Orion Shield Project Analysis - Essay Example

? Orion Shield Project Analysis Gary Allison has been working in Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC) for the last 14 years. Over this period of time he has successfully established a status for himself. He has also achieved the title of ‘talented project engineer’. Due to his good work the company promoted him as the project manager for Orion Shield Project. However this appointment was the biggest error on the part of company. Lack of administrative knowledge and experience of Gary was the principal reason for the failure of the project. Apart from that lack of effective communication and truthfulness with the stakeholders of the project was also another rationale towards the failure. If Gary would have maintained honesty and open communication from the beginning of the project, it would have never failed. The poor decision making, unprofessional approach and unethical behavior also affected the stakeholders as well as the clients. Moreover it also affected the career of Gary Allison. Table of Contents Introduction 4 Case Analysis 5 References 9 Introduction Project management is an important and specialized task which requires a set of specific knowledge and expertise. Project management is the area which includes initiating, planning, systematizing, organizing, guiding and monitoring of the associated resources (Pmi, n.d.). Project management is mainly undertaken to meet the objectives of a particular project in a structured way and within the stipulated time frame. A project manager thus needs to have in-depth knowledge and proficiency in some specified area (Himss, n.d.). Some of those essential skills include preparation, financial management and planning, forecasting and also the most important task of assessing the risk associated with the project. Eminent scholars such as Schwalbe stated that the duty of a project manager is not only confined to meet the specified time, budget, scope, quality and requirements of the project, but also hold the liability to smoothen the progress of the entire process (Schwalbe, 2010, p.8). Apart from that project managers are also liable to satisfy the demands and other functional requirements of the people associated with the project. They should also counterbalance the challenges of a project (Heerkens, 2007, p.1). The activities of project may also impact or affect some of the communities, therefore the project manager also have the duty to look after such issues. In the context of the project of Orion shield do not falls in special category and required the same skills and expertise to accomplish the project successfully. The Orion shield project mainly failed due to poor handling and management. The project was mishandled from the beginning to the end of the project. Also as the project initiated, the program manager Gary Allison also did not approach the requirements of the stakeholders of the project. The project will now analyze whether Gary was the fittest person to carry out the task or it was a wrong selection. It will also emphasize whether the director of engineering, Henry Larson Selected the wrong person to be the program manager of the Orion Shield project. Lack of experience on the part of the project manager has mainly caused the problems in the project. The inexpertness of Gary Allison to handle such tasks has been also one of the reasons for creating this issue. Case Analysis Gary Alison was actually Ph. D in mechanical engineering. He was a talented project engineer in Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC). However the good work has allowed the company to promote him as the program manager for the Orion Shield project. The Orion Shield project was valued more than $ 2 million. Initially Gary was in two minds but finally accepted the role the project manager of the as Project Manager of Orion Shield Project. Within the first 6 months of the job he stated that he was spending sleepless nights and was far more better when he was doing the engineering jobs. Therefore this clearly portrays that Gary was not at all comfortable with the job and moreover he was not enjoying the task he is presently doing. However it was also a fault from the part of Gary as he must honestly and sincerely carryout the new task assigned to him by the company. The employment of Gary as the project manager proved to be the damaging factor for the organization. Gary should not have accepted the position of a project manager rather he could have played the role of an assistant manager and gained more knowledge about managing a project. Thus an experienced project manager was the most essential requirement of the project. Appointment of Gary not only affected the organization but also affected his career. While on the Gary would have been benefitted if he had rejected the offer due to inexperience. According to the authors Hodgson, Paton, and Cicmil companies those who operate in the field of engineering and other technical areas mainly rely on experienced project managers. They also stressed on the fact that companies also assume technical personnel are best for the supervision of technical sides of the projects. Such believes has also caused some of the projects to fail. In order to become a successful project manager one needs to have both technical as well as administrative qualities. Gary lacked the administrative qualities which eventually resulted into a failure. However his commitment towards the project cannot be refused, but devoted most of the time towards driving the technical phase of the project. Project management is also about comprehensive business administration. This includes process of raw data, documentation and arranging meetings with the group member and stakeholders. Therefore according to the case Gary should have opted for the position of assistant manager in the project. Such role would have given him the learning opportunity and to get familiarized with the job. Moreover it would have decreased managerial load on him. The report will now highlight the areas which are related to the technical, legal, ethical, contractual aspects and other issues related to the project management. Now in the context of the case Gary was on his way towards the breach of a contract. It would have even lead to the termination of the contract. The project was unsuccessful, the customers were unhappy, and there could even be a legal action against the Scientific Engineering Company (SEC). Gary during the first technical interchange meeting was not present and was not even notified about it. The client stated that in the first technical data interchange session they would have preferred Gary to present the administrative data and Chief Project Engineer to present the technical data. The client was upset and even threatened to order work stoppage. They have also mentioned that the project manager was not maintaining a proper balance between the administrative and technical roles (Polaris, n.d.). However if the negligence was to be continued by the upper management a possible legal action could have been taken from the part of the client i.e. Space Technologies Industries (STI). Apart from that as the project manager Gary also has the responsibility to ensure that all the contractual requirements are fulfilled and should be updated. Such issues could have been easily avoided if appropriate staffing, appropriate planning and the accurate communication strategy would have been chosen. Moreover miscommunication prevailed from the beginning of the project and then turned out to be one of the largest issues. Gary was less communicative with the upper management of the organization. For example Gary ignored to notify the function manger about the testing of the new materials. This has also caused a number of issues in the context of the project. It mainly consumed a significant amount of time towards the activities related to the material work and that too was not going to be consulted. It also gives a feeling that the demand of such material works was due to the unprofessional approach of Gary Allison. The material requirement of the client had forced the team members to work on that instead of the works directed previously. This is a sign of pure negligence from Gary as he did not communicate the change in proper time. However it is also felt that Gary could not be blamed alone as there was an absence of open line communication in the organization. Also the chief project engineer, Paula Arnold and Henry Larson could have maintained an open communication with Gary about the work progress and the new testing at the lab. This lack of communication has caused the labor to work for extra hours, incurred more cost and also taken more time to complete the project. Apart from that Gary also lied about the financing of the new materials which has caused the relationship among the two companies to get worse. Therefore in order to maintain a healthy relationship the best way out was to remain completely honest, especially with matters related to finance. The project would have never failed had Gary been more open and less covert about his plans and future activities. Hence it can be avowed that effective communication with the stakeholders is the key towards the success of a project. Effective communication also helps in reducing the level of stress, aggravation associated with the project. More trust could have been generated with this approach. Apart from this factors related increased working hours of the labors, significant increase of job stress, and worsening of relationship among the two companies is highly because of ineffective communication. Now in the context of the technical issues, the client of the company also wanted the technical data to be presented by the Chief Project Engineer as she was looking after the technical aspect of the project. Apart from that Gary also did not reveal some of the technical facts to his team members. The ethical issues here is concerned with whether Gary followed the guidelines or not. Gary did not disclose some of the vital parts of the project. As during the tenth month of the project when the results were coming back, it portrayed that the new material would achieve the intended specifications. However the longevity will be only for 5 years. This news stunned Gary and started to assess the new strategy that will help to formulate the contract of product. In a conference between Paula Arnold and Gary, it was decided that they will not reveal this news to anyone until the production contract gets signed (Polaris, n.d.). This behavior can be clearly stated as unethical. However Gary could not be blamed alone for unethical display of behavior as Paula Arnold was also with him during the time of strategy formulation. Still as a project manager Gary Allison holds the responsibilities. Thus the consequences were also harsh, Gary was sent back to perform his old duty of engineering and released from the duties of a project manager. According to the circumstance of the project, the liable person or the culprit who is responsible for the failure of the project was Gary Allison. Also Gary cannot be blamed, as Paula Arnold was also involved in the decision making process. However the root cause lies in the selection of project manager. Hence in this respect Henry Larsen can also be termed as the blameworthy person. Consequently finally it can be concluded that Gary Alison did not played the part of a project and thus the liable person for the failure of project. References Heerkens, G. R. (2007). Project Management: 24 Steps to Help You Master any Project. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional. Himss. (No Date). Project Knowledge Areas. Retrieved from http://www.himss.org/content/files/Code%2069_Project%20knowledge%20areas_in%20Houston%20book_HIMSS_2011.pdf. Pmi. (No Date). What is Project Management. Retrieved from http://www.pmi.org/About-Us/About-Us-What-is-Project-Management.aspx. Polaris. (No Date). The Orion Shield Project: First Technical Interchange Meeting. Retrieved from http://polaris.umuc.edu/cvu/orion/06-meeting.html. Polaris. (No Date). The Orion Shield Project: Testing Concludes. Retrieved from http://polaris.umuc.edu/cvu/orion/06-meeting.html. Schwalbe, K. (2010). Information Technology Project Management (6th ed.). Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Read More