Total PM Individual The Titanic Analysis

8/17/2019 Total PM Individual The Titanic Analysis

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/total-pm-individual-the-titanic-analysis 1/31

The Eiffel Tower Project

Date of report hand-in: Fri, 2nd December, 2011

Paul Seeber 11270152

Course Title: The PM Lifecycle

MSc Elective

September 2011 Semester

BMGT43700b

Plagiarism Statement

I undersigned confirm that the work submitted here is entirely my own work, and that any

work of others, which is included, has been properly referenced and acknowledged according

to normal academic guidelines.

All the undersigned have contributed in the preparation of this assignment .

Signed:

Name : ________________________ Student Number : _________________



Table of Contents

Executive Summary ................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 2

1.0 Planning ............................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 Project Objective ...................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Deliverables and Technical Requirements ............................................................... 3

1.3 Milestones ................................................................................................................ 4

1.4

Limits and Exclusions .............................................................................................. 4

2.0 Leadership of Gustav Eiffel ................................................................................................. 6

2.1

Stage One - Design .................................................................................................. 6

2.2 Stage Two - Site Preparation ................................................................................... 7

2.3 Stage Three - Construction ...................................................................................... 8

2.4

Stage Four - Completion .......................................................................................... 9

2.5

Conclusion ............................................................................................................. 10

3.0 Stakeholder Analyses ......................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Project Team .......................................................................................................... 11

3.2 The Public .............................................................................................................. 12

3.3 Government ............................................................................................................ 13

3.4 Employees .............................................................................................................. 14

3.5 Centennial Exposition Committee ......................................................................... 15

3.6 Stakeholder Mapping ............................................................................................. 16

3.6.1 Stage One – Design ...................................................................................... 17

3.6.2 Stage Two – Construction ............................................................................ 18

3.6.3 Stage Three – Pre Completion ..................................................................... 19



4.0 Distributed Team Management .......................................................................................... 20

4.1 The Five Stage Team Development Model ....................................................................... 20

4.2 Virtual Project Teams ........................................................................................................ 23

Conclusion ............................................................................................................................... 25

References ................................................................................................................................ 26

List of Figures

Figure One: Milestones of the tower ......................................................................................... 4

Figure Two: Stakeholder Interest/Power Matrix ..................................................................... 16

Figure Three: Partial Eiffel Tower Project Team .................................................................... 20

Figure Four: Pavillon de Gaz ................................................................................................... 22



!

Executive Summary

This report has been undertaken to understand the role of project management throughout the

Eiffel Tower project. This project, undertaken in 1887, took two years, two months and five

days to complete and is often regarded as an engineering masterpiece. This report is divided

into four sections which analyses the project through four separate lenses.

In the first section of the report, the planning of the Eiffel Tower is discussed. Throughout

this section, the scope of the project is analysed to discover key aspects of the project

including the project objectives, deliverables, technical requirements, milestones and limits.

Following this, an analysis of the Work Breakdown Structure is used to further analyse

planning of the tower.

The second section of the report focuses upon the leader of the project, Gustav Eiffel.

Eiffel’s leadership skills are analysed throughout four stages of the tower’s construction.

Through this analysis, it becomes clear that Eiffel was an extremely competent project leader

with a clear passion and personal motivation to see the tower completed.

The third section of the report provides an insight into the stakeholder management of the

Eiffel Tower project. Five key stakeholders are identified and examined in relation to their

input into the project. The section concludes with a stakeholder mapping analysis.

The final section of this report discusses the distributed team management within the Eiffel

Tower project. What is observed within this section is that Eiffel had control over a highly

skilled and intimate team which he could trust and delegate work with ease. The results of

motivation and influence are illustrated throughout this section.



#

Introduction

The Eiffel Tower is often regarded as one of the most incredible engineering feats of modern

engineering. Built in 1889, the tower was constructed for the World’s Fair which was

scheduled to take place in Paris that year. Many believe that the tower was indeed built due to

the unique design and composition however after extensive research; it has become clear that

the tower’s existence can be attributed to the input of the Project Leader, Gustav Eiffel and

his Project Team.

The project will be analysed through four lenses of project management: Project Planning,

Leadership, Stakeholder Management and Distributed Team Management. This analysis will

provide the reader will key insights into the project with some interesting story aspects. The

report will conclude with a short conclusion with some personal comments.



$

1. Planning

An important first stage of any project is to plan the entire project and create a project scope.

The purpose of a project scope is to ‘define as clearly as possible the deliverables for the end

user and to focus project plans’ (Larson and Gray, 2011, p.102). Proper planning was

essential to the successful completion of the tower. Dvir et al. (2003) conducted research and

found that initial planning procedures highly influence a project’s time and budget objectives

and that this critical procedure also contributes signi!cantly to the customer’s bene!ts from

the end-product’. The Planning of the Eiffel Tower will be described in detail in the

following section.

1.1 Project Objective

‘The first step of project scope definition is to define the overall objective to meet your

customer’s needs’ (Larson and Gray, 2011, p.102). In 1882, France needed a new monument

for the World’s Fair taking place in France to celebrate the 100

th

year of the French

Revolution (Brook, 2007). The tower had to be completed by May 1889 in time for the World

Fair within a budget of 1.5 million Francs (Plumley, 2011).

1.2 Deliverables and Technical Requirements

The major deliverables of the tower included a tower that would last just 20 years before

being removed from Paris. The tower was to be 324 metres high upon completion and to have

three viewing platforms, the 1st floor 57m, the 2nd floor 115m and 3rd floor 276m high. The

tower had to accommodate lighting for the World Fair event. Specifically, it had to include

20,000 bulbs, 5,000 on each side of the tower and ‘glitter for 5 minutes every hour, on the

hour, from nightfall until 1am’ (Eiffel-Tower.com). The tower had to include 6 elevators that

would carry individuals from the ground floor to the 2

nd

floor, ‘one on the eastern pillar,



%

western pillar, northern pillar, southern pillar and a private pillar on the southern pillar and a

goods elevator. Finally, the tower had to include ‘2 sets of 2 Duo-lifts’ to carry people from

the 2nd floor to the top level of the tower (Eiffel-Tower.com).

1.3 Milestones

There were three key milestones to the tower’s construction as described by Brook (2007).

Firstly, creating a unique design for the tower and winning the rights and funding to build the

project represented a key milestone. The second key milestone was to ensure that the four

foundations supporting the tower were safely erected. The third milestone was the completion

of the first floor, followed by the second and third floors.

1.4 Limits and Exclusions

The limits and exclusions of a project are defined because ‘failure to do so can lead to false

expectations and to expending resources and time on the wrong problem’ (Larson and Gray,

2011, p.103). One severe limit of the project was funding. As will be discussed later in

Figure One, Milestones of the Tower, (Plumley, 2011)



&

Stakeholder Analysis, the project was under severe time and budget constraints. These

constraints diminished the time available for errors and delays. Another limitation of the

project was that it was purely a tower with a lifespan of 20 years; scientific experimentation

performed on the tower would save it from becoming obsolete.

A potential problem of projects as they are initiated is that they suffer from scope creep

which is defined as ‘the tendency for the project scope to expand over time’. (Larson and

Gray, 2011, p.105). Eiffel showed particularly strong project management skills in this

respect as with such strong project limitations, he could not afford to change the scope of the

project in any way.

When planning the construction of the Eiffel tower, Eiffel would have used a tool called the

Work Breakdown Structure (WBS). The WBS is a tool that ‘defines all the elements of the

project in a hierarchical framework and establishes their relationships to the project end

items’ Larson and Gray, 2011, p.109). The WBS is an effective way to break down the entire

project into deliverable, sub deliverables until you break down activities into their ‘lowest

level’. These activities are called work packages. The WBS would also have allowed Eiffel

and his project team to identify clear lines of communication, lines of authority and work

flow, and most importantly cost control.



'

2 Leadership of Gustav Eiffel

Throughout this section of the report, the leadership skills of Gustav Eiffel will be analysed.

The section is divided into five separate sections. Firstly, Eiffel’s leadership skills are

discussed in the design stage of the tower followed by the site preparation, construction and

completion. The section then concludes with some closing comments.

2.1 Stage One - Design

On the 2nd of May 1886, the Centennial Exposition Committee ‘invited French architects and

engineers to submit building designs for the upcoming World Fair in Paris which was to

commemorate the 100th anniversary of the French Revolution’ (Plumley, 2011).

Firstly, to ensure that Eiffel won the competition, he displayed a high level of motivation,

emotional intelligence and persuasion convincing the relevant stakeholders that his tower was

the best idea. Eiffel displayed strong motivation at this early stage winning the design as he

was ‘motivated by a deeply embedded desire to achieve for the sake of achievement’

(Goleman, 1998, p.88). Eiffel identified the key stakeholder as the Exposition Committee and

used persuasion stating that ‘the only way to truly symbolise France’s significant

technological and economic progress was with a new material: metal’ (Plumley, 2011).

A second leadership quality that Eiffel displayed was incredible confidence, vision and

personal control of risk. Although the Centennial Exposition Committee did indeed choose

Eiffel’s design, there were ‘plenty of sceptics who questioned whether what Eiffel proposed

on paper could actually be made a reality’ (Plumley, 2011). This scepticism was largely due

to the fact that a tower of this magnitude and using such metals had never been created

before. The Centennial Exposition Committee therefore granted Eiffel a contract that would

hold him personally responsible for the completion of the project and awarded him a grant of



(

1.5 million francs which ‘would not begin to cover the cost of completing the project,

estimated at 6 million francs’ (Plumley, 2011). By accepting the challenge of the tower,

Eiffel displayed on of the components; self-awareness. Goleman states ‘the decisions of self-

aware people mesh with their values; consequently, they often find work to be energizing’

(Goleman, 1998, p.84).

2.2 Stage Two – Site Preparation

Eiffel’s design of the tower needed to be extremely detailed and precise in order to ensure

that the project was completed in time. As Eiffel was extremely experienced using iron

within the majority of his other projects, he decided that this was the most suitable material to

use to ensure success of the project. This decision was chosen for a number of reasons and

shows the strong initiative and decision making power of a project leader. Eiffel was also a

man with incredible attention to detail and knew even before the construction began that the

tower would require ‘18,000 metallic parts joined by 2,500,000 rivets’ (Brook, 2007).

Firstly, a tower of this size (300 meters tall) would need to be protected from the strong

winds that could be potentially dangerous and knock the tower to the ground. To this effect,

Eiffel was innovative and developed a new method ‘with a series of lattice-trussed piers with

incurving edges, with the curvature of the uprights mathematically determined to provide the

most efficient wind resistance possible. His design proved to be engineering genius as the

tower has never swayed more than 9 centimetres in even the strongest winds, and many of

today's skyscrapers are constructed in much the same way’ (Plumley, 2011).

Secondly, Eiffel displayed strong leadership capability by overcoming the issue of the soil on

the construction site. Upon analysis, it was discovered that the south and east locations in

which the foundations were to be constructed that the soil was too damp and unsuitable for

construction. To tackle this, Eiffel designed a completely unique ‘compressed air system for



)

the particular areas and by digging the south and east foundations sixteen feet deeper than

those on the dry side, Eiffel calculated that the piers would be stable enough to support the

weight of the massive structure’ (Plumley, 2011)(Brook, 2007). This again, is an example of

Eiffel’s self-awareness as he faced the situation rationally rather than tragically (Goleman,

1998).

2.3 Stage Three – Construction

Eiffel had to use a number of interesting and purely inspiring innovative procedures to ensure

that the tower was completed both within the time and budget constraints.

When construction upon the South and East foundation locations began, Eiffel used ‘injected

compressed air and watertight, metal caissons, which are generally used in underwater

construction’ (Plumley, 2011). The caisson workers could climb down into a caisson, which

was like an underground room, and work below the level of the Seine, using pickaxes to

break up the soil so that the tower’s foundations would be stable. As they removed the soil,

the 34-ton caissons would sink deeper and break up more soil and rocks for the workers to

remove. Eiffel wanted to further ensure the stability of the foundations and to reduce the risk

of a catastrophe. To achieve this, another innovative engineering plan was devised adding

pistons to each of the four base towers. These pistons would act as hydraulic jacks and ‘could

raise or lower each of the sixteen caissons’ ensuring that the tower was always perfectly

aligned (Brook, 2007).

An interesting comment about Eiffel’s inspiration was that ‘nothing escaped Eiffel’s attention

in his determination to ensure speed and efficiency’ (Plumley, 2011). Eiffel was well aware

that he had to use his power and influence as both of these personal features are necessary for

a leader if they wish to accomplish anything (Pfeffer, 1992).



*

Kelley and Loong (2003) highlight that focusing upon the time, cost and quality scope of a

project is not sufficient, one must also factor in the organisation of resources and capabilities

rather than focusing purely upon constraints. Eiffel tackled this issue very effectively as all

parts for the tower were constructed and sent to the tower site from his own company factory

(Brook, 2007).

Eiffel faced one particular challenge in the construction of his tower that would challenge his

leadership skills. The installation of elevators to the three levels of the tower complicated the

design as ‘the inclination of the tower's legs, which meant the elevator cars would have to

travel on curved tracks aligned at different angles’ (Plumley, 2011). Upon the realisation of

this issue, Eiffel displayed a strong level of self-regulation, another component of emotional

intelligence. People who have mastered their emotions are able to roll with the changes.

When a new program is announced, they don't panic; instead, they are able to suspend

judgment, seek out information, and listen’ (Goleman, 1998, p.86). Self-Regulation was

displayed by Eiffel as he recognised that he did not have the technological expertise and

experience to build such a system. Therefore the ‘installation of the elevator system was the

only job that Eiffel had to subcontract’ (Plumley, 2011).

2.4 Stage Four - Completion

The Eiffel tower was completed on the 15th of May 1889. ‘Its construction in 2 years, 2

months and 5 days was a veritable technical and architectural achievement’ which displayed

Eiffel’s incredible Leadership ability (Plumley, 2011). Through the large amount of criticism

faced by Eiffel as discussed earlier in the paper, a single death, multiple worker strikes the

project was finally completed as a success. A startling feature of incredible project

leadership was that Eiffel not only completed the tower in the required time period, but also



!+

managed to complete the project at a cost of 1,050,00 francs, an astonishing 6% below the

1,600,000 francs estimated cost.

2.5 Conclusion

Through an analysis of Gustav Eiffel during the Eiffel Tower project, it can be understood

that Eiffel was a highly capable and competent Project manager. He was extremely suited for

the project due to his strong personality and work ethics. As discussed throughout this

section, Eiffel displayed a strong sense of emotional intelligence which I found quite

interesting. These leadership skills can also be illustrated throughout other aspects of the

project as they are discussed throughout this report.



!!

3 Stakeholder Analyses

Stakeholders are ‘the people and organisations that are actively involved in the project, or

whose interests may be positively or negatively affected by the project’ (Larson and Gray,

2011, p.341). Stakeholders have to be managed differently as ‘understanding each other’s

viewpoints helps to build relationships, thus avoiding preconceived ideas and assumptions’

(Olander and Landin, 2005, p.321). Aaltonen and Sivonen argue that ‘stakeholder related

con"icts and incidents are among the most signi!cant unforeseen risks in projects

implemented in challenging environments’ (2009, p.131). After an analysis of the Eiffel

Tower, the following stakeholders were identified as the most significant to the success of the

project:

3.1 Project Team

The Project Team played a pivotal role throughout the construction of the tower. Eiffel’s

project team consisted of 50 members of his company called Eiffel which is now a subsidiary

of the ‘Eiffage Business Group’ (Eiffage.com). To complete the tower, Eiffel called upon

their expansive knowledge and experience. The project team was responsible for various high

importance tasks throughout the design and construction of the tower such as resource

management, logistics and quality management among many others. The team had a great

deal of experience as they were also involved with many of Eiffel’s other projects including

the Statue of Liberty. As the project team were well acquainted, many of the synergies

required among the various team members to collectively and individually contribute to the

creation of the e! ective team environment was already in place (Baiden and Prince, 2011).

Throughout these other projects, Eiffel would have displayed an ‘inspiration-related

currency’ which is based upon inspiration. Many of Eiffel’s project team felt inspired by him



!#

and ‘perhaps the most powerful form of influence is based on inspiration’ (Larson and Gray,

2011, p.346).

An interesting aspect of this stakeholder group is that Eiffel, although praised with the design

and construction of the tower, was in fact not the person who came up with the original

design of the tower. Rather, this was the innovation of a member of his team named Maurice

Koechlin (Invisible Paris, 2011). To ensure that this team member was not ignored, Eiffel

awarded him 100,000 francs and a percentage share of the profits when the tower was

completed. This was an important gesture as ‘managers need to tell their team members more

often when they have done something right to reinforce good behaviours to get the most out

of their team’ (Fisher, 2010, p.5).

3.2 The Public

The second stakeholder Eiffel needed to recognise was the French public. Many citizens

within Paris were furious with the idea of a high tower made of steel. The citizens of Paris

constantly bombarded Eiffel and his team stating that the idea and erection of the tower was

both ‘useless and monstrous’ (Brook, 2007). Many wrote both personally to Eiffel and within

the newspapers portraying their dislike.

As Eiffel read a large proportion of these letters and opinions, he discovered that a large

demographic of wealthy middle class were responsible for the opposition to the project. To

address this demographic, Eiffel wrote a column within the French newspapers reassuring the

public that the construction was safe and the tower would be a grand spectacle for the World

Fair (Brook, 2007).



!$

3.3 Government

The third stakeholder of significant importance throughout the project was the French

Government. At the very early stages of construction, four locations for the foundations

needed to be agreed upon. Eiffel discovered that both the South and East foundation locations

were in an area of ‘dry, solid ground’ however both the North and West locations were built

on loose, wet ground which was currently unsuitable for construction (Brook, 2007).

To tackle this, Eiffel and his Project Team decided to dig deeper in both locations until they

discovered solid rock. They would allow workers to dig underground using underground

chambers called caissons. Certain powerful ministers of the French Government questioned

the safety of caissons and used journalists within the media to publicise their dissatisfaction.

To tackle this stakeholder, Eiffel invited the ministers and some of the most influential

journalists to visit the foundation worksites and enter the caissons in order to prove their

safety. After this experience, both the ministers and the French journalists stopped the

negative publicity and became supporters of the project (Brook, 2007). Aaltonen and

Sivonen (2009) argue that this is an example of an ‘Adaptation Strategy’ by which a focal

organization adapts to demands presented by stakeholders.



!%

3.4 Employees

This fourth stakeholder group had an enormous impact on the construction of the tower. As

Eiffel had a vast project management experience, he was well prepared to have to consider

the issues with the employees constructing the tower.

Originally when construction of the foundations began, employees working on the tower

were required to work for ‘9 working hours in Winter and 12 hours in summer’ and ‘6 days a

week from sunrise to sunset’ (Brook, 2007). During December, 1887, as the four foundation

columns were completed and being merged with 4 further beams to construct the first floor of

the tower, the weather changed quite rapidly. The weather became mind numbingly cold and

“temperatures at the top of the first section were minus 4 degrees Celsius”. To further make

matters worse, employees were generally not prepared for such conditions and lacked basic

protective clothing such as hats and gloves. The employees ceased working under the

conditions and demanded a pay increase (Brook, 2007). Aaltonen and Sivonen (2011, p.138)

also describe this as a ‘compromising strategy’ as Eiffel made concessions and compromises

over his objectives, because of claims presented by the workers.

Ketchen and Buckley (2010) state that it is ‘inevitable that problem employees will

undermine organizational productivity if they are left unchecked. Thus, the key issue for

managers is !guring out how to remedy the counterproductive behaviour of problem

employees’. Ketchen and Buckley identify that these problem employees are ‘bullies’

because they ‘advance their own interests through intimidating those around them’. Eiffel

was aware that time was constrained on the project and agreed to increase remuneration for

work to continue on the tower. Eiffel displayed empathy in this situation. Empathy means

‘thoughtfully considering employees' feelings along with other factors in the process of



!&

making intelligent decisions’ such as remuneration issues on the tower (Goleman, 1998,

p.89).

On a separate occasion on the 29th

of April 1888, employees halted work once again as

weather conditions deteriorated once as well as working heights increased and demanded a

second pay increase. Gustav, however, was not willing to spend more of budget and time

with the employees and instead moved the influential workers down to work on the ground

level with decreased pay. Eiffel displayed his ‘position-related currency’ by doing so; ‘this

form of influence stems from the manager’s ability to enhance others’ positions within their

organisation’ (Larson and Gray, 2011, p. 346) to send a clear message to the other

employees. Thus it is critical to understand what exactly it is that each team member values

and wishes to exchange, whether this includes payment, information and experience among

many others (Newcombe, 1996).

3.5 Centennial Exposition Committee

The Centennial Exposition Committee (CEC) was the body that awarded Eiffel with the

winning design for the 100th World Fair in Paris. This body awarded Eiffel $800 for the

innovative design of the tower and was responsible for funding the construction of the tower.

It can be argued that the CEC took the role of Project Sponsor during the very early stages of

the project.

While the CEC was responsible for setting limits on the design of the tower, ‘they also were

the ones who would defend the project when it is under attack in upper circles of

management’ (Larson and Gray, 2011, p.351). Before construction of the tower began, the

CEC became anxious that the design would be highly dangerous and even the ‘Chairman of

the council wanted to scrap the Eiffel Tower’ (Brook, 2007). The CEC would not provide



!'

Eiffel with extra funding in order to ensure the safety of the tower so Eiffel decided he would

invest his own wealth into the tower to ensure it was not rejected.

3.6 Stakeholder Mapping

Olander and Landin (2005) use a very interesting technique to identify important stakeholders

at various stages of a project. The technique is called Stakeholder Mapping. The technique

maps Stakeholder’s interest and power over a project at certain points in time. By grouping

stakeholders in the power/interest matrix, ‘project management can produce a better picture

of how communication and relationships between stakeholders has a!

ected the project and its

implementation’ (Olander and Landin, 2005, p.322). Figure two illustrates this Stakeholder

Interest/Power Matrix.

Eiffel was able to manage the various stakeholders quite well however it is interesting to use

this matrix to analyse the various positions of project stakeholders construction on the tower

progressed. The three stages of the project that shall be used to illustrate this model are:

1.

Pre-Construction of the tower

!"#$%& ()*+ ,-./&0*12&% 34-&%&5-67*)&% 8.-%"9 ,-./0123 /01 4/01506 #++&7



!(

2. Commencement of Construction

3. Near Completion

A numerical system is necessary to plot the position of the various Stakeholders on the

Matrix:

• 1 = Project Team

• 2 = The Public of Paris

• 3 = The French Government

•

4 = Employees

• 5 = The Centennial Exposition Committee (CEC)

3.6.1 Stage One: Design

At this stage, the CEC have the most interest and power in the project as they are ultimately

the body that will make the decision over the winning design. This group is thus placed in the

‘manage closely’ quadrant. The Project Team have less power at this stage until the winning

design is picked however they still had a high level of interest in the project placing them in

the ‘keep informed’ quadrant. Both the Government and the public have much lower levels of

power and interest placing them in the lower left hand side column meaning they need to be

monitored for the moment.

!

! !

!



!)

3.6.2 Stage Two: Construction

At this stage of the project, stakeholder interested has changed substantially and Eiffel would

have been required to identify these changes. Firstly, the Project team will have now inherited

much more power than stage one, with similar levels of interest. The Government were also

interested at this stage due to the dangerous working conditions in the caissons. Their level of

power and interest would also have been quite high. This would have placed both the

Government and the Project team in the Manage Closely quadrant. The CEC’s interest and

power had diminished significantly at this stage as Eiffel had been given full authority and

responsibility for the construction of the tower placing this body in the ‘keep informed’

quadrant. An interesting stakeholder here is the public as their interest in the project was

growing however their power over the project was quite low. This would have placed the

public in the Keep Informed Quadrant (as Eiffel successful did).

!

!

!

!

!



!*

3.6.3 Stage Three: Pre-Completion

At this stage, the Project Teams Interest/Power remains unchanged in the Manage Closely

quadrant as they work to complete the tower before the World Fair. The public, have a higher

level of interest in the project as it completion is in sight however any power still remains

low. Both the CEC and the employees would also have had lower levels of power and interest

as the project came to a close placing them in the Keep Informed quadrant. Finally, as

explained in the stakeholder analysis, the Government changed their view and became

supporters of the tower, placing them in the Monitor quadrant.

!

! !

!

!



#+

4.0 Distributed Team Management

Eiffel’s project team consisted of 50 individual members that were highly qualified and

experienced in various areas of architecture, design and engineering. What was interesting

about Eiffel’s project team was that they were not assembled as a team just for the Eiffel’s

Tower project. In fact, these 50 individuals were part of Eiffel’s project team positioned

within his company (see Figure 3).

4.1 The Five Stage Team Development Model

Larson and Gray (2011) use a tool called the Five Stage Team Development Model which

describes the five stages ‘through which groups develop into effective teams’. Upon analysis,

it is evident that Eiffel’s project team had achieved a strong level of commitment before the

tower was even envisioned as they were all were already well acquainted and had worked on

!"#$%& :; 7.%-".1 <"==&1 (*)&% 7%*>&?- (&.@ ,8./9:;5< =3>?2@A:6 #+!!7



#!

many other projects together. This would have been a distinct advantage for Eiffel when he

was bidding for the winning design from the Centennial Exposition Committee.

Eiffel’s project team took the shape of a traditional organisation in which all team members

reported directly to Eiffel with issues regarding the tower. Such a traditional organisational

system is liable to a number of power related issues. Such an issue would be self-interest

observed by team members as members seek to fulfil their own selfish desires. This then

creates ‘conflicting interest groups’ that operate within a shifting, multi-goal coalition’

(Newcombe, 1996, p.77).

Some of the most distinctive features of Eiffel’s project team included the following

individuals. Eiffel was notorious for hiring some of the most talented and experienced

individuals for the team. One of the most important and influential members of Eiffel’s

project team was a man called Steven Sauvestre. His story is quite interesting. Sauvestre had

worked with Eiffel before on the construction of the ‘Pavillon de Gaz for the Exposition

Universelle in Paris in 1878’ (see Figure 4).



##

Sauvestre had helped make the building’s design look more aesthetically impressive. Eiffel

called upon Sauvestre again for the Eiffel tower design due to his ‘technological expertise,

initiative and credibility’ in the area (Larson and Gray, 2011, p.381). A second interesting

fact about Eiffel’s project team was, Koechlin, a project member was in fact the individual

who came up with the original design of the Eiffel Tower; however, all of the Project Team

must have shared a strong vision of the completed project. The importance of a shared vision

throughout the tower’s construction cannot be overstated. ‘What a vision is not as important

as what it does. A vision inspires members to give their best effort’ and increases power

within a project team. (Larson and Gray, 2011, p.389) (Pfeffer, 1992).

!"#$%& A; 7.B"11*4 2& C.D; ,8./9:;5< =3>?2@A:6 #+!!7



#$

These relationships show the strength of the relationship between members of Eiffel’s project

team. This strong relationship was fuelled by the strong communication between the various

members and as Baiden and Price (2011, p.130) illustrate, communication is ‘central to the

e"cient performance of any team especially so on construction projects because of the

di! erent skill requirements’.

4.2 Virtual Project Teams

A key feature of Eiffel’s project team was that he had to manage the operations of his project

team in two different locations. Firstly, Eiffel had to manage members of the project team

and the workforce that worked directly on the construction site of the tower. However, a

second team that Eiffel had to oversee included the project team members that were operating

within his factory. These team members had the responsibility of designing and

manufacturing each metal section of the tower. If a metal section ‘did not meet precise

specifications, it was sent back to the workshop’ (Brook, 2007).

I believe that the relationship and joint team work between both groups displayed touches of

a ‘Virtual Project Team’. The reasons for this are quite clear. Both project teams were

‘geographically situated so that they seldom, if ever, met face-to-face as a team’ (Larson and

Gray, 2011, p.400). There were severe communication limitations at the time and both groups

heavily relied on a simple telephone system as well as a tightly scheduled Just-In-Time

model. This system ensured that each part of the tower was delivered to the construction site

as soon as it was required. This tight level of team integration is essential to any project by

increasing efficiencies and cost savings through reduced levels of wastage (Baiden and Price,

2011). However as the separate project teams had worked on previous projects using this

technique, they would have been experienced as to how to deal with the challenges.



#%

As well as managing the team members within the factory, Eiffel also had project members in

charge of managing the construction workers on the site of the Tower. As the time available

to the Project Team was extremely limited along with budgetary constraints, Eiffel needed to

ensure that the construction of the tower was executed properly and efficiently. To this end,

delegated power to the team members to manage the construction workers. To improve the

work flow and efficiency, the construction workers were divided into groups of four team

members when inserting rivets into the tower (Brook, 2007). This division of the labour force

granted the project team with many advantages. Firstly, these small sized riveting teams were

much easier to manage than allowing the workers to work individually or in larger groups.

Each team of four workers ‘rivets in a unique way so rivets can be identified to a group’

(Brook, 2007). This team management system allowed Eiffel’s project team to monitor

progress of the riveting in respect to two of the key constraints of the project, time and cost.

Slack was instantly identified and could be dealt with.



#&

Conclusion

Throughout this report, four lenses of project management have been analysed with

interesting insights. In conclusion, I believe that there are three key learnings that can be

learned from Eiffel’s tower.

The first key learning is planning plays a pivotal role in the determination of a project’s

success or failure. Eiffel’s project team displayed incredible planning capabilities throughout

the project.

The second key learning is that strong leadership is an essential skill needed in the face of

challenging situations. As described in the report, Eiffel dealt with many challenging

situations during the project which others may have lacked. It is this passion and strength of

character that is so inspirational.

The third and final key learning is that one must constantly monitor the position of

stakeholders throughout the life of a project. As shown through Stakeholder Mapping, the

positions of various stakeholders can change rapidly and one must be prepared to deal with

changing attitudes and opinions of stakeholders.



#'

References

• Aaltonen, K. and Sivonen, R. (2009) ‘Response strategies to stakeholder pressures in

global projects’, International Journal of Project Management, 27(2): 131-141.

• Baiden, B.K. and Prince, A.D.F. (2011) ‘The e! ect of integration on project delivery

team e! ectiveness’, International Journal of Project Management, 29(2):129-136.

• Brook, S. (2007) The True Legend of the Eiffel Tower, [DVD] Scanbox

Entertainment.

•

Dvir, D., Raz, T. and Shenhar, A. (2003) ‘An empirical analysis of the relationship

between project planning and project success’, International Journal of Project

Management, 21(2): 89-95.

• Fisher, E. (2010) ‘What practitioners consider to be the skills and behaviours of an

effective people project manager’, International Journal of Project Management,

29(8): 994-1008.

•

Flagship Projects, (2011) [Online]. Available:

http://www.eiffage.com/cms/en/foundation/flagshipprojects.html (Last accessed 14th

November, 2011).

• Goleman, D. (1998) ‘What Makes a Leader’, Harvard Business Review, Issue May

2009: 82-91.

• Kelley, L.L, and Loong, K.L. (2003) ‘Turner’s !ve-functions of project-based

management and situational leadership in IT services projects’, International Journal

of Project Management, 21(8): 583-591.

• Ketchen, D.J. and Buckley, M.R. (2010) ‘Managing Problem Employees: Ask how,

not why’, Business Horizons, 53(6): 539-541.

• Larson, E.W. and Gray, C.F. (2011) Project Management, The Managerial Process.

5th Edition, New York: McGraw Hill.



• LaTour Eiffel. (2011). Origins and Construction of the Eiffel Tower, [Online].

Available: http://www.eiffel-tower.com/everything-about-the-tower/themed-

files/69.html (Last accessed 5th November, 2011).

• LaTour Eiffel. (2011). The Eiffel Tower at a Glance, [Online]. Available:

http://www.eiffel-tower.com/everything-about-the-tower/the-eiffel-tower-at-a-

glance.html (Last accessed 5th November, 2011).

• Newcombe, R. (1996) ‘Empowering the construction project team, International

Journal of Project Management’, 14(2): 75-80.

•

Olandar, S. and Landin, A. (2005) ‘Evaluation of Stakeholder Influence in the

implementation of construction projects’, International Journal of Project

Management, 23(4): 321-328.

• Pfeffer, J. (1992) ‘Understanding Power in Organisations’, California Management

Review, 32(2): 29-50.

•

Plumley, K. (2011) The Construction of the Eiffel Tower, [Online]. Available:

http://www.paris-eiffel-tower-news.com/eiffel-tower-stories/eiffel-tower-

construction.htm (Last accessed 5th November, 2011).

Total PM Individual The Titanic Analysis

Documents

Transcript of Total PM Individual The Titanic Analysis