FletcherK_Case#1
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
College of Charleston *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
301
Subject
Information Systems
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
6
Uploaded by CoachInternet12851
British Aerospace (BAE) Baggage Handling Systems
and the Denver International Airport (DIA)
Executive summary of the case at hand:
Once upon a time in the world of project management, a remarkable case unfolded
at the Denver International Airport (DIA), involving the implementation of cutting-edge
baggage handling technology provided by BAE Systems. This case, filled with intriguing
complexities and pivotal events, has captured the imagination of project managers and
enthusiasts alike. The tale begins with the development of the project's scope, where the path
was shrouded in uncertainty. Ambiguous project objectives left stakeholders scratching their
heads, wondering if the goal was to enhance efficiency, reduce costs, or simply transform
passenger experiences. The result? A haze of unclear scope details. Changing stakeholder
expectations further clouded the skies, with different groups envisioning distinct outcomes.
The lack of clarity, paired with evolving objectives, set the stage for a turbulent project
journey. As the story unfolds, the cast of characters emerges, each with their roles and
responsibilities. In the spotlight is Webb, not as the project manager but as the mayor of Denver,
a figure of considerable authority. Pena, the airport manager, emerges as a key player
responsible for overseeing airport operations, a role that would significantly influence the
project's trajectory. And there's DiFonso, the true project manager, tasked with the day-to-day
responsibilities and challenges.
In this intricate plot, the question of fault arises. While Webb's influence looms large,
Pena's role as the airport manager casts a shadow on the project's clarity. As the individual
responsible for aligning the project with the airport's operational needs, Pena shoulders a
substantial burden for any scope-related misunderstandings. The story's intrigue deepens with
the introduction of diverse stakeholder groups, each with unique impacts on the project's scope.
The Denver Airport Authority, custodians of airport operations, wielded considerable power to
shape the project. BAE Systems Executives, driven by financial and strategic objectives, exerted
pressure on project managers, contributing to scope challenges. The airlines and passengers,
directly impacted by project outcomes, advocated for efficiency and minimal disruptions,
leaving an indelible mark on the project's scope.
In the narrative, project manager DiFonso takes center stage, and his journey reflects the
classic struggle of managing "up, down, and across." Managing the project team (down) revealed
his competence in addressing technical issues and fostering team cohesion. But the challenges of
managing "up" presented an uphill battle, as DiFonso wrestled with communicating project
issues to higher-level stakeholders and influencing decision-making. The complexity of
managing "across" was underscored by the competing demands of various stakeholders,
hindering effective collaboration.
The case's climax centers on the creation of a Scope Checklist, a pivotal moment in the
story. Here, the project's name, objectives, scope description, justification, deliverables,
milestones, technical requirements, limits, and exclusions, and acceptance criteria are carefully
crafted. This checklist provides a clear roadmap for navigating the labyrinth of project scope.
In conclusion, the BAE and DIA case is a captivating tale of project management
complexities, featuring unclear scope details, a diverse cast of stakeholders, key figures with
varying roles, and the art of managing in different directions. Its significance lies in its ability to
serve as a valuable lesson in the importance of clear and well-defined project scope within the
world of project management.
Question 1: Critique the development of the Project Scope for the BAE baggage
handling technology at the Denver Airport. What were the top 3 reasons for
unclear scope details?
1.) Ambiguous Objectives:
●
Lack of clear and specific project objectives: The project lacked a well-defined
and singular objective, leading to confusion about its purpose and goals.
●
Varying interpretations of objectives: Different stakeholders, including the
airport authority, BAE Systems, and others, had varying interpretations of what
the project should achieve, contributing to scope ambiguity.
●
Evolving objectives: The case suggests that project objectives evolved over time,
which made it difficult to maintain a consistent project scope.
2.) Changing Stakeholder Expectations:
●
Multiple stakeholder groups: The involvement of various stakeholder groups,
each with their own expectations and demands, made it challenging to maintain a
clear project scope.
●
Ineffective stakeholder management: Failure to effectively manage stakeholder
expectations and communicate changes in scope led to misunderstandings and
scope creep.
●
Conflicting interests: The project faced conflicting interests among stakeholders,
with each group advocating for different priorities, further complicating the
project's scope.
3.) Inadequate Communication and Documentation:
●
Poor communication channels: The case highlights issues with communication
between project stakeholders, leading to a lack of shared understanding of project
scope.
●
Lack of transparent documentation: Key project information, design changes,
and updates were not adequately documented and communicated to relevant
parties, leading to misunderstandings and scope issues.
●
Inconsistent reporting: Inconsistent reporting and documentation of project
progress and issues hindered the project's scope management.
Question 2: Who do you feel is most at fault (Pena, Webb, DiFonso, others)?
In assessing fault for the project's failure, it's essential to consider the roles and
actions of key individuals:
In this context, fault may be distributed among key individuals, with Pena and DiFonso holding
significant responsibility for the project's issues. Webb, as the mayor, could have provided better
oversight and support to prevent scope-related problems.
Webb (Mayor):
●
Limited project management responsibility: As the mayor, Webb's direct project
management role was limited. However, he had authority and influence over the
project's direction and budget.
●
Oversight and governance: Webb could have played a more active role in
overseeing the project and ensuring that project managers had the necessary
support and resources.
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help
Pena (Airport Manager):
●
Substantial influence: Pena had a significant influence on the project, as he was
responsible for overseeing airport operations, including the implementation of
the baggage handling technology.
●
Responsibility for project alignment with airport needs: Pena was accountable for
ensuring that the project aligned with the airport's operational needs, and
therefore, he bears responsibility for any misalignment or misunderstandings
regarding scope.
DiFonso (Project Manager):
●
Direct project management role: DiFonso had the primary responsibility for
managing the project on a day-to-day basis.
●
Challenges faced: DiFonso encountered challenges in managing the project scope
due to unclear objectives and shifting stakeholder expectations.
While Webb's influence as the mayor was undeniable, the primary focus should shift to those
who played more direct roles in the project: Pena and DiFonso. Webb's role was primarily
administrative, and he could have provided more effective oversight and support. Pena, as the
airport manager, was tasked with aligning the project with the airport's operational needs, while
DiFonso, the project manager, was responsible for the project's day-to-day execution.
Question 3: Name at least 3 stakeholders or stakeholder groups involved with the
DIA/BAE implementation and their impact on the scope of the project.
1.) Denver Airport Authority:
Impact: The airport authority, responsible for overseeing airport operations, had a substantial
impact on the project. They held authority over the project's direction and budget, making their
expectations and requirements crucial to defining the project scope.
2.) BAE Systems Executives:
Impact: BAE Systems, as the technology provider, had a significant influence on the project's
scope. Their interests were driven by financial and strategic goals, and their pressure on project
managers to meet deadlines and budgets contributed to scope challenges.
3.) Airlines and Passengers:
Impact: Airlines and passengers served as vital stakeholders directly affected by the project.
Their demands for efficiency and minimal disruptions significantly shaped the project scope, as
any changes or disruptions to the baggage handling system would impact their experiences and
operations.
–These stakeholders, with their diverse interests and priorities, played pivotal roles in
determining the project's scope and objectives.
Question 4: Was DiFonso, as the Project Manager, able to effectively manage "up,
down, and across"? Cite examples that support your answer.
●
Managing Down: DiFonso's ability to manage the project team and address technical
issues demonstrated some effectiveness in managing "down." For example, he worked to
resolve technical challenges with baggage handling technology.
●
Managing Up: DiFonso faced challenges in effectively managing "up." One example is his
struggle to communicate project issues and concerns to higher-level stakeholders,
resulting in decisions that did not align with the project's reality. This suggests
limitations in his ability to influence decision-making.
●
Managing Across: DiFonso's ability to manage "across'' was hindered by competing
demands from various stakeholders, such as the airport authority and BAE Systems.
These conflicting interests and lack of clear communication channels made it challenging
to effectively manage "across."
–In summary, while DiFonso exhibited some effectiveness in managing "down," his capacity to
manage "up" and "across" was limited, contributing to scope-related challenges in the project.
Question 5: In creating a Scope Checklist for this Project, how would you complete
the following sections?
1.) Name of the Project: "Denver Airport Baggage Handling System Upgrade."
2.) Project Objective: "To enhance the efficiency of baggage handling at the Denver Airport,
reduce passenger inconvenience, and minimize service disruptions."
3.) Project Scope Description: "The project scope includes the installation of BAE's baggage
handling technology, integration with existing systems, staff training, and process
optimization. It excludes any structural changes to the airport terminal."
4.) Justification: "The current baggage handling system is outdated and inefficient, leading
to significant delays and inconvenience for passengers. The project aims to address these
issues and improve airport operations."
5.) Deliverables: "The project will deliver a new baggage handling system, fully trained staff,
and optimized baggage handling processes."
6.) Milestones: "Key milestones include system installation, staff training completion, and
rigorous system testing."
7.) Technical Requirements: "The project requires adherence to BAE baggage handling
technology specifications and seamless integration with existing airport systems."
8.) Limits and Exclusions: "The project excludes any modifications to the airport's physical
infrastructure, such as structural changes or architectural enhancements. It also excludes
the procurement of additional security systems."
9.) Acceptance Criteria: "Successful completion of the project will be determined by reduced
baggage handling time, minimal service disruptions, and positive feedback from
passengers."
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help