Answer

Heathrow Terminal 5 Project: Cultural Awareness

Analysis of the construction industry’s culture during the Heathrow Airport Terminal 5 project 

Normally, the culture of the construction industry is to resist change that does not originate from members of the construction team. This means that any changes proposed by contractors from teams outside the construction team are treated with significant suspicion and are not embraced by the construction team (Deakin & Koukiadaki, 2009). The resistance to change from the outside was the initial reaction of construction workers within the Heathrow Terminal 5 project, but British Airways Authorities Ltd had a perfect solution to this culture as discussed in below. The culture of suspicion is common within many construction projects where most suppliers are looking to pass on the blame to other contractors. However, it is important to note that this was not the case with the Terminal 5 project as BAA took measures to prevent such occurrences. Many construction projects usually go over budget and are never completed on time especially projects that are carried out on such a large scale as the Terminal 5 project. BAA completed the Terminal 5 project on time and within budget as the company worked closely with its contractors and suppliers in order to keep the construction project on schedule and within the budget (Davies, Gann & Douglas, 2009). This was a great feat that could not have been accomplished if the culture of mistrust among different contractors was allowed to exist and to continue hampering the project.

How did the BAA overcome resistance during the project?

BAA was able to overcome resistance during the project by using the T5 Agreement, which stipulated the behavior that was expected of all contractors as well as an oversight team to oversee the implementation of the agreement. All the contractors were required to act as a team and collaborate through the sharing of ideas and project activities in order to ensure the success of the project (Brady & Davies, 2010). Apart from encouraging teamwork and requesting each of the project teams to work as an integrated team with well-coordinated means of carrying out project activities, BAA took on all the risk associated with the project. BAA took on the role of the leader in all project activities in order to guide the other contractors within the construction team on the way forward in regards to the completion of the T5 project (Gil, Miozzo & Massini, 2012). The different supply companies contracted by BAA were of the opinion that the T5 Agreement was crucial to the working relationship they had with BAA. The contractors said that they felt like an integral part of the project team and so did their employees. In any other scenario, the employees of these companies would have chosen to act as seconded workers to the project team, but the implementation of the T5 Agreement made them feel like a crucial part of the project team.

The act of BAA taking on all the risk and leading from the front in all project activities was crucial to the overall success of the project as the authority led the way in most project activities and the contractors just had to follow the example set by BAA. In one case scenario, a supplier noted a design issue with the project and raised the same concerns with BAA because they were acting as an integral part of the project team and felt that it was part of their responsibility to report the issue (Caldwell, Roehrich & Davies, 2009). BAA facilitated a discussion between all the affected project team where suggestions were raised on how to address the issue and finally a suitable solution to the problem was found that was satisfactory to all concerned parties. By taking on the role of lead facilitator and treating each supplier as an integral part of the project team, BAA overcame the trust issues that are usually associated with construction projects where suppliers usually pass on the blame to other parties (Patanakul, Kwak, Zwikael & Liu, 2016). Taking responsibility for all the project risks assured BAA of control over the completion of the project; it also encouraged responsibility on the part of each supplier and provided a way of overcoming the initial resistance to ideas from parties outside the construction industry.

Do you agree with the BAA approach? 

I agree with the BAA approach based on the excellent results achieved by BAA in completing the project on time and within the allocated budget, which is a feat unheard of in major construction projects where projects are usually never completed on time (Clarke & Gribling, 2008). Most major projects usually go way over budget, but the Terminal 5 project was completed on its initial budget, which is testament to the success of the BAA approach in carrying out the project. The teamwork exhibited by the contractors, suppliers and their employees working on the T5 project is proof that the approach taken by BAA was the correct approach, which motivated the high degree of teamwork witnessed within the project. The approach taken by BAA of treating each supplier and employee as an integral part of the project worked to ensure the smooth operation of the project and the completion of the project on time. The BAA approach was an all inclusive policy that saw all parties involved in the project being treated as equal partners by BAA as evidenced by the T5 Agreement that guided the implementation of the entire project (Wolstenholme, Fugeman & Hammond, 2008). Therefore, the T5 Agreement was the correct approach and it was effective in ensuring that the project was completed on time and within its budget.

Environmental concerns

A discussion of the T5 project is incomplete without mentioning the environmental impact of the project and how the BAA handled the whole issue of environmental preservation and sustainability. An environmental impact assessment was done and the final environmental plan was known as the Construction Team Environment Plan, which stipulated the environmental plan for the whole project (Basu, 2014). The T5 project was also the subject of the longest public inquiry, which also covered the impact of the project on the neighboring communities and the surrounding areas. Part of the environmental plan involved the redirection of two rivers that were redirected using underground culverts as well as above ground channels. Every aspect of the project including the movement of large amounts of earth for the project’s purpose was assessed to ensure that the environmental impact of project activities was neutralized. This ensured that all project activities did not contribute to environmental degradation, but were in harmony with the preservation of the environment (Ron, Chris & Chris, 2009). Weekly inspections and audits were conducted to ensure that the project activities were in accordance with the environmental plan as well as other regulations that affected the project. This ensured that the project adhered to its environmental plan and did not have a degrading effect on the environment.