National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$34.75
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Completing the "Big Dig": Managing the Final Stages of Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project (2003)
Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment (BICE)
National Academy of Engineering (NAE)
Transportation Research Board (TRB)

Citation Manager

. "5. Oversight of Management Consultant." Completing the "Big Dig": Managing the Final Stages of Boston's Central Artery/Tunnel Project. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2003.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
32
bottomleft bottomright

The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy.


  • Internal review of Project Management Monthly reports,

  • Weekly critical issues meetings/reports,

  • Monitoring month-end close results,

  • Review of monthly Budget, Cost, Commitment and Forecast reports, and

  • Daily progress reports and follow-up.

In addition, the project director receives feedback from the FHWA staff who are involved in the daily monitoring and oversight of the project.

PEER REVIEW

Owners and project managers of complex engineering projects often use independent peer review as a means of quality assurance. Project managers recruit qualified professionals with related experience to review the project team’s assumptions, procedures, and decisions. They challenge the project team members to defend their work and in the process rethink decisions to assure that the optimal choice has been made.

Peer review, which essentially provides an outside perspective to identify issues that may have been missed, has been used to review technical decisions as well as project-management decisions. For example, the U.S. Department of Energy has used this process to address problems on projects ranging in size from $5 million to several billion dollars (NRC, 1998). Independent advisory boards have also become customary for projects, such as large dams, that could seriously impact public safety.

The committee was told that the CA/T project team conducted peer reviews. However, they were undertaken by employees of the joint venture organizations from offices outside the Boston area and thus were not truly independent.

At this point most, if not all, of the technical-design decisions for the CA/T project have been made, which essentially renders moot the value of technical reviews. However, with almost $2 billion in construction still to be completed, a focused independent peer review of project management decisions could yield meaningful savings.

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Integrated Project-Management Oversight

Finding 10: The integrated project organization (IPO) structure currently utilized by the MTA to direct the design and construction of the CA/T project appears to be functioning reasonably well. Although most of the contracts are now under way or completed, the committee observed that a detailed plan for downsizing and ultimately eliminating the management consultant staff was not in place.

Recommendation 10: MTA should implement an aggressive plan to downsize the B/PB staff members who are not essential to completing contracts and resolving claims. At the same time, the MTA should ensure that key staff members remain in place to finalize and close out all contracts and claims.

Page
32