What were they trying to achieve? In 1991, DIA attempted to remodel and upgrade the arduous, time-consuming luggage check-in and transfer system. The idea involved bar-coded tags being fixed to each piece of luggage that went through ‘Destination Coded Vehicles’. This would fully automate all baggage transfers, integrate all three terminals, and reduce aircraft turn-around time significantly. Why did they fail? The main cause of failure was the scope creep of quality and cost schedule. When the company DIA was contracted to help in BAE’s project, they failed to meet the time schedule of the company. They instead stuck to their schedule of two years. The management took unnecessary risked because the project was underscored yet the management took unnecessary risks. Another item in their agenda which the company ignored: the company ignored the airline’s planning sessions and omitted the airline as a stakeholder. The project, as a result, featured oversized sports/ski equipment luggage and separate maintenance track and another track was not designed at all. The large part of the system was not done and had to be redone. This made the airport to be delayed by 16 months and has had a loss of $2 billion were incurred as a result. The project was later scrapped. Lesson learned in the project is stakeholder engagement in project management. From the project management principles, the two companies failed to communicate to one another during the project until it was too late. Communication is one of the pillars in for project success. Another mistake which DIA committed was failing to plan and consult regularly.  References Hartmann, T., & Spit, T. (2016). Legitimizing differentiated flood protection levels–Consequences of the European flood risk management plan. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 361-367. Benson, D., Lorenzoni, I., & Cook, H. (2016). Evaluating social learning in England flood risk management: An ‘individual-community interaction’perspective. Environmental Science & Policy, 55, 326-334. Chan, M. J., Huang, Y. B., Wen, Y. H., Chuang, H. Y., Tain, Y. L., Wang, Y. C. L., & Hsu, C. N. (2015). Compliance with risk management plan recommendations on laboratory monitoring of antitumor necrosis factor-α therapy in clinical practice. Journal of the Formosan Medical Association. ReplyQuote .

1. What were they trying to achieve?
In 1991, DIA attempted to remodel and upgrade the arduous,
time-consuming luggage check-in and transfer system. The idea
involved bar-coded tags being fixed to each piece of luggage
that went through ‘Destination Coded Vehicles’. This would
fully automate all baggage transfers, integrate all three
terminals, and reduce aircraft turn-around time significantly.
Why did they fail?
The main cause of failure was the scope creep of quality and
cost schedule. When the company DIA was contracted to help in
BAE’s project, they failed to meet the time schedule of the
company. They instead stuck to their schedule of two years. The
management took unnecessary risked because the project was
underscored yet the management took unnecessary risks.
Another item in their agenda which the company ignored: the
company ignored the airline’s planning sessions and omitted the
airline as a stakeholder. The project, as a result, featured
oversized sports/ski equipment luggage and separate
maintenance track and another track was not designed at all.
The large part of the system was not done and had to be redone.
This made the airport to be delayed by 16 months and has had a
loss of $2 billion were incurred as a result. The project was
later scrapped.
Lesson learned in the project is stakeholder engagement in
project management. From the project management principles,
the two companies failed to communicate to one another during
the project until it was too late. Communication is one of the
pillars in for project success. Another mistake which DIA
committed was failing to plan and consult regularly.
References
Hartmann, T., & Spit, T. (2016). Legitimizing differentiated
flood protection levels–Consequences of the European flood
risk management plan. Environmental Science & Policy, 55,
361-367.

2. Benson, D., Lorenzoni, I., & Cook, H. (2016). Evaluating social
learning in England flood risk management: An ‘individual-
community interaction’perspective. Environmental Science &
Policy, 55, 326-334.
Chan, M. J., Huang, Y. B., Wen, Y. H., Chuang, H. Y., Tain, Y.
L., Wang, Y. C. L., & Hsu, C. N. (2015). Compliance with risk
management plan recommendations on laboratory monitoring of
antitumor necrosis factor-α therapy in clinical practice. Journal
of the Formosan Medical Association.
ReplyQuote