My recommendations to the BAE management when handling change request would be

 

 

 

 

 

a) To ensure that each change request is thoroughly reviewed by team of experts including project sponsor, key senior management and well as recognised experts from outside the company, who have sound expertise and experience in various fields and who can objectively review and analgise change requests. The objective of these reviews would be to clearly analyse each request on its merits and faults, so to establish the potential beneficial and or negative impacts on the project. The outcome is to have better understanding of potential risks that could happen if a change is accepted or rejected. If changes are found to be beneficial to the project or will prevent potential problem, or will solve existing issues, or are simply unavoidable such as legislative changes, then the changes should be implemented. However if changes are too complex due to technical reasons or will have great negative impacts on cost and schedule, they should be rejected with sound reasoning. The reasons for rejection should be well communicated to all parties. Changes if deemed acceptable should also be prioritised by this team. “In the problem recognition phase the there has to be a clear understanding that there is something significantly wrong with the project.”(Labbe, 2009 p25)

 

 

 

 

b) Effective Communication between the relevant shareholders on the findings of expert team is essential. Official meetings on scope changes with relevant and affected stakeholders must be held so all are aware of the ramifications of proposed changes. One reason for this is, regardless how good the team of experts are, no one can know everything or understand the full needs or concerns of all the parties involved. If communication is poor or restricted to between just a few stakeholders, it can lead to tunnel vision, or familiarly, which can breed overconfidence, or critical decisions can be made on biased views due to commercial or political pressures. All this can lead to miscalculations based on false, misleading or insufficient information. Positive and negative feedback from stakeholders can assist in coming to better conclusions on proposed changes. There needs to be a set procedure as well the need for flexibility but control during this process so the use of predetermined decision trees or process flow charts during such meetings would be highly beneficial in coming to a conclusion The outcome of these meeting should be that stakeholders, especially clients and end users, will be aware of the potential issues and be in a position to support or at understand the reason why the changes are necessary. “Dysfunctional decision making is the posion that kills technology projects and the Denver Airport Baggage System project in the 1990’s is a classic example.” (Calleam Consulting 2008 p 1)

 

 

 

 

Both the above are required for integrated change control management to be effective (Sanghera 2010 p 311). There are plenty of examples, worldwide, baggage handling systems failures however Denver remains the most prominent case and the system was completely scrapped in 2005. While there were many reasons for the faults that occurred , the main cause can be pin pointed that scope changes decisions were allowed to happen without proper controls or risk analysis. Decisions such on as schedule time reductions, added and reduced scope, were based often on political and commercial reasoning without clear understanding of technical issues or ramifications. While many of the project’s problem may not have been solved using better scope change control techniques, at least the impacts to the parties involved could have been lessen. This week’s two reference projects , the Alcan Aluma Plant and the Bogue Power Plant are good examples of project teams protecting the scope by employing integrated control systems and management which allowed them to make sound decisions.

 

 

Bibliography

 

 

 

1. Anon (n.d.) Bogue generation expansion project: project management helps overcome challenges to provide a reliable power source [Online] Project Management Institute, Inc. Available from: http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/Case%20Study/Bogue%20Generation%20Expansion%20Project%20ESB.ashx (Accessed: 16 November 2010).

 

2. Anon (n.d.) BPR-Bechtel plans and constructs a potlining center on time and under budget [Online] PMI: PMI. Available from: http://www.pmi.org/~/media/PDF/Case%20Study/Alma%20Potlining%20Center%20Project%20ESB.ashx (Accessed: 16 November 2010).

 

3. Calleam Consulting, (2008),‘Case Study –Denver International Airport baggage illustration of ineffectual decision making’ Calleam Consulting Ltd,[Online] Scholar Goggle, Available at: http://calleam.com/WTPF/wp-content/uploads/articles/DIABaggage.pdf , (Accessed 22 March 2013)

 

4. De Neufville,R., (1994), ‘The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons’ Journal of Air Transport Management ,1(4), pp229-236[Online] Scholar Google Available at : http://www.academic.marist.edu/~jzbv/SoftwareDevelopment/Crisis/DenverAirportBaggage.pdf (Accessed 22 March 2013)

 

5. Labbe,G., (2009), ‘Innovation Failure: The ABH System at the Denver International Airport’ , Michigan Celebration of Women in Computing,pp 23-30 , Michigan, 3-4 April 2009, [Online] Scholar Google Available at : http://www.egr.msu.edu/msuwic/documents/MICWIC_2009_Conference_Proceedings.pdf#page=23 (Accessed 22 March 2013)

 

6. Sanghera, P. (2010), PMP in Depth: Project Management Professional Study guide for the PMP Exam 2nd Ed. Boston MA : Course Technology