ANALYSIS OF DELHI CWG PROJECT & MELBOURNE CWG PROJECT

Awanish Kumar Shukla Rajat Saxena

Ankit Shah Hradesh VarshneyMohnil Yadav

Submitted By:

Contents

Introduction Project Management Completion aspects Comparing CWG Delhi & Melbourne Awards to Projects

Introduction

CWG 2010 Delhi CWG 2006 Melbourne

2 Important things-

Project Deliverables Constraints- Economy, time, resources,

technicality

Journey to CWG Delhi & Melbourn

Construction Phase

Facilities By Effective Management

Journey with Different Specs

Tribute to Master Blaster in this PPT

Melbourne CricketGround redevelopment

KEY FACTOR’S

1.Timely completion

2.Within Budget

3.Client satisfaction

4.Lowest accident record

5.Sustainable Structure

MEET TO CLIENTS REQUIREMENT “CLEAR VISON “

• An iconic and globally recognizable roof form

• New corporate entertainment suites

• New media and broadcast facilities

• Upgraded security and crowd control

• Enhanced Member dining and bar facilities

• Construction of a new Long Room

• Member car parking at basement level

TIMELY COMPLETION

The civil engineering strategy involved the staged construction of the athletics facility in short periods between football and cricket seasons in 2004 and 2005, and finally “uncovering” the track in early 2006 in readiness for the Games.

Overall project planning, programming, monitoring and reporting. Design and documentation project planning, programming, monitoring and reporting.

Advising on appropriate contractual strategies, and assistance in development/refining of novated design contruction contract.

An Environmentaly Sustainable Stadium

Its environmental plan was developed govt ESD guideline

New construction methods has reduced energy consumption upto 18 %.

MCC achieved ISO 14001 CERTIFICATION.

Comparing this project with CWG 2010- Project held in India

DELHI CWG v MELBOURNE CWG Time aspect: Delhi (Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium):- 2003-2010 ( approx. 7yrs)

I. IOA bid for CWG in May 2003 and formed a special organization.

II. 2004-2005 planning phase (delayed)

III. 2006- 2008 planning clubbed with execution (total mess).

IV. 2010 deadline.

Melbourne Cricket Ground:- 1999-2006

I. 1999 bid application submitted to CGF.

II. 2000 planning completed

III. 2001 execution with designing (phase wise).

IV. 2001-2005 functioning for various events along with construction.

V. 2006 opening of the track and welcoming CWG successfully.

• Financial aspect:

• Delhi:- I. Estimated budget at the time of bid about Rs.300 cr.II. Actual requirement for completion Rs.17,000 cr. (including

supplementary infra and operational costs).III. Unaccounted hidden costs.

• Melbourne:-I. Estimated budget about Rs. 3000 cr.II. The requirement was more or less the same.III. Proper planning and utilization of funds.

End result:

• Delhi:-• No doubt the project was completed but resulted in shear waste of funds

for the same. • The CWG scam exposed the plight of Indian governance and systems. • Largest common wealth held game to date.• Fourth largest multipurpose stadium in India and 51st in the world.• Reduced capacity of Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium’s spectator seats from

78,000 to 60,000.

• Melbourne:-• The Melbourne Cricket Ground was redeveloped and redesigned

as a common stadium for many sports events.• Optimum utilization of time and funds.• 10th largest stadium in the world.• Can seat about 100,000 spectators.

CONCLUSION

“A large part of the success of the MCG is due to a seamless integration between engineering and architecture. The result is a light and transparent new structure that is a fitting evolution on the ongoing history of this remarkable place.”