Orion Shield Project Analysis
Emoke de Kun
Professor Larry Williams
July 16, 2013
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 3
Contractual Issues 4-5
Technical Issues 5-6
Ethical and Legal Issues 6-7
Project Management Issues 8
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the implications that Gary Larsen was faced with as project manager in the Orion Shield Project Case Study. Gary Larsen, who was chosen as project manager was faced with many ...view middle of the document...
Problems arose in the beginning when the proposal was sent to the client to win the bid. Gary Allison knew the specifications would not work, but Henry Larsen directed him to send it in as is. Mr. Larsen just wanted to win the bid for the contract. This is a perfect example of Mr. Larsen’s unethical behavior. Indeed, they won the bid, but of course, under false pretenses. Under the contract, the first milestone was the first 90 days, but correcting the specifications was time consuming and causing problems for the new project manager. It is important to make sure when committing to contractual obligations, that every part of the contract is honest and forthcoming. According to Branconi & Loch (2004), It is important to clearly state all contractual obligations in every area from legal to financial (p.119).
Due to problems with the specifications, there could be delays which will affect contractual obligations on SEC’s part. The contract was a firm-fix contract and due to the delays in testing, SEC would have to pay the extra costs. Branconi and Loch (2004) stated, “Lump sum turnkey (LSTK) fixed price contracts seemed to have increased in importance over the years, as they clearly allocate responsibility to one major contractor who assumes most risk and can control the project’s execution, minimizing interfaces and working with more overlap” (p. 121). This kind of contract puts the heavy burden on SEC, and less burden for the Space Technologies Industries. Any extra work or changes that need to be approved would cost SEC, due to the contract. A better contract would be where they Space Technologies carry some of the burden. Yet if SEC was straightforward from the beginning, then they would not be hampered down with these extra costs. With an experienced project manager the chance for delays will be high as was seen when SEC had to bail Gary out and pay more. Gary Allison is supposed to have control, but slowly we see that he cannot control the project.
The client wanted to be more abreast of information before meetings Gary Allison did not give them agenda, which goes to his inexperience. More time for them to review information, means the time and cost will be affected; thus will delay the project. A checklist stated in the contract would have helped keep the project more organized.
The technical issues Gary Allison was faced with was from the very beginning. The design at SEC could not operate to the specifications stated. So they mislead the customer because they wanted to win the bid and believed they could fix the problem later on.. Gary was having problems with the test matrix. The chief engineer tells Gary if they cannot find a solution, the scope of the project management plan will have to be changed and Space Technologies will be very upset. Something like this could hurt SEC. and or they could lose the contract. According to Muragesan (2012), when...