By Darian Macey, August 13 2024
What happens when a critical Defence infrastructure project is rushed through the design phase? How can inadequate planning and early assumptions derail a multi-billion dollar initiative? The Australian Defence Force Academy Living-in Accommodation project, meant to house the future leaders of the ADF, offers valuable lessons in what can go wrong when design processes are accelerated. This article delves into the issues raised by the recent Public Works Committee inquiry, exploring what went awry and, more importantly, how future Defence infrastructure projects can avoid similar pitfalls.
Background
The Australian Defence Force Academy (ADFA) in Canberra is a cornerstone of Australia’s military education system. As the training ground for the future leaders of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), ADFA is more than just a campus; it is a place where the values, discipline, and camaraderie of Defence are instilled in young officers. With this in mind, the Department of Defence recently proposed a major infrastructure project to replace the ageing Living-in Accommodation (LIA) facilities at ADFA—a $1.018 billion undertaking that has highlighted important lessons in project management and design.
The Project Overview
The ADFA Living-in Accommodation (LIA) project aims to replace the existing accommodation facilities, which are nearing the end of their useful life and present various health and operational hazards. The new facilities are intended to better support recruitment, retention, and the wellbeing of trainee officers by providing modern, safe, and suitable living quarters. The scope of the project includes the demolition of the existing LIA buildings and the construction of 1,500 new rooms, offices for up to 100 supervisory staff, associated car parks, and communal study and social spaces.
Given the significance of ADFA in shaping the future leadership of the ADF, this project is not just about providing shelter—it is about creating an environment that supports the holistic development of young officers over their three- to four-year stay, ensuring their experience leaves a lasting positive impression on them and their families.
Issues Raised by the Public Works Committee
While the project is well-intentioned, the inquiry by the Public Works Committee into the ADFA LIA project uncovered several significant issues. These issues, primarily stemming from an accelerated design process influenced by the concept of Minimum Viable Capability (MVC), offer important lessons for project managers and designers involved in Defence infrastructure projects.
1. Premature Submission at an Early Design Stage
One of the most critical issues identified by the Committee was that the project was submitted for approval at a very early design stage, with only a low percentage of completion. This premature submission led to significant changes in both the estimated costs and the design during the inquiry process. The MVC approach, which emphasises delivering essential capabilities quickly, may have contributed to this rush. While MVC aims to expedite capability delivery, it also risks overlooking important design considerations, leading to complications and delays down the line. Project sponsors must ensure that designers are given adequate time to fully develop and refine their plans before submission.
2. Inadequate Documentation
The documentation provided by Defence at the outset was found to be insufficient, lacking critical details such as floor plans and specific design elements. This lack of detail delayed the inquiry and hindered the Committee’s ability to make informed decisions. Furthermore, it limited the opportunity for meaningful public and stakeholder consultation, as these critical design features were not available for review. Defence needs to balance security considerations with the need for proper public discourse, especially on projects with a higher public profile and lower strategic sensitivity, where the public rightfully expects greater levels of disclosure. The MVC’s focus on minimal, essential documentation might have contributed to this oversight.
3. Design Constraints Due to Height Restrictions
The project’s design was constrained by an assumed 4-storey height restriction, which significantly limited the potential for space savings and future expansion. The Committee discovered that this restriction was based on an outdated assumption, as the National Capital Authority had offered to revise the height limit to allow for 6-storey buildings. This misstep underscores the importance of early and continuous engagement with relevant authorities to ensure that all design options are thoroughly explored. Had Defence engaged with the National Capital Authority earlier, more flexible and cost-effective design solutions could have been considered. The MVC framework, focusing on expedient solutions, may have led to the acceptance of initial constraints without fully exploring alternatives.
4. Lack of Electric Vehicle Charging Infrastructure
With climate change a focus for government, sustainability is more important than ever. The Committee expressed concern that Defence did not include provisions for electric vehicle (EV) charging stations in the proposed car parks. Given the increasing adoption of electric vehicles, especially among younger demographics, the decision not to incorporate EV charging from the outset was seen as shortsighted. Incorporating future-proofing elements, even if they seem peripheral at the time of design, can prevent costly retrofits and ensure that the infrastructure remains relevant for years to come. The application of the MVC principle has almost certainly contributed to this oversight.
Lessons for Project Managers and Designers
The issues raised by the Committee provide valuable insights for project managers and designers involved in Defence infrastructure projects, particularly those of such high profile and importance.
1. Allow Adequate Time for Design Development
The ADFA LIA project demonstrates that rushing the design process can lead to significant complications down the line. Good design is a time-consuming process that requires careful consideration and iteration. While MVC can expedite capability delivery, it should not come at the expense of thorough planning. Project sponsors should ensure that adequate time is allocated for designers to fully develop their plans, allowing for more accurate cost estimates, detailed documentation, and the exploration of alternative design options.
2. Engage Stakeholders and Relevant Authorities Early
Early and continuous engagement with stakeholders and relevant authorities, such as the National Capital Authority, is essential. This engagement helps identify potential constraints and opportunities, ensuring that design decisions are well-informed and aligned with regulatory expectations. In the case of the ADFA LIA project, earlier engagement with the National Capital Authority could have allowed for a more flexible and efficient design. The MVC approach should not preclude thorough exploration of alternative design possibilities.
3. Prioritise Comprehensive Documentation
Providing thorough documentation from the outset is crucial for the smooth progression of a project. This includes detailed design plans, cost breakdowns, and risk assessments. Comprehensive documentation not only facilitates better decision-making by oversight bodies but also ensures that all stakeholders, including the public, can provide meaningful input. This transparency is key to building trust and ensuring the project’s success. Even within an MVC framework, documentation should not be minimised to the detriment of project clarity and public accountability.
4. Future-Proof Design Choices
When designing infrastructure, particularly in a rapidly changing technological environment, it is essential to think long-term. Incorporating future-proofing elements, such as EV charging stations, may seem unnecessary at the moment but can save significant time and money in the future. Designers should consider how the infrastructure will be used in the years to come and plan accordingly. The MVC approach should be balanced with considerations for future adaptability and sustainability.
Conclusion
The ADFA Living-in Accommodation project serves as a valuable case study in the importance of careful planning, thorough documentation, and stakeholder engagement in Defence infrastructure projects. While the MVC concept has its merits in ensuring timely capability delivery, it must be applied judiciously to avoid the pitfalls of rushed design and insufficient planning. By learning from the issues identified by the Public Works Committee, project managers and designers can improve the quality and success of future projects, ensuring that they meet the high standards required for Defence properties that play such a crucial role in shaping the future of the ADF.
As we move forward, let this project remind us that good design is not just about aesthetics or function; it is about creating spaces that support the people who use them, now and in the future. By prioritising thoughtful, well-paced design processes, we can build infrastructure that truly serves its purpose and stands the test of time.
Author: Darian Macey
Darian is a former Engineering Officer with the RAE with tertiary qualifications in Engineering and Project Management. He is a leading practitioner within Australia's NSI sector with previous employment in Government, project management and building contractor organisations.
