EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Gary Allison was once a successful project engineer. However, these previous achievements were eroded with his appointment as the project manager for the Orion Shield Project. Nonetheless, Gary did many good things. For example, he tried his best to make the project successful. However, his failures were contributed by a multiplicity of factors. For example, while he received support from some of his team members, he was frustrated by the actions of other team members. Gary was expected to work successfully against the constraints common in every typical project that include time, cost, quality, and scope. He performed poorly in his attempt to overcome these constraints. For example, his time management was poor. One area was the administrative aspect where he used to work at the last minute such as distributing items for discussions like minutes and results just before meeting started and when the participants had little time to peruse them. On the issue of cost, he tried his best to deliver the project within the budget cost. Despite some manipulations from his manager, Henry Larsen, to an unacceptable product to th client, Gary tried his best to come up with a device that works per the client's specifications. He managed to eventually produce what the client had asked for albeit administrative challenges. The Orion Shield Project demanded a lot of ethical conduct, and Gary and his team were expected to demonstrate a high degree of integrity. Gary and some of his team members tried their best to stick to ethical conduct and show integrity. However, the challenge was working with unethical members like Larsen, who manipulated and threatened him to do unethical things. While staff members such as Paula Arnold were supportive, others like Ed Anderson and Elliot Grey were not collaborative. Gary would have succeeded if his bosses were cooperative and if the system was not that bureaucratic like in the case of the Orion Shield Project
Prior to assuming the role of project manager, Gary Allison was previously a respected and successful project engineer. He was considered one of the best engineers ten months before joining the Orion Shield Project. However, after serving for ten months, he started facing ethical, contractual, and legal challenges. Nonetheless, he achieved success in some areas. Working together with his R&D project team, Gary was given the necessary support from other employees such as the director of engineering. With all the support, Gary was expected to succeed in his work. In a typical project, essential elements that require careful tradeoff are time, quality, and cost (Lock, 2014). These are project constraints that Schwalbe (2012) pointed out that in addition to time, cost, and quality; there is also the scope constraint.
Technical Issue
One of the early problems encountered by Gary was the failure of one of the designs to meet the expected standards. Although the team had invested a lot of time and resources to come up with the best design that could work, it could not meet the technical design specifications. From the human effort put into the design of the project, it appears Gary had good management skills. He mobilized all his team members to focus on the project. After discovering that the design could not work according to the specifications, Gary and his team suggested that the only improvement that can be to alter the materials.
In his new role, Gary faced numerous challenges in staffing the project. There was inadequate staffing and that the senior staff of engineers was not willing to give their key staff members to another department. Nonetheless, Larsen gave him the necessary support to get some staff. Gary’s task was not that easy. There were a lot of uncertainties with little hope for success. Another worry was that this might affect project delivery. His strength was his ability to work long hours with his companion, Paula Arnold, to identify materials that meet the specifications. They kept trying together with his co-worker Paula in the lab until they achieved acceptable results. Gary’s worries about the selfish interests of Larsen was confirmed by Paula when he told Gary that Larsen took the project as his, and he wanted to manipulate them during the project execution. Another problem with Larsen was that he was not available most of the time Gary went to consult with him in his office.
There was so much pressure on Gary. For example, a week to the 180-day milestone, the customer was still unsatisfied about the data and the new materials. Gary was further upset by the customer’s concern about his integrity and that of the entire SEC. This then undermined all the efforts that had been put by Gary. Gary would have better restored the image of SEC by regular communication and updating of the customer with factual information instead of lies. Gary would only manage to avoid Larsen’s manipulative conduct by focusing on the contractual obligation rather than Larsen’s directions. At times, Gary’s efforts affected other activities. For example, while he managed to reduce costs by developing bills of quantities alone, it affected manufacturing plans which were a week behind plan. Gary faced challenges working with other departments like the production department who ran different activities and also who appeared uncooperative with Gary. Gary had failed to synchronize his plans with those of other departments to ensure smooth progress.
Besides time management, Gary also faced another problem of costs. He was expected to not only do but also manage affairs of the program. He was working on a tight budget and could not afford to hire extra staff. There was the need to increase the frequency of the meetings and exchange of information with the quality management as well as carry out tests. Failure to meet client expectations meant the contract was going to be cancelled and awarded another company. Other management challenges include motivation of people, slow decision making among his peers, and the imminent collapse of a project. Gary was also facing cost overruns in the project and he was too much exhausted to continue. Although he managed to obtain additional funding, he was expected to perform. Gary seemed to have had problem planning because every time he called a meeting, he would issue fellow peers with minutes without giving them enough time to peruse them.
Ethical Issues
Larsen conversation with Gary in his office suggests a plan to carry out an activity based on unethical practices. Larsen wanted Gary to influence the project so that he can get the opportunity to inject his ideas. The decision to single-handedly own the project suggest Larsen was egocentric with ill intentions. The importance of the need to observe ethical conduct in a contract, emphasized by Schwalbe (2012) and also by Shavell (2005), argued that it is immoral to breach a contract. After several attempts to improve on the design of the device, there was a little success. According to Gary, it was prudent to tell the customer the truth: that the device could not perform as per the specifications. However, Larsen opposed the idea of telling the truth. While Gary was for ethical conduct in the project, Larsen was the opposite. For example, while Gary wanted the customer to know what exactly happened, Larsen wanted to hide the truth by even telling Larsen to inform the customer that the device can operate beyond the specified range. Larsen further threatened to fire Gary if he fails to behave according to his wishes. On the other hand, he promised to promote Gary if he cooperates. The situation became a case of ethical dilemma for Gary to tell the truth or lie to the customer and get promoted. According to the Larsen, there was a need to convince the customer to accept to offer them the solutions and requested to change specifications. Gary, acting professionally, ought to have taken an ethical stance regarding falsification of the information provided to the client. He should have informed the client that the design was not up to the specified standards.
With heavy involvement in administrative tasks, the final tests results were still poor. But Larsen had an idea. However, the idea was against ethical principles. Larsen instructed Gary to lie to the customer that the money used on the project was sourced from within the budget of IR&D and not from the STI. This was to stop the client from canceling the contract. Again, this presented another ethical dilemma for Gary because he had doubts that the client might discover the fault and take some action. Notifying the client’s side about developments was necessary. However, some important decisions such as a change in materials were not communicated in time, and this increased the costs of catching up.
The other challenge encountered by Gary was working with a boss like Larsen. Larsen appears to be somebody who does not operate professionally. Besides lecturing to Gary what makes a good project manager, he asked him to forego his car pool as a sign of commitment to the program irrespective of how long it takes. Gary was under pressure to perform in his present job. Larsen was to inform him it is either performance or he gets fired. A non-performing manager has no chance to return to his previous employment because he may not perform as expected. If possible, Gary ought not to have accepted the position. However, he accepted and got ready for the new challenges. Larsen selected Gary for the job due to his good ability in technical issues and previous success. But the challenge is Larsen’s close monitoring of the situation. Close monitoring or micromanaging of work can be a good reason for an employee to feel uncomfortable.
Contractual Issues
Given that the project was a contract with another firm, there was contractual obligations to be met. Firstly, the project had to be delivered within the agreed period. Second, the product supplied had to operate exactly according to the specifications supplied. Gary worked hard with his team until they finally succeeded in coming up with materials that met the specified standards. It, therefore, appears that one of the challenges facing Gary was to strike a balance between both administrative and contractual obigations. At some point, the customer felt that the data presented to them was totally unacceptable implying that Gary was under pressure to deliver the best results since consistent poor quality would make the customer find another contractor. Improvements led new test results look well. However, it was a firm-fixed-price contract, and any additional work was to be met by Scientific Engineering. Gary’s administrative roles were equally increasing with the requirement by the client that there be frequent communication with SE and Space Technologies which include a contractual requirement to prepare complete minutes for all meetings. Gary made a mistake to delegate administrative work but failed to follow up. Although the demands of the company might look unreasonable, there is a need to fulfill all contractual obligations.
Legal Issues
Contracts are an aspect of contract law that spells the elements making up a contract and other things such as breach of contract and termination. A contract entered with parties has legal implications that are enforceable in courts (McKendrick, 2014).
Conclusion
Gary’s work was heavy since it involved both administrative and technical work. There were numerous challenges encountered in the project with most of them contributed by those who were working with him. They were not supportive to make sure that the project was successful. Most of them were people with questionable integrity which led to the difficulties in meeting technical, contractual and legal obligations in the Orion Project. Nonetheless, there were some areas he succeeded. The client at some point acknowledged that Gary had a good mastery of the technology. Their displeasure arose from Gary’s unavailability when it comes to administrative affairs but Gary was mostly occupied in the lab trying to make a working device. Perhaps the administrative role woud have been delegated to someone else.
References
Lock, D. (2014). The Essentials of Project Management. Burlington: Gower Publishing.
McKendric, E. (2014). Contract Law: Text, Cases, and Materials. Oxford: OUP
Schwalbe, K. (2012). Introduction to Project Management. Minneapolis, MN: Schwalbe Publishing.
Shavell, S. (2006). Is breach of contract immoral? Emory LJ, 56, 439. Available at: http://www.law.harvard.edu/programs/olin_center/
