"‘Blue Spider (BS) Project’Table of ContentsExecutive Summary…………………………………………………………………………… 2Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………. 2Key Stakeholders in the project ……………………….....……………………………………. 5Communication Issue …………………………………………………………………………. 5Selecting the Program Manager ………………………………………………………………. 6Recommendations………………………………………………………………………..…….91 Executive SummaryParks Corporation is an organization that focused chiefly on R&D business, doing ventures forthe Department of Defense. Parks Corporation has changed its concentration throughout theyears from predominantly R&D business to a production unit. Attributable to the pay rates that Parks was putting forth their entrance to experienced specialistswas constrained so they selected to utilizing for the most part youthful unpracticed architects,straight out of school, similar to Gary Anderson. Gary was an exceptional creation design andwas elevated to senior researcher in charge of all R&D activities performed in the MechanicalEngineering division. In the year 1978, Parks Corporation chose to contest Blue Spider Project. The Blue SpiderProject’s major objective was to enhance the basic abilities of the Spartan Missile, a short-extendstrategic rocket. The Army was looking out for needed new materials which would provide anextended life for the Missile. Lord Industries was the prime temporary. Parks Corporation wouldserve as a subcontractor to Lord in case if they could effectively offer and win the venture.Various issues arose after Park Industries won the contract. Informal communication about theproject to the project manager, Not disclosing technical difficulties faced by the research team,Not submitting the agenda and meeting minutes and many other issues lead to Gary Andersonstepping down as Project Manager. Formal Project Management Methodology should have been followed, A well experienced andcompetent project manager should have been appointed after formal consultation with the ProjectDirector. The Director of Engineering should have supported the Project manager as promised.2 Proper communication strategy, human resource management, scope management, Timemanagement is the recommendation for successful completion of the project. IntroductionIn the year 1978, Parks Corporation chose to contest Blue Spider Project. The Blue SpiderProject’s major objective was to enhance the basic abilities of the Spartan Missile, a short-extendstrategic rocket. The Army was looking out for needed new materials which would provide anextended life for the Missile. Lord Industries was the prime temporary. Parks Corporation wouldserve as a subcontractor to Lord in case if they could effectively offer and win the venture. Thecriteria for subcontractor determination were construct with respect to low offer, as well as onspecialized skill and in addition administration execution on different ventures. In this projectreport, the various issues faced by the Park corporation during various stages of the project lifecycle and how the project team handled the risks involved since project proposal has beendiscussed in detail. The Key stakeholders in the project were identified and the communicationmanagement issues with the major stakeholders were analyzed. The decision of the managementwith regard to project manager selection, his qualification and experience is questioned. Theconsequences of mistrust between the customer and the contractor with respect to the projecthave been evaluated. The various types of contract and Parks Corporation’s Firm Fixed Price(FFP) contract have been justified. The various ethical issues in different phases of the projectare discussed. Based on the findings of the analysis solutions for the issues have beenrecommended.This project analysis organized into three chapters. The chapters are as follows;3 Chapter I provide an Executive Summary, Table of contents and Introduction to the study Chapter II reviews the various issues involved in various stages of project life cycle and othermajor setbacks faced by Parks Corporation Chapter III concludes with the Major findings of the study and Recommendations The Blue Spider Project Kick-off and various risk involved: The main objective of every project team is to meet the project’s objectives. The Blue spiderproject kick off was done informally which is evident from the conversation which happensbetween Henry Gable, the director of engineering in Park Corporation and Gary Anderson,Senior scientist in Park Industries. Henry States that he got to know about Blue spider projectthrough grapevine. And the communication about the project proposal was informal in nature.The functional managers weren’tinformed formally about the projects. The entire projectproposal task was given to Gary. The first risk faced by Parks Corporation in the Initial phase of the blue spider project was thefallacy in the technical specification mentioned by the contractor. It has been stated clearly thatcomponents should operate normally through a temperature range between –65° to 145°F.Butthe Parks Corporation’s current testing design would not function above 130°F.And Garycommunicates about this issue to Henry Gable before the final proposal. But Henry urges Garyto ignore the issue and to manipulate the data. Though Gary Anderson warns about the unethicalnature of handling this issue they submit the proposal hiding the truth and stating that they expecttheir design and component will be operative up to 155°F. 4 The Parks corporation was awarded the project and a Firm-Fixed price contract was initiatedwhich was another risk factor identified in the implementation phase of the project life cycle.The risk involved in the project was that if Park’s corporation attempts to do additional work inthe earlier phases of the program without the knowledge of Lord Industries. Henry Gable, the director of engineering initially said that the Blue spider project was his babyand he would give his support throughout the project. But he was never available to discusswhenever Gary attempted to meet him. Hence without informing him they created an alternatetest matrix which looked good. But the customer was displeased with the way the project wasmoving forward. They weren’t happy with office personnel presenting the administrative data. The next major risk factor was that the team headed by Henry Gable started testing on a newmaterial without informing Gary. And the testing was done using the customer fund, but Henryasked Gary to inform the customer that they were using their own R&D funds. The next majorsetback was the problem with the bill of materials.As the primary contractor, Lords Industrieswere expecting the meeting minutes and other details reports with regard to the project, whereasGary thought that these paper works were time consuming and was holding his team’s time andeffort. The project team wasn’t able to handle the various risk involved in the project effectively. Theytried to postpone and hide the issues from the primary contractor most of the time. And whenthey could no longer hide the errors, they tried to manipulate the dat and chose the to dounethical things to escape and when all error mounted on to become a huge fireball, they madeGary Anderson the victim. 5 Key Stakeholders in the projectProject stakeholders refer to single individuals or entire organizations those who are influencedby the execution of a particular project. They can be affected positively or negatively. Keystakeholders are individuals or organizations who decide whether the project was a success ornot. These people decide on the objectives of the project. The typical key project stakeholders inthis Blue spider project are as following;? Army – They are the customers who are the direct users of the product which is endproduct of the project. Here the product is the Spartan Missile. ? Lord Industries – The primary contractor of the project? Gary Anderson – The Project manager of the Blue spider project? Paul Evan - Chief project engineer.? Henry Gable - The director of engineeringThe major communication issues with the key stakeholder during the project are listedbelow;? Informal communication about the project to the project manager? It was clearly mentioned in the technical specifications that the temperature of theproduct should be able to operate in temperature range of –65° to 145°F.But the ParksCorporation’s design doesn’t function above 130°F. And the concern was concealed andthe proposal by Parks Corporation state that their design was operative up to 155°F.6 ? The primary contractor was displeased when they didn’t receive any agenda about themeeting held with regard to the blue spider project. ? The project manager wasn’t informed when the team worked on a new material. ? The team member of engineering department has expressed his disappointment about thelack of communication from the project manager, he questions why his team is alwaysinformed about the process only in the last minute ? The communication between the Director of engineering and Project manager is verysour and it is clear that the Director of engineering was not available for the projectmanager to support him, but at the later stage made him a victim. Selecting the Project Manager• Project Manager’s role is the most challenging job in a project• Project Manager lives in a world of conflict• Project Manager should be a good communicatorIn this case study, the functional manager Henry Gable, director of engineering selects the GaryAnderson to be the project manager. This decision is taken by Henry Gable without consultingthe Elliot Grey, Director of program management, Elliot Grey. Though Gary is a good engineer,he doesn’t have experience in project management. His inexperience is being used by Henry.Though Gary had strong technical knowledge, he was very young and inexperienced to take upthe position of project manager. In the initial phase itself the conversation between Henry andGary isn’t good. Gary’s integrity is questioned here. He is not ready to conceal the issues whichHenry asks to hide. Gary doesn’t have any leadership quality. He doesn’t take a stand in any7 situation. He is not capable of taking decision and doesn’t motivate his employees. He doesn’tescalate the work to his team; instead he takes all the responsibilities on his shoulder. Hispressure increases. His communication with the primary contractor, Lord Industries is also verypoor. In many occasions, the Lord Industries have mentioned that Gary’s communication isn’tsatisfying. His written communication is also questionable. He considers creating agenda andsubmitting minutes is waste of time and effort. Gary was stressed from the earliest starting point that the test grid called out in the specializedvolume of the proposition would not create comes about that could fulfill particulars, yet hedoesn't raise this as an issue or heighten the issue. Gary was as well "hands on" and not dealingwith the venture/progam, he volunteered do every one of the errands himself. He was not clearon the obligations of a Project/Program Manager. His correspondence to the client (LordIndustries) and inside is extremely poor. There is no confirmation of customary Project Meetingsoccurring with every one of the partners (inward and outside). Gary put all the weight on himself to convey and did not utilize his group viably. He was notkeeping up a decent harmony between his specialized and managerial duties. With LordsIndustries undermining to set up a client office in Parks Corporation this demonstrates anoteworthy absence of trust. Gary didn’t plan the time precisely on this particular venture, the engineering department was farbehind the schedule. He didn't take after techniques in this manner and on the expenses on theventure washighly influenced. Thus, the program manager selection was not right for the project. Though Gary was qualified,he wasn’t experienced for the project. 8 Mistrust between Customer and Contractor In this project, the issues between the Parks Corporation and Lords Industries in the initiationphase of the project itself created the mistrust. Testing on a new material without propercommunication, Project manager not responding to calls, Office personnel submitting the projectadministrative papers, absence of agenda, non-submission of meeting minutes all created a hugemistrust issue between the buyer and supplier. Lord Industries expressed their displeasure atmany occasions. Type of Contract The Firm Fixed Price is also known as Lump Sum Contracts. In this contract the seller is at highrisk and the buyer is at the least risk as a fixed price is given for the project. In the blue spiderproject the Firm Fixed Price contract was selected but this contract left the Park Corporation athuge risk category. And Park Corporation at many occasions was afraid to take drastic steps because of the high riskfactor connected with the contract. When things didn’t go as planned in the project, Lord’smanagement was clear that the contractual requirements must be met at the expense of thecontractor.There are other type of contracts such as Cost Reimbursable Contracts, Time and MaterialContracts. Time and Material contract is also known as Unit Price Contracts.In this blue spiderproject, the Cost Reimbursable Contract would have been the best choice. Ethical Issues 9 Submitting a proposal with false hope and concealing the data was a huge mistake and unethicalin nature. Though Gary questioned Henry about the same, Henry didn’t realize the consequences,instead asked to go ahead with the project proposal with the manipulated data. This approachwas completely wrong and the action put the organization at huge risk. This issue created amistrust issue and left the buyer questioning the honesty and integrity of the Park Corporation.These acts would cause permanent damage to the relationship between the organizations andwould have a long term negative effect. Evaluation of project management Excellent=5; Very good= 4; Good=3, Poor=2, very poor =1 Initiation Planning Implementation Closeout Averagestage stage stage phaseScope management 3 3 3 3 3Time management 3 2 1 2 2Resource management 2 2 2 2 2(human resource)Communication 2 2 2 3 2.25managementStakeholder management 3 2 2 3 2.5Risk management3 2 2 3 2.5Contract and procurement 4 3 3 3 3.25management10 RecommendationsThe various areas of Project Management knowledge were not used in this project.ParksIndustries management failed in Scope Management, Time Management and Human Resourcemanagement.Formal Project Management Methodology should have been followed, A wellexperienced and competent project manager should have been appointed after formalconsultation with the Project Director. The Director of Engineering should have supported theProject manager as promised. The human resourced for the project should have been sufficient.Top management support and leadership was lacking in this project. 11 "