Orion Shield Project 1

Orion Shield Project Analysis

. His poor decision making. However. Among the numerous bad choices and errors made by Gary was his lack of integrity and communication with the stakeholders occupied with the task. it also negatively affected Gary’s career. 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. 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. amid the numerous other incorrect choices that Gary made.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. and negligence of finances not only harmfully affected the stakeholders of the project. he chose to be secret about Henry’s association. unprofessional conduct. This would have been the situation if Gary would have maintained his honesty and basically communicated to the SEC about Henry’s participation from the start of the project. which definitively led to Gary assuming the total accountability and liability of all the troubles and collapses that happened during the project.

Is Gary the right individual for the job? Henry Larson. made a terrible choice in employing Gary Allison to be the Orion Shield Project Manager. it also negatively affected his . they must also facilitate the entire process to meet the needs and expectations of the people involved in or affected by project activities” (2010. According to Schwalbe. 8). which is why the project was unsuccessfully handled from the beginning stages to the conclusion. Some of those abilities consist of organization. “Project managers must not only strive to meet specific scope. and quality requirements of projects. The Orion Shield Project was no omission to the necessary requirements stated. p. Appointing Gary not only negatively affected the organization. mishandling of finances. operating and learning from a skilled and experienced project manager for the project. time.Orion Shield Project 3 Introduction Project management is a task that necessitates an immense depth of knowledge and proficiency in some very significant parts. It would have been more appropriate for him to gain knowledge and understanding by assisting a manager for the project. Discussion and Analysis The written contract for the Orion Shield Project valued over $2 million. As the project continued. financial planning. Employing Gary to be the leader of this project proved to be damaging to the organization. Horrible time management. and miscommunication were among the countless issues detrimental to the project. and risk assessment. the Director of Engineering. cost. Gary’s inexpertness to project management created an immense amount of issues for the Orion Shield Project. preparation. lack of appropriate documents. it grew to be obvious that Gary was not approaching the expectations set by stakeholders.

Project management contains an extensive quantity of business administration. further stated. 374). Contrarily. it would have been a brilliant idea for Gary to have an “administrative assistant” on his management team (2010). and Cicmil. among many of the errors that Gary made was his carelessness of the essential administrative elements of the project. explicitly or implicitly. which contains data processing and documentation of conference meeting. on a cadre of professional project managers.Orion Shield Project 4 career. p. 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. 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. 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. As Hodgson et al. While this expertise is valuable. As Schwalbe implied. in the International Journal of Project Management. This is this kind of belief that eventually causes some projects to fail. According to Hodgson. largely drawn from among the ranks of technical specialists. 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. Technical Expertise versus Administrative Skill Moreover. his attention was only on the technical aspects of the project. Paton. The outcome would have been a better-off client and a decreased . 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. Gary is a technical inclined person. therefore. “organizations operating in the fields of engineering and other technical domains are particularly likely to rely.

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

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

To obtain a complete picture of the status of end items. work hours increased..S. 2003. Air Force supply chain workers must access multiple data systems. continues with its delivery to a source of repair. key supply chain information exists in multiple data systems. . Getting the information from the supply chain system back to headquartersand into the production system. In this environment. or inaccurate. making sure that the order from the retailer for 500 gizmos arrives at the retailer in time for the weekend sale. job related stress significantly increased.e. Often the resulting information is untimely. As a result. and the experience of distrust between Gary and the stakeholders arose. manufacture. Air Force supply chain for repairable commodities begins with the forecast. The U. workers are unable to perform their job effectively. inconsistent. 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 cyclei. and distribution of a part. marketing database and accounting systems. 1). which ultimately affects weapon system availability. 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. just to name a fewis crucial to better decision-making and to providing a more accurate picture of the supply chain (Zimmerman. purchase. Users must log onto each system individually and then navigate to locate the information desired.Orion Shield Project 7 characteristic. The different systems often present different results to different users.

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

through the rigorous use of the RUP. This allows workers to utilize collated information when performing their jobs without the need to cull through thousands of pieces of disparate data. SCCOP provides a process-centric view of the supply chain. intelligent decisions to enhance weapon system support processes. so personnel throughout the supply chain can make rapid. SCCOP fosters collaboration throughout the Air Force through the Air Force Portal. and then combines this data into useful information. for all levels of weapon system manager and SCM activity. SCCOP provides a common operational view of the total supply chain and provides details on all of the factors that affect weapon system availability. 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. swell as support the management of repairable from the operational units through the Defense Logistics Agency and the depots.Orion Shield Project 9 SCCOP automates retrieving and collating data. By capturing and encapsulating business process rules. Flow of Material. Organizations Function and Customers Compare and Contrast Global and Domestic Supply Chains Cost Benefit and Clothes . Weapon system managers and SCMs can track all parts throughout the supply chain.

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

“miscommunication can trigger unintended conflict” (2004). pursued advice when necessary. His lack of communication also contributed significantly to the ever occurring problems that the project faced. . ability. It would benefit Gary to receive training or higher education in business administration before taking on another project if the opportunity ever arises.Orion Shield Project 11 Conclusion In conclusion. Gary’s mismanagement of the Orion Shield Project was an eye-opener for him. and demonstrated clarity about the changing needs of the projects. and responsibility than being a project engineer. It showed him that project management involved a greater degree of skill. The cause of Gary’s problems was his lack of dishonest decision-making. It would serve him to make sure his decisions were lawful instead of influenced and pressured into making faulty decisions by a dishonest stakeholder. As Shister stated in the World Trade journal. Many of the avoidable conflicts that occurred would not exist if Gary would have strategically and tactfully communicated with all the stakeholders regularly.

The effects of moral development and adverse selection conditions on managers’ project continuance decisions: a study in the Pacific-Rim Region. S. 374-382. (2007). 347-360. & Cicmil. Retrieved from http://web. Paton. Shister. 76 (3). LLC. S. Retrieved from http://web. Great expectations and hard times: The paradoxical experience of the engineer as project manager. Managing Global Relationships in the Extended Supply Chain. (3rd ed. (2011). 1-36). program. appendix A. International Journal of Project Management.ebscohost. Retrieved from http://web. (2004).ebscohost. pp. & Yen.Orion Shield Project 12 References Chang. In Chapters 1-5. N. (2010). Chapter 1: An introduction to project.. S. 17(1).. 29(4).ebscohost.com Schwalbe. World Trade. K. and appendix B of an introduction to project management.com Hodgson. USA: Kathy Schwalbe.. S. 1418. Journal of Business Ethics.com . and portfolio management. C.

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.