2 - Merge V 1.1

North Brisbane Cycleway - Aspley to the Alderley Train Station
Business case
North Brisbane Cycleway

Aspley to the Alderley Train Station
Student name: Nik Linnell, Sumit Ghosal, Craig Avery

Team/Group: Team B
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Summary
Brisbane is experiencing an unprecedented growth in commuters wanting to use

alternative transport options such as cycleways. The introduction of alternative
transport options like this has been projected to decrease traffic congestion by
upwards of 5% whilst increasing the take up of existing public transport
infrastructure.
Desired Outcome
To address this emerging need the Brisbane City Council has released a five year
plan to significantly increase dedicated cycle ways. The proposal aims to
implement world’s best practices through reducing the need of mixing cycles and
cars on existing roads which lead to higher safety outcomes. This mix of solutions
will see a higher take up rate by commuters.
Proposed Solution
The outcome of this project will be a dedicated cycle route for the Brisbane
Northern Suburbs into the Brisbane CBD.
1. This project will link Aspley to the Alderley Train Station.

2. The route will pass through a nature reserve at Aspley using existing
easements and then sweep into a skyway through Stafford heights
3. The proposed cycleway will meet the Kedron Brook cycleway and
continuing to Alderley train station.
4. The Veloway is a 12 metre, 2 lanes in each direction with contained battery
backed solar power lighted.
Risks
With a community based project such as this ensuring all stakeholders are onboard
will contribute to the success of the budget. Normal construction project risks will
apply however with appreciate management these can be overcome.
Recommendation
To complete this project by the end of 2020 without disrupting existing traffic
flows the approval of a project budget of $XXX will need to take place.
2
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.............................................................................................................2
1 PROJECT NEED.....................................................................................................................5
1.1 PROJECT NEED..............................................................................................................5
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES.................................................................................................5
1.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS (CSF’S)....................................................................5
2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS............................................................................................................6
2.1 OPTIONS CONSIDERED...............................................................................................6
2.2 OPTIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA...........................................................................6
2.3 OPTIONS EVALUATION...............................................................................................6
2.4 RECOMMENDED OPTION............................................................................................6
3 PROJECT DEFINITION.........................................................................................................7
3.1 SCOPE DESCRIPTION...................................................................................................7
3.2 CONSTRAINTS AND DEPENDENCIES.......................................................................8
3.3 SCOPE MANAGEMENT................................................................................................8
3.4 PROJECT DELIVERABLES...........................................................................................8
3.5 PROJECT KPI’S...............................................................................................................9
4 PROJECT APPROACH..........................................................................................................9
4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY......................................................................9
4.1.1 Project Structure........................................................................................................9
4.1.2 Project Governance Framework..............................................................................10
4.1.3 Project Reporting Structure.....................................................................................11
4.2 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY.....................................................................................12
4.3 COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY..........13
4.3.1 Stakeholder Management Strategy..........................................................................13
4.3.2 Stakeholder Identification........................................................................................13
4.3.3 Stakeholder Engagement Strategy...........................................................................14
5 BUDGET, PROGRAM AND RISK.....................................................................................14
5.1 TIMING / PROJECT READINESS...............................................................................14
5.2 BUDGET/COST ANALYSIS AND FUNDING STRATEGY......................................15
5.2.1 PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS............................................................................15
5.2.2 PROJECTED ONGOING COSTS..........................................................................15
5.2.3 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS................................................................................16
5.2.4 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL.....................................................................................16
5.2.5 PROPOSED FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS........................................................17
5.3 RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.............................................17

5.4 PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.................................................18
5.5 PROJECT COMPLETION STRATEGY.......................................................................18
5.6 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN...............................................................................19
APPENDIX A................................................................................................................................20
A.1 PROJECT SCHEDULE..................................................................................................20
A.2 PROJECT COST PLAN.................................................................................................22
A.3 PROJECT RISK REGISTER.........................................................................................22
A.4 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN...............................................................................23
A.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS on OPTIONS.......................................................................23
A.6 STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT MATRIX................................................................23
A.7 Project Scope – Detailed Project Scope Breakdown......................................................23
A.8 **********.....................................................................................................................25
A.9 **********.....................................................................................................................25
6 REFERENCES......................................................................................................................27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Options Considered............................................................................................................6
Table 2 Option Evaluation Criteria.................................................................................................6
Table 3 Constraints & Dependencies..............................................................................................8
Table 4 Scope Management............................................................................................................8
Table 5 Project KPIs........................................................................................................................9
Table 6 Project Governance Structure...........................................................................................10
Table 7 Key Milestones.................................................................................................................15
Table 8 Projected capital costs inclusive of contingency..............................................................15
Table 9 Projected ongoing costs....................................................................................................16
Table 10 Proposed capital funding contributions..........................................................................17
Table 11Success Indicators...........................................................................................................19
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Scope Description.............................................................................................................7
Figure 2 Project Structure..............................................................................................................10
Figure 3 Project Governance Structure overlap............................................................................11
Figure 4 Project Reporting Structure.............................................................................................11
Figure 5 Procurement Strategy (Government, 2018b)..................................................................12
Figure 6 Procurement Strategy......................................................................................................13
Figure 7 Stakeholder Management Strategy (PMI, 2017).............................................................13
4
1 PROJECT NEED
1.1 PROJECT NEED
The Queensland State Government and Brisbane City Council (BCC)has identified that there is a critical
need for a cycle corridor which is to connect the CBD though to Chermside (Government, 2019b). This
project will align with the established strategies and plans of the governing agencies targeting:
 BCC transport plan (Council, 2018).
 TMR Strategic plan 2017-2020 (Government, 2018a)
 QLD Cycling strategy (Government, 2017)
The key project need is to implement the above strategies and plans through the development of a section
of bikeway between Albany Creek Road and Alderley Train Station along the Trout Road bus easement.
The stakeholders are identified as but not limited to the Queensland Government, Brisbane City Council,
Community groups, and the major contractor.
The scope of this project is to deliver the aforementioned bikeway by 2022 in a cost effective manner
which is identified below.
1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Through the use of well defined Project Objectives allows appropriate allocation of public funds and
limited resources (Chua, Kog, & Loh, 1999). These Project Objectives should key into organisational
strategies which are well defined and achievable (Van Der Merwe, 2002).
As stated by the BCC (Council, 2018) the project will deliver a high-volume primary cycle route which
will connect residential areas to major destinations such as:
 Employment centres,
 Regional activity centres and
 Regional recreation areas.
The project should provide local cycle routes which link individual properties and residential catchments
with local amenities and destinations (Council, 2018).
Dependent on which Project Option is taken other objectives are to be included:
 Increase distance between cars in surrounding traffic routes

 A marked decrease in car numbers in surrounding traffic routes
 Connectivity factors to local facilities such as shopping centres or transport hubs
 Travel time to the city from the start point not to be longer than taking other options such as
personal vehicle or public transport
o Dependent on Project Option; Bike Way Bridges versus Existing Intersection Upgrades
 Number of daily/weekly cycle and pedestrian users
One of the underlying objectives of the project is to add to the Queensland Governments’ Fitness and
Exercise program which keys of their Health and Welling strategy (Government, 2019a).
1.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS (CSF’S)

The success of a construction project that feeds into several Government strategies, and which also
engages the community, depends upon how the project is managed and controlled (Alias, Zawawi, Yusof,
& Aris, 2014; Milosevic & Patanakul, 2005).
5
There are a number of Key Performance Indicators for the project. Measurement of these KPIs goes
beyond what is known as the iron triangle of cost, time and quality (Toor & Ogunlana, 2010). The KPIs
also link into CSFs such as project safety, well-organized use of public resources, satisfaction of
stakeholders which should contribute towards a reduction in conflicts and disputes (Toor & Ogunlana,
2010)
These KPIs are common across a number of projects which mirror this one (Alias et al., 2014).
 Construction predictability – measured through cost versus budget along with the procurement
and tender strategy
 Time predictability – measured through completion date
 Defects predictability – based upon quality measures and use of contingency funds
 Community satisfaction with the service – measured through the stakeholder engagement plan
 Minimised Environmental Impact on the existing flora and fauna species found along the Trout
Road bus easement – Measured through the Environmental Impact Statement
2 OPTIONS ANALYSIS
2.1 OPTIONS CONSIDERED
The use of options in project management can be seen as an approach to risk management
(Akintoye & MacLeod, 1997).
Three options were considered for this project ranged from integrating the route with existing
infrastructure to the construction of a dedicated cycleway (see Table 1).
Option 1 Dedicated single purpose road – Overpass of all roadways
Option 2 Dedicated single purpose with new intersections at roads.
Option 3 Shared – Upgraded existing roadways with increased vehicle
separation and upgraded intersections
Table 1 Options Considered
2.2 OPTIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA

The selected project is evaluated from a weighted evaluation, an approach designed to ensure the
selected option meets a number of key benchmarks (Archer & Ghasemzadeh, 1999).
Lowest risk to users Highest potential capacity
Lowest negative impact to environment Effective cost
and adjacent community
Table 2 Option Evaluation Criteria
2.3 OPTIONS EVALUATION

The options were assessed by the business stakeholder group using a weighted benefit/risk
matrix.
2.4 RECOMMENDED OPTION

Option 1 – Dedicated single purpose bike path, has been selected based on the superior
protection to users with the highest level possible of separation. The option provides no
obstruction to existing heavy traffic roads on this route.
6
3 PROJECT DEFINITION
3.1 SCOPE DESCRIPTION
The project is the 1st phase of a dedicated cycle route for the Brisbane Northern Suburbs into the
Brisbane CBD. This project will link Aspley to the Alderley Train Station. The route will pass
through a nature reserve at Aspley using existing easements and then sweep into a skyway
through Stafford heights before meeting the Kedron Brook cycle way and continuing to Alderley
station. The Veloway is a 12 metre, 2 lanes in each direction with contained battery backed solar
power lighted. (See Appendix A7 for a detailed breakdown of scope.)
Project Breakdown
Aspley Terminal
Upgraded Trout Road (1.2km)
Chermside Reserve Nature Pass
(2km)
Hamilton Road Overpass
Trout Road (.8km)
Rode Road Overpass (.2km)
and Rode Road interchange
Rode Road to Kedron Brook
Skyway (3.5km)
Stafford Road Interchange
Kedron Brook Upgrade (1.2km)
Raymont Road Overpass (.8km)
Alderley Station Terminal
Figure 1 Scope Description
7
3.2 CONSTRAINTS AND DEPENDENCIES

Due to the sometimes complex nature of delivering projects within community settings keeping
an eye on critical chain methodology can ensure that constraints do not impact on project
delivery (Cohen, Mandelbaum, & Shtub, 2004; Raz, Barnes, & Dvir, 2003).
Environmental and  The natural reserve through Chermside Reserve is a known

Cultural consent wildlife habitat and environmental management is a clear
constraint.
 Preservation of indigenous culture
Using established  Clear acceptance from local residents

residential areas
Continuous full  Long project may see change in government
funding commitment
Table 3 Constraints & Dependencies
3.3 SCOPE MANAGEMENT

Scope will follow the gated approval process (Cooper, 2008) and will be considered fixed once
approved. Scope change will be managed by:
Initiating  after concept design is approved in business case
 A strategy change will require a full business case
update and change approved by funding body.
Design Phase  after the detailed design is approved.

 A technical query for a design change will be controlled
by the relevant engineering consultant and approved by the
PM
Construction  After the Project Management Plan is approved.

Phase
 Approved Scope change during construction will
require the PMP to be updated and a variation order provided
to the affected contractor(s)
 The contractor will only proceed with an approved
variation order
Table 4 Scope Management
All scope change will be reviewed and the impact to schedule and budget clearly articulated
before approval.
3.4 PROJECT DELIVERABLES

Academic description- - what and why?
Text, tables, images
 Bullet 1
8
o Bullet 2
3.5 PROJECT KPI’S

Key performance indicators (KPIs) can be a visual measures of performance. The KPI gauges
the performance of the value, defined by a Base measure, against a Target value, also defined by
a measure or by an absolute value (Bititci, Cocca, & Ates, 2016). For the bikeway project there
are four KPIs defined (see table 5)
Performance Measure Reporting Target Years

Frequency
2019 2020 2021 2022 2023
Active Transport
No. of trips being taken by Annually 10,000 15,000 18,000 20,000

bicycle
Improve safety for Annually 15% 20% 25% 30%

pedestrians and cyclists reduction reduction reduction reduction
(reduce safety incidents 30% of road
by 2023) incidents
Environmental Impact
Reduce the environmental 2% 3% 4% 5%

footprint (BCC Target) reduction
Project Specific
Utilization of local resources >70%

local
resources
Client Satisfaction
Achieve Project Key Target Project Project

Milestones Start Complete
Table 5 Project KPIs
4 PROJECT APPROACH
4.1 PROJECT MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
It is well recognised that a strong project governance structure provides additional chance of
project success (Badewi, 2016; Too & Weaver, 2014). Leading on from case studies locally and
internationally informed the creation of the following project suture with a view to providing
clear, constant and direct feedback mechanisms between members of the project and the Steering
Committee (Glass, 2013; Miller & Hobbs, 2005).
4.1.1 Project Structure

The Project Director will be responsible for overall governance strategy and the Project Manager
will be responsible for the governance of Project Team members, their work and deliverables.
The Project Team is responsible for project execution and managing project resource and
activities.
9
For monitoring and control, several review and auditing processes will be implemented to
measure the progress, quality, budget and overall scope.
High level project structure will be:
Project Steering
Director Committee
Project
Manager
Project Project
Management Execution
Office Team
Engineering Procurement Construction

Lead Lead Lead
Engineering Procurement Construction

Team Team Team
Figure 2 Project Structure
4.1.2 Project Governance Framework

For this project the core principles for effective governance are based on:
 Project Structure - Selection of quality people at all levels, decision making models,
defines accountability for managing the project (Initiating and Planning Process Groups –
(PMI, 2017));
 Mechanism to Control and Manage the project (Executing, Monitoring and Controlling
Process Group –(PMI, 2017));
 Active engagement of management to meet project objective; and
 Collective behaviours and consequences.
For this project the governance framework involves 3 different entities (see Table 6):
Owner Infrastructure unit of BCC will manage the project on their behalf.
(BCC) As owner of the project BCC Infrastructure unit will manage
relationship with all internal and external stakeholders;
Supplier They are responsible for design and technical development, supply
of materials and experienced resources required for the project;
Project They will assume overall responsibility to deliver the project and
Team meet the objective.
Table 6 Project Governance Structure
10
Owner
(BCC)
Project
Supplier
Team
Figure 3 Project Governance Structure overlap

The project Governance Board or Steering Committee will include members that will represent
each of their respective entities and establish head of power to direct the project at a strategic
level.
4.1.3 Project Reporting Structure
Each organization considers numerous factors for inclusion in its organizational structure. Each
factor may carry a different level of importance in the final analysis. The combination of the
factor, its value, and relative importance provides the organization’s decision makers with the
right information for inclusion in the analysis (PMI, 2017).
The project will be overseen by Brisbane City Council’s Infrastructure Unit. The unit will also
be responsible for the delivery phase of the project (see Fig. 4).
Lord Mayor
Chief Executive
Officer
Brisbane
Infrastructure Steering
Supplier Group Divisional Committee
Manager
Project
Management
Office
Figure 4 Project Reporting Structure

The Project Sponsor will be Council’s CEO. The Divisional Manager will be the head of
Council’s Infrastructure Unit. The Project Manager will be responsible for the day-to-day
running of the Project. Responsibilities include:
11
 Managing the preferred supplier’s activities

 Managing the Project Team
 Reporting to the Steering Group, the CEO and Divisional manager
 General Project administration.
The Project team will report to the Steering Group, the CEO and Councillors monthly. Decisions
will be escalated in line with Council’s delegations of authority. Generally, key actions will be
approved by CEO following the endorsement of the Divisional Manager. A Steering Group will
also be in place for the Project. The Steering Group will consist of Key Stakeholders, who will
contribute to Project funding, as well as heads from other Council units. The Steering group will
meet bi-monthly.
4.2 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

The Queensland public expect and demand the Government deliver projects that are of high
quality whilst being the best value for money. A well thought out procurement strategy ensures
that the highest utility value is derived, and that risk is minimised whilst efficiency maintained
(Cheung, Lam, Leung, & Wan, 2001; Oyegoke, Dickinson, Khalfan, McDermott, & Rowlinson,
2009). Procurement strategy will be governed by 6 principles and in compliance with
Queensland Procurement Policy(Government, 2018b), which includes:
 Focus on the economic benefit to Queensland;
 Maximize Queensland suppliers’ opportunity to participate;
 Support disadvantaged Queenslanders.
Figure 5 Procurement Strategy (Government, 2018b)

Procurement will be based on 6 key principles of Queensland government’s procurement
operating model.
Open bid policy has been adopted for the procurement of design and construction contractor.
The process flow chart as shown below:
12
Online
submission of
Issue ROI Registration of
Interest
Invitation for
Issue EOI Expression of
Interest
Prep & Request for

Issue RFT Tender
Bid Opning
& Tender
Evaluation
Shortlisting
& Contract
Award
Figure 6 Procurement Strategy
4.3 COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY
4.3.1 STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Through the PMO, the stakeholder engagement strategy will encompass both primary and
secondary stakeholders. Due to the community based nature of this project it is felt that the
project can only exist with the informed consent of the community based secondary stakeholders
(Bourne & Walker, 2008).
2. Plan 3. Manage 4. Monitor

1. Identify
Stakeholder Stakeholder Stakeholder
Stakeholders
Engagement Engagement Engagement
Figure 7 Stakeholder Management Strategy (PMI, 2017)
4.3.2 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

A review was conducted on all stakeholders (see Table X Appendix X) to determine who the
primary and secondary stakeholders are (Bourne, 2016; Brugha & Varvasovszky, 2000). As this
project is primarily sponsored by the BCC, they have been identified as the primary stakeholder.
All other parties are identified as secondary stakeholders (Franch, Martini, & Buffa, 2010).
The importance of secondary stakeholders, particularly community groups, cannot be
understated (Jepsen & Eskerod, 2009). As such, the PMO for this project have dedicated specific
resources to manage secondary stakeholders who sit outside of the BCC along with construction
related secondary stakeholders (see Table X Appendix X). The PMO will encourage the growth
of a relationship based upon mutuality whereby secondary stakeholders are included as partners
within the project (Bourne, 2016).
13
4.3.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

The Project has secured broad support from the local community and its stakeholders. The
Council has solicited stakeholder and community feedback on the Project during its development
through:
 Direct one-on-one discussions with potential MOU partners
 Town-hall style meetings with the community
 Informal market sounding with potential suppliers.
The Project’s stakeholders and the community have identified how the Project will:
 Contribute to solidifying the township’s reputation as a sports town
 Contribute to delivering broader benefits to the community beyond sporting events
 Facilitate a creation of a night time economy, considered vital to attract and retain talent
from outside the region.
Notwithstanding, consultation has identified concerns from residents regarding potential light
spill and excessive noise. Council is considering the development of new policies to govern the
use of the lights to ensure that play is undertaken within specific time slots to minimise the
impact on neighbours.
5 BUDGET, PROGRAM AND RISK

Delivering any project on time, within the agreed budget and of the quality demanded by
stakeholders form key aspects of delivery (de Wit, 1988; Lapinski, Horman, & Riley, 2006).
5.1 TIMING / PROJECT READINESS

Timeline management of the project should fit within existing frameworks as published by the
main project sponsor (Biesenthal & Wilden, 2014). Subject to securing of funding from Council
sources, community groups and the QLD Government, the Project’s delivery phase is expected
to commence in July 2019. The delivery phase is expected to be twelve (12) months long with all
works due to be completed by June 2020.
Table 7 outlines the expected dates of the key milestones. A detailed GANNT chart is provided
as an attachment to this business case (see Appendix A).
Event Start Finish

Concept design June 2017 December 2017
Final business case March 2018 June 2018
Final business case review and approval August 2018 October 2018
Detailed design October 2018 January 2019
Review of environmental factors October 2018 January 2019
Finalization of funding from community groups September 2018 December 2018
Approval of funding from Council November 2018 December 2018
Approval of funding from QLD Government November 2018 December 2018
Development application January 2019 March 2019
Request for tender April 2019 May 2019
14
Evaluation of tenders May 2019 June 2019

Agreement of terms with preferred supplier June 2019 June 2019
Enabling preliminary field works July 2019 September 2019
Construction October 2019 April 2020
Testing May 2020 May 2020
Commissioning and Close-out June 2020
Table 7 Key Milestones
5.2 BUDGET/COST ANALYSIS AND FUNDING STRATEGY
5.2.1 PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS

The following table outlines the cost estimates for the engineering, procurement, construction
and commissioning, as well as ancillary costs required to field works.
The base costs estimates have been developed based on design advice from bikeway design
consultants commissioned by the Council, estimated from the quantity of components and
materials required, unit pricing, labour cost estimates for design, project management and
installation and grounds work. A detailed cost plan is available as Attachment X to this
document.
A contingency of 20 percent has been applied to all future capital and recurrent costs projected
by the Council to provide a buffer for unforeseen changes in unit prices or scope, based on
Council’s prior experiences with projects of similar scope. This contingency allowance is over
and above any allowances that may have been inherently built into the cost estimates (see Table
8 and 9)
2017-18
2018-19
2020-21
2019-20
Future
Years
Total
Stage
Base cost estimate $55,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $0 0

Contingency ** $5,000 $50,000 $0 $0 0
Expression
Escalation $2,784 $2,784 $7,500 $0 $0 0
Outturn cost 0 $57,784 $307,500 $0 $0 0
Table 8 Projected capital costs inclusive of contingency
5.2.2 PROJECTED ONGOING COSTS

Table 9 outlines the cost estimates for the ongoing operation and maintenance costs with the new
solar lights, including:
 Asset maintenance and renewal (cleaning and replacement of lamps every 2-3 years) at
$5,000 per renewal
 Additional power costs ($2,000 per annum) and regular maintenance costs ($2,000 per
annum)
15
 Night time security costs ($6,000 per annum).
Incremental
Expenditure
Cumulative
Revenue
Total by Year
Asset
Renewable
Operations
CapitalProject
Recurrent
Costs
Costs
Year
Costs
2017-18 $307,500 $0 $0 $0 $307,500 $307,500
2018-19 $57,784 $0 $0 $0 $57,784 $365,284
2019-20 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000 -$5,000 $360,284
2020-21 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000 -$5,000 $355,284
2021-22 $0 $10,000 $5,000 $15,000 $0 $355,284
2022-23 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000 -$5,000 $350,284
2023-24 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000 -$5,000 $345,284
2024-25 $0 $10,000 $5,000 $15,000 $0 $345,284
2025-26 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000 -$5,000 $340,284
2026-27 $0 $10,000 $0 $15,000 -$5,000 $335,284
Table 9 Projected ongoing costs
5.2.3 COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS

The key costs as identified in Section 3.5 are:
· Capital costs and contingency associated with the provision and installation of the field
lights
· Ongoing operation and maintenance costs
Based on the Council’s experience of other installations of field light towers in the Council area,
the following benefits have been identified that are expected to be realised from the Project:
· Expected increase in participation by 40% in the first year;
· New events to be hosted such as night time fairs and drive in movie nights (3 night time
events are estimated to take place per annum)
· Reduction in travel for local residents having to travel to sports fields in other areas for
participation at night games or night time training. Survey results have indicated residents need
to travel an additional 15km to participate a night time match which lasts 2 hours.
· Health benefits associated with increased physical activity and participation
· Encourages sense of an inclusive community
· Potential to prevent crimes for youths and better educational outcomes
· Potential improvement for local businesses’ turnover before/after games or training
5.2.4 FINANCIAL APPRAISAL

The key costs as identified in Section 3.5 are:
16
· Capital costs and contingency associated with the provision and installation of the field
lights
· Ongoing operation and maintenance costs
The additional revenue benefits are:
· Additional council revenue maybe realised from extended hours and additional events.
Based on the rate of $100 per night time match hour and $50 per night time training hour, an
estimate of $15,000 of additional revenue has been estimated
The cashflows of the projects have been summarised in Table 9
5.2.5 PROPOSED FUNDING ARRANGEMENTS

The request for funding for the Project focuses on the capital costs requirements for procuring
and installation of the field light towers.
Council has dedicated $25,000 in funding over two years for the Project, with the local RSL club
having agreed to contribute $5,000 in the first year by fundraising through various local events.
The full upfront funding request from the State Government is $305,284 as indicated below.
Ongoing costs are expected to be realised by the Council and additional venue hire revenues
generated (see Table 10).
Remaining Years
2017-18
2018-19
2019-20
2020-21
2021-22
Total
Stage
Proposal capital costs $307,500 $57,784 0 0 0 0 $365,284

Proposed recurrent and renewal costs $0 0 $10,000 $10,000 $15,000 $55,000 $90,000
Funding sources
Additional revenues $0 $0 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $75,000 $120,000
Cost savings $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Council contributions $12,500 $12,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $25,000
Industry contributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Community contributions $5,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,000
Other government contributions $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Other funding sources (please detail) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Table 10 Proposed capital funding contributions
5.3 RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Key Project risks have been identified by the Project team in a workshop environment. Key risks
for the Project were first identified at a stakeholder roundtable meeting in August 2017.
Subsequently, the Project’s Risk Register was reviewed monthly by the Project team. The May
2018 version of the Project’s Risk Register and Risk Management Plan were endorsed by the
Councillors in June 2018.
A Risk Management Plan and Risk Register utilising a risk matrix (Datta & Mukherjee, 2001)
have been developed by Council, which are provided as Attachment X and Attachment X
respectively.
17
The Project is considered to have a moderate risk profile. Table 4-2 outlines the key Project risks
identified by Council:
The Risk Management Plan developed by the Project Team will guide risk reporting, monitoring
and mitigation activities during the delivery phase of the Project.
Day-to-day risk monitoring will be overseen by the Project Team, led by the Project Manager.
Generally, key risks and risk activities will be reported through the governance structure monthly
i.e. to the General Manager, Steering Group and Councillors.
This report is integrated as part of the integrated project management tool that Council uses on
all Council projects.
Should critical risks be identified by the Project Team, these risks will be escalated immediately
through the governance structure.
5.4 PROJECT QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

Due to the public nature of the bikeway project ensuring quality control as an aspect of risk
management can go a long way to ensuring stakeholder satisfaction (Chua et al., 1999). This
approach should ensure a balance between competing needs of the project (Chua et al., 1999).
The main quality management objective is to deliver project management products that meet the
needs of the ultimate end-user – the project manager.
The key deliverables that need to meet quality standards are:

· The Project Management Framework
· The Web-based Performance Management tool
· The Project Charter
The key project processes subject to project quality standards are:

· The peer reviews. Project managers will review the Project Management Framework and
the web-based performance management tool for design, content and usability.
· The change management process will be used to manage change on the project.
The main quality standards to be used on this project are:

· The Project Management Framework
· Web usability standards and Information Mapping guidelines for the web development.
5.5 PROJECT COMPLETION STRATEGY

Academic description- - what and why?
Text, tables, images
 Bullet 1
o Bullet 2
18
5.6 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN

It is proposed that a post-evaluation will be undertaken by Council one year after implementation
to measure the success of the Project. As outlined in Section 3.1, four success indicators have
been identified (see Table 11).
Metric 1: Total number of matches held annually (divided into day and night time
matches, data to be recorded and retrieve from the Council’s booking
system)
Metric 2: Total number of spectators and visitors annually (undertake a number of
surveys and extrapolated)
Metric 3: Number of training sessions held annually (divided into day and night
time sessions, data to be recorded and retrieve from the Council’s booking
system)
Metric 4: Number and type of non-sports events (recorded and retrieved from the
Council’s booking system)
Table 11Success Indicators
Council’s online booking system will be used to provide most of the information required to
inform the post-evaluation report. This system has the capacity to generate information on:
 Number of bookings by month and by time slot
 Booking type by month
 Fee generated by month.
To measure patronage, Council will contact the relevant sporting clubs to obtain patronage
estimates. Council will also undertake surveys to measure attendance levels at non-sporting
events.
19
APPENDIX A
A.1 PROJECT SCHEDULE
21
A.2 PROJECT COST PLAN
A.3 PROJECT RISK REGISTER
Risk Level
Basic design assumptions Medium
Low
Productivity norms not met Med
Low
Weather Med
Governments looking to promote or pull down the last government’s projects Medium
Low
Market Place conditions Med
Low
Social and cultural influences Med
Commercial databases Low
Low
Government standards Med
Financial considerations Low
Low
Physical environment elements Med
Organisational governance Low
Low
Geographic distribution Med
Stakeholders Med Hi
Employee capability Low

A.4 BENEFITS REALISATION PLAN
A.5 FINANCIAL ANALYSIS on OPTIONS
A.6 STAKEHOLDER ASSESSMENT MATRIX
A.7 Project Scope – Detailed Project Scope Breakdown

1. Aspley Terminal –
This building provides a park and ride option as well as the initial access and exit points.
The scope includes
 Building with toilet and shower amenities.
 Car Park
 Secure Bicycle Storage
23
2. Upgraded Trout Road (1.2km) – construct shared zone on Trout Road

This section is resumed from the existing eastern side of the road. I joined the Aspley terminal
to the Chermside Reserve Nature Pass and includes
 All under paving preparation
 Paving and road
 Intersection upgrades
3. Chermside Reserve Nature Pass (2km) – construct pathway with skyway between
hills.
This section is a combination of path and bridge using a proposed bus route alongside the
Chermside Nature Reserve for 2 km to Hamilton road and includes
 Paving and road
 3 Bridge sections inclusive of piling
 Wildlife thoroughfare devices and exclusion fences
 Wildlife hides
4. Hamilton Road Overpass – Continuing Skyway across Hamilton road with entry
and exit ramps.
 Bridge, inclusive of piling
 Entry and exit ramps with merging zones
 Upgrade to Hamilton Road for 200m from entry and exit ramps
5. Trout Road (.8km) - Pathway to west of Trout Rode
 Paving and road
 Wildlife thoroughfare devices and exclusion fences
6. Rode Road Overpass (.2km) and Rode Road interchange
This is a an overpass of a busy road with a high use entry and exit point. The road and adjacent
intersections will be upgraded for increased cyclist safety.
 Upgrade to Rode Road for 200m from entry and exit ramps
7. Rode Road to Kedron Brook Skyway (3.5km)
This is predominately an elevated section linking Rode Road to the Kedron Bikeway
 Paving and road
 3 Entry and exit ramps with merging zones
8. Stafford Road Interchange
Stafford Road will be a high volume entry and exit point. This is scope will increase the safety
of cyclists.
 Entry and Exit Ramps
 Upgrade to Stafford Road for 500m from entry and exit ramps
9. Kedron Brook Upgrade (1.2km)
 Upgrade to existing cycle way to the design of the veloway to link with the
final elevated section
10. Raymont Road Overpass (.8km)
24
 Upgrade to Raymont Road for 200m from entry exit ramps

11. Alderley Station Terminal
 Building with toilet and shower amenities.
 Car Park
 Secure Bicycle Storage
The Scope for the entire Veloway will include

 Solar lighting with proximity control
 Security Cameras, panic buttons
 Lane Marking
 Fencing and Barriers
 Rehabilitation of landscape
 Signage and Signals
o High Speed Warning
o Merging rider Warning
o Location Signage
A.8 **********
A.9 **********
25
6 REFERENCES
Akintoye, A. S., & MacLeod, M. J. (1997). Risk analysis and management in construction.
International Journal of Project Management, 15(1), 31-38.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(96)00035-X
Alias, Z., Zawawi, E. M. A., Yusof, K., & Aris, N. M. (2014). Determining Critical Success
Factors of Project Management Practice: A Conceptual Framework. Procedia - Social
and Behavioral Sciences, 153, 61-69. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.10.041
Archer, N. P., & Ghasemzadeh, F. (1999). An integrated framework for project portfolio
selection. International Journal of Project Management, 17(4), 207-216.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(98)00032-5
Badewi, A. (2016). The impact of project management (PM) and benefits management (BM)
practices on project success: Towards developing a project benefits governance
framework. International Journal of Project Management, 34(4), 761-778.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2015.05.005
Biesenthal, C., & Wilden, R. (2014). Multi-level project governance: Trends and opportunities.
Bititci, U., Cocca, P., & Ates, A. (2016). Impact of visual performance management systems on
the performance management practices of organisations. International Journal of
Production Research, 54(6), 1571-1593. doi:10.1080/00207543.2015.1005770
Bourne, L. (2016). Stakeholder relationship management: a maturity model for organisational
implementation: Routledge.
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2008). Project relationship management and the Stakeholder
Circle™. International Journal of Managing Projects in Business, 1(1), 125-130.
doi:10.1108/17538370810846450
Brugha, R., & Varvasovszky, Z. (2000). Stakeholder analysis: a review. Health Policy and
Planning, 15(3), 239-246. doi:10.1093/heapol/15.3.239
Cheung, S.-O., Lam, T.-I., Leung, M.-Y., & Wan, Y.-W. (2001). An analytical hierarchy process
based procurement selection method. Construction Management and Economics, 19(4),
427-437. doi:10.1080/014461901300132401
Chua, D. K. H., Kog, Y. C., & Loh, P. K. (1999). Critical Success Factors for Different Project
Objectives. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 125(3), 142-150.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(1999)125:3(142)
Cohen, I., Mandelbaum, A., & Shtub, A. (2004). Multi-Project Scheduling and Control: A
Process-Based Comparative Study of the Critical Chain Methodology and Some
Alternatives. Project Management Journal, 35(2), 39-50.
doi:10.1177/875697280403500206
Cooper, R. G. (2008). Perspective: The Stage-Gate® Idea-to-Launch Process—Update, What's
New, and NexGen Systems*. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 25(3), 213-
232. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5885.2008.00296.x
Council, B. C. (2018). Transport Plan for Brisbane - Strategic Directions. Brisbane Australia:
Brisbane City Council Retrieved from
https://www.brisbane.qld.gov.au/sites/default/files/20181115_-
_transport_plan_for_brisbane_-_strategic_directions.pdf.
CITY OF GOLD COAST .
Datta, S., & Mukherjee, S. K. (2001). Developing a Risk Management Matrix for Effective
Project Planning - An Empirical Study. Project Management Journal, 32(2), 45-57.
doi:10.1177/875697280103200206
de Wit, A. (1988). Measurement of project success. International Journal of Project
Management, 6(3), 164-170. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/0263-7863(88)90043-9
Franch, M., Martini, U., & Buffa, F. (2010). Roles and opinions of primary and secondary
stakeholders within community‐type destinations. Tourism Review, 65(4), 74-85.
doi:10.1108/16605371011093881
Glass, R. L. (2013). The Queensland Health Payroll Debacle. Information Systems Management,
30(1), 89-90. doi:10.1080/10580530.2013.739899
Government, Q. (2017). Queensland Cycling Strategy. Queensland Cycling Strategy. Retrieved
from https://blog.tmr.qld.gov.au/cycling/
Government, Q. (2018a). Department iof Transport and Main Roads Strategic Plan. Brisbane
Queensland: Department iof Transport and Main Roads Retrieved from
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/About-us/Corporate-information/Publications/Strategic-
plan.aspx.
Government, Q. (2018b). Procurement Policy. Retrieved from
https://www.forgov.qld.gov.au/procurement-policy
Government, Q. (2019a). Health and wellbeing. Retrieved from
https://www.qld.gov.au/health/staying-healthy/fitness
Government, Q. (2019b). North Brisbane Bikeway. North Brisbane Bikeway. Retrieved from
https://www.tmr.qld.gov.au/Projects/Name/N/North-Brisbane-Bikeway
Jepsen, A. L., & Eskerod, P. (2009). Stakeholder analysis in projects: Challenges in using current
guidelines in the real world. International Journal of Project Management, 27(4), 335-
343. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2008.04.002
Lapinski, A. R., Horman, M. J., & Riley, D. R. (2006). Lean Processes for Sustainable Project
Delivery. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 132(10), 1083-1091.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9364(2006)132:10(1083)
Miller, R., & Hobbs, B. (2005). Governance Regimes for Large Complex Projects. Project
Management Journal, 36(3), 42-50. doi:10.1177/875697280503600305
Milosevic, D., & Patanakul, P. (2005). Standardized project management may increase
development projects success. International Journal of Project Management, 23(3), 181-
192. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2004.11.002
Oyegoke, A. S., Dickinson, M., Khalfan, M. M. A., McDermott, P., & Rowlinson, S. (2009).
Construction project procurement routes: an in‐depth critique. International Journal of
Managing Projects in Business, 2(3), 338-354. doi:10.1108/17538370910971018
PMI, P. M. I. (2017). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge ( PMBOK®
Guide )—Sixth Edition (ENGLISH). Newtown Square, PA, UNITED STATES: Project
Management Institute.
Raz, T., Barnes, R., & Dvir, D. (2003). A Critical Look at Critical Chain Project Management.
Project Management Journal, 34(4), 24-32. doi:10.1177/875697280303400404
Too, E. G., & Weaver, P. (2014). The management of project management: A conceptual
framework for project governance. International Journal of Project Management, 32(8),
1382-1394. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2013.07.006
Toor, S.-u.-R., & Ogunlana, S. O. (2010). Beyond the ‘iron triangle’: Stakeholder perception of
key performance indicators (KPIs) for large-scale public sector development projects.
Van Der Merwe, A. P. (2002). Project management and business development: integrating
strategy, structure, processes and projects. International Journal of Project Management,
20(5), 401-411. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S0263-7863(01)00012-6
28
CITY OF GOLD COAST .
29

2 - Merge V 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

2 - Merge V 1.1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2 - Merge V 1.1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

North Brisbane Cycleway - Aspley to the Alderley Train Station

North Brisbane Cycleway

Student name: Nik Linnell, Sumit Ghosal, Craig Avery

Brisbane is experiencing an unprecedented growth in commuters wanting to use

1. This project will link Aspley to the Alderley Train Station.

5.3 RISK ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY.............................................17

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

 Increase distance between cars in surrounding traffic routes

1.3 CRITICAL SUCCESS FACTORS (CSF’S)

2.2 OPTIONS EVALUATION CRITERIA

Table 2 Option Evaluation Criteria

2.3 OPTIONS EVALUATION

2.4 RECOMMENDED OPTION

Figure 1 Scope Description

3.2 CONSTRAINTS AND DEPENDENCIES

Environmental and  The natural reserve through Chermside Reserve is a known

Using established  Clear acceptance from local residents

3.3 SCOPE MANAGEMENT

Design Phase  after the detailed design is approved.

Construction  After the Project Management Plan is approved.

3.4 PROJECT DELIVERABLES

3.5 PROJECT KPI’S

Performance Measure Reporting Target Years

No. of trips being taken by Annually 10,000 15,000 18,000 20,000

Improve safety for Annually 15% 20% 25% 30%

Reduce the environmental 2% 3% 4% 5%

Utilization of local resources >70%

Achieve Project Key Target Project Project

Table 5 Project KPIs

4.1.1 Project Structure

Engineering Procurement Construction

Engineering Procurement Construction

Figure 2 Project Structure

4.1.2 Project Governance Framework

Figure 3 Project Governance Structure overlap

4.1.3 Project Reporting Structure

Figure 4 Project Reporting Structure

 Managing the preferred supplier’s activities

4.2 PROCUREMENT STRATEGY

Figure 5 Procurement Strategy (Government, 2018b)

Prep & Request for

Figure 6 Procurement Strategy

4.3 COMMUNICATION AND STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

4.3.1 STAKEHOLDER MANAGEMENT STRATEGY

2. Plan 3. Manage 4. Monitor

Figure 7 Stakeholder Management Strategy (PMI, 2017)

4.3.2 STAKEHOLDER IDENTIFICATION

4.3.3 STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT STRATEGY

5 BUDGET, PROGRAM AND RISK

5.1 TIMING / PROJECT READINESS

Event Start Finish

Evaluation of tenders May 2019 June 2019

Table 7 Key Milestones

5.2 BUDGET/COST ANALYSIS AND FUNDING STRATEGY

5.2.1 PROJECTED CAPITAL COSTS

Base cost estimate $55,000 $50,000 $250,000 $0 $0 0

5.2.2 PROJECTED ONGOING COSTS

 Night time security costs ($6,000 per annum).