The Application of the Automatic Baggage Handling System - Assignment Example

? of Learning: Management Technique Introduction The need for growth in technology in the airport industry was put at a taste begging questions like what was to be world’s largest automated airport baggage handling system ? There is agent need to increase the airport capacity and a good example is the effort by the city of Denver to construct a new state of the airport in a bid to certify its position as an air transportation hub. The city covers an area of 140 km and was the largest in the United States to have a capacity that can manage as many 50 million passengers in a year (Barron, 2000, p. 30) The most important asset of the airport was the choosing a suitable baggage handling system .The application of the automatic baggage handling system facilitated quick aircraft turnaround time to as minimal as 30 minutes. The efficiencies in the operations were mostly promoted by the occurrence of a fast turn around and this made it remain competitive among other aircrafts. The plan however faced some shortcomings because of the under estimation of the complexity of the project that resulted to problems like snowballing and public frustrations from the individual involved. Notably, the airport’s opening had been delayed for at least 16 months due to problems in the baggage system. Another setback was the increased expenditure to cater for the maintenance of the empty airport and also the city of Denver was charged an interest cost of $ 1.1 M daily during the time of the delay (Jean 2000, p. 28) However the most embracing moment of the delay occurred after the media had showcased a demonstration on the system which clearly showed how the system bags were crushed, vital information and goods destroyed as well as how two carts crashed into each other while moving at a very high speed. After everything had been resolved and the opening day was agreed upon .The plan by this time had been destroyed beyond control and the system had been distorted completely. The system was now only using one single concourse by the single airline and for only out bound fights in comparison to the 3 concourses it had been using in the automating baggage system. The rest of the baggage handling was carried out by the use of a simple conveyor belts with a manual tug and a quickly built trolley system when it was as ascertained that the automating system could not work efficiently again. After a period of 10 years, the remaining parts of the system were still used in the baggage handling until the United Airlines announced that the old system was to be abandoned completely in August 2005.This was due to the increased cost of maintenance that had risen to about $ 1 million per month even surpassing the cost of a manual tug and trolley in a month (Adam 2000, p. 5) Basic Mode of Failure The downfall of the plan can be attributed to many factors. They include the fact that some of the main minds behind the formulation of this plan underestimated its complexity and this is seen to be the main reason for the failure of the Denver International Airport project. The managers of the project set up the most complex baggage system that has never been applied before. The increasing of the size of the plan by as much as ten times more than the automated system made it more difficult to control or grow in potential. This led to the rise of issues like “line balancing” due to the complexity of the system (Marj 2005, p 7). In a measure to regulate the system delivery, empty carts were distributed around the airport ready to pick up new bags. To achieve this goal all the 100 pick-up points had to be allocated empty carts efficiently. However this move got a setback because the queue could not clearly tell where they should anticipate the empty carts and where they should wait for the new bag. This resulted into delays thus the system could not efficiently achieve their operational goals as targeted. The project was initiated late because the managers under estimated its complexity and the risks that could come up with the establishment of the project. It was until the summer of 1991 that the process of requesting bids was foreseen by the planners. By this time, the company had only remaining two years for the system to be designed ,built ,tested and commissioned. San Francisco system was the closest similar project that had been accomplished. Despite the fact that the systems were smaller and less complex, they took a period of two years to be established. This was not possible with the Denver system because it was more complex in terms of size and it need more time. The underestimation of the complexity necessitated the underestimation of the effort applied in the task also. This forced the Project management team to make the baggage system as the most critical path of the airport without putting up consideration of its safety and efficiency. The project had to be completed in two years in order to correspond with the opening day of the Airport. The lack of time meant that the project was to be done under immense pressure thus the delivery could not be that efficient. The project problems arose from the team mechanism of using shortcuts to finish the project within the impossible schedule time allocated. Apart from the underestimation of the complexity other failures emulated from lack of suitable planning, poor communications and the improper management over sight . However the project experienced many setbacks that facilitated the problems. Some of the setbacks were unavoidable but they were mostly caused by the rush to meet the schedule. Other factors that may have played a role in the failure of the project include; risk management failures-several technical problems occurred that had not been estimated . Most notable was the problem of the electrical system that arose from power fluctuations which greatly affected the system. To solve this problem filters had to be built into the electrical system to remove the available surges. The delivery and installation of the filters took a considerable amount of time when the project was working to meet its schedule. Such occurrence made the team to concentrate on the management of the risk first. The lack of adequate time meant that the team lacked the appropriate risk management mechanism which needed more time to be developed. The leadership change also greatly affected the project. The death of Walter Slinger the system de facto sponsor in 1992 left the project without a leader (Churches 2000, p. 66). The individual who was selected to replace Mr. .Slinger lacked suitable engineering knowledge required in the running of the system. More so he also managed his other roles thus making him strain a lot in the leadership role. Another failure emerged from Architectural and design issues. The type of design applied by the team was complex and could easily be prone to errors. Several issues arose like the system had as many as 100 individual PCs that were connected by a single network meaning that the failure by one PCs could timely affect the all system because it had no automatic back up for the failed components (Churches 2000, p. 66). In addition, the design was distributed in an inappropriate way thus the problems could not be easily solved whenever they arose. More so, the system had no mechanism of detecting jams. This resulted to the pilling up of more and more bags worsening the jam. All in all the schedule pressure may also have played a role in the failure of the system. Due to immense pressure the team opted to settle for the first design they could. The schedule pressure motivated the team to concentrate more on the “happy path” design while ignoring the problems that can make the system fail (Coffee 2001, p 5). Solution and Conclusion Like several projects out there Denver faced the following problems: The underestimation of the complexity of the project. Lack of an adequate planning system that resulted to changes in strategy. Excessive schedule pressure. Lack of due diligence Making firm commitments in the face of massive risks and uncertainty Poor stakeholder management Communications breakdown People working in silos Poor design Failure to perform risk management Failure to understand the implication change requests might have. Lack of management oversight. While the following factors may have concluded the failure of the Denver project, the project could have been successful if the people involved had made effective decisions. These decisions needed ingredients to be formulated. The most vital ingredients required include knowledge and expertise. This attributes were not notable in Walter Slinger the Airports Project management team and the BAE ‘s senior management team as they only had limited understanding of the project. This lack of knowledge and expert advice generated the development of the many problems which resulted to the failure. An evidence of inefficiency in decision making can be pointed from decisions like the integration system, the scope of the firm contractual commitments and the extreme schedule. Such misjudgments decisions ignited feelings of uncertainty among the team members (Eddy 2004, p. 98) When one is faced with two difficult choices he or she should be composed to make a decision that will bring success not failure. The first step to achieve this is by recognizing the depth of the situation you at hand. Slinger and the Project Management as well as the BAE’s did not put in consideration such facts. They could have reduced the risks greatly if they had identified their lack of knowledge and uncertainty they faced. The best way they could have handled this by looking for guidance from more experienced people in such projects. In FEB 1995 the Denver International Airport was opened to the relieve of the team despite the fact that it applied the use of large manual trolley system that proved a success in the long run. The increased doubt in the system that it might be slow in the servicing of the airport proved futile as the Denver airport functioned normally despite of the available complections (Auguston, 2006, 65) Bibliography Adam, B., 2000. “Denver Goes Back To Basics For Baggage,” New York Times, 1-6 Adam, B., 2001. “Denver’s New Airport Still a Field Of Dreams, ” New York Times, 23 Auguston, K., 2006. “The Denver Airport: Now the Audit Begins,” Modern Materials Handing, 65 Barron, B., 2000. “Denver Airport Hits Systems Layover” Computerworld Compuer, pg 30 Churches, J. 2000. “A Tale of Tow Airports” Colorado Business, 66 Coffee, P., 2001. “Bugs Flourish As Bane of Grand Public Works.” PC Week, 23 Dubroff, H., 2001. “Airlines Can’t Bear Cost Much Longer,” Denver Post, 23 Eddy, M., 2004. “Signing of DIA Permits a Ploy.” Denver Post, 98 Jean, B., 2000. “Baggage System Woes Costing Denver Airport Millions,”Computerworld, pg 28 Marj, C., 2005. “Denver’s New Airport Braces For Takeoff,” Wall Street Journal, 7 Read More