Orion Shield Project Case Study

Executive Summary

A good project management plan takes some preparation. In the case study of The Orion Shield Project that preparation never occur. From the beginning, the project was plagued with Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC), bidding for a project that they knew their current product would not be able to do. The case study shows the actions of an inexperienced professional, poor planning methods, unethical decision making and inability to manage a project to completion. While the project was looked at as a success, ultimately it was doomed from the start. There were specific issues that initially concerned Gary Allison, SEC’s project manager, but he was told by the Director of Engineering, Henry Larsen,

that his issues were not a big issue. By the project manager lying to Space Technology Institute (STI), this created an unethical work environment from the start. There are various issues throughout the project such as contractual, legal, technical and ethical issues. A project manager should be concerned with time and cost also however, Gary was concerned mainly about his new career and promotion. With the stakeholders waiting for a complete project and funding on the line, the project team continuously upset STI until the decision was made to work more closely with SEC to ensure accuracy. With good project management skills, a project manager uses tools to ensure project accuracy, timeliness and holds status meetings with all parties to keep them aware of any changes that may occur. In this paper you will see an unorganized project with overrun funding and lack of organization. Recommendations are made to enhance the performance of the project manager and the overall improvements that should have been addressed at the start.

Introduction
Project management is a task that necessitates an immense depth of knowledge and proficiency in some very significant parts. Some of those abilities consist of organization, preparation, financial planning, and risk assessment. The Orion Shield Project was no omission to the necessary requirements stated, which is why the project was unsuccessfully handled from the beginning stages to the conclusion. Horrible time management, lack of appropriate documents, mishandling of finances, and miscommunication were among the countless issues detrimental to the project. According to Schwalbe, “Project managers must not only strive to meet specific scope, time, cost, and quality requirements of projects, they must also facilitate the entire process to meet the needs and expectations of the people involved in or affected by project activities” (2015). As the project continued, it grew to be obvious that Gary was not approaching the expectations set by stakeholders. Henry Larson, the Director of Engineering, made a terrible choice in employing Gary Allison to be the Orion Shield Project Manager. Gary’s inexpertness to project management created an immense amount of issues for the Orion Shield Project.
Technical Issues
After receiving the RFP, Gary and the technical team grappled with quite a few technical complications while struggling to fashion a product that could withstand the heat while ensuring an extended life of the product. The technical team noted that the technical specifications on the proposal state that all components must be able to functions successfully through a temperature range of -65 degrees Fahrenheit to 145 degrees Fahrenheit. Gary Allison realized that the design that the SEC had initially proposed would not be able to function above 130 degrees Fahrenheit, which lead him to meet with Mr. Henry Larsen before the final proposal was due to STI. Gary wanted to inform the client- STI of the material details, but Mr. Larsen advised against it, resulting in SEC winning the Orion Shield Project. Even though they decided to keep quiet about the discovery of the inadequacy of the model they proposed, Mr. Larsen and Gary agreed that new materials were necessary. This initial technical issue would later lead to many more issues to be discussed further in the paper. After being awarded the contract, Gary began spending a lot of time analyzing the details and supervising as much of the technical development process as possible, at times even partaking in the research, as it was his expertise. By being hands on, Mr. Allison wanted to thwart oncoming issues while delivering solutions for the existing ones. This was an issue because the time he was spending in the lab was taking away from his administrative duties that would have helped the progress of the project. When the new materials, meeting specifications were finally found and used in testing, research concluded that the new components would meet the temperature specifications but would have an age life of less than 5 years, which was less than the initial materials age life. One of the goals of the project was to find components increasing the age life more than 6 years, meaning the new materials, again, did not meet the requirements. This technical issue created many more issues with scheduling, resource management, timing, and upper level management. The last technical issue was with the test matrix in the technical volume of the proposal that was not delivering adequate results per the client’s request. Gary recognized this technical issue early on in the projects life, and even reported it up to the project engineer, Paula Arnold, but she advises against changing or updating the testing matrix as it is out of the scope of work for the contract. Paula does not want to add additional work, using extra resources while they are already on such a tight schedule, and Gary decides to take her advice, creating yet another technical problem. The technical problems associated with the Orion Shield Project were all because the materials that they promised to provide to STI were not meeting specifications. The solution would have been for Gary to tell the truth on the initial proposal and request more funding and time for research and development. This would have allowed him to execute the mission of the project without withholding the truth from the client. It would also make the project schedule less demanding and more realistic. If Gary had planned for the project, by organizing the needs and roles he would have been able to accurately contribute to the proposal by including realistic deadlines and expectations.
Ethical Issues
This particular case shows how a lack of planning and management can lead to ethical problems.

Initially, an unethical decision was made by the SEC, when they decided not to inform the customer (STI) of the inadequate materials they had when attempting to win the contract. Mr. Henry Larsen was more concerned with winning the contract then actually being able to deliver on it and was unethical in hiding this inadequacy from the client in the proposal. This created an ethical dilemma for Gary as well because he also decided not to inform the client on his own, because his new promotion was on the line. By keeping the technical issues and problematic design fault quiet, the SEC was forced to lie about funding to cover extra expenses for testing of new materials and more. This lie created an unrealistic project schedule as well as an unreasonable use of resources and funding, leading to another ethical issue for Mr. Larsen. Holding Gary responsible for a project schedule that was unrealistic from the beginning was unethical because ultimately Gary was punished for his lack of performance in a situation where successful performance was

impossible.
This tight project schedule also forced Gary into an additional ethical dilemma when he was advised against fixing the testing matrix when he initially noticed the fault. Paula Arnold told him not to make changes at it would only delay the process from beginning, but in the long run, ignoring this technical error led the technical staff three weeks in the wrong direction, when the test results were finally found to be unacceptable. The ignorance dealing with the testing matrix not only cost the SEC team a few extra weeks of unnecessary work with resources, time and money wasted, but it also gave STI a negative image of Gary and his project team.
Another ethical dilemma that Gary struggled with was the lack of open and honest communication with the stakeholders. This could have been because of his lack of experience with project management and that he had worked primarily in the technical sector of the field, but if he was able to actively communicate the hiccups and roadblocks along the way, he would have been better prepared to defend the project failures. Paula Arnold, the Project Engineer was upfront from the beginning about the way Mr. Larsen handles his business; it was Gary’s responsibility to inform the client of Henry’s involvement, that way he was not the scape goat if/when things went downhill. Gary’s lack of project management experience led him to make the same poor decision he witnessed his boss Mr. Henry Larsen make, when he decided to make the unethical decision not to inform management at SEC of the negative test results about the materials age life. This poor decision ultimately cost Gary his management position.
Henry Larsen should not have made the unethical decision to appoint Gary Allison in the Project Manager role for such an important project.

This decision to employ a puppet, through which Henry could speak, posed the first real ethical problem in the Orion Shield project, from which all other ethical issues stemmed. The initial lie set up a schedule that was impossible to meet, making even more lies necessary. The first ethical issue was caused by telling this lie and every time thereafter when Gary decided not to share important information with the client, it posed an ethical dilemma. The solution to these issues would be to be upfront and honest in all communication from the proposal stage. This would allow Gary to manage the expectations from all stakeholders and his team. Gary should have confronted Henry Larsen about the unrealistic requirements of the job at hand and they should have discussed his reservations and how to manage them to ensure proper execution of the project mission. Gary should have told Sarah Wilson about the inadequate testing matrix and the money being used to test new materials. By keeping the customer stakeholders in loop, and documented in all communication, everyone will be more understanding to arising problems, while keeping the responsibility where it should

be.
Legal/ Contractual Issues
A contractual issue Gary faced would be the fact that SEC lied about what it could deliver to STI on the Orion Shield project proposal. The SEC withheld necessary information that could have potentially changed who was awarded the contract. The legal issue associate with this was the illegal use of project funds. Sarah Wilson, the customer from STI, mentioned initially that the contract was an FFP (Firm fixed Price), meaning that the cost for any additional work necessary, would come out SEC’s pocket. Gary was also informed that there could be a trade-off later, dependent on the results presented at the second design review; meaning STI could reimburse this amount in the future, depending on the results delivered. Despite the knowledge of the nature of the contract, Henry Larsen, was using STI funding to test new materials and matrices without informing Ms. Wilson of what was going on because it was out of the project scope and she had specifically said that any additional testing and research would be coming out of SEC’s account, making it a legal issue as well as a contractual one. In short, SEC lied about their product and services, and then used STI funds to rectify this lack of quality without their knowledge. Contractual and legal issues could have been avoided by being honest with the customer. By letting STI know beforehand what materials SEC possessed, they would have had more realistic expectations for the Orion Shield Project. Like Sarah Wilson said, as prime contractor STI has a huge stake in the project and would like to be kept on top of everything, and SEC did the exact opposite from the very beginning. It was also said that the burden of responsibility lies on Gary Allison, as he is the Project manager; with that role comes the responsibility of truth and this was ignored from the conception of the project. Clearly stating the specifications for the materials SEC had, would have prevented many lies and unethical decisions for all members of SEC.