Stakeholders' Engagement In A Parallel Runway Project At Sydney Airport

For your Final Report (assignment 4) you are to develop a Stakeholder Engagement Plan and present it in a report format. You are to assume that the new runway is being proposed TODAY, and must therefore conform to current standards, and legislation, and consider the expected reaction, perceptions, input, and knowledge of all stakeholders as they exist today, not when the actual runway was constructed.

You are to incorporate assignments 1, and 2 corrected. (Note they are not included in the word count).

You have been briefed many times in lectures and tutorials on what we expect in your final report. To remind you yet again, all participants should at least follow the following structure:

In you final report your will need to:
Insert the corrected Assignment 1 as 1.0 Introduction;
You may include a short section on the engineering aspect of the project, but you must relate this to stakeholder engagement issues; and Insert the corrected assignment 2 as 2.0 literature review.

Background of the Sydney Airport and the Parallel Runway Project

Stakeholders engagement is considered to be one of the major aspects that every organizations must put focus upon. There are an array of factors related to the stakeholders’ engagement that are responsible to determine the success of a project. In this regard, it can be argued that stakeholders’ engagement is a process that is completely different from the notion of stakeholders’ management (Yang & Al-Qadi, I.L, 2017). In fact, the stakeholders’ engagement is coupled with the understanding of influencing variety of outcomes through relationship building, communication, consultation and negotiation (Ingeman-Nielsen & Foged, 2016). Moreover, it also helps the organization to bring more transparency and effectiveness in the process of the ongoing project by sharing and respecting the views and opinions of the stakeholders (Mizukami & Matsunaga, 2016). Henceforth, the purpose of this report is to underline the stakeholders’ engagement in a parallel runway project in Sydney Airport. In course of the discussion, it can also be asserted that the report encompasses the process of stakeholder identification and identify the key stakeholders. Moreover, the discussion further incorporates the budget analysis involving the staffing costs, activity costs. This section is highly important in order to understand the feasibility and pragmatism of the project and help to foster a better opportunity for the project.

The Sydney Airport is considered to be one of the busiest airport across the world with an annual passenger strength of 21 million approximately. The reason behind such a heavy rush of passengers is the Sydney Airport is one of the principle aviation gateway in Australia. In this context, with the growing number of passengers it becomes important for the airport authority to increase the number of flights daily (Okafor, Jemitola & Soladoye, 2018). Currently, the Sydney Airport has two runways but they are not adequate enough to deal with such huge volume of passengers. As a result of that the Sydney Airport authority is going to initiate a parallel runway project with the purpose to manage the passenger pressure effectively (Gamil et al., 2017).

However, there are some issues that the airport has faced in course of implementing the parallel runway project. Environmental factors are identified as one of the major challenge that hampered the very management of the Sydney Airport. Furthermore, issues in terms of equipment, infrastructure and effective management is also referred as an important aspect that the airport authority has to work on (Shah, 2014). In addition to this, the huge airspace and the aircraft systems and communication will be played a significant role in the project that is highly related to the technological advancement and infrastructural adequacy. 

Challenges Faced in Implementing the Parallel Runway Project

One of the pertinent aspect of stakeholders’ engagement program in a project is identified as the stakeholder identification process. According to Ho (2015), the stakeholder identification process relies on the methodical and logical factors that can guide the process to formulate a better understanding. In this regard, the stakeholders can be identified geographically, organizationally and by their involvement in various projects. On the other hand Ruh (2014) argued that there are two different types of stakeholders responsible to attain success in a project such as stakeholders who are directly influenced the team and stakeholders who indirectly put an impact on the project (Das, Mahesh & Kumar, 2016). In other words, it can be advocated that people who are directly engage with the project are defined as the internal stakeholders. The internal stakeholders are primarily accompanied with the organizational members. On the contrary stakeholders influence the project team indirectly are referred as the external stakeholders. It can be argued that the role of the stakeholders’ engagement plan is to maintain a transparent and better result for achieving success in the project. In his research, Je? (2015) have argued that due to lack of communication and understanding about the process of stakeholders’ identification strategy often the organizations face sever challenges in engaging the stakeholders. Therefore, it is imperative to have an in-depth perception regarding the entire framework of stakeholder identification process.

In response to this the parallel runway project for the Sydney Airport has to identify the key stakeholders who can foster a great deal of impact on the project. As a matter of fact, the key stakeholders are categorized into two groups, the internal and the external stakeholders.

The internal stakeholders are as follows,

• The   Sydney Airport Authority sets up a committee or a board that is led by a project manager. As the project manager is responsible for the entire parallel runway project therefore it is obvious for the internal stakeholders to choose the project managers as the key members of the project team (Cascetta et al., 2015).
• Airport runway construction authority – Besides the engineering complexities and detailed information related to the project management, there are concerns of infrastructure, construction and the procurement process that are entitled to bring more accuracy in the project development mechanism (Kwan et al., 2016).
• Development and master planning

In this context, the planning of the project development is very important in order to make a better stakeholders’ engagement. The development and master planning process has two different elements in the name of the consultant and the building contractors (Shackleton et al., 2018). As far as the consultant is concerned he is responsible to advise the management about the compliance with policies and procedures. On the other hand, the design building contractors are committed to deliver the respective project the service of design and construction (Barrett, Oborn & Orlikowski, 2016).

1. Ground services- The ground services are entitled to ensure the safety and security of the airline passengers and also responsible to keep an eye on the maintenance process of the plane and the runway (Mok, Shen & Yang, 2015).
2. Government operation authority- Police, air carrier and the customs are identified as the operation authorities to make a better environment for the operation related matters. Specifically, the police units look after the law enforcement functions in case of the airport emergency. The air carrier are related to the flight deck checking and maintenance of the air navigators whereas the customs are dealing with the functions of loading export goods that are essential for the parallel runway project (Jillella, Matan & Newman, 2015).

According to Thaler & Levin-Keitel (2016) the engagement activities of the stakeholders are closely related to the communication mechanism. As a matter of fact, the communication framework provides the stakeholders to generate a better environment for achieving success and sustainability in future development. Therefore, before going to take decisions regarding the effectiveness and implementation of the stakeholders’ engagement plan it is pivotal for the stakeholders to formulate a pragmatic communication plan (Taylor & Kent, 2014). In this context, the report also puts emphasis on the communication plan as a driving tool to engage the stakeholders profoundly.

Stakeholder Identification Process

It is important for the parallel runway project to design the cost of the project in an effective manner. In this context, the cost of the labor and employee is expected to be set a rate of $30,000. As a result of that the total expense of the parallel runway project in Sydney Airport can be estimated at a rate of $1, 20, 000. In fact, the employee cost per production hour can be waged at $60 for each production hour. It means the employees can get an amount of $1 for each productive minute. Moreover, there are the engineering labor burden rate (6) for per week hour that is subtracted from engineering designer’s labor burden rate (%) per product (work) hour, deduct the engineer’s hourly rate from the individual’s fully burden cost ($60-$28= $32). It indicates that the additional cost will be estimated for the engineers on the job when computed as a percentage add 115% ($ 32/$28*100) to the electrical engineer’s base hourly rate.

The internal activity cost is as follows,

The external activities cost is as follows,

The parallel runway project of the Sydney Airport is a complex mechanism that requires expert assistance externally. As a matter of fact, the experts are entitled to deal with the design, consultation and the development costs related to the parallel runway project in the Sydney Airport.

Conclusion

It can be concluded that the report extensively carried out a detailed research on the stakeholders’ engagement regarding the parallel runway project. In this context, choosing the case study of Sydney Airport is very much relevant and provided a clear understanding of the topic. In addition to this, the cost analysis or the activity cost fosters further insights into the report. In this way the report perfectly portrays a modern day stakeholders’ engagement perception and figures out the competencies and remedies to make the project a successful attempt.

Reference

Barrett, M., Oborn, E. & Orlikowski, W., (2016). Creating value in online communities: The sociomaterial configuring of strategy, platform, and stakeholder engagement. Information Systems Research, 27(4), pp.704-723.

Cascetta, E., Carteni, A., Pagliara, F. & Montanino, M., (2015). A new look at planning and designing transportation systems: A decision-making model based on cognitive rationality, stakeholder engagement and quantitative methods. Transport policy, 38, pp.27-39.

Das, P., Mahesh, G. & Kumar, R.R., (2016). Participatory Risk Management Model for Construction Projects Using Expert Systems. Journal of Construction Engineering, Technology & Management, 6(2), pp.17-24.

Gamil, Y., Rahman, I.A., Nagapan, S. & Alemad, N., (2017). Qualitative Approach on Investigating Failure Factors of Yemeni Mega Construction Projects. In MATEC Web of Conferences (Vol. 103, p. 03002). EDP Sciences.

Ho, J.K.K., (2015). An examination of the Hong Kong Airport Third Runway project (HKATRP) using the mode 2 strategic assumptions and surfacing technique (SAST) rationale. American Research Thoughts, 2(2), pp.3186-3205.

Ingeman-Nielsen, T. & Foged, N., (2016). The construction of Kangerlussuaq Airport-A case story from West Greenland. In XI. International Conference on Permafrost (pp. 1131-1133).

Je?, M., (2015). Mechanical Aspects of Circular Runway Aspects. Machine Dynamics Research, 38(1).

Jillella, S.S.K., Matan, A. & Newman, P., (2015). Participatory sustainability approach to value capture-based urban rail financing in India through deliberated stakeholder engagement. Sustainability, 7(7), pp.8091-8115.

Kwan, B.M., Sills, M.R., Graham, D., Hamer, M.K., Fairclough, D.L., Hammermeister, K.E., Kaiser, A., de Jesus Diaz-Perez, M. & Schilling, L.M., (2016). Stakeholder engagement in a patient-reported outcomes (PRO) measure implementation: a report from the SAFTINet Practice-Based Research Network (PBRN). The Journal of the American Board of Family Medicine, 29(1), pp.102-115.

Mizukami, J. & Matsunaga, Y., (2016). Construction of D-Runway at Tokyo International Airport. Japanese Geotechnical Society Special Publication, 2(2), pp.122-134.

Mok, K.Y., Shen, G.Q. & Yang, J., (2015). Stakeholder management studies in mega construction projects: A review and future directions. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), pp.446-457.

Okafor, E.G., Jemitola, P.O. & Soladoye, M.A., (2018). Assessment of runway excursion causal factors and mitigation strategies. Nigerian Journal of Technology, 37(3), pp.619-625.

Ruh, F., (2014). Munich airport’s third runway and stakeholder communications. Journal of European Management & Public Affairs Studies, 2(1), pp.15-22.

Shackleton, R.T., Adriaens, T., Brundu, G., Dehnen-Schmutz, K., Estévez, R.A., Fried, J., Larson, B.M., Liu, S., Marchante, E., Marchante, H. & Moshobane, M.C., (2018). Stakeholder engagement in the study and management of invasive alien species. Journal of environmental management.

Shah, S., (2014). Stakeholders Management in the Indian Construction Industry: Insights into the Approach at Larsen & Toubro’s Construction Division. The Journal of Values-Based Leadership, 7(1), p.6.

Taylor, M. & Kent, M.L., (2014). Dialogic engagement: Clarifying foundational concepts. Journal of Public Relations Research, 26(5), pp.384-398.

Thaler, T. & Levin-Keitel, M., (2016). Multi-level stakeholder engagement in flood risk management—A question of roles and power: Lessons from England. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, pp.292-301.

Yang, R. & Al-Qadi, I.L., (2017). Development of a Life-Cycle Assessment Tool to Quantify the Environmental Impacts of Airport Pavement Construction. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (2603), pp.89-97.