Introduction
Projects have increasingly become an important component of many organisations today. In this sense, the project management occupies a progressive master role in the success of many organisations (Shenhar & Dvir, 2007). This means that the fruitful and appropriate delivery of the projects promotes the progress and the development of the humanity from the global perspective. This paper is about the analysis of the automated baggage system built by the BAE Automated System incorporated into a project at the Denver International Airport (Neufville, 2004). Ideally, the project was designed to cater for the teaming air passengers at the airport. While it is evident that the project was successfully launched by the stakeholders involved, the project is viewed as a total failure, and that failed to meet the initial goals as set during its inception. In this paper, the project failure is considered a major issue that was caused various causal factors. Ideally, a project is often a short process that is undertaken to establish a unique product, service or outcome. The temporariness is based on the fact that it has it has a timeline that incorporates its beginning and completion. This paper, therefore, offers the analysis of the project failure as the major issue discussed in the case, its causal factors, and the decisions and the outcome of the decisions made by the management.
Major influences and the circumstances surrounding the major issue the project failure at DIA
Fundamentally, the baggage handling system at Denver International Airport was viewed as a project that would be highly monumental to the Colorado as a United States’ state, and the world as a whole (United States, 1995). In this way, it was going to be the globe’s largest airport handling systems but later transformed into a colossal tragedy. While the stakeholders and the drivers of the project were determined at arriving at the suitable outcomes, ineffective project management strategies and techniques led to this massive failure. On a wider note Denver’s baggage challenges, experts’ opinions, politics and misuse of the technological advancement were the primary influences for such failure.
1. Baggage challenges
The Denver’s baggage problems are considered as one of the major uncertainties encountered during the process of the said project management. Notably, the baggage handling systems were supposed to be distinct through the design and incorporation of the integration and automation systems (Neufville, 2004). In this sense, the BAE system would be the best and the most reliable systems across the world. The systems early testing and mechanisms turned chaotic during its initial stages, thereby preventing the efficient management (United States, 1995). Moreover, the BAE focused on the delivery of the complete system under a firm timeline, schedule and budget. This happened despite the fact that the steers possessed sufficient knowledge that the project would take more than two years for its completion. As a result, significant risks attacked the BAE’s major base prompting them to run against the time right from the commencement of the project. This situation caused huge uncertainties about whether the project would be completed in time.
2. Expert’s opinion
Divergent expert opinions are depicted as another major factor that influenced the Denver’s project failure. Neufville (2004) notes that BAE president Gene DiFonso explained that they simply ran out of test time as the changes requested by the airlines (United States, 1995). Besides, DiFonso also reiterated the airport’s electrical power supply as another causal factor for the failure. These assertions came as a result of the criticism from other people, who believed that the baggage problems had their causes traced to other things other than what the President felt. For instance, David Hughes of the Aviation Week and Space Technology asserted that baggage systems faults were attributable to the substantial mechanical, electrical and the software constraints (Neufville, 2004). On the other hand, William B. Scott of the Aviation Week and Space Technology believed that the troubles associated with the systems had its roots traced to more significant miscalculations such as the underestimation of tasks, the complexity, and the steady stream of changes need by both the airline and Denver officials.
3. Politics and lack of proper coordination
The politics and the associated issues emerged as another great obstacle to the progress of the automated baggage system, creation and installation (United States, 1995). A closer look at the project at Denver International Airport reveals that lack of proper coordination among the different teams and contractors led to massive Denver’s project failure. For example, the building design commenced before the drawing of the baggage systems. These caused huge problems about the allowances the designers offered to the baggage systems. In the same way, it can be observed in the case that the project manager had two different projects going on; one political and another one technical. Ideally, this can be found in the scenario whereby Denver refuses to award the job of baggage operations to BAE, despite being the only company that understands the contract well (United States, 1995).
This decision revolved around the political biases and the ideas that are impractical completely. Moreover, the airports officials believed that BAE would not hire sufficient minority community and women, despite the move by BAE to accept that they would. For example, Richard Woodbury put down that, “in the wake of the political battling over who should be the beneficiary of the rich contract, it went to an outsider from Miami, and well known as Aircraft Service International (Calleam Consulting Ltd, 2008).
4. Misuse of technological advancement
Observably, BAE is technologically advanced and would greatly be utilised by different generations. While it is evident that it is technologically advanced and was able to initiate the project effectively, it considerably misused its technological competitive advantage through the anticipation of the spectacular performance of the systems components, thereby denying them the suitable chance for error (Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008). In this way, the parts were expected depict their greatest capabilities from the theoretical perspective. Similarly, the systems were channelled and run beyond the limits of what had been designed. The failure of any component within the developed systems led to the failure of other parts as well, due to the inherently fixed coupling as established within the system (United States, 1995).
The information available to the BAE project manager
The failure of the BAE project has its deep roots in the failure of the BAE project manager to institute appropriate measures and actions to ensure that it succeeds Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008). While it is evident that the project did not succeed, it is important to note that various information was available for the BAE project manager. As identified in the case study, Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System never succeeded because of the project complexity. This means that the project manager underestimated the quality of complexity associated with the project and ultimately changed the strategies implemented by both the airline and the management (United States, 1995 and Calleam Consulting Ltd, 2008).
The BAE project manager possessed the information about the timing of the project. This included the actual time that the project was going to take. For example, the BAE project manager focused on the delivery of the complete system under a firm timeline, schedule and budget. Notably, this occurred despite having sufficient knowledge that the project would take more than two years for its completion. This resulted in the rise of the significant risks, which attacked the BAE’s major base prompting them to run against the time right from the commencement of the project. Additionally, with the tight schedule put in place, testing the viability of the system and the whole project stood as the biggest problem.
Similarly, the poor procurement management system and the decisions of the project manager to ignore the bids of the professionals who identified that the baggage’s completion would not be possible in two years contributed to the failure (Gregor & Hart, 2005). The project manager himself knew that the automated baggage systems were not the component of the initial plan due to the complexity involved in the design process. Lastly, such practices were even worsened by lack of communication controls as no major stakeholders were involved (Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008). The stakeholders usually play important roles such as facilitating the decision-making process within an organisation. The failure to consult and integrate the views of the interested parties in the BAE project became a big blow to Denver International Airport community.
Major decisions made by the DIA project management team and their consequences
The case depicts some of the major decisions by the DIA project management team and the ultimate consequences of those decisions. On a wider note, the DIA project management team, despite having sufficient knowledge about the BAE project, went ahead to make uninformed decisions that led to its complete failure. Some of these decisions include:
i. Starting the building design before the drawing of the baggage systems. These caused huge problems concerning the allowances the designers offered to the baggage systems.
ii. The BAE project management team focused on the delivery of the complete system under the inflexible timeline, schedule and budget. This happened despite the fact that the steers possessed sufficient knowledge that the project would take more than two years for its completion
iii. The team considerably misused its technological competitive advantage through the anticipation of the spectacular performance of the systems components, thereby denying them the suitable chance for error. In this way, the parts were expected depict their greatest capabilities from the theoretical perspective.
iv. Poor procurement management system and the decisions of the project management team to ignore the bids of the professionals who identified that the baggage’s completion would not be possible in two years contributed to the failure. The project manager himself knew that the automated baggage systems were not the component of the initial plan due to the complexity involved in the design process.
v. The vast number of contractors and organisations that worked on the BAE project led to substantial confusion and delay. Therefore, any delay on the part of one company resulted in the rise of other problems.
The action plan
References
Barker, S., & Cole, R. (2012). Brilliant project management: What the best project managers know, do and say.
Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008. Case Study-Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System An illustration of ineffectual decision making Accessed on February 25, 2014. Available at http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=2086.
Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and Criticising Workshop, Gregor, S. D., & Hart, D. N. (2005). Information systems foundations: constructing and criticising. Canberra: ANU E Press.
Neufville, R. de. 2004. "The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons."Journal of Air Transport Management. 1(4): 229-236.
Stare, A. (2010). Comprehensive management of project change. Economic and business review. 2(3) 195-210
Shenhar, A., & Dvir, D. (2007). Reinventing project management: The diamond approach to successful growth and innovation.
United States. (1995). Denver International Airport: What went wrong? : hearing before the Subcommittee on Aviation of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives, One Hundred Fourth Congress, first session, May 11, 1995. Washington: U.S. G.P.O.
