Why Projects Fail in Airbus A380 - Case Study Example

Why Projects Fail in Airbus A380 Brunel London Why Projects Fail in Airbus A380 Introduction To understand the problems facing Airbus A380, an analysis was carried out on Airbus SAS. Geert Hofstede’s cultural dimensions reveal many shortcomings in the company. Involving four different countries in the production caused the company a number of cultural setbacks. This also increased the cost of production. Airbus is one of the largest commercial flights in the universe. Airbus SAS was founded in 1970 and has been in high competition with its major rival Boeing. Airbus has established a number of its plants all over Europe, and a number of airline companies have invested in their planes. 2000 saw the launch of Airbus A380, a unique plane it terms of size and comfort. The superjumbo jet has a capacity of 853 passengers. Airbus A380 witnessed a failure in its computer programs during its assembly. This led to postponement of the launch to 2007. The first Airbus A380 was bought by Singapore Airlines. Since its launch, a number of Airlines have raised complains about Airbus A380. Engine failure has been reported by Singapore Airlines and Qantas Airline in Australia. This paper shall review the problems faced by Airbus A380 project before and after the launch. A review of Airbus A380 will help to establish the cause of the problem. An analysis of the project problems can help the managers to take measures towards mitigating them (Griffin, 2012) One of the major problems has been integrating the wiring system that is complex to the metal frame of the plane. There are over 100,000 narrowed down to 40,300 connections. The wires perform 1,150 different functions. The electrical system of Airbus A380 very complex thus diagnosing a hiccup in the system proves cumbersome. During the manufacturing of the prototype in Toulouse France, a number of difficulties were experienced by the engineers. The construction wires turned out to be short. It is against standard measures to tug wires to prolong or make them fit. Multiple Computer Aided Designs had been constructed that resulted to the complexity. The construction was collaboration between engineers from four different countries. The Airbus A380 became a multi-cultural project. This aspect was not factored in by the managers of the project. A research ought to have been carried out to lay down proper foundations. A diffuse relationship emerged among the partners thus hindering the project. A collectivism approach should have been proposed to make the project a success. The branches worked independently when they all had the same objective (Russel, 2012). The management configuration became a big blow to the consortium. Airbus SAS is a significant structured organization with branches across continents. The company focused on impressing the managers and workers in different branches of the organization. Less focus was put on the Airbus A380 project. Every branch got involved in producing a different part of the aircraft. A single project team should have been set up to look at the impending issues and modalities. The multiple design centers became a flop to the organization. The production cost became higher than any other aircraft produced initially. Aggressive schedules resulted to ignoring of the project lifecycle. Issues were not addressed as they arose thus leading to snowballing costs. This paper shall review and analyze the project failure and recommend the correct steps that should have been pursued by Airbus SAS (Vogel, 2009) Literature Review It is imperative to figure out the setbacks affecting Airbus SAS, the makers of Airbus A380. Geert Hofstedes cultural dimensions would help us understand how involving four different countries affected the Airbus A380 project. The French, Germans, English, and Spanish have different cultures. Airbus SAS has four different plants in the mentioned countries with the head quarter being in France. Each of organization’s branches has a role to play in the manufacturing of Airbus A380. The Germans are known to exercise low power distance. This means that the Germans believe in teamwork and the involvement off all parties in a production process. Discussions openly take place and whatever is in doubt gets questioned. The French society exhibits a high power distance. The French believe in the final decisions made by their leaders. Some things are not up for discussion after a leader has made his or her point known. The two cultural dimensions portrayed by Germans and the French are quite different. When managers from the two groups meet, the French are bound to feel intimidated by how Germans tackle issues. This creates a misunderstanding between the two groups. The work progress is interfered when two teams have different ideologies and understanding of each other (Norris, 2005) To deal with the power distance exhibited by the two teams, structural plan of discussion has to be laid. This brings a level playing ground for both teams. The teams must be aware that they are brought together by the same objective. Another cultural dimension that affected the projected is individualism and collectivism. Individualism is where members of a society believe in self-efforts. Groups who suffer from individualism seek personal achievement, reward or recognition. These are people who keep important information to themselves and find it difficult to share. Collectivism is where a society embraces group work and believes in shared efforts. The individuals work towards the betterment of the community of workplace. The communal interest is at stake than individual interests. The French are known for their individualism. The French had a good understanding of the software that was used in the Airbus A380. The system was complex and needs a technical know-how. The French trained and understood the operations of the software. However, the French never shared their knowledge with their German, English, and Spanish counterparts. This made synchronization of operations complex for the other groups. One needed to know the application of the software and its operational basics (Maxwell, 2007). To further understand the problems of Airbus A380 project, a SWOT analysis Airbus SAS had to be carried out. The analysis reveals the strengths and weaknesses of the company. The analysis also helps to establish the threats and opportunities at the company’s disposal. Airbus SAS was subject to a number of internal weaknesses. Harmony did not exist among the managers. Personal wrangles distracted the managers from their main objective. A struggle for power hindered co-ordination and sharing of information. Top managers tried to lobby for the ultimate leadership in the consortium. Individual interests surpassed the mission of the company. Managers should be involved in important policy making decisions, but they failed to do so. Another failure that exhibited itself is failure to train employees on technical bits. Airbus SAS structure was to co-ordinate operations in the four countries. Each group was supposed to match up with the other groups. This never became the scenario. Workers had no training on the software and complex wiring system. This resulted to difficulties in synchronizing the work from the different partners. The French trained on the software system but never shared information with other partners Ineffective communication also led to the stalling of the project. Unclear communication channels resulted to use of two different computer aided designs for the project. The V4 computer aided design got used by the Spanish and German engineers. The French and English engineers used the V5 version. Synchronizing the two designs led to data loss. The mix-up in designing was caused by poor channels of communication. In the airline industry, Airbus SAS faces stiff rivalry from Boeing. Boeing has experienced few technicalities since its inception. None of the Boeing projects has reported failure in operation at the time of manufacturing or assembly. Most airline companies purchase the Boeing planes since they are reliable in operation and performance. The failure in launching Airbus A380 raised eyebrows among the industry players and stakeholders. The project stalled thus raising questions of its efficiency and performance (Reynolds, 2010) The Airbus A380 has most recently been reported to have engine failure. The first incident was reported by Singapore Qantas Airline. The Airbus A380 was flying from Singapore to Sydney when all the engines shut down. Another incident was in 2012 when Singapore Airlines suffered the same fate. The plane was heading to Frankfurt when one of the engines failed. The plane had to return to Singapore. The Airbus A380 engines are manufactured by Rolls Royce. The engine failure has put Airbus A380 on spotlight again. Methodology Oral Interviews were carried out to establish the failure of Airbus A380 project. This entailed travelling to the four partner countries. This was necessary to come up with an unbiased report on problems facing the aircraft company. Interviews involved both the top managers and junior staff. Some of the questions were opened to allow the interviewees give their opinion of events. Closed questions aimed at getting a definite answer. Employees were interviewed on matters they feel caused the failure of the Airbus A380 project. The interview sought to know the work relationship between managers and their junior employees. The interview established the relationship between employees from different countries. Questionnaires were used in cases where the employees were busy to be interviewed by word of mouth. Questionnaires guarantee the interviewees a sense of privacy. Some workers feel intimidated by oral interviews thus necessitating the use of questionnaires. A study on library books and magazines also gave useful information about the Airbus A380 project (Dillingham, 2007). Findings A number of information about the Airbus A380 project failure was revealed by the interviews and library research. Employees from the four countries complained about the lack of training. Workforce distribution became a big problem to Airbus A380 project. This is made to match the ownership stakes at the company. This has consequently caused production inefficiencies. Most governments interfere with private business, transactions in the name of protecting national interests. Foreigners find barriers in working in other countries. Management and communication structures are bound to differ. The Germans like to engage in collective decision making while the French are habitual of centralized decision making. The Spanish are known to suffer from inferiority complex but are flexible. Airbus was under management by German and French chief executive officers. Considering Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, the Germans practice low power distance while the French prefer high power distance. While making decisions, the Germans have a habit of interfering by raising questions. This consequently hurts the French men ego. A conflict is created between the two groups thus making collaboration difficult. Once a conflict exists between two working groups then a number of technicalities arise. Sometimes sharing information and communication becomes a problem. This results to slowing down the work progress (Plunkett, 2009) Mistrust and disloyalty thrives between the two groups. This happens at the expense of efficiency and effectiveness in performance. The two groups must learn to appreciate their diversity to achieve their set objectives. It is imperative for the groups to realize that they have a similar objective of producing an efficient Airbus. Another problem that the aircraft faces is the fact that the parts are made in different locations. The fuselages are built in Germany, the nose in France, tail parts in Spain and the wings in Britain. All the parts are assembled at Toulouse in France. The impact of having the parts produced in different countries affects the cost production. The parts are transported from their various places of manufacture to Toulouse. If the parts can be produced at a central location, it would reduce the cost of production (Bose, 2012). Another problem that presented itself in manufacturing of Airbus A380 was software related. The Spanish and German engineers used the V4 version of Computer Aided Design. The French and English engineers used the V5 version of CAD. This created a problem in data transmission. Some of the data got lost during the transmittance. The two versions of CAD also bear different features thus synchronizing the two became a problem. Regarding knowledge the French appeared individualistic. The French were well acquainted with the software and had a deep understanding of it. The Germans had little experience compared to the French. The knowledge was not shared and integrated between the partners. This led to failure in putting the knowledge in practice (Gibbs and Humphreys, 2009). The Human Resource Management Team is partly to blame for some of the misfortunes. The HRM was supposed to put up structures and train employees about the software. This was not the case. There was no proper communication on how to solve the software hiccups. Instead, the Human Resource Team concerned with legislation on labor working hours. The latter matter should have been pursued after laying down all relevant tools needed. There were internal problems that affected the Airbus A380 project, but the HRM team got involved in external factors that should have been tackled later. The top managers in the consortium engaged themselves in a battle of supremacy. They were busy lobbying for the top position in the company instead of tackling issues that affected the company (Kerzener, 2014). Building teams that are diverse encourages creativity and to a great extent motivates the employees. Forming a team of people from different cultures usually results to creativity. When a team learns to work in unison, it becomes a motivation to individuals in the team and the team at large. A little attention was given to the project, and the teams did not work in unison. The diffuse relationship among the partners led to the failure of the project. The governments involved were also partly to blame. Each government practiced economic patriotism. The number of foreign workers in each branch was limited. This influenced the expertise required by the project. The governments cited protecting their own citizens (Gibbs and Humphreys, 2009). Discussion The research has helped us to figure out the problems that faced the Airbus A380. Understanding a problem is a step towards making resolutions. Airbus management team should have made informed decisions to avert several problems including the internal wrangles. Technicalities involved in a project should be addressed in advance or as they arise. The software and wiring problems were not given the deserved attention. The company has learnt from its mistakes and modalities should be put in place to mitigate such setbacks in future. Above all, the management and employees of the company should focus on the company’s objectives instead of their self-interests. Airbus should handle future projects with care by placing appropriate communication and work structures. Conclusion Airbus took a number of steps to correct the problems faced by the project. Employees were taken for training. The software and wiring problems were technical and needed special knowledge. Airbus found it necessary to train employees to make them understand operations. Intercultural and team building sessions were created to enhance cultural understanding. The employees from different cultural backgrounds needed to understand their differences. The employees also get to exchange ideas and work experiences. However the intercultural sessions failed to iron out the problems of co-operation. The French continued to be individualistic in nature. The failure of Airbus A380 project was a devastating experience for the company. The company should have trained its employees on the software and wiring technicalities. The company should embrace encourage and embrace teamwork spirit in its future projects (Altfeld, 2010) Bibliography AIRBUS INDUSTRIE. (2006). A380 technical review. issue 2, June 2006. issue 2, June 2006. Blagnac, France, Airbus S.A.S. ALTFELD, H.-H. (2010). Commercial aircraft projects: managing the development of highly complex products. Farnham, Surrey, England, Ashgate Pub. ANLEITNER, M. A. (2010). The power of deduction: failure modes and effects analysis for design. Milwaukee, Wis, ASQ Quality Press. BOSE, T. K. (2012). Airbreathing propulsion an introduction. New York, NY, Springer. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-3532-7. CUMPSTY, N. A. (2003). Jet propulsion: a simple guide to the aerodynamic and thermodynamic design and performance of jet engines. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press. DEKKERS, R. (2005). (R)Evolution: organizations and the dynamics of the environment. New York, NY, Springer. DILLINGHAM, G. L. (2007). Commercial aviation: potential safety and capacity issues associated with the introduction of the new A380 aircraft. Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Accountability Office. GIBBS, R., & HUMPHRIES, A. (2009). Strategic alliances & marketing partnerships gaining competitive advantage through collaboration and partnering. London, Kogan Page. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=433140. GREAT BRITAIN. (2010). Full speed ahead: maintaining UK excellence in motorsport and aerospace : sixth report of session 2009-10 : report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. London, Stationery Office. GRIFFIN, R. W. (2012). Management. Mason, OH, CENGAGE Learning Custom Publishing. HOQUE, F. (2011). The power of convergence: linking business strategies and technology decisions to create sustainable success. New York, American Management Association. IRELAND, R. D., HOSKISSON, R. E., & HITT, M. A. (2008). Understanding business strategy: concepts and cases. Mason, OH., South-Western Cengage Learning. KERZNER, H. (2014). Project recovery: case studies and techniques for overcoming project failure. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=1631132. KOTLER, P., PFOERTSCH, W., & MICHI, I. (2006). B2B brand management. Berlin, Springer. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=323128. LAWRENCE, P. K., & THORNTON, D. W. (2005). Deep stall: the turbulent story of Boeing commercial airplanes. Aldershot [u.a.], Ashgate. LEITÃO, V. M. A., ALVES, C. J. S., & DUARTE, C. A. (2007). Advances in meshfree techniques. Dordrecht, Netherlands, Springer. LINKE-DIESINGER, A. (2008). Systems of commercial turbofan engines: an introduction to systems functions. Berlin, Springer.(2013). List of airbus a380 orders and deliveries. [S.l.], Book On Demand Ltd. MADHAVAN, G., OAKLEY, B. A., & KUN, L. G. (2008). Career development in bioengineering and biotechnology. New York, NY, Springer. MAN, A. P. D. (2008). Knowledge management and innovation in networks. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10310460. MAXWELL, D. (2007). Airbus A380: superjumbo on world tour. St. Paul, MN, Zenith Press. MILLER, N. (2010). Projekt Airbus A380. München, GRIN Verlag GmbH. http://nbn- resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:101:1-2010091411008. MONTGOMERY, M. R., & FOSTER, G. L. (2006). A field guide to airplanes of North America. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Co. NAMBISAN, SATISH, & SAWHNEY, MOHANBIR. (2010). The Global Brain. Wharton School Pub. NORRIS, G. (2005). Airbus A380: superjumbo of the 21st century. St. Paul, Minn, MBI Pub. OXLADE, C. (2009). Airplanes inside and out. New York, Rosen Pub. Groups PowerKids Press. PECHT, M. (2008). Prognostics and health management of electronics. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10346332. PEH, L. C., & LOW, S. P. (2013). Organization design for international construction business. Berlin, Springer. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=1082882. PLUNKETT, J. W. (2009). Plunketts transportation, supply chain & logistics industry almanac 2009: the only comprehensive guide to the business of transportation, supply chain and logistics management. Houston, TX., Plunkett Research Ltd. SEABRIDGE, A., & MOIR, I. (2013). Aircraft systems mechanical, electrical and avionics subsystems integration. Hoboken, N.J., Wiley. http://rbdigital.oneclickdigital.com. SCHÄFER, A. (2009). Transportation in a climate-constrained world. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press. SCHWIENTEK, R., & SCHMIDT, A. (2008). Operations excellence smart solutions for business success. Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan. http://www.myilibrary.com?id=237005. SMIL, V. (2010). Two prime movers of globalization: the history and impact of diesel engines and gas turbines. Cambridge, Mass, MIT Press. SOCIETY OF AUTOMOTIVE ENGINEERS. (1983). Aerospace engineering. Warrendale, Pa, Society of Automotive Engineers. STAB/DGLR SYMPOSIUM, & RATH, H. J. (2006). New results in numerical and experimental fluid mechanics V contributions to the 14th STAB/DGLR Symposium Bremen, Germany 2004. Berlin, Springer. SUDER, G. (2007). Doing Business in Europe. London, Sage Publications. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=635503. REYNOLDS, G. W. (2010). Ethics in information technology. Boston, MA, Course Technology, Cengage Learning. RUSSELL, J. (2012). Airbus a380. [S.l.], Book On Demand Ltd. TISDELL, C. A., & HARTLEY, K. (2008). Microeconomic policy a new perspective. Cheltenham, UK, Edward Elgar. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&A N=224426. VASIGH, B., TACKER, T., & FLEMING, K. (2008). Introduction to air transport economics: from theory to applications. Aldershot, England, Ashgate Pub. VOGEL, G. (2009). Flying the Airbus A380. Ramsbury, Wilts., UK, Airlife/Crowood Press. WITTMER, A., BIEGER, T., & MÜLLER, R. (2011). Aviation systems management of the integrated aviation value chain. Berlin, Springer. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10494234. Read More