Sydney Opera House – A case study in poor project management

Sydney Opera House is an iconic symbol for the city and for Australia as a whole. The striking roof structure is instantly recognisable by all, something for which Australians are justifiably proud. But its construction did not go well, in fact it is considered a prime example of poor project management. Yet despite this, something stunningly beautiful and functional was created, an amazing legacy and national treasure. But why did the construction process go so badly wrong?

In this episode of Ask Andrew, our very own Andrew Lees visits the iconic Sydney Opera House in Austrailia to explain why it has been considered a prime example of poor project management. 

Political determination and optimism trumps practicality

Eugene Goosens, the Director of the New South Wales State Conservatorium of Music lobbied for an opera house and gained the support of the State Premier, Joseph Cahill. Cahill became the champion and main driver of the project and initiated a design competition, which was won by Danish architect Jørn Utzon.

Goosens also lobbied successfully for the location to be Bennelong Point, a decision that would lead directly to the first major cost overruns – more on this below.

Utzon was appointed in 1957. Politically, Cahill believed it was essential for construction to commence urgently and work started on site in March 1959 – before the design was anywhere near completed. This was to have major cost and time repercussions.

Problems start with inadequate geotechnical investigation

It had been assumed before design commenced, that the ground below Bennington Point was sandstone. As soon as construction began, it was discovered it comprised loose alluvial deposits. Rather than founding the massive podium structure on bedrock, a deep pile foundation was needed. Seven hundred, 1.0m diameter bored piles were installed. This had not been budgeted for and led to the first of many major cost overruns. Many more delays and re-designs followed. The final project was delivered 10 years late and 29 times over budget.

SWAG – Sometimes it’s all we have

For Australians, the word swag carries romantic connotations. A swagman in the 1800’s was a roving sheep shearer, who carried his belongings in a swag bag. But SWAG means something quite different in project management - A Scientific Wild Ass Guess. Meaning an educated guess, based on previous experience, expert judgment, and historical data. This best describes the approach forced upon the structural engineers, Arup, who had to design the foundations for Sydney Opera House podium structure without a finalised scheme and without knowing the roof loading. In fact, the iconic roof design was not fully defined until five years after podium construction began on site. By that time, the podium was already substantially completed and major reconstruction was then required to accommodate the now defined roof loading. 

Making a SWAG is something that experienced engineers do not shy away from. Sometimes it must be called upon. It is not simply guesswork. An expert in the field may review all the data available and where there are gaps, apply their engineering judgment based on experience and historical knowledge to arrive at a decision that will allow a project to move forward. Continual review, and modification where required, must follow use of a SWAG, as new information comes forward.

Dealing with poorly defined ground conditions

It is not uncommon when commencing a project for the ground conditions to be poorly defined. This might be the case when carrying out enabling works such as access roads or working platforms. In such cases, initial site investigation may not have identified variability in ground conditions, or the effect of changes in soil moisture content following periods of rain. Engineers may be forced to make assumptions (or a SWAG if you like) on the design strength to be used for the design of access roads and working platforms. The use of Tensar InterAx stabilisation geogrids provides additional assurance in these circumstances, often allowing work to commence over the weakest of soils with CBR less than 1%. Tensar+ design software can be used to design the stabilised layer using an assumed subsoil design strength. Feedback from observations made during construction may then be used to modify the design rapidly using Tensar+ software, running on any mobile device. 

Tensar+ design software

Tensar+ is a free, cloud-based geotechnical design software that allows engineers, contractors, and owners to design with geogrid in a variety of applications. To start designing with Tensar+ today, register here.