Management of Denver International Airport - Essay Example

? Denver International Airport Introduction What is the core rationale behind the incorporation of project managers to head projects and other relevant corporate activities? The core motivation of project managers is to manage a project, and its variables, with a principal intent to fabricate completed products and services. When a project is said to be managed professionally, this idea is lending itself to predefined processes to which practitioners of project management must adhere. In times where project management has not been correlated with brilliance, extreme cases of failure are often the outcome. One such result is the Denver International Airport Baggage Handling Project. In order to highlight on the high regard placed on project management, it is imperative to cite an example of such catastrophic failure, which accrued from poor project management. The Denver International Airport is currently ranked as among the five busiest airports in the world. The baggage handling system had a budget allowance of five hundred and sixty million. As such, it is of magnitude that will best depict the importance of this art if indeed project management can be regarded as such. This paper will explicate on the exact failures of the project management team while simultaneously endeavoring to relay alternative courses of action that would have yielded the desired results, if not better. Analysis Few failed projects can rival the extent to which the Denver International Airport baggage handling system cost the American tax payer. Given this significant impact, it is not startling that there exists numerous data to be sourced from the web expounding on the project. It is on this rationale that the internet fashioned a core data source for this paper. However, these sources might conflict on trivial details, what they do agree on is the insurmountable figures that characterized the baggage handling system. The project had a budget of five hundred and sixty million (Wallis & John, 1992). However, arising from gaffes made along the way, the project experienced a sixteen month delay characterized by a one point one million dollar daily expenditure for each day the project was delayed. The project had been dubbed as the first, of its kind, in the world. The baggage handling system was to cut delays by tremendous figures while simultaneously slashing aircraft turn around to as little as thirty minutes. On paper, it was the perfect project on which the new airport could embark. However, the dissimilarity between how the project appears on paper and in the actual senses all depends on the efficacy of the project management team (Lock, 2007). The resultant system, which was put in place, was a mere shadow of the project that had been envisioned. It neither had the glamour nor the efficiency of the proposed system. The Denver International Airport baggage handling system best exemplifies dysfunctional decision making. A series of these flawed decisions transformed a remarkably brilliant undertaking into a laughable ghost of the original project. The question now becomes who is responsible for this failure. A number of key errors were made along the way but, the bulk of the blame ought to lie with the project management team (Project Management Institute, 2008). This stems from the fact that, it was their mandated task to guarantee a smooth and definite transition of the project from paper into real life. Project managers should first seek to understand the nature of their projects before they embark on them. This is in relation to the respective complexity, schedule, scope and the allocated budget. After gaining this vital understanding, they should then endeavor to make decisions with these facts in mind. An oversight that was made is that; the complexities that were to accompany the project were not well understood and subsequently handled. Thus, when in the advanced stages of the project, when such complexities arose the team was not well positioned to react accordingly. The implementation of the baggage handling system was characterized by gross underestimation of the both, the required budget and the schedule for completion. When errors of this magnitude are made, significant financial costs are most often incurred. In this case, the financial cost rose to one point one million dollars per day. In this context, the failure of this project could have been averted if adequate thorough research and calculations could have been carried out. However, since this was not the case, project management failed. An additional factor, which lies within this context of poor research and calculation, is the decision to ignore expert advice on the matter. When experts on baggage handling system availed their services and gave vital advice concerning the project, the relevant heads chose to dismiss their take. It is imperative that project managers place high regard on expert advice. As is common with all vital planning processes, back up plans must be debated and executed. The risk of failure is a real one and cannot be avoided. As such, backups are relied upon, to lessen the impact of failure. However, the project management team for the baggage handling system did not institute any such measures. The design team did not implement backups or recovery measures that could be instituted when sections of the system failed. As such, when this break down occurred it resulted in delays and overall failure of the whole system. Failures of the system ranged from the crushing of bags to disgorging contents in the luggage. In the confines of this literal work, the last mistake to be expounded on is the failure in the design of the physical structure. Ill advisedly, the physical structure was first built them generalization was made, on the space the new system would occupy. This translated to mean that, compromises on the design of the system had to be made if the system was to be integrated into the airport. An assumption can be made that these compromises had a significant impact on the overall failure of the system. With time, it became clear that the project was headed for failure. When this realization set in, the project management team made another mistake. They decided to proceed with the implementation of the project despite the signs of failure. They decided to change strategy at this late stage. This strategy change that was not accompanied by key institutional and structural changes also added to project failure. Conclusion The last minute change in strategy was a good willed endeavor but poorly executed. In overall, a number of parties made poor decisions that were to blame for the disastrous result of the project. However, none has the mandated task to ensure success of the project like the project management team. In the case where proper research had been carried out by the project management team, then possibly failure would have been averted. Additionally, when the realization set in that failure was inevitable, the team should have halted the project while negotiating better terms with banks and constructions teams. Rather than, pursue this avenue, the project management team falsely thought it wise to proceed with the project. If these recommendations had been instituted then maybe, the project would have seen fruition. References Lock, D. (2007). Project management. Aldershot, England: Gower. Project Management Institute. (2008). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK Guide). Newtown Square, Pa: Project Management Institute. Wallis, A., & John F. Kennedy School of Government. (1992). Denver's international airport: A case study in large scale infrastructure development. New York, N.Y: Panel Publishers. Read More