PROJECT MANAGEMENT

THE FATE OF THE VASA

SUBMITTED BY: GROUP 13

ANUPAM TIWARI (1112)
AYUSH KUMAR (1312)
NIRMITI BELE (1333)
PRABH SIMRAN SINGH NARULA (1146)
SAGAR S. LAWADE (1347)
VAIBHAVI BARAD (1357)
YATHARTH GUPTA (1361)
Q1. Why did the Vasa meet this fate?
1. King Gustav II frequently ordered changes in the specification which leads to lot of
confusion

The Swedish Admiralty signed a shipbuilding contract in January, 1625 with Master
Shipwright Hybertsson and his brother, Arendt de Groot, a businessman, for four new ships
for the King’s navy. Out of these four ships, two were smaller ships with a keel length of 108
feet and two were larger ships of keel length of 135 feet. But in November 1625, King changed
the specifications of the smaller ships to keel length of 120 feet. But this dimension did not
match those of the already felled timber. After knowing this the king ordered a larger ship of
135 feet keel. Due to this, Hybertsson added a fourth length of timber to the already
constructed keel to increase its length to 135 feet. The keel now comprises four lengths of the
timber held together by three scarf joints but without the fourth timber, the keel measured only
111 feet.

2. No specifications for construction of the Vasa’s modified keel were prepared

The 111 feet of keel length has been enlarged to 135 feet and a second enclosed gun deck to
be added. But scaling up a 111 feet keel to 135 feet keel is more experimental as compared to
building a fresh 135 feet keel. Apart from this, this contract has been revised but no
specifications or crude sketches have been prepared. Apart from this, the Sweden shipwright
has no experience in building a double gun deck ship and it is totally new experience for him
to build a ship with these specifications.

3. Requirements for the armaments were changed repeatedly

The number and type of armaments to be carried by Vasa has also undergone a series of
changes. Initially, it was planned that Vasa would carry thirty-two 24-pound guns in one
enclosed deck but after the extension of the keel length from 111 feet to 135 feet, it was
decided that 36 24-pounders, 24 12-pounders and 8 48-pounders as well as 10 smaller guns
would be installed. Due to this in order to accommodate the added height and weight, it was
decided to widen the Vasa’s hull by 1 foot 5 Inches. Apart from this, the king ordered those
36 larger guns on the lower deck and 24 smaller guns on the upper deck needed to be installed.
But the king again changes the specification to 64 heavier guns - 32 on each deck. Due to all
these things the center of gravity of the ship has distorted and the uneven balance of the ship
has become one of the important factors in its failure.

4. Henrik Hybertsson (the shipwright) became ill and died in 1627

During 1626, Hybertsson became seriously ill and during the spring of 1627, he died. During
this period his assistants, Hein Jacobsson and Johan Isbrandsson has taken over the running of
the shipyard but both of them don’t have any managerial experience and due to lack of any
plans or specifications, drawings or descriptions of the design left by Hybertsson, Jacobsson
has to start afresh as there was very little information with which to carry out the work.
5. There were no known methods for calculating factors such as stability, stiffness, and
sailing characteristics of ships

During the time Vasa was constructed there were no methods of calculating the center of
gravity, the healing characteristics and the stability factor and the ship captains has to learn
the operational characteristics by trial-and-error testing and through their experience. But as
Vasa was truly a new ship for the captain to operate, he also doesn’t have any prior experience
of sailing such a large ship. After the ship was raised in 1961, It was found that around 120
tons of cobblestone was used as a ballast but according to the contemporary calculations, an
additional 130 tons of ballast would be needed to keep the ship stable considering its design
and configuration.

6. A stability test conducted before launching the Vasa showed that the ship was not
seaworthy

Before the loading of the ship’s armament, Admiral Fleming ordered for a stability test. For
this test, 30 men are required to run from one side of the ship to another. But during this test,
the ship was shaking so violently that the test was stopped after the three crossing as there is
danger of the ship to capsize. The boatswain, Joran Mattson, who witnessed the test told the
admiral that the ship is narrow from the bottom. But still after knowing this the Admiral took
no action. Also, neither, the shipbuilders were not present during the test nor were they
informed about the result of the test due to this negligence of the Admiral any instability issue
with the ship remained unsolved.

Q2. What could have been done to avoid this fate?

• Shipwright should have taken strong stand without kneeling to power, so that they don't
suffer because of some unhealthy decisions
• Designs & Plans of the Ship should have been finalized properly, with full knowledge of
pros and cons.
• A single person shouldn’t be made as the sole decision maker, instead Projects should be
taken up at the best interest of everyone
• Documentation of plan including the steps wise breakdown of the whole process should
have been made.
• Allocation of work, depending upon skills and area of expertise should have been done.
• Proper handling over of the project should be done, when the project lead is being changed.
• Roles and responsibilities should be clearly allocated and known to everyone from worker
to supervisor to the project lead.
• Strong communication channel between each of the stakeholders should be there.
• Having a plan and sticking to it is better, instead of frequent changes throughout the work
process.
Q3. Discuss the role of the King
Cathryn Louis correctly said, Greed, in the end, fails even the greedy.
The role of the king is crucial in understanding the present state of affairs. Adolphus was a
successful ruler. His ambition, military expertise and courage took Sweden to heights of power.
Understanding how he looked ahead at the opportunity to win this battle would make it
understandable to why he wanted the given specification in the battleship.
Adolphus directed Admiral Fleming, who was the Admiral for his fleet, asking him to make a
contract with Hybertsson to build four ships for Sweden. Two of these ships were smaller in size
and two large ships were to be made in the coming four years. The two smaller ships were to be
made with a keel length of 108 feet and the larger ships were to be made with a keel length of 135
feet.
Changing Warfare:
Due to the changing warfare system and advancement in the naval battleground the king wanted
to make sure that the ships they were building had the latest advancements and abilities. This need
was arisen due to the changing competitive landscape, changing needs of the war and
advancements in technology.
Due to the same the king made a series of changes in the spring of 1625, the builder ordered wood
from the forest. This wood for cut in accordance with the suitability of the original dimensions of
the four ships.
The Storm:
In 1625, the port of Sweden was hit by a storm which was so devastating that it engulfed ten of
the existing naval warfare ships. Due to this the king was worried about the safety of the waters
and thus ordered to accelerate the building of the two smaller ships. This rush was accompanied
by the order to change the dimensions of the ship from 108 feet to 120 feet. The wood had already
been cut and this change would mean improvising the original plan of construction. This decision
made a hit on the accuracy as the era involved a unorganized methodology of creating the
dimensions of the battleship.

Changing the requirement of Armaments:

• Adolphus made the requirement of armaments go through a series of revisions. In the
original plan the Vasa was expected to be 111 feet and carry thirty-two 24-pound guns.
• Then the need for increased armaments made the size to be at a whopping 135 feet. This
size was expected to carry thirty-six 24-pound guns along with twenty-four 12-pound guns,
ten smaller guns and eight 48-pound mortars.
• The next revision expected Vasa to carry thirty 24-pounders on the lower deck and thirty
12-pounders on the upper deck.
• In the final iteration of the Vasa the king wanted it to be a carrier of sixty-four 24- pound
guns; thirty-two on each deck plus several smaller guns.
 The problem was the upper deck was made to carry 12-pound guns but was now laden with
24-pound guns thus making the space compact and providing added weight. This in turn
disturbed the center of gravity of the ship posing threat to the balance.
(*eventually the ship was loaded only with 48 guns with each deck carrying 24 guns as the
availability was restricted)

The Artiste Cynic:

The king wanted the ship to impress the world by overcasting the Danish ship being built at
the time. In order to achieve that the ship was laden with numerous ornate, glided and painted
carvings which were made out of heavy oak. The artiste was a depiction of Biblical references,
mythologies of Greek and Roman origin and even the historical themes and achievements of
Adolphus himself. The heavy artiste and oak laden structures further added to the kerb weight
of the ship’s upper architecture making the imbalance further higher.

Q4. Discuss the role of the Shipyard.

Main problems that occur in shipyard that leads to this disaster were:
• Lack of experience after the death of Hybertsson
Henrik Hybertsson was an experienced shipbuilder and at that time there was no scientific
calculation available, so he usually took the decision from his experience and craftmanship.
After his demise there was no suitable replacement. His assistants, Hein Jacobsson and
Johan Isbrandsson, neither of who had significant management experience, gradually
began to take over the running of the shipyard but was not able to replace him. This lack
of experience in the shipyard might had led to this disaster.
• Shipyard was not fully focused on Vasa
Part of the major delay in finishing the Vasa was likely attributable to another contract
signed by the shipyard for the refit of a warship called the Applet during 1626. The cost of
this refit – representing three-quarters of the cost of a new ship – suggested that the work
involved was significant. Due to this delay in manufacturing the heavy cannons, Vasa
sailed with 48 24-pound cannons, six 48-pound mortars and some smaller armaments. An
equal number of the cannons were placed on each gun deck. Due to this Vasa’s stability
might have been impacted and might had led to this disaster.
• Importance of Lurch test
After such disaster test most ships would never be allowed to set sail. If a ship would for
some reason would be able to set sail after failing its lurch test, then its voyage would
surely end in disaster, as failing lurch tells that if ship were to heel even a little then it
would not be able to restabilize. So, it was failure from shipyard side to allow vasa to
continue even after failing lurch test.