Assessment 2- Case Study Analysis

Assessment 2: Case Study Report 1

Executive Summary ( of the purpose of report, findings and lessons learned, ) 100 2

Introduction Project management is a kind of process in which an individual or n organisation manages or organises the operations that are required to accomplish a particular project. A project is simply a piece of work or task divided into several parts that is completely different from an operation or process. In addition to this, the project management process also involves a procedure of leading the work with the team members in order to attain to goals within the given timeline or constraints (Levy, 2018). In this case, every team member involved in a particular project receives a documentation that is created at the initial phase or development of the project. Project management also plays an important role that ultimately utilise knowledge, skills, tools as well as techniques to provide something that value to the people. In relation to this, projects in the organisation are temporary efforts that create unique product, result and service (Lock, 2017). In this case, the project management also involves the risk of failure and. there are various real life examples that represent the project management and the way failure of a project can teach an individual about effective measure that could be utilised to change the outcomes of a project. In support of this, this report is focused on evaluating the outcomes of the two main case studies in alignment with the given question for each case (Lock, 2017). The first case is known as “Destruction of the Ancient Aboriginal Site: Who is to Blame!” and the second case is called Fiona Stanley IAM Project has Failed. In addition to this, both the case project’s questions are discussed in the report in order to minimise the risks involved in the case of project management. Furthermore, answering the question in each case study also involve the alignment with effective tools and techniques related to project management. Analysis of the Case Studies in light of Project Management Knowledge and Information Case Study 1 Answer 1 Aboriginal is a kind of people or Australians are known as indigenous people of the Australian mainland along with many of its islands such as Fraser Island, Tasmania, Groote Eylandt, Tiwi Islands and Hinchinbrook Island. Before the British colonisation, Australia was the land of aboriginal people but due to retaliation of Britain many of the people lost their lives. Moreover, Aboriginal people belong to different countries or who migrated to Australia from countries such as India, Africa along with other Asian countries; the people lived in Australia for more than 50,000 years (Toscano and Hastie, 2020). In this case, Rio Tinto an Anglo-Australian firm that deals in metals and mining industry and it is also well-renowned as the second largest mining corporation after BHP. Rio Tinto produces or extracts various material and metals from ore for the world such as producing iron ore, gold, diamond, copper and uranium. However, behind the big name of the firm, its practices are unethical towards heritage and also violate 4

ethical standards. In relation to this, the company has blast 46,000 years old Aboriginal heritage site in the country (ABC New Australia, 2020; The Guardian, 2020) (also see Figure 1 below). Figure 1: Aboriginal Heritage Site Source: (The Guardian, 2020) In a similar context, in the year 2020 in May, the mining giant has blasted Juukan Gorge 1 and 2 which are known as Aboriginal rock shelter; the company has did this in order to extract metal of worth US$ 135 million (Pierce, 2021). The location destroyed or blasted by the company was the main site that represents the human existence through the last ice age; the traditional owners of the site are Pinikura and Puutu Kunti Kurrama people. The company has not violated any kind of law or it is not considered as an unlawful activity as in the year 2013, the company received permission from minsters to initiate the expansion of its mine or iron ore in the area. Thus, Rio Tinto was abiding the law of Western Australia known as Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972; the act protects the land or heritage of indigenous people in Australia (Hepburn, 2020). The section 17 of the Act protects the Aboriginal or heritage sites from excavation, damage, destroying it, alter and concealing it. Consequently, the next section in the same Act allows owner of the land that means the holder of mining license can proceed just by applying for Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee to initiate development actions. In this case, the Section 18 of the Act ultimately breaches Section 17 (Vaughan, 2016; Pierce, 2021). However, there were various stakeholder involved in the process in which main stakeholders were Pinikura and Puutu Kunti Kurrama people were mislead by the company as 5

 Media  Broadcasters  Supporters  Shareholders  Banks  Governmental bodies  Ministers  Aboriginal Cultural Material Committee In the stakeholder mapping, it is clear that Rio Tinto should have informed the traditional owner of the land and that is Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people. In this case, it is vital for a firm to keep the stakeholders informed as it will increase their efforts in the completion of a project or task. In support of this, Kahn’s Engagement theory also explains that engaged stakeholders invest in the success of an organisation and the efforts turn greatest when an individual utilise personal energies into cognitive, physical and emotional labours. It was important for the company to engage with Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people by clearly informing about planning (Kahn et al., 2017). However, most of stakeholders were very well- informed in the case except traditional owner of the land. Answer 3 By analysing the response of above analysis, a stakeholder engagement assessment matrix is prepared below in which is C refer to current engagement and D means desired engagement (Giordano et al., 2020). Stakeholders Unaware Resistant Neutral Supportive Leading Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people C D Employees CD Ministers C D On-site labour C D Shareholders C D Supporters C D It is found by analysing both instances such as C and D that Puutu Kunti Kurrama and Pinikura people were required or desired to be supportive but currently they are unaware; employees are supportive in both instances. Ministers are currently neutral and desired to be supportive; on-site labour is neutral and desired to be supportive. Shareholders were unaware of the action of Rio Tinto and desired engagement would be leading. Furthermore, constant supporters are supported firm in both instances (Kemp, Owen and Barnes, 2021). 7

Case Study 2 Answer 1 220 Answer 2 220 Answer 3 220 Conclusion 200 8

ABC New Australia. 2020. Rio Tinto continued to lay explosives at Juukan Gorge after concerns raised | 7.30. [Online]. Available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=spkYR4EqSPo [Accessed on: 05 September 2021]. The Guardian. 2020. Rio Tinto blasts 46,000-year-old Aboriginal site to expand iron ore mine. [Online]. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2020/may/26/rio-tinto- blasts-46000-year-old-aboriginal-site-to-expand-iron-ore-mine [Accessed on: 05 September 2021]. Levy, S.M. 2018. Project management in construction . London: McGraw-Hill Education. Lock, D. 2017. The essentials of project management . New York: Routledge. 10