An analysis on the Airbus A380 Project

3. R
The Futuristic Aircraft
3A 80
B SIA U
Presented By:
Randolph Rajaratnam (AeU/14/14/213)
Nishantha Pemachandra (AeU/14/14/209)
Clarance Fernando (AeU/14/14/202)
Viraj Mathusinghe (AeU/14/14/217)
Inoka Gunawardena (AeU/14/14/207)
b. Krishnarajan (AeU/14/14/208)

4. Overview

5. Overview
• Early 90s initial market studies identified a need for a commercial
aircraft:
 with more capacity
 more range with more comfort
 significantly more efficient (up to 20% lower operating costs)
 more environmentally friendly (less fuel burn, is significantly quieter)
• The Airbus A380: a project involving39 companies in 16 countries with
major manufacturing and assembling done in West Europe.
• Project was started in 2000 and was scheduled to launch in 2006

6. Design Intent (Scope)
• Improve technological advantage
• Lower fuel usage
• Lower operational cost
• Achieve business dominance over Boeing
• Achieve regional corporation of the EU for financial benefit
• To achieve sustainability advantage

7. Evaluation Criteria
• Scope Management
• Time Management
• Cost Management
• Communication Management
• HR Management
• Quality Management
• Risk Management
• Procurement Management
• Stakeholder Management
• Environment Factors

8. Scope Management
• The overall objective of capacity of 850 passengers were
achievable, but the final configuration was for 550 passengers
• Wasn’t able to get a sizeable orders and still has not broken
even (450 aircraft to break-even)
• Achieved the lowest operating cost (20% cheaper than the
standard) but was superseded by the B787 and the A350XWB
• Managed to achieve regional politics
Rating 2/5

9. Time Management
• Development was delayed several times arising from
several internal quality management issues
• Had to set up crash programs to shorten the time by
launching the ‘Power 8’ program
• Let to the main customer Emirates to state that they have
to review other their options
Rating 1/5

10. Cost Management
• The overall cost overrun was estimated to be US$ 1.93
billion which was 17% of the original development budget
• The main reason as re-development was needed to reduce
the weight reduced in the aircraft
Rating 2/5

11. Communications Management
The biggest cause of the delay was a communication gap
between the various manufacturing facilities not having the
same version of the software
• The wire harness which was about 500 Km in length had
issues being installed in the aircraft
• Each plant was blaming the other which was evident of a
communication breakdown
Rating 1/5

12. HR Management
• Tensions between the French and German
management
• Conflict between the French and German shareholders
on appointment of key Top management positions.
• Management of the 55,000 strong team was good in
several locations.

13. Quality Management
• The management of quality was poor as there was a clear
difference between the design software in each locations
that led to a major delay.
• There seems to be an unclear role in quality management
and quality management process.
• The re-design to reduce the overall weight was also not
satisfactory.
Rating 2/5

14. Risk Management
• All transportation risks were taken into consideration.
• Market risks were not fully identified.
• Cost overrun risks were not considered and the breakeven
has changed from 270 aircraft to 450 aircraft.
• Risk of design deficiencies were not fully managed.
Rating 2/5

15. Procurement Management
The management of logistics were exceptional
• Managed multiple manufacturing locations and sub
contracts
• Needed special transport equipment
• Needed road and infrastructure improvements
• Needed special docks
• Required multi-mode transport requirements
• Had good engine suppliers (Rolls-Royce Trent)
Rating 5/5

16. Stakeholder Management
• Tensions between the holding company EIDS shareholders on
leadership rolls (Co-CEO by Germany & France)
• Tension caused a blame game culture between the
manufacturing locations on whom to blame for the delays
• Key issues were kept hidden from the stakeholders and resulted
in the resignation of CEO Gustav Humbert and Program
Manager Charles Campion
Rating 1/5

17. Environment Factors
• Lesser carbon emission per passenger
• Lesser noise pollution
• impact on environment for Infrastructure for operation
(needed bigger terminals)
• Impact on environment - Infrastructure to manufacture
(port terminals, new transport vessels, etc.)
Rating 4/5

18. Final Ratings
• Scope Management
• Time Management
• Cost Management
• Communication Management
• HR Management
• Quality Management
• Risk Management
• Procurement Management
• Stakeholder Management
• Environment Factors

19. Final Ratings
Final Rating -
10%
20%
70%
Normal
Good
Bad

20. Closing Comments
• Although under PMBOK guidelines the evaluating methods scored
low, the result made Airbus the leading force in Aircraft design and
manufacture (holy cow)
• Improved European pride as an innovation hub
• The working model chosen by airbus was not suitable for the
emerging travel market (spoke and hub vs. point to point)
• The first flight took place during the global financial crisis making
the travel market under severe strain

21. &A
Thank You
Q