Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 12

Orion Shield Project 1

Orion Shield Project Analysis

Orion Shield Project 2 Executive Summary

The employing of Gary Allison for the Orion Shield Project as Project Manager was an immense error. Individuals have to question both the decision and morals of Henry Larson in appointing an unproven individual to pilot such a widespread venture. Gary made many incorrect judgments as he mistakenly regarded the horrible and dishonorable guidance of Henry Larson. Among the numerous bad choices and errors made by Gary was his lack of integrity and communication with the stakeholders occupied with the task. If Gary would have been more informative with all parties engaged many conflicts would have either been evaded or correctly resolved in a timely manner. A reprimand was warranted and should have been a must for the role that Henry Larson had due to the participation and involvement to the project over-run and negligence of finances. This would have been the situation if Gary would have maintained his honesty and basically communicated to the SEC about Henrys participation from the start of the project. However, amid the numerous other incorrect choices that Gary made, he chose to be secret about Henrys association, which definitively led to Gary assuming the total accountability and liability of all the troubles and collapses that happened during the project. His poor decision making, unprofessional conduct, and negligence of finances not only harmfully affected the stakeholders of the project; it also negatively affected Garys career.

Orion Shield Project 3 Introduction

Project management is a task that necessitates an immense depth of knowledge and proficiency in some very significant parts. Some of those abilities consist of organization, preparation, financial planning, and risk assessment. The Orion Shield Project was no omission to the necessary requirements stated, which is why the project was unsuccessfully handled from the beginning stages to the conclusion. Horrible time management, lack of appropriate documents, mishandling of finances, and miscommunication were among the countless issues detrimental to the project. According to Schwalbe, Project managers must not only strive to meet specific scope, time, cost, and quality requirements of projects, they must also facilitate the entire process to meet the needs and expectations of the people involved in or affected by project activities (2010, p. 8). As the project continued, it grew to be obvious that Gary was not approaching the expectations set by stakeholders. Is Gary the right individual for the job? Henry Larson, the Director of Engineering, made a terrible choice in employing Gary Allison to be the Orion Shield Project Manager. Garys inexpertness to project management created an immense amount of issues for the Orion Shield Project.

Discussion and Analysis The written contract for the Orion Shield Project valued over $2 million. Employing Gary to be the leader of this project proved to be damaging to the organization. It would have been more appropriate for him to gain knowledge and understanding by assisting a manager for the project, operating and learning from a skilled and experienced project manager for the project. Appointing Gary not only negatively affected the organization; it also negatively affected his

Orion Shield Project 4 career. Contrarily, it would have benefited Gary to turn down this job for lack of knowledge and ask for an assistant manager job before being held accountable for a complete project for which he was not skilled to handle. According to Hodgson, Paton, and Cicmil, in the International Journal of Project Management, organizations operating in the fields of engineering and other technical domains are particularly likely to rely, explicitly or implicitly, on a cadre of professional project managers, largely drawn from among the ranks of technical specialists, often on the assumption that a level of technical expertise is essential for the effective oversight of the technical aspects of the work process (2011, p. 374). This is this kind of belief that eventually causes some projects to fail. As Hodgson et al. further stated, choosing an individual to be a project manager simply because he or she has technical expertise is not a convincing enough reason for that individual to bear the sole responsibility of an entire project, which substantially demands a variety of diverse skill sets in addition to technical expertise in order to achieve its successful completion and gratification with all stakeholders affected by and/or involved with the project. Technical Expertise versus Administrative Skill Moreover, among many of the errors that Gary made was his carelessness of the essential administrative elements of the project. Gary is a technical inclined person; therefore, his attention was only on the technical aspects of the project. While this expertise is valuable, his administrative obligations cannot be abandoned at the expense of him centering all of his time and drive to the technical aspects of the project. Project management contains an extensive quantity of business administration, which contains data processing and documentation of conference meeting. As Schwalbe implied, it would have been a brilliant idea for Gary to have an administrative assistant on his management team (2010). The outcome would have been a better-off client and a decreased

Orion Shield Project 5 administrative load on Gary. Moreover, by abandoning the administrative aspect of the project, Gary was well on his way to a violation of contract with his client. This could have very well caused a termination of the contract, a unsuccessful project, a disgruntled customer, and probable legal action against Scientific Engineering Company (SEC). If negligence of the administrative obligations had continued, a lawsuit would have been a very reasonable action for STI to pursue against SEC. As project manager, Gary has the responsibility of ensuring that all contractual requirements stay the course. With proper planning, proper staffing, and appropriate communication, this breach of contract could have been more easily avoided. Ethics and Miscommunication Furthermore, miscommunication was an issue within the core team of the project. Gary neglected to inform his function manager of testing of new material (JBX-3). This caused a series of events to occur. It caused a significant amount of time to be wasted by the project team working on material that was not going to be used for the finished project. As a result, the team had to start all over, working on the JBX-3 instead of the material previously directed to work on for two months; this was because Gary neglected to tell them about the change of direction in a sufficient amount of time. This miscommunication was not only Garys fault. Paula Arnold, the chief project engineer, and Henry Larson should have also maintained open lines of communication with Gary about the new products that they were testing in the lab. This miscommunication caused the project to experience a budget over-run because it would cost the company more money, more labor hours, and more time to complete the project. As Schwalbe outlined about project management, communication is one of the four facilitating knowledge areas of project management allowing achievable project objectives (2010). Also, Gary was wrong to heed the advice of Henry Larson to lie about the financing of the new

Orion Shield Project 6 materials. This indeed caused an already rocky relationship with Space Technology Industries (STI) to become worse. In order to both increase and maintain trust with STI, Garys best option was complete honesty with them, especially about matters of finances. Garys decision to listen to Henrys advice was wrong. Although pressured by the man who hired him to be corrupt and concealed about their spending was evident, the primary responsibility and liability fell upon Gary due to his position as manager and as the culprit that withheld this vital information from STI, one of the major stakeholders in this project. Gary should have taken ethics into serious consideration before making the decision to conceal the budget issues and Henrys involvement. Managers selfinterest as well as their level of moral reasoning can have a significant impact on their project evaluation judgments (Chang & Yen, 2007, p. 348). By listening to Henrys erroneous advice, Gary was attempting to look out for his own career rather than the collective good of all the stakeholders. Moreover, it would have been sensible of Gary to be informative to STI about Henrys involvement with the project. Exposure of Henrys manipulation and corruption could have saved the project before actions of more serious and costly decisions. In fact, it was Garys lack of communication with STI, SEC, and his team that caused the project to be a painful and frustrating endeavor. The failure of the project would have never happened had Gary been more informative and less secret about his plans and actions. Open lines of communication with all stakeholders are keys to success in a project. This necessity is also essential to minimizing the amount of stress, frustration, and labor hours involved with the project. It also increases trust between him and all involved with the project. Yet, because Gary neglected this critical and useful

Orion Shield Project 7 characteristic, work hours increased, job related stress significantly increased, and the experience of distrust between Gary and the stakeholders arose.

Air Force Supply Chain Management Existing Supply Chain Supply chain management systems are designed to take care of the logistics end of the product distribution cyclei.e., making sure that the order from the retailer for 500 gizmos arrives at the retailer in time for the weekend sale. Getting the information from the supply chain system back to headquartersand into the production system, marketing database and accounting systems, just to name a fewis crucial to better decision-making and to providing a more accurate picture of the supply chain (Zimmerman, 2003, 1). The U.S. Air Force supply chain for repairable commodities begins with the forecast, purchase, manufacture, and distribution of a part; continues with its delivery to a source of repair; and ends with the distribution of the now serviceable asset to retail accounts and maintenance customers in order to return weapon systems to mission capable status. In this environment, key supply chain information exists in multiple data systems. The different systems often present different results to different users. To obtain a complete picture of the status of end items, Air Force supply chain workers must access multiple data systems. Users must log onto each system individually and then navigate to locate the information desired. Often the resulting information is untimely, inconsistent, or inaccurate. As a result, workers are unable to perform their job effectively, which ultimately affects weapon system availability.

Orion Shield Project 8 To resolve the inaccuracy in the mission critical supply chain, the Department of the Air Force hired Intergraph Solutions Group (ISG) to develop a more reliable and consistent supply chain. ISG devised the Supply Chain Common Operating Picture (SCCOP) that is accessible through the Air Force Portal. SCCOP captures and encapsulates business process rules for all levels of weapon system and supply chain manager (SCM) activity. SCCOP focuses on improving weapon system availability by providing personnel and organizations involved in supply chain support with total visibility of the overall Air Force supply chain. This is accomplished through the retrieval, display, and integration of information captured from multiple data sources. SCCOP provides a common operational view of the total supply chain and provides details on all of the factors that affect weapon system availability. It provides high-level visibility of status information on all assets and requirements, in all conditions, at all locations from a weapon system perspective. In addition, users can drill down to view detailed information about the asset. SCCOP obtains each required data element from the identified authoritative source for this information. This visibility provides users across the supply chain with the information necessary to make quality decisions in a timely manner. Central to the solution is the creation of business rules that consider the entire supply chain. SCCOP's business rules are built in a process-centric environment considering the total supply chain. Using this viewpoint, business rules for the total supply chain supplant the sub-optimizing business rules of component functions and agencies, which only consider their specific portion of the supply chain. This is a unique feature not found in a typical system solution. In short, SCCOP acts as a process-centric supply chain integration engine.

Orion Shield Project 9 SCCOP automates retrieving and collating data, and then combines this data into useful information. This allows workers to utilize collated information when performing their jobs without the need to cull through thousands of pieces of disparate data. The information is presented in a user-friendly format that allows SCMs to quickly distinguish problem areas and peel back summary information to identify specific causes, so personnel throughout the supply chain can make rapid, intelligent decisions to enhance weapon system support processes. SCCOP fosters collaboration throughout the Air Force through the Air Force Portal. Weapon system managers and SCMs can track all parts throughout the supply chain; swell as support the management of repairable from the operational units through the Defense Logistics Agency and the depots. SCCOP provides a common operational view of the total supply chain and provides details on all of the factors that affect weapon system availability. By capturing and encapsulating business process rules, through the rigorous use of the RUP, for all levels of weapon system manager and SCM activity, SCCOP provides a process-centric view of the supply chain. Flow of Material, Organizations Function and Customers

Compare and Contrast Global and Domestic Supply Chains

Cost Benefit and Clothes

Orion Shield Project 10 References Frost, A. (2003, nd). Supply Chain Common Operating Picture. Retrieved October 9, 2005, from http://www.intergraph.com/eresource/whitepaper Zimmerman, K. (2003, June, 01, 2003). Coming full circle: Gathering knowledge throughout the supply chain improves decision making. nd, pp.1-3.

Orion Shield Project 11

Conclusion In conclusion, Garys mismanagement of the Orion Shield Project was an eye-opener for him. It showed him that project management involved a greater degree of skill, ability, and responsibility than being a project engineer. It would benefit Gary to receive training or higher education in business administration before taking on another project if the opportunity ever arises. It would serve him to make sure his decisions were lawful instead of influenced and pressured into making faulty decisions by a dishonest stakeholder. The cause of Garys problems was his lack of dishonest decision-making. His lack of communication also contributed significantly to the ever occurring problems that the project faced. As Shister stated in the World Trade journal, miscommunication can trigger unintended conflict (2004). Many of the avoidable conflicts that occurred would not exist if Gary would have strategically and tactfully communicated with all the stakeholders regularly, pursued advice when necessary, and demonstrated clarity about the changing needs of the projects.

Orion Shield Project 12

References Chang, C. & Yen, S. (2007). The effects of moral development and adverse selection conditions on managers project continuance decisions: a study in the Pacific-Rim Region. Journal of Business Ethics, 76 (3), 347-360. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com Hodgson, S., Paton, S., & Cicmil, S. (2011). Great expectations and hard times: The paradoxical experience of the engineer as project manager. International Journal of Project Management, 29(4), 374-382. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com Schwalbe, K. (2010). Chapter 1: An introduction to project, program, and portfolio management. In Chapters 1-5, appendix A, and appendix B of an introduction to project management, (3rd ed., pp. 1-36). USA: Kathy Schwalbe, LLC. Shister, N. (2004). Managing Global Relationships in the Extended Supply Chain. World Trade, 17(1), 1418. Retrieved from http://web.ebscohost.com