Approach of Project Leadership

The project of the new Royal Hospital was the biggest infrastructure project in the health care sector of Australia. This project was a public-private partnership project on which the partnership is done between the government of Australia and SA Health Partnership Pty Ltd. This project was unsuccessful in the sense that it failed to meet its projected deadline and for that, the cost of the project increased.

 In this document, the case study of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital will be evaluated considering various aspects. In this document, project leadership will be evaluated and with that risk of the project will be assessed. Also, the infrastructure support system, tools for the project and the supply chain will be for the project will be evaluated.

In this project, the role of the project leadership has been done by the Operations Board of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. This main approach of the project leadership for this project was the transition to the operational commissioning (Martland, 2012). Also, the project leadership aimed to manage the integrated program of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital.

 In the project management function, the quality was integrated into the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project by the quality management system. For the quality management system quality control measures was used in the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project. This quality control measure was used for developing the assurance matrix for the project. This actually will provide high quality service to the project.

The project of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital was totally a risky project in almost every aspect of the project. This project was carrying risks in the aspect of its cost, complexity, the resource allocated and the scale of the project. This project was also risky in terms of the main aim of the project which was sustainable development of the health care services in the South Australia region (Krohe, 2008). The main assessed risk for the project was the extension of the significant contractual completion date of the project which was extended by 76 days.

For managing the risks of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, there was a strategic resister to the committee of the project (Penn & Parker, 2012). The register of the risk was containing the list of the high, moderate and the low risk of the project. The project management has done nothing to mitigate the risks of the project. This was because that the information of the strategic register was vague and the sufficient understanding and convey of the risk nature was absent in the strategic registers.

The supply chain of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital was managed by the project management team by implementing connection through the local health network and by providing state-wide services (Ellis, 2006). This services included distribution centre for the SA health, the catalogue of SA health for the requisitioning purpose, associated functions for logistics and health and support services.

There were serval difficulties in integrating the control process and the quality management into the supply chain network of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital. The supply chain network was used in this project for delivering health services to the community. This difficulty occurred due to the project budget overrun.

Project Risk and Mitigation Strategy

In this project, the project leadership successfully integrated the quality into this process. The project leadership integrated the quality into the process by giving focus on the state-wide and evidence-based model of care (Rodgers, 2005). Also, the project leadership used the health services of the state working in partnership and differently. Further, the project leadership implemented the different type of initiatives to which unlocked the capacity and improved the access and the use of the patients of the metropolitan region hospital.

To aid the above tasks in the project of the new Royal Adelaide Hospital, two types of tools might be used in the life cycle of the project. These tools are the contract management framework with the contract management plans. A contract management framework is an important tool in project management (Chen et al., 2009). This tool consists of some of the complex functions. The main activity of the contract management can be divided into some parts which are establishing a contract management team and governance. The other one is the planning, establishment and execution of the contract administration.

 The other tools are the contract management plan tool of the project management. This tool helps the project to manage the risks effectively. Also, it helps to manage the expected deliveries of the project and obligations (Marlow, Beale & Burn, 2010). By managing those successful contracts are established that will fulfil the contractual requirement of the agreement of the project. The main importance of this tool is that it will fulfil the functional requirement of the new RAH.

 There were opportunities in the project of improving the best practice of the project. In this project, one of the best practice was the contract management practice. This practice can be improved through project documentation (Ugarelli et al., 2010). In this documentation, it will be recorded that which officers had project compliance responsibility with respective of specific PPP clauses. Also, the regular report on the project compliance status can improve the practice of the contract management practice.

The risk management practices can be also improved in this case. Eliminating the inconsistence data from the risk register will improve the practices of the risk management.

There was an infrastructure support system which was supported by the state government by providing additional electrical supply to the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project (Brätland, 2010). For this electrical infrastructure, the total budget of the state government was the $3.4 million.

Conclusion:

 From the above discussion, it can be concluded that the new Royal Adelaide Hospital project is very much important for sustainable development in the healthcare system of the Southern Australia region. In this discussion, project leadership approach has been discussed. Also, the infrastructure support system in the project, tools in the projects, best practice improvement opportunities, project risk mitigation strategy and the supply chain management has been discussed properly. This discussion has been assessed that the project of the nRAH was failed in the aspect of meeting the actual project deadline which raised the cost of the project.

References:

Brätland, J. (2010). Capital Concepts as Insights into the Maintenance and Neglect of Infrastructure. The Independent Review, 15(1), 35-51. From TUA library databases: https://ezproxy.laureate.net.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=bth&AN=51251767&site=eds-live&scope=site 

Chen, P., Scown, C., Matthews, H. S., Garrett, J. H., Jr., & Hendrickson, C. (2009). Managing critical infrastructure interdependence through economic input/output methods. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 15(3), 200–210. Reprinted by permission of the American Society of Civil Engineers via the Copyright Clearance Center.

Ellis, R. (2006). Decommissioning: Taking part of a system off-line doesn’t have to get out of hand. Engineered Systems, 23(5), 26. https://www.esmagazine.com/articles/91903-commissioning-decommissioning 

Krohe, J., Jr. (2008). Our daunting to-do list: When it comes to infrastructure, we know the problems. What are we going to do about them? Planning, 74(9), 6–13. From TUA library databases. https://ezproxy.laureate.net.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=a9h&AN=34692084&site=eds-live&scope=site

Marlow, D. R., Beale, D. J., & Burn, S. (2010). A pathway to a more sustainable water sector: sustainability-based asset management. Water Science and Technology, 61(5), 1245-1255. From TUA library databases: https://ezproxy.laureate.net.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=cmedm&AN=20220247&site=eds-live&scope=site 

Martland, C. D. (2012). Chapters 10 (Sec 10.1), 15, and 16 (Sec 16.3)

Penn, M. R., & Parker, P. J. (2012). Introduction to infrastructure: An introduction to civil and environmental engineering, Chapter 13, Hoboken, N.J: Wiley. 
PwC (2014). Asset Management 2020: A Brave New World. Retrieved from https://www.pwccn.com/webmedia/doc/635277933169569542_am2020_feb2014.pdf 

Rodgers, T. L. (2005). An owner’s perspective on commissioning of critical facilities. ASHRAE Transactions, 111(2), 618–626. From TUA library databases. https://ezproxy.laureate.net.au/login?url=https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&AuthType=ip,url,uid&db=a9h&AN=19414109&site=eds-live&scope=site 

Ugarelli, R., Venkatesh, G., Brattebø, H., Di Federico, & Sægrov, S. (2010). Asset management for urban wastewater pipeline networks. Journal of Infrastructure Systems, 16(2), 112–121. Reprinted by permission of the American Society of Civil Engineers via the Copyright Clearance Center.