Gary Allison’s Failure as the Orion Shield Project Manager

Due to the complexities and the time and budget constraints of a project, project managers have to battle with numerous challenges to guarantee project success. Problems in a project range from operational, financial and technical and ignoring any aspect can spell doom for the entire project.  This report examines the actions of Gary Allison assumed the role of a project manager for Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC) for a 10-month $2.2 million contract. As a novice project manager, Gary faced various legal, ethical, contractual, technical and other project management issues. Gary’s lack of project management knowledge and experience adversely affected his ability to tackle the challenges. The cost overruns, unmotivated staff, poor communication with stakeholders and the unceremonial retirement from the Program Manager position is enough evidence of his failure.  The fixed price contract also acted against SEC since the company would have to shoulder the numerous risks associated with the new product. Instead, a cost-plus materials and time contract would have enabled SEC to set a fixed profit margin from the project. Another mishap in the Orion Shield Project is the ineffective reporting system which led to poor communication and created opportunities for conflict of interest.

Introduction

A project is deemed successful in the State of Maryland if it meets the business requirements, delivered on schedule, maintained within the budget and meets the expected business value and return on investment. Although project success is a culmination of so many factors, effective project management  is one of the most significant determinant. The Orion Project was NASA’s venture geared towards improving the structural capabilities of the Shuttle Launch Booster. NASA used Space Technologies Institute as the prime contractor who in turn sub-contracted the Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC) to help with the project. SEC’s Director of Engineering, Mr. Henry Larsen appointed Mr. Gary Allison as the project manager. As the project advances, Gary is faced with numerous myriad which tests not only his competence but also his integrity. In this light, this report identifies and discusses the technical, ethical, legal, contractual and other project management issues that Gary has faced and how he responded to each one of them. Also, the report determines whether Gary has failed as the Orion Shield, project manager.

Whether a Fixed Price Contract Was Appropriate for the Orion Shield Project

The terms of the contract between Space Technologies and SEC stated that the contract awarded to SEC was a firm fixed price (FFP) contract worth $2.2 Million for ten months. A fixed price contract meant that SEC would bear the risk of cost overruns if the cost of the materials were higher that the initial projections. Since the SEC did not have a product that would meet STI’s needs, they should not have accepted an FFP contract. The fact that SEC had not produced a product of STI’s specifications before implied that the company could not accurately approximate the costs of developing the product. An FFP contract is only viable when the risk is minimal and predictable;a condition which was absent in the Orion Shield Project (Kerzner & Kerzner, 2017).

It would have prudent for SEC to set a cost-plus materials and time contract. In this form of contract, the primary billing unit for time becomes the labor hours and materials billed at cost. Given the uncertainty surrounding the development of the new product, a cost plus time and materials contract would have given flexibility to the project, and SEC would have received a pre-determined profit thus preventing instances where the contracted company had to finance the project from the company’s coffers.  The cost-plus time and materials contract would have placed the risk of cost overruns on STI making it the best option from SEC’s point of view (Kerzner & Kerzner, 2017).

Project Planning Documents Missing from the Case

Maintaining integrity of a project requires careful planning to envision how the project team, resources, and a company’s functional departments will interact to guarantee project success. The technical problems that the Orion Project fell into can be blamed mostly on the absence of important project planning documents. One of the significant project planning documents missing from the case is a project management plan. According to the Project Management Institute, a project management plan (PMP) is, “a formal approved document to manage project execution,” (Project Management Institute, 2016). A PMP outlines the actions necessary for defining, preparing, integrating and coordinating. Also, a PMP is a communication tool to ensure the key stakeholders are well informed at every stage of the project execution. The absence of a PMP meant that Gary and his team did not have a clear implementation plan and that is why he kept rescheduling product testing.

 The project team planning document was also absent in the case given that Gary juggled between laboratory work and administrative functions to the detriment of the project’s quality (UMUC, 2018). A project team planning document outlines the roles and responsibilities of each team member to prevent cases where one individual is overworked. The absence of a project team plan made Gary to focus on trivial tasks instead of offering the much-needed leadership. For example, when Space Technology Industries requested to be provided with complete minutes, Gary took an entire week to prepare the minutes. If Gary had prepared a project team planning document, he would have realized that his role as a project manager was to offer leadership as opposed to managing every trivial detail.

Another crucial document in project planning is the detailed project work plan which keeps track of the activities, durations, milestones, costs, and resources (PMI, 2016).  The overrunning project costs and product testing on holiday reveal the absence of a project work plan. Finally, the Orion Shield Project did not have a risk plan which is vital in identifying the project risks and mitigation strategies that would be instrumental in addressing the risks if they manifest (PMI, 2016). If Gary had prepared a risk management plan, he would have identified threats such as the possibility of overrunning costs, moral dilemmas in project implementation as well as the risks of replacing the original material with JXB-3. In all, the absence of important project planning documents in the Orion Shield Project contributed to the various technical and operational challenges faced by Gary and his team.

Whether Gary Allison Required Project Management Training

Throughout the case study, there is nowhere mentioned that Gary Allison underwent training to hone his critical thinking, decision making, and administrative skills. The only details available is that Gary Allison had an remarkable background as a technical engineer which is the primary reason why the Director of Engineering tapped him to oversee the Orion Shield Project. For a high visibility project like the one in the case study, it is imperative to ensure that the project manager has demonstrated an ability to guarantee project success (PMI, 2016). Gary’s professional lapses reveal that his project management knowledge was wanting and could have done with a program on project management.

The first professional lapse that Gary made is to allow himself to be coerced by Larsen. When Gary realized that the current model did not meet the technical requirements to operate at a range of -65 degrees to 145 degrees, he wanted to inform the customer but when he shared his thoughts with Larsen said, ”I picked you to head up this effort because I thought that you’d understand. I could’ve just as easily selected an ”ethical” project manager,” (UMUC, 2018).  Through these words, Larsen convinced Gary that they were doing nothing wrong. If Gary had undergone project management training, it would have prepared him for instances like this, and he would have stood his ground to safeguard his integrity and the integrity of the project. However, the lack of training and prior experience in project management made it so easy for Larsen to manipulate him. Another scenario that illustrates that Gary could have done with project management training is his lack of a hands-on touch on the administrative aspects of the project. Given that Gary had built his name as a technical engineer, it is no surprise that he left the project office personnel handle the administrative work while he concentrated on technical details (UMUC, 2018). Gary’s failure to maintain communication with the other stakeholders and his difficulty in documenting his work and minutes are also evidence of his poor administrative skills. Nothing captures Gary’s challenges in handling administrative duties than Sarah Wilson when she stated, ”Frankly, we just don’t think that you’re maintaining the proper balance between your technical and administrative roles,” (UMUC, 2018).

Orion Shield Reporting Structure

In the Orion Shield Project case study, Gary is reporting to SEC’s Director of Engineering Larsen who appears to have a vested interest in the project since project success will make him more appealing to the upper-level management. Larsen’s words that Orion Shield would be his baby all the way reveals the most significant drawback of the reporting structure since instead of letting professionalism to take precedence, Larsen would let his emotions get in the way.  This fundamental weakness in the reporting system is evident in the project’s early stages when Larsen refused to admit that the SEC would not meet the project requirements without changing the material requirements. If the reporting system had checks and balances, it would have been more difficult for Larsen to manipulate the project manager. Another drawback of the reporting structure is that it hampered communication between the various key stakeholders.  For example, it is unsettling that Gary was not aware that Larsen was contemplating to introduce a new material JXB-3 until it was too late (UMUC, 2018). Larsen had instructed the Chief Project Engineer, Paula Arnold to keep the project manager in the dark about the possibility of new material.  From the above, it is prudent to conclude that Orion Shield’s reporting structure was counter-productive, inefficient and created an opportunity for conflicts of interest. The only good thing with the reporting structure is that it facilitated lean management and flexibility; both of which are crucial to project success.

The Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) offers insights into the organizational structure to maintain project integrity. PMBOK recommends a classic functional organization structure where each employee has one superior (PMI, 2016). In the Orion Shield Project, this structure would mean that the project engineer would report to the project manager who would then report to the Director of Engineering. Furthermore, the classical functional organizational structure would have required Larsen to report to a more senior officer who would communicate with the C-Suite and the board. This reporting structure would have achieved communication clarity and eliminated a conflict of interest.

Whether Gary Failed as the Orion Shield Program Manager

When Larsen appointed Gary as the Orion Shield Program manager, he told him that to be a good program manager; he would need the ability to write and speak well, ability to motivate people and total commitment until the project was complete. Using this criterion, Gary did not meet minimum standards to be considered a good program manager. Gary’s inability to document his work or minutes irked the Space Technologies Institute as it was an indicator of incompetence. Also, Gary failed in motivating people given that he was unable to follow processes for the functional areas hence creating the impression that he did not care about people’s time. The statement by the production department’s representative that,” We’re fed up with being kept in the dark until the last minute -- what happened to planning?” points to a demotivated person who is unhappy about being kept in the dark (UMUC, 2018). Another way to determine whether Gary failed as the Orion Shield Program manager is to consider the State of Maryland’s definition of project success.  A project is deemed successful in the State of Maryland if it meets the business requirements, delivered on schedule, maintained within the budget and meets the expected business value and return on investment (State of Maryland, 2016).  Although the project was delivered on schedule and met the business requirements, the cost overrun of over $150,000 means that Gary failed as a program manager.

Conclusion

To sum up, the above analysis has examined the ethical, contractual legal and other project management issues in the Orion Shield case study. The analysis has revealed that given the high level of uncertainty surrounding the development of the new product, it was imprudent to use a Fixed Price contract and, a cost-plus materials and time contract would have been a more viable option. Also, the analysis has identified that critical project planning documents such as a project team plan and a risk management plan were absent in the case. Besides, the report has established that Gary required further project management training to improve his critical thinking, administrative and management skills. Orion Shields reporting structure is another aspect discussed in this report, and the findings reveal that the structure led to poor communication and conflict of interest. Finally, the report has established that Gary failed as Orion Shield’s program manager as evidenced by his failure to achieve communication clarity with the stakeholders, inability to motivate the project team and the cost overruns. In all, the Orion Shield Project case study is an example of all that can go wrong in a project.

References

Kerzner, H., & Kerzner, H. R. (2017). Project management: a systems approach to planning, scheduling, and controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Project Management Institute. (2016). A Guide to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK® Guide)

State of Maryland. (2016). WHAT MAKES A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT? Retrieved from State of Maryland: http://doit.maryland.gov/SDLC/Documents/What%20Makes%20a%20Successful%20Project.pdf

UMUC. (2018). The Orion Shield Project. Retrieved from: https://learn.umuc.edu/d2l/le/content/271987/viewContent/12393789/View