The Failure of RMS Titanic Project - Essay Example

?Project Management INTRODUCTION For several years, individuals and organisations have been operating projects that leverage evolving technologies. In order to establish exclusive and magnificent aspects ranging from unique software to large constructions such as bridges, project management has a vital role to play. From traditional times, people and organisations have gone on great expeditions and journeys and raced with the competitors in order to succeed in key projects. However, success in project arrives from better initiation, planning, implementation, controlling and closing. Besides, there is also a requirement for effective risk and problem management in every phase of project life cycle (Richardson and Butler 1-97). Based on this aspect, paper discusses a distinguished project namely RMS Titanic project. THESIS STATEMENT The objective of the paper is to analyse the life cycle of the project. Furthermore, the paper also describes the procedure of resource management, risk management and management of problems throughout the project. ABOUT RMS TITANIC PROJECT Titanic was regarded as the biggest passenger ship around the world. RMS Titanic was a legendary project and was the first ship to use SOS. The RMS Titanic project was initiated by White Star Line organisation in collaboration with Harland and Wolff dockyard. The project started in the year 1910 and finished in the year 1912. Nevertheless, on 15th April in 1912, the RMS Titanic sank in the Atlantic sea. The incident resulted in death of about 1517 people and loss of valuable resources, time and effort. At that time, the managing director of the organisation, i.e. White Star was Bruce Ismay. The model of Titanic was designed by Thomas Andrew and the captain of the ship was Edward Smith. These people are the key stakeholders of the project RMS Titanic and were liable for ensuring that every operation is done according to plan (Jones 59-80). PROJECT LIFE CYCLE OF RMS TITANIC The lifecycle of any project consists of five typical phases. The first phase is idea generation phase. In this phase, the project is planned according to expected business requirements and outcomes. The second phase is designing phase, where the architecture and design of a project is decided according to the business requirements. The third phase is construction phase, where the project is implemented according to agreed requirements and prior decisions regarding design. The fourth phase is testing phase where the project is tested to recognise predicted risks as well as procedures for mitigating them. Finally, the fifth phase is launch phase, where the project is launched for real time performance (Seacord and Nwosu, “Life Cycle Activity Areas for Component-Based Software Engineering Processes”). Idea Generation of Titanic Project. During 1908s, White Star was confronting tremendous business pressures due to increased competition in the area of technology and also due to emergence of new entrants in the business segment of the organisation. Furthermore, White Star also faced considerable challenges because of aging technological structure and substandard customer services. As a result, it lost considerable amount of market share and customers. In order to deal with these business issues, White Star developed a business strategy which can leverage emerging technology and can enhance the number of customers. White Star concentrated on improving the quality of journey and passenger experience as a part of its reaction to the competition. This business strategy necessitated high investment in new technology. Hence, in order to enhance the business performance, White Star invested in new super liners and attempted to exploit the travelling market in the Atlantic route. The outcome of this investment was initiation of RMS Titanic project which was mostly intended to address the requirements of three passenger classes with topmost priority on upper class customer segment. Therefore, in RMS Titanic project, the emphasis was on the comfort of passengers, rather than the speed of the journey (Kozak-Holland, “Avoiding Project Disasters”). Architecture and Designing of RMS Titanic. There are several architectures and designs to select from in the RMS Titanic project. However, from the design and architecture the organisation selected, it can be stated that White Star chased the business strategy of tapping the luxury market. Thus, the ship was established with ‘U’ shaped body, in place of ‘V’ shaped body, resulting in enhanced passenger volume of the ship by 23%. Besides, this design leads to more comfortable journey and enhancement of customer experience. In the design phase, the designers advanced by transferring business requirements into functional requirements such as lodging, catering, recreation and entertaining facilities. The designers of Titanic used ‘shipbuilder model’ in order to deliver stimulated environment for the customers. However, due to considerable investment in hospitality facilities, it restricted the options for the designers for making the best investment choices in installing safety features in Titanic. The safety features of Titanic were selected on the basis of ‘what-if’ situation. The designers of Titanic opted to use high level of safety and to integrate latest and innovative safety tools. Nevertheless, because of business pressure of maintaining profit, the designers had compromised safety and ensured luxury of the passengers (Kozak-Holland 21-139). Construction of RMS Titanic. The lavish attention and investment on comfort resulted in improper investment in safety and operational features in the RMS Titanic project. In the contraction phase, it was almost too late to take care of the non-functional requirements of the RMS Titanic project. Irrespective of certain compromises on safety, there was a belief among the designers that Titanic was almost unsinkable. The aggregate impact of advanced technology along with great design had generated the perception that Titanic was unconquerable in the sea. This perception was used as marketing strategy for White Star in order to attract the customers. Rather than positioning the ship as luxury, Titanic was positioned more as an unsinkable ship, which was greatly accepted by the potential customers. The overconfidence in architecture resulted in flawed design in several areas of the project and as the construction approached completion phase, the entire project was already being misdirected (Archibald, Filippo and Filippo 1-33). Testing of RMS Titanic. During the initiation of testing phase, there was perception among the employees of White Star that Titanic was invulnerable. The testing of Titanic was planned by Harland and Wolff dockyards before passing over the project to White Star. The organisations were required to make sure that Titanic satisfies every condition and requirement laid down in the project agreement. Testing provided the organisations a prospect to make requisite changes and to avoid the risks through journey. RMS Titanic project required to be operationally verified for seaworthiness, tested for constancy and evaluated for weight and other specifics (Kozak-Holland 21-139). With respect to the testing phase of RMS Titanic, another sister ship namely Olympic played a vital part. Titanic was a replica of Olympic, which went into services in the year 1911. White Star considered the performance record of Olympic as adequate for launching Titanic without extensive sea testing. The performance record of Olympic strengthened the organisation with the perception that Titanic is ready to embark on the business mission. However, the performance record only comprised physical structure of the ships, rather than the employees’ management and operational procedure. This cited serious mistake in the project as White Star depended too much on similar projects and did not complete the evaluation of business along with technical risks before launch. For example, only one lifeboat drill was performed in the testing phase and the result of the drill underlined weak operational readiness of the ship. Thus, it can be stated that White Star took a massive gamble by not testing the RMS Titanic project properly along with sending the ship in Atlantic Ocean with significant faults (Kozak-Holland 21-139). Launch of RMS Titanic. When the project was launched, there was perception that Titanic was invulnerable. This perception, along with the performance record of Olympic, imposed the basis that Titanic was ‘mission ready’. Due to this reason, Titanic experienced only one day sea trial in the year 1912. The team of Titanic was enthusiastic to contrast its performance with Olympic. However, in comparison with Olympic, Titanic had gone through less sea trials and ignored thorough engine examination and adjustments of operational processes among others (Dickinson 2-19). There was tremendous business pressure for Titanic to launch quickly because large investments were tied up in the project life cycle. Due to this reason, Titanic was rushed into production, without proper analysis through sea trials and weak crew preparation for initial journey. On departing the dock, Titanic had faced near crash with steamer New York to the anxiety of customers and the employees. This highlights the challenges the crew faced while directing a ship in large sea. Essentially, the crew of Titanic was not operationally ready for the execution of the project. Very experienced officers had testified that it takes about three days to familiarise with ship’s huge design (Kunz 1-72). RESOURCE MANAGEMENT IN RMS PROJECT Resource management is a vital part of any project. The resources in any project consist of fund, human resources and raw materials among others. In RMS Titanic, the forecasted fund was about ?3 million. The expenses and funds of the project were managed through regular auditing. With respect to human resource management, White Star sponsored the operations team. On the other hand, Harland and Wolff managed the design team and construction employees. Besides, the raw material of the project was procured by contract delivery method. The resources were managed on cost basis, i.e. irrespective of project expenses, about 5% profit on the contract was assured (Osunlaja, Kilinc and Sen, “Managing Project Resources”). RISK MANAGEMENT IN RMS TITANIC Since projects are integrally indeterminate, they are prone to unforeseen occurrences, i.e. unpredicted events. These unpredicted events can have considerable impacts on the outcome of a project. Hence, better management of risk should be done by concentrating on risk recognition, active monitoring of different activities and maintenance of records of risky events. Mainly, risk management in any project intends to inhibit indefinite occurrences from appearing in the first place, by providing strategies to restrict their negative impacts if they still arise. The objective of risk management is to provide order and predictability and to define the reaction to the risks that can have future adverse consequences on the project (Geraldi, Kutsch and Lee-Kelley 547-558). With respect to RMS Titanic project, it appears that White Star was quite eager to take unparalleled project risk for getting the ship into consistent service as quickly as possible. However, White Star managed the capital risk of the project by maritime insurance, for protecting the project against possible unknown events. In the 19th century, both organisations and government used to observe risk as a low priority issue of any project. However, this perception was changed until organisations and governments revaluated the situation of the failure of RMS Titanic project. Shipping organisations such as White Star demonstrated careless attitude towards the safety and incident free transport (Davis 1-23). Management of Problems. Project risk of the RMS Titanic was managed poorly by depending heavily on external guarantors and ultimately, the government was required to protect White Star from the liability and lawsuits at the cost of life loss of several British and American customers. In the project, the risk was considered to be low and hence, careless decisions were taken. Professional mariners easily identified and defined several risk areas of RMS Titanic project, but adequate risk evaluation was not made due to business pressure (Weeks 1-6). The most important project management risk issue which had affected Titanic was a lack of standard operational process. The operational process should generate essential project deliverables during the later phases of project life cycle. In order to make a ship seaworthy there must be standard operational procedures and without them the decision of operating Titanic was truly ludicrous. In the operational procedure of Titanic, there were no clearly defined regulations for manage communications, tracking alerts and providing warnings among others. Due to this reason, there was no emergency process to be followed in case of uncertain events and the crew was enforced to perform according to individual experiences and general knowledge (PR Newswire Association LLC., “RMS Titanic, Inc. to Conduct First Research and Recovery Expedition to the RMS Carpathia”). The other risk management issue of RMS Titanic was low level of testing. Before launching of the project, the trials of Titanic were not only less widespread, but also not considered as critical. Titanic was not put through complex management drills such as making ‘S turns’ or operating in emergency conditions which are useful in order to manage hazardous conditions such as dodging any obstacles in the sea. The key stakeholders of RMS Titanic project also had little patience to adjust the operational management issues of the ship (Viali 1-114). In addition, RMS Titanic also ignored the typical risk issues which are related with designing of the ship. Olympic acted as the benchmark for Titanic and therefore it developed unreasonable faith in the performance record of the ship. However, it was arguable that how effectively the practices and mistakes learnt from Olympic’s performance were utilised in Titanic, particularly when the performance record was observed so positively. For example, during the testing of Olympic, the performance of the ship was not perfect, i.e. the ship faced several serious accidents. To cite an example, during a sea trial, Olympic collided with another ship namely Hawke, resulting in piercing of its outer body. The damage was considerable which led to the creation of a 15 feet high hole in the body of Olympic. In this incident, two biggest sections were rapidly filled with seawater and concurrently every waterway door was closed. However, irrespective of the damage in two big sections, Olympic did not sink in the sea. This incident was important for RMS Titanic project to design the compartments in such a way so that any unexpected events such as collision cannot sink the ship in ocean (Kozak-Holland 21-139). KEY LEARNINGS ON RMS TITANIC PROJECT AND MODERN PROJECT MANAGEMENT PRINCIPLES The failure of RMS Titanic project provides several key learnings for modern project management principles used in particularly software projects. The RMS Titanic projects demonstrate the importance of design. In any circumstances, the designing of any project should not comprise the key requirements, i.e. both functional along with non-functional requirements of projects must be considered accurately. Very often, non-functional requirements are sacrificed in several projects as they are less visible and their significance is not highlighted for business persons. However, in modern day project management practices, every requirement of a project is addressed in the designing phase (Carstens, Richardson and Smith 1-147). The other important lesson that is learnt from RMS Titanic project is testing. Adequate testing can effectively prevent severe risks during the operations. It is very unlikely for Titanic to consider that the ship was at low risk without undertaking proper testing. Thus, modern project management puts much emphasis on the aspect of testing in order to recognise any operational issues and mitigate them before launch (Association for Project Management, “Titanic Lessons for Modern Projects”). CONCLUSION The failure of RMS Titanic project has affected several principles which are used in modern project management practices. The best practices of project management deals with proper planning, designing, risk management and most importantly proper communication which were regarded as the key aspects of failure of the Titanic project. Besides, in conclusion, it is worth mentioning that although the key motive of any project is to fulfil the business requirements, i.e. to earn profit and to increase the market share, it should not compromise with aspects such as safety and security. In RMS Titanic, the huge business pressures that were levied resulted in lack of testing, improper risk management and improper designing, bringing about failure of the entire project. Thus, in any circumstances, business pressures must not take priority over the operational aspects of a project which are the key causes for disaster and failure. Works Cited Archibald, Russell D. Ivano Di Filippo and Daniele Di Filippo. “The Six-Phase Comprehensive Project Life Cycle Model Including the Project Incubation/Feasibility Phase and the Post-Project Evaluation Phase.” Roma3 University (2012): 1-33. Print. “Titanic Lessons for Modern Projects.” Association for Project Management. 2011. Web. 03 Dec. 2013. Carstens, Deborah Sater. Gary L. Richardson and Ronald B. Smith. Project Management Tools and Techniques - A Practical Guide. PM World Journal 2.9 (2013): 1-147. Print. Davis, Jocelyn R. Leadership Failures Sink Unsinkable Ship. United States: The Forum Corporation, 2012. Print. Dickinson, Hill. “Titanic: The Moon, Ice And War”. Marine, Trade and Energy (2012): 2-19. Print. Geraldi, Joana G. Elmar Kutsch, and Liz Lee-Kelley. “The Titanic Sunk, So What? Project Manager Response to Unexpected Events.” International Journal of Project Management 28.6 (2010): 547-558. Print. Jones, Jane. “The Titanic.” Creative Teaching & Learning 3.1 (n.d.): 59-80. Print. Kozak-Holland, Mark. Titanic Lessons for IT Projects. Canada: Multi-Media Publications Inc., 2005. Print. Kozak-Holland, Mark. Avoiding Project Disasters. Titanic Lessons for Projects, 2010. Web 03 Dec. 2013. Kunz, Tom. The Titanic Disaster Hearings: the Official Transcripts of the 1912 US Senate Investigation. United States: Pocket Books, 1988. Print. Osunlaja, Toyin, Gozde Kilinc, and Ercin Sen. “Managing Project Resources.” SlideShare Inc., 2013. Web 03 Dec. 2013. “RMS Titanic, Inc. to Conduct First Research and Recovery Expedition to the RMS Carpathia.” PR Newswire Association LLC, 2013. Web 03 Dec. 2013. Richardson, Gary L., and Charles William Butler. Readings in Information Technology Project Management. United Kingdom: Course Technology. Print. Seacord, Robert C. and Kingsley C. Nwosu. “Life Cycle Activity Areas for Component-Based Software Engineering Processes.” Carnegie Mellon University (1997): 1-5. Print. Viali, Walter A. “RMS Titanic Could Project Management Have Helped?” Project Management at Sea (2010): 1-114. Print. Weeks, J. Bruce. “Risk Determination in Highly Interactive Environments: How to Avoid the Titanic Factor in Your Project—A White Paper”. PMI Virtual Library (2010): 1-6. Print. Read More