MEEN40800

Engineering Project Management

Case Study: The Construction of the Samuel Beckett Bridge

Name
Sugumar Gopinath Kumar
Shane Gubbins
O Keeffe Ciaran

Primary Major
MEngSc Engineering Mgmt FT
Engineering Science (4-stage)
Engineering Science (4-stage)

Student Number
13203232
10334195
10312919

We declare that the material contained in this project is the

end result of our own work and that due acknowledgment
has been given in the bibliography to ALL sources, be they
printed, electronic or personal.

Abstract
The purpose of this report was to analyse the construction of the Samuel Beckett Bridge under three broad
project management topics, namely:

Project Definition
Stakeholder Analysis
Resource Allocation & Scheduling

The method of research used was collecting primary and secondary sources of information related to these
topics. Conclusions were drawn based on common practice in project management. Overall, despite the minor
problems experienced with the construction of the Samuel Beckett Bridge, it can be concluded that the project
was successful under these headings. The reasons for this conclusion are evident throughout the report.

Introduction
The report gives a limited view of the project as only three topics were considered in a relatively brief study.
Further investigation of the project taking account of topics such as: Project Selection & Strategy,
Development of the Project Plan, Risk Management, Monitoring & Controlling etc. would yield a more
comprehensive analysis of the management of the project.
The construction of Samuel Beckett Bridge was not only a successful bridge construction project along the
river Liffey, it also holds a broad range of innovative technical engineering aspects with excellent managerial
skills. Dublin city council being the client appointed Dr. Santiago Calatrava, an architect and engineer, one of
the elite designers of the world for his proposed design of the bridge that resembles the Celtic Harp, the
national emblem of Ireland. The architectural and structural designs of the bridge were carried out in
Calatravas Zurich and Valencia offices respectively. He also appointed local engineers from Roughan & O
Donovan (ROD), Irelands leading engineering service providers to deal with the bridges design along with the
preparation of Tender & Contract management and to co-ordinate with varies authorities of stakeholders.

Project Definition
The main output of the early stages of any project is a clear, concise project definition. It is vital at this stage
to assess the scope, objectives and key deliverables of the project before progressing to a more detailed
analysis.

Project Scope:
Purpose:
-

Facilitate the regeneration of the North and South docklands,

Provide an important pedestrian and cycle crossing facility,
Accommodate bus priority and future luas lines,
Facilitate the implementation of the network of environmental traffic cells in the city centre,
Improve traffic circulation, public transport and pedestrian environment in city centre.

Objectives: To create a bridge that connects the North Wall Quay and the Sir John Rodgers Quay. The bridge
should have 4 lanes for motor vehicles, 2 for bicycles and 2 for pedestrians. It should not out last its 30 month
1
contract and it has been budgeted for 10m .
Key Deliverables and technical components of the project: Light weight construction, movable joints,
structural bearings, concrete reinforcement, bridge bearings, architectural concrete, accessories (spacers,
inducers, supports, shims, caps and wires), concrete and asphalt, framework, drainage, release agents,
2
connection repair products and bar chip fibres .

Project Priorities:
1.

2.

3.

Performance /Scope: The most important aspect of the bridge was

clearly the performance of the bridge. The bridge had to meet the
3
standards set by the NSAI . If the bridge did not meet these
standards then the whole project would be nullified as the bridge
would have to have been altered, which would also affect the
cost.
Time Management/ Duration of Project: It is clear that this was
the second most important priority of the project. The project was Figure 1
completed within the 30 months that was agreed within the
contract.
Cost: The cost of the project was taken as the least important priority of the project. This is evident in
the fact that the project had an estimated budget of just over 10m however the final cost of the
1
project was 59.95m .

Performance/Scope
It is clear that the project scope is going to be an important aspect of the project, in particular in a project
where the bridge has to rotate 90. The performance of the bridge has been renowned as a success and even
4
won Engineers Ireland Project of the Year award in 2010 .
However there are some problems associated with the bridge. There have been a lot of complaints of poor
traffic control. A caller from RTEs Landline programme has complained saying that the traffic measures bring
you right back into the traffic that you are trying to stay away from. There have also been complaints that the
5
design forces users to use the East-Link toll bridge .

There have also been some minor problems with the actual functionality of the bridge. On one occasion
when the bridge was opened, the cable stays that support the bridge expanded and because of this the bridge
6
would not close correctly .
These are some of the reasons why the Samuel Beckett Bridge was highly condemned at the BCI awards in
2011. Despite this the judges said, "The significant value engineering proposals by the JV contractor accepted
and developed successfully by the project team is an exemplar of how the best construction projects should
4
happen" .

Time Management

Figure 2 Gant Chart Showing major times scales of the key deliverables7
th

The project was handed over to the client on 30 of November 2009, concluding the 30 months of the
th
contract, and the grand opening of the bridge was on the 10 of December 2009. This strict adherance to the
deadline that was set shows the importance that was allocated to time management within the project.

Costing
The overall cost of the project ran almost 50m over the estimated budget. This is mostly due to the fact that
the duration of the project and the performance were considered to be more important. The project was
funded by the Department Of Environment, Heritage and Local Government, Dublin Docklands and Dublin City
Council.
Graham proposed an idea that could have saved up to 1.7m. It was found that 65% of the total cost of the
4
project came from the steel fabrication. The idea was to use concrete on the pier instead of steel . This would
give significant reductions in the need for maintenance as it would be less prone to damage, it would have
eliminated the need for the transportation of large steel sections, and the pier could be built earlier in the
project, which would mean that it would not have been part of the critical path of the project. There were
worries however about the performance of the bridge if concrete was used and also Dublin City Council was
not prepared to the sacrifice the aesthetics of the bridge to save money and time. It is therefore clear that the
projects most important priority was the scope.

Resource Breakdown Structure:

Figure 2 RBS/ Company breakdown structure7

This is an example of the resource breakdown structure that was used in terms of personnell. Although it
does not break down of all the personnell that were required for the manufacturing of the bridge it does show
the key organisations that helped in the production of the bridge and it also goes into some detail of the
resource breakdown structure within the Hollandia organisation.
The key milestones for the Hollandia organisation were the fabrication of the steel components of the
7
bridge, the assembly of these steel components and the commissioning of the steel works .
The key milestones for Graham were the creation and installation of the abutments for the bridge, the
creation and installation of the river pivot pier and the construction of the road works on and around the
4
bridge .
Flint and Neill were the inspectors that were appointed by Dublin City Council. They were required to
undertake a product stage review of the proposed scheme. They were used as an independent expert view
8
before seeking tender .

Stakeholder Analysis
For a large scale, significant project such as the Samuel Beckett Bridge a stakeholder analysis is a vital
undertaking in the early stages of the project. It is important to identify the important people and
organisations who may have an influence on the project or who may be influenced by the project.
The client, Dublin City Council, appointed renowned architect and bridge engineer Santiago Calatrava as
designer for the project. As his offices are based in Zurich and Valencia, Calatrava appointed local structural
engineering firm Roughan & ODonovan to act as resident sub contractors and deal with local authorities and
9
stakeholders . This shows an understanding early on in the project lifecycle of the importance of stakeholder
engagement and management.
As is to be expected of a project of such scale the stakeholders were many and varied. Below is a list
containing some of the key stakeholders involved in the project and their interest in the project:

Stakeholder

Interest

Dublin City Council

Santiago Calatrava
Roughan & ODonovan
Graham Engineering Corporation
Hollandia
Department of Transportation

Client, Financing
Architect
Architects local contact
Civil contractor
Steelwork contractor
Regulating the transportation capabilities of the
bridge
Future light rail capabilities
Creating a development plan for the area,
Financing

Iarnrd ireann
Dublin Docklands Development Authority (DDDA)
Planning Authority
National Roads Authority
Department of the Environment, Heritage & Local
Government
Local businesses
Local Residents
Pedestrians, Cyclists & Road users
Local Attractions (Bord Gis theatre, O2 arena,
Convention Centre)
Recreational users of the river
Marine traffic
Flint & Neill

Grant or denial of planning permission

Managing the 4 lanes on the bridge
Financing
Potential increased footfall
Noise effects, increased traffic
New river crossing
Potential increased footfall
Sailing, rowing clubs etc. may be unable to use
the river during construction
Need to be able to navigate the river
Product stage review of the proposed scheme

Clearly there was a large and diverse group of stakeholders in this project and they needed to be carefully
managed. The next step in the analysis was the generation of a power-interest matrix to identify the key
stakeholders.

Figure 3 Power-Interest Matrix of some key stakeholders10

This analysis breaks the stakeholders down into four distinct groups all of which need different levels of
management:

1.

2.

3.

4.

High power-low interest group: These are stakeholders of moderate priority and must be kept
10
satisfied . If they take an interest in the project they have the power to influence it. The department
of Transportation is a good example in this case. They are a high-powered government body, however
their interest in the project would not be very high. They were not involved in the financing of the
project and only performed a regulatory role.
High power-high interest group: This is the most important group of stakeholders. They must be
10
managed very closely as they are some of the most influential people in a project . All of the
financers of the project are included in this group and they ultimately have the greatest interest in the
project as they have invested in it. They also have power in being public bodies.
Low power-low interest group: They are the lowest priority group and only need to be monitored
10
without active engagement . These stakeholders will only become influential if they move into one of
the moderate priority groups. Pedestrians, cyclists and road users had little interest in the project only
in that it was a new crossing point of the river and they had no real power to influence the project.
10
Low power-high interest group: They are of moderate priority and must be kept informed . This
group can be dangerous as if they group together or gain power in some way they can become some
of the most influential stakeholders. The objective with this group is to sustain their interest and
leverage this when it is useful to the project. Local residents occupy this group. They are of course
very interested in the project as it would greatly effect them in both positive and negative ways: i.e.
construction interference, regeneration of the area, increased traffic and footfall. However they have
little power to influence the project.

The project management team realised the importance of carefully managing each group in the correct
manner. Numerous press releases and information on the Dublin city councils website kept the public and low
priority stakeholders informed enough. For the higher priority stakeholders more attention was needed and
regular meetings were held and progress reports compiled. All of the financers were communicated with
constantly throughout the project.
One element of the project which shows a good understanding of the stakeholders are the value engineering
savings achieved. The civil contractors Graham were able to make several vital suggestions that will result in
9
savings of millions of euros over the design life of the bridge . This shows that the project management team
see the contribution that stakeholders can make to a project as well as the constraints they create. One of the
core objectives of the project was to relieve congestion in the area, however due to stringent constraints
imposed by the planning authority on directions of traffic flow it seems to date that congestion has been
5
increased rather than relieved . The planning authority was a powerful stakeholder in this project, however
they were managed poorly in being allowed to prevent the project from meeting one of its objectives. This
objective was beneficial to both parties and the project management team should have communicated this
priority more effectively to them.

Resource Allocation & Scheduling

After the development and design of tender documentation, Dublin City Council appointed Flint & Neil, a
engineering consultancy providing innovative and advanced solutions for variety of engineering challenges to
undertake a Procurement Stage Review for the proposed scheme. Their main business was to instigate an
independent expert view on the project prior to seeking tenderers. Their main focus was to cover a wide range
of specifications for documentation of tender & contract, Selection of best tenders, Strategy for procurement,
Contractor design elements, review process on tenders and pre-construction phase for constructability,
Supervision options for construction including the contract period for the tenders and estimation of outturn

cost. Flint & Neil gave many suggestions and recommendations that can be implemented to the project which
in turn increased the level of confidence for the client towards the project. There were lot of competitors for
tenders after careful analysis there were six potential tenders shortlisted for their capability based on the
methods described in tender enquiry documents. They were then invited to an interview for assessment based
on the quality and cost by the panel members. The panel members were the representatives of the client, the
designer team and the Procurement Stage Review Team. After careful observation of demonstration from the
tenderers of their ability to meet the range of criteria for the project, the panel awarded the contract to a joint
venture between Northern Ireland contractor Graham and Dutch fabricator Hollandia. Since the project was so
significant the client decided to have innovative managerial skill which can be seen through the joint venture
in order to meet financial and technical constraints. The main reason for the joint venture for the project was
that 65% of the total cost was spent on fabrication so the client decided to have a direct contractual link to the
fabricator, Hollandia. Graham was responsible for construction of abutments, pivot pier and the road works
where as Hollandia carried out fabrication, installation and commissioning of the steelwork in Rotterdam and
Dublin. This arrangement of joint venture strengthened their ability to compete with other tender bidders by
offering most value to the project and achieving expertise at lower costs.
th

The contract was signed for the parties by the client on 20 March 2007 and the official commencement
th
date for the contract was on 30 April 2007. The extended period of one month from the date of award on
project was given in order to understand the project requirement thoroughly, risk based analysis, Time
2
management and for saving costs on the project .

The main materials used for the construction of the Samuel Beckett Bridge are Steel, Cable stays and
Concrete. The following are the procurement details used by the project team:

Steel - Arcelor en Dillinger

Cable stays - Bridon

Hydraulic system - Hycom

Electric system Huisman
Corrosion protection - GSB
7
Transport - ALE Heavylift

The client was aware that special assistance would be required for both business and technical process which
had to be monitored continuously over the entire period of bridge construction. The special assistance was
mainly required on project management, supervision of works on steel superstructure and the construction
process. They already had many competent resources with in-house capability for project management and
also resources to be involved in several elements of construction processes. So they appointed many Engineers
and Resident Engineering staff for the civil aspects of the project work. Flint & Neil were engaged to provide
Resident Engineers for the steel works together with a representative, Senior Steelwork Inspector. The
inspectors were responsible for solving the issues arising in the construction phase of steelworks with the
office support.
During the construction phase Calatrava appointed his Design Engineers from Valencia since the structural
design of the proposed bridge was carried out in his Valencia design office in almost all the Engineers team as
Designer Representative Position in order to deal with design queries and for acknowledging technical
approval from the contractors proposals. They were responsible for managing, co ordinating and responding
only to Engineers Representative on Machinery & Equipment, Engineering and architectural.
After the construction of the bridge offsite by Hollandia, the decision making process team came to a
solution to ship the complete bridge superstructure by sea using a barge with a covered marine insurance
which is proposed by the Engineer. It took approximately 6 days to reach Dublin and once it reached the bridge
was placed on the pier. The hydraulic systems were then activated temporarily and finally the finishing works
2
of the bridge were done by application of deck waterproofing, Mastic asphalt surfacing and concrete kerbs .

Conclusion
Each topic yielded its own set of conclusions which are detailed below.
Project Definition: The project was well definied early in the project lifecycle. Key objectives and deliverables
were identified and communicated to the stakeholders allowing for the smooth transition of the project from
the defining phase to the planning and execution phases. It was concluded that project performance and
duration were the critical objectives of the project while budget had to be sacrificed in order to meet these.
Stakeholder Analysis: The key stakeholders were identified at an early stage of the project. The project
management team engaged with and managed these stakeholders throughout the lifecycle, applying
appropriate levels of management to the appropriate stakeholders. The success and public acclaim of the
project are testament to the succesful stakeholder management throughout the project.
Resource Allocation & Scheduling: Various analyses were made in order to choose the best contractors with
good documentation of project expectation by Flint & Neill. From these analyses it was decided that a joint
venture between Graham and Hollandia would reduce the cost involved in the project and introduce good
managerial skills. Despite the fact that the project came in over budget major savings were made in terms of
fabrication through the use of this joint venture. The efficient allocation & scheduling of resources also led to
the project being delivered before the scheduled delivery date.
Overall, despite the minor problems experienced with the construction of the Samuel Beckett bridge, it can
be concluded from the discussion above that the project was a success. This is recognised in the fact that it
won Engineers Ireland Project of the Year award in 2010.

Reference List
1.

Anonymous, Dublin City Council website, Samuel Beckett Bridge, Available from:
http://www.dublincity.ie/RoadsandTraffic/MajorTransportProjects/Pages/Samuel%20Beckett%20Brid
ge.aspx [accessed 12 October 2013]
2. J.W. Flanagan, J.D. Cutter, G. Mo, The Realisation of the Samuel Beckett Bridge, 34th IABSE
symposium (IABSE 2010). 2010, Available from:
http://search.proquest.com/docview/41673816?accountid=14507, [Accessed 16 October 2013]
3. Anonymous, National Standards Authority of Ireland website, Available from: www.nsai.ie [accessed
12 October 2013)
4. Anonymous, Graham website, Available from: http://www.graham.co.uk, [Accessed 19 October 2013]
5. E. Edwards, The Irish Times, Complaints over Traffic Controls at new Bridge, 12 December 2009,
[Online], Available from: http://www.irishtimes.com/news/complaints-over-traffic-controls-at-newbridge-1.788672, [Accessed 9 November 2013].
6. Anonymous, The Journal website, Problems with Sam Beckett bridge lead to spectacular recreation
of rainbow ad, Available from: http://www.thejournal.ie/dublin-bridge-rainbow-ad-1115788Oct2013/ [Accesses 10 October 2013]
7. Anonymous, Bauforumstahl website, Samuel Beckett Bridge, Available from:
http://www.bauforumstahl.de/upload/documents/veranstaltungen/Samuel_Beckett_Bridge.pdf
[Accessed 12 October 2013)
8. Anonymous, Flint & Neill website, Samuel Beckett Bridge, Available from:
http://www.flintneill.com/storage/pdfdocuments/newdatasheets/Samuel%20Beckett%20Bridge.pdf
[Accessed 16 October 2013)
9. J. Cutter et al, Samuel Beckett Bridge, Dublin, Ireland, Bridge Engineering, 2011, 164 (BE3), 133-144.
10. V. Hargaden, The Project Organisation, Lecture delivered in Engineering Project Management,
Module Code: MEEN40800, University College Dublin, 25 September 2013.