When figuring out how to approach the APC Case Study, I found that reviewing past example submissions was incredibly helpful, as this gave a clear understanding of how to structure and write up the 3,000 word report. So in this post, I’m sharing a successful case study example, which helped a colleague pass their APC in 2019. I hope this example will provide some useful insights into key issues you can address, and that it serves as a helpful reference as you work on your own APC case study.
RICS APC Case Study Example: Project Management
Confidentiality Statement
The following case study contains confidential information included for the purpose of the Assessment of Professional Competence. The Client’s details have been removed due to confidentiality agreements and they are referred to throughout this report as “The client”. My Firm have given their consent to disclose details for the case study on the basis that the information is not to be used for any other purpose or by any person other than those authorised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Contents
- Introduction
- My Approach
- My Achievements
- Conclusion
- Appendix A – Competencies Achieved
- Appendix B – Project Photographs/Plans
Confidentiality Statement
The following case study contains confidential information included for the purpose of the Assessment of Professional Competence. The Client’s details have been removed due to confidentiality agreements and they are referred to throughout this report as “The client”. My Firm have given their consent to disclose details for the case study on the basis that the information is not to be used for any other purpose or by any person other than those authorised by the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors.
Contents
- Introduction
- My Approach
- My Achievements
- Conclusion
- Appendix A – Competencies Achieved
- Appendix B – Project Photographs/Plans
Introduction
During my role working as Project Manager for Grainger & Co, I was asked to oversee the implementation of a series of upgrade works to the Baggage Carousel Facility at Barry Sheen Airport located on the Isle of Man. The key deliverables of the Project comprised of 19no. phases of new baggage system upgrades to meet new compliance requirements. The upgrades would also utilise significantly less space within the baggage hall and required the relocation of baggage handling agents to other parts of the facility following stakeholder consensus.
My Involvement and Responsibilities
I was involved in the project during the design development and stakeholder consultation phase and attended design team meetings to provide programme advice in addition to advice on the working sequence and methodologies to reduce the impact on the area of works that had to remain operational throughout. I liaised with the design team to obtain information on the condition of the existing baggage facilities in order to generate a scope of works that was inline with my clients requirements. Once the design was complete and cost plans finalised, the client approved the project for tender. I was involved in managing the tender process on behalf of my client using approved suppliers listed under a framework agreement. I was also involved in post contract duties including chairing progress meetings, administering the change control procedure, issuing change instructions and producing programme updates.
My Approach
Key Issue 1 Background: Minimising Disruption to the Live Operational Environment
The first key issue I encountered on this project was determining how to sequence and phase the works in the quickest time possible whilst minimising any disruption caused to a live operational environment. My client had advised that the construction programme duration would need to be a maximum of 8 weeks whilst keeping the majority of carousel lines operational throughout. The construction programme also needed to be completed prior to the busier August holiday period in which all baggage carousel lines would then need to be fully operational. There were also some concerns around end user staff training on the new equipment as this was vastly different to the existing installation which had been in use for around 20 years and was outdated in comparison to current equipment available on the market.
Key Issue 1: How Can The Construction Programme Be Delivered Within 8 Weeks Whilst Minimising Disruption to the live operation of reclaim carousels?
Evaluation Of Options Availble
Option 1 – Zone Off Each Existing Carousel Line In Singular Phases To Minimise Disruption To The Live Operational Environment
The first option I assessed on behalf of the client was to approach the construction works by zoning off each reclaim carousel in singular phases. This would have meant utilising a temporary hoarding system to zone out each carousel line individually for their removal and replacement whilst all other lines remained in operation. On initial discussions with the client and end user stakeholders it was thought this would offer the best solution as the majority of lines would remain operational allowing the maximum throughput of passengers through the baggage hall. I compiled a programme and zoning diagram to reflect this method of phasing based on the input from specialist installers who provided advice on the required number of man days to replace each line. I presented this method of phasing to the client and end user team.
Reason Rejected
This option was rejected as the programme could not have been achieved within the 8 week time frame. The required number of man days for installation of each carousel line was 20 days. With the installation team working in gangs of three this would have resulted in an overall programme duration of 16 weeks. There was no option to accelerate the installation with additional resources due to the confined working space within each hoarding zone as this was too restrictive meaning it would not have been productive to introduce more labour resource to the confined area.
Option 2 – Zone Off Each Existing Carousel Line In Phases of 3 With Introduction of Accelerate Labour
The second option I considered was to re-phase the works with carousel lines being zoned off in phases of three at a time. The hoarding areas would be adjusted to increase in size to an extent where it would be more efficient to bring in additional labour resource to accelerate the installation works and reduce the programme to a duration of 6 weeks. I produced a revised programme and phasing diagram to present back to the client and end user stakeholders. At the time of presenting it was thought the reduction in overall programme duration from 12 to 6 weeks would offer the best solution to the client.
Reason Rejected
Despite this option offering 2 weeks of programme betterment against the initial employers requirements, the end user stakeholder team advised that they required a minimum of 8 carousel lines to be in operation at any one time when looking at the projected forecast of flight arrivals over the coming weeks.
Option 3 – Zone off carousel lines in phases of 2 at a time with introduction of accelerated labour resources across night time and weekend working
The third option I considered was to re-phase the works with 2 carousel lines being zoned off in each phase. Despite still having restricted working areas, labour resources would be accelerated across twilight and weekend working times. This proposal was thought to offer the best solution to my client and end user stakeholders. I recalculated the programme durations and drew up a revised phasing diagram with this proposal then being accepted by all parties.
Proposed Solution
This proposal was thought to offer the best solution as a minimum of 8 carousel lines could remain in operation throughout the programme which was a critical item for the end user stakeholder team. Due to only 2 carousel lines being zoned off, it would not have been beneficial to bring in additional labour resource during normal working hours due to the confined working area. Instead programme acceleration was achieved through introduction of additional resources during twilight and weekend shifts. By accelerating the works in this manner the 8 week programme duration could be maintained.
I incorporated the agreed programme and zoning diagram into the contract documentation following the clients approval and issued this on their behalf for counter signature by the specialist installer.
Reflective Analysis of Key Issue 1
Why Did The Problem Arise?
The pressure to accelerate the works resulted from scheduling the commencement date just prior to an extremely busy period of airport flight arrivals. Due to the age of the equipment extending beyond the end of its planned useful operational life, regular replacement of components, maintenance and breakdown issues had become a frequent problem for my client. Due to the arrangement and layout of carousel lines within the baggage hall it was an inefficient working environment with only small working areas available. The combination of these items created a pressurised programme of works with no float period and no scope to accelerate the works by bringing in additional resources to the restrictive working areas that were made available. The long lead time required for the survey, design and manufacturing of the replacement carousel equipment created further programme pressures meaning the works had to take place just prior to a busy period of flights to and from the airport. This meant that a minimum of 8 carousel lines had to remain operational throughout the programme of works.
How Could This Have Been Prevented?
Early procurement of the specialist carousel equipment could have allowed the programme commencement date to have been brought forward within the year to undertake the works during a quieter period of airport operations. This would have required early engagement with the end user stakeholder team to determine the quieter periods to allow multiple carousel lines to have been worked on simultaneously.
If additional time had been taken to engage with the end user stakeholders and to identify the long lead time of carousel equipment, these two actions alone could have resulted in a shorter programme duration of around 4 weeks, reduced the cost of undertaking the replacements and minimised disruption to airport operations by working during a quieter period.
Lessons Learnt
A key lesson learned is the importance of engaging with end user stakeholders early on in the design and procurement process. Through this early engagement, the construction works could have been scheduled to take place outside of busy flight periods for the airport. This would have not only resulted in reduced disruption to the airport operations but would have also resulted in a reduced programme and cost implications.
A further lesson learned was the importance of identifying any critical path and long lead items at project commencement. If early identification and procurement of the specialist carousel equipment had taken place, this would have created further flexibility around when the works could have been scheduled. This action again would have allowed the programme commencement to have been brought forwards to take place outside of busy airport operation periods.
RICS APC Case Study: Project Management Example
To receive a full copy of this Case Study in word format, please click here.
What Is The RICS APC Case Study Word Count?
The Case Study Word Count is strictly limited to a maximum of 3,000 words which excludes the contents list and appendices however all other items such as headings and sub headings are included.
For further guidance on the essential components your Case Study must include and how to select your key issues, please click here.
RICS APC Q&A STUDY GUIDES
