Zoo Relocation Project Initiation Case Study

Lifecycle Phase 1 — Companion Case Study

What happens when a nearly 100-year-old zoo — profitable, beloved by the community, home to hundreds of animals and dozens of staff — receives a memo from corporate headquarters saying it must close within 10 months?

This case study walks through the Fairfield Zoo closure project from the perspective of project initiation. It applies the concepts from our Masterclass articles on the The Project Charter and Identifying Project Stakeholders to a scenario that is messy, politically charged, and operationally complex — exactly the kind of project where getting Phase 1 right determines everything.

---

The Scenario

The Organisation: Fairways Leisure & Tourism Group — a family-owned conglomerate spanning theme parks, budget resorts, and the Fairfield Zoo. Mark Palmer, great-grandson of the founder, has been appointed Chairman of the Board.

The Strategic Decision: A market research study has concluded that eco-tourism targeting the premium segment is the most profitable direction for the Group. This triggers a corporate restructure: theme parks and budget resorts will be closed or sold. The Fairfield Zoo — though still meeting revenue targets — occupies prime real estate that can generate significant capital for the restructure.

The Directive: Close the Zoo. Prepare the site for handover to the Nirvana Development Company for housing construction. Retain only the heritage-listed Administration building and identified significant trees. Relocate all animals. Redeploy all staff.

The Timeline: 10 months from project commencement.

The Stakes: Success means promotions and increased salaries for the Zoo Director and departmental heads. Failure means award termination payments only.

---

Applying the Project Charter Framework

The memo from the Chief Executive explicitly requests a Project Charter. Let's work through each section using the information provided.

1. Project Objectives

Using the SMART framework, the Zoo Project's objectives can be framed as:

2. Scope Statement

The scope of the Fairfield Zoo Closure Project encompasses three major deliverables:

1. Complete closure and dismantling of the Zoo in its entirety
2. Redeployment of all staff to alternative positions within the Fairways Leisure & Tourism Group
3. Site clearance of all buildings and structures — excluding heritage-listed items — so that the Nirvana Development Company may commence construction of a housing development

Fairfield Zoo — Closure Project

Work Stream 1 — Animal Relocation

Work Stream 2 — Staff Redeployment

Work Stream 3 — Site Demolition — & Clearance

Work Stream 4 — Administration — & Finance

All animals safely — relocated to accredited — facilities

All staff placed in — alternative roles within — the Group

Site cleared and — ready for developer — handover

Project returns — a profit; assets — disposed of

Relationship details

From	Relationship	To
Fairfield Zoo — Closure Project	leads to	Work Stream 1 — Animal Relocation
Fairfield Zoo — Closure Project	leads to	Work Stream 2 — Staff Redeployment
Fairfield Zoo — Closure Project	leads to	Work Stream 3 — Site Demolition — & Clearance
Fairfield Zoo — Closure Project	leads to	Work Stream 4 — Administration — & Finance
Work Stream 1 — Animal Relocation	leads to	All animals safely — relocated to accredited — facilities
Work Stream 2 — Staff Redeployment	leads to	All staff placed in — alternative roles within — the Group
Work Stream 3 — Site Demolition — & Clearance	leads to	Site cleared and — ready for developer — handover
Work Stream 4 — Administration — & Finance	leads to	Project returns — a profit; assets — disposed of

3. Exclusions

Based on the case material, the following should be explicitly excluded:

• The sale of the land itself — income from the future land sale is not available to be applied to this project
• Construction of the housing development — that is the Nirvana Development Company's scope
• Heritage restoration of the Administration building — the building must be retained, but restoration is not part of this project
• Ongoing management of the eco-tourism restructure across the wider Group

4. Assumptions

Key assumptions that would need to be documented:

• Current zoo staff will cooperate with the closure and redeployment process
• Suitable positions exist within the Group for all current staff members
• Accredited animal facilities will accept the Zoo's animals within the project timeline
• The heritage-listed Administration building does not require structural remediation before handover
• Specialist resources (veterinarians, demolition contractors, transport providers, HR counsellors) can be sourced within the project budget
• The Nirvana Development Company's timeline aligns with the 10-month delivery window

Knowledge Check: How many of these assumptions carry significant risk? (Answer: All of them. Every assumption is a risk in disguise.)

5. Constraints

The project operates under several hard constraints:

6. Key Risks

The case study identifies five significant risks:

Community Backlash — Related to site re-use

Animal Loss — Due to lack of prep time, — age, physical condition

Staff Placement Failure — Inability to place staff — satisfactorily

Resource Overload — Overloading due to — wider restructure

Opportunity Cost — Cost of NOT proceeding — with closure

Impact: Reputational — damage, legal challenges, — delays

Impact: Ethical failure, — media crisis, regulatory — action

Impact: Industrial — relations issues, — legal exposure

Impact: Schedule — slippage, quality — compromise

Impact: Continued — maintenance costs, — missed restructure — window

Relationship details

From	Relationship	To
Community Backlash — Related to site re-use	leads to	Impact: Reputational — damage, legal challenges, — delays
Animal Loss — Due to lack of prep time, — age, physical condition	leads to	Impact: Ethical failure, — media crisis, regulatory — action
Staff Placement Failure — Inability to place staff — satisfactorily	leads to	Impact: Industrial — relations issues, — legal exposure
Resource Overload — Overloading due to — wider restructure	leads to	Impact: Schedule — slippage, quality — compromise
Opportunity Cost — Cost of NOT proceeding — with closure	leads to	Impact: Continued — maintenance costs, — missed restructure — window

7. Project Organisation

The case study defines the following organisational structure:

• Project Sponsor: Chief Executive, Fairways Leisure & Tourism Group
• External Project Manager: Appointed from an external consultancy firm
• Core Project Team:
  • Director, Fairfield Zoo
  • General Manager, Administration & Finance
  • General Manager, Animal Management
  • General Manager, Horticulture and Maintenance
• Specialist Resources (as required): Veterinarians, demolition contractors, transport providers, HR counsellors

Board of Directors — (Mark Palmer, Chairman)

Chief Executive — (Project Sponsor)

External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)

Director, — Fairfield Zoo

GM Administration — & Finance

GM Animal — Management

GM Horticulture — & Maintenance

Veterinary — Specialists

Demolition — Contractors

Transport — Providers

HR — Counsellors

Relationship details

From	Relationship	To
Board of Directors — (Mark Palmer, Chairman)	leads to	Chief Executive — (Project Sponsor)
Chief Executive — (Project Sponsor)	leads to	External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	Director, — Fairfield Zoo
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	GM Administration — & Finance
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	GM Animal — Management
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	GM Horticulture — & Maintenance
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	Veterinary — Specialists
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	Demolition — Contractors
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	Transport — Providers
External Project Manager — (Consultancy Firm)	leads to	HR — Counsellors

---

Applying the Stakeholder Identification Framework

Now let's apply the stakeholder identification process from our companion article. Who are the stakeholders in the Zoo Project, and where do they sit on the Power/Interest Grid?

Identified Stakeholders

Power/Interest Classification

Low Interest --> High Interest · Low Power --> High Power

Keep Satisfied

• Heritage Body

Manage Closely

• Chief Executive
• Chairman Palmer
• Zoo Director
• Nirvana Dev Co
• Unions

Monitor

• Classify relevant stakeholders here

Keep Informed

• Local Community
• Zoo Staff
• Media
• Animal Welfare Orgs

Analysis: The Chief Executive and Chairman occupy the "Manage Closely" quadrant. The Zoo Director sits at the boundary — high interest, medium power — making their engagement critical. The local community has high interest but limited formal power, placing them in the "Keep Informed" zone — but their capacity to generate media attention and political pressure means they should be treated with more care than the grid alone suggests.

---

Knowledge Checks

Test your understanding of the concepts applied in this case study.

Question 1: The case memo states that the project "must aim to return a profit." Is this an objective, a constraint, or both? Why does the distinction matter?

Question 2: The Zoo Director's disposition is listed as "Mixed." What factors might drive them toward support versus resistance? How would you manage this stakeholder?

Question 3: The local community is classified as "Keep Informed" on the Power/Interest Grid. Under what circumstances could their position shift to "Manage Closely"?

Question 4: Identify three assumptions in this case study that, if proven false, would require a fundamental change to the project plan.

Question 5: The project will be managed by an external consultancy firm, while the core team consists of internal Zoo staff. What governance risks does this arrangement create, and how would you address them in the Project Organisation section of the Charter?

---

Key Takeaways from the Case

• The Zoo Project demonstrates that emotionally charged projects with community impact require exceptional stakeholder management, not just technical project management
• The constraints are severe: fixed timeline, self-funding requirement, ethical obligations around animal welfare, heritage compliance, and employment law
• Every assumption in this project carries material risk — the Charter must explicitly acknowledge this and pair each assumption with a contingency
• The mixed disposition of the core project team (who face personal uncertainty about their own futures) is a governance risk that must be addressed through clear communication and incentive alignment
• Stakeholder classification is a starting point, not a conclusion — stakeholders whose formal power is low but whose capacity to generate reputational or political pressure is high must be managed with a level of care that exceeds what the grid alone suggests

---

This case study is a companion to the Masterclass articles on The Project Charter and Identifying Project Stakeholders.