded by a combination of
project management at the defined point in time where the project is declared complete. It means
that despite the challenges that existed and the risks involved, the project was not entirely a
failure, as mentioned above.

Project Management 6
Successes and failures in terms of change and governance of the Sydney harbor opera
house
In this section, a detailed evaluation is made regarding the change and governance
concerning failure or success. Before the issues mentioned in the above section, conflicts caused
the resignation of Utzon from the project. As such, changes in project management and
governance had an effect on the success and the failure of the project, as mentioned below.
Moreover, there were changes in terms of project priorities, which was premiered by frequent
changes in design requirements and material specifications. All these led to the inaccurate
estimates of project requirements and constant changes in the project objectives. As these
challenges continued to grow, the resignation of Utzon caused a total shift and change in 1965 in
the government, which changed how operations were conducted in the project (Williams, 2016).
Failures relating to governance
Hughes failed to collaborate with Utzon, who was the architect during that time. The
central conflict was regarding payment. As such, there was a change in architects and engineers
who developed new and redefined plans. All these perspectives saw a difference in the design of
the opera house. The new team subsequently replaced most of the models that were developed by
Utzon. Moreover, the majority of the promises given during the 1965 election entailing
allocating funds for the completion of the project were all amiss. Over time, the government
could not mitigate the overrun cost of the project. They managed to do this through withholding
payments to Utzon.
Consequently, since he was given the project without having completed the designs,
there was a significant problem from the government in terms of authorizing his plans.
Interestingly, this disagreement created a major failure even in the construction methods
imposed by Utzon.

Project Management 7
One of the worst decisions was in the time when the government insisted on the beginning of the
construction that two years ahead of the scheduled time. The pressure to this respect caused a
drag as the architect could not plan for the building since the government could not adhere to his
appeal. As such, the lack of preparation caused a significant failure to the project before its goals
and objectives. Either way, all these were created by the government as they were not willing to
pay on time. Besides, the project leaving Utzon to assume a de facto responsibility was a great
challenge as it created a battlefield of chaos between the government and the architect. As such,
the significant modification of the design of the opera house was conspicuous.
Failures relating to change
The government authorized this change in the structure of the project design midway into
construction. It forms one of the bases of failures as there were so many loopholes that needed to
be redefined. As such, it caused a massive delay since the new team did not know the cut lines
through which things are supposed to be done. Mostly, learning the different designs as
stipulated by the previous architect was not a walk in the park. Considerably, the construction
process was left to chance, as the architects would authorize constructions based on their
theoretical point of view. As such, even as the construction was being done, there was no
expectation regarding the cost and the time.
Additionally, the indulgence of the government to the project created a significant
setback resulting in a considerable length of failure. It assumed the role of the project financer,
and to this, it meant that the government had an opinion on all the decisions of the project. Also,
the project suffered from a lack of project management procedures, which encompassed a lack
of change control. In essence, even after the project had changed the architects and the
engineers,

Project Management 8
there ought to be a subsistent control structure (Olawale et al., 2020). Initially, the client fixed no
financial limit to the project. However, after the change in management, and lack of visible
progress, the government started to withhold funds.
Considerably, when Utzon resigned, he took all his designs and sketches, including the
blueprints of the building. It meant that even with employing new personnel to complete the
scheme, it said that numerous modifications to the site had to be done. Besides, without the
sketches, it would be difficult to continue with the constructions. It was a significant failure as
time was lost in redesigning various sections, including the interior of the opera house. Another
major factor that constitutes failure was the composition of the competition panel. It constituted
judges who were not architects and could not understand the schematics of an architectural
design leading to its implementation. It means that none of these judges had experience
whatsoever in the construction of the theatre, opera, or musical acoustic. Lack of expert
knowledge and judgment was a significant failure since they could not understand Utzon and his
proposals.
Even still, the architectural changes were neither proportional nor sufficient in
enumerating the project about the designs mentioned above. The project was mainly divided into
three stages such as foundations and the podium, construction of the shell structure as well as the
tiling. Also, the project would involve all remaining works to complete the building itself. Due
to the changes, enumerated, responsibilities, and accountabilities for the project were not clearly
defined. In most cases, the legal responsibility for the satisfactory outcome of the project lies
with the government architecture and the construction authority. Surprisingly, this was not the
case in this context (Hansen, Too, and Le, 2018). There was no delegate of the constructing
authority in the panel. Besides, this accountability is essential for tabulating the success of the

Project Management 9
project. After Utzon took the sketches, there was a lack of the required skill set, which
demanded a clean redesign phase of the project.
Success in the change and governance
In most cases, while there are significant concepts in management and change, which
premiered the failure of the project, the aftermath decisions brought up a substantial line of
success, as illustrated below. After Utzon left with his sketches, the new architects were
prompted to create unique and profound designs. As such, there was a significant change in the
purpose ad design of each room under construction. For instance, the principal hall, which was
meant for a multipurpose event, was now a concert hall, with designed calibrated for the same.
To accommodate operas, the architects developed the minor building for stage productions. In
fact, before this, two theatres were added to the initial design. Doing this increased the number of
theatres, and consequently, the number of people who can be accommodated in the facility. As
such, it was a success since the interior design of the opera house was changed entirely in
response to the intended design.
The movement and the redesign of various rooms have a significant effect on the success
of the project. Besides, the redesigning phase created perfection in the acoustic sector within the
space. Changes to the design created a varied effect on the success of the project. For instance,
the Utzon design stipulated the building of the interior using plywood. Nevertheless, this design
was scrapped off to integrate an optimal organization design. Also, the change in the funding
mechanism was vital in solving the payment issues that existed. Using lotteries made the funding
process easy since the majority of the payload as a result of this concept. Before the previous
conflict that existed between the government and Utzon, contestants participating in lotteries did
not have an interest in the project but ended up funding it. In the beginning, the project was

Project Management 10
highly lowballed, and this became a significant problem. Due to the consequent changes, there
was a need to source more funds, which summed up to more than 100 million. Lotteries proved
to be a significant success than soliciting for loans and charity funds.
Regarding governance, there was a significant success since economic issues were
resolved through proper managing and controlling relationships. Besides, as the new government
came in, they put in a committee that would intensify the communication between the architects
and themselves (Luetjens, Mintrom, and Hart, 2019). Doing this prevented issues that would
arise due to a lack of communication and understanding. Besides, in case of changes or
suggestions, there was a precise method of ensuring that information was relayed across the
concerned. Also, by employing robust construct management procedures through governance
ensured that the project was completed in the long run.
As such, this proved to be a milestone in terms of success. Besides, it became possible to
control the finances injected within the project, as plans and procedures were clearly defined.
Undoubtedly, working closely with the designing team was imminent after the change. As such,
works were relative to mitigating risks on cost, schedule, and performance. Moreover, there
was a drastic change in engineer consultation, unlike how Utzon used to handle processes.
Accordingly, the lack of consultation used to cause a lot of frustration during the implementation
of the designs. In one instance, the engineers accused him of lacking corporation and critical
discourse.
In conclusion, despite the various issues that arose in relation to the project, it is
important to agree that the project was a success in general. Besides, as years go by, it continues
to gain attention and become one of the leading tourist attractions within the national and
international jurisdiction. Once the risks mentioned in the first section were mitigated, the project

Project Management 11
becomes a perfect financial success. Interestingly, all the construction costs were reimbursed
after the opening as early as 1977 (Zekavat and Momenian, 2019). As such, this shows that the
project has a remarkable financial success impact.
Nevertheless, even after resignation, Utzon was ultimately recognized for his designs also
if he did not complete the entire work. As such, it is safe to say that the changes incurred within
the project were necessary for completion. Also, all the steps and strategies put in place by the
government were essential in facilitating the success of the project. Summative, from a project
management perspective, despite the failures and challenges experienced during the initial phase
of the project, progress was attained from the project in the end. Besides, a project is only
considered a success if it accomplishes all the goals and objectives set for it.

Project Management 12
References
Landorf, C., 2019. Participatory Culture and the Social Value of an Architectural Icon: Sydney
Opera House.
Dwyer, S., 2017. Highlighting the Build: Using Lighting to Showcase the Sydney Opera
House. M/C Journal, 20(2).
Chiu, C.Y., Kılınçer, N.Y. and Aboutalebi Tabrizi, H., 2019. Illustrations of the 1925-edition
Yingzao fashi 營營營營: Jørn Utzon’s aesthetic confirmation and inspiration for the
Sydney Opera House design (1958–1966). Journal of Asian Architecture and
Building Engineering, 18(3), pp.159-169.
Anderson, M. and O’Connor, P., 2019. Creative Leadership in Learning at the Sydney Opera
House. In Education and Theatres (pp. 53-65). Springer, Cham.
Abyad, A., 2019. Project Road to Success and Failure. Middle East Journal of Business, 14(4).
Cheng, L., Yin, Y., Yin, H. and Wen, N., 2019, January. Exploration of Efficient Project
Management based on the Co-operation of Architects and Chief Consultants. In 2018
International Workshop on Education Reform and Social Sciences (ERSS 2018). Atlantis
Press.
O'Neil, C., 2019. Global construction success. John Wiley & Sons.
Williams, T., 2016. Identifying success factors in construction projects: A case study. Project
Management Journal, 47(1), pp.97-112.

Project Management 13
Luetjens, J.C., Mintrom, M. and t Hart, P., 2019. On Studying Policy Successes in Australia and
New Zealand.
Hansen, S., Too, E. and Le, T., 2018. Retrospective look on front-end planning in the
construction industry: A literature review of 30 years of research. Management,
8(1), pp.19-42.
Olawale, O., Oyedele, L., Owolabi, H., Kusimo, H., Gbadamosi, A.Q., Akinosho, T., Abioye,
S., Kadiri, K. and Olojede, I., 2020. Complexities of smart city project success: A study
of real-life case studies.
Zekavat, M. and Momenian, A., 2019. Criteria for the success of construction projects. Journal
of Advanced Pharmacy Education & Research| Apr-Jun, 9(S2), p.105.