Project Failure: Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System

This report provides an in-depth analysis of the Denver International Airport baggage handling system failure, examining the various factors that contributed to its shortcomings. The report begins with an executive summary and an introduction to the project, highlighting its initial goals and the eventual issues encountered. It then delves into the core problems, including poor decision-making by the project team, underestimation of project complexities, lack of risk management, and the impact of these failures on the project's outcome. The report also explores alternative strategies that could have been employed, such as maintaining the original project plan, proactive risk management, and addressing complexity concerns before implementation. The analysis covers the project's history, including the automated system's intended functionality, the challenges faced, and the eventual abandonment of the automated system. The report concludes by emphasizing the importance of considering various factors in project management, and the consequences of failing to do so. References to relevant literature are provided to support the analysis.

Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System
Institutional Affiliation
Name
Date

Executive summary
This report analyses the factor that contributed to the failure of the Denver Baggage handling
system. It looks at the various poor decisions made by the project team and their overall impact
on the project. The report also explores the various options that could have been considered by
the project team and the Denver Airport officials to facilitate the completion of the system in its
original form including maintaining of the original project plan, engaging in risk management
activities to identify the possible risks that they would encounter and establish mitigation
strategies earlier as well as addressing the project complexity issues raised prior to the
implementation of the project.

Table of Contents
Executive summary.................................................................................................... 2
Introduction................................................................................................................ 5
What went wrong with the project?............................................................................5
How the project should have been completed...........................................................7
Addressing of Complexity concerns........................................................................7
Risk management strategies...................................................................................7
Implementation of the initial strategy.....................................................................8
Conclusion.................................................................................................................. 8

Introduction
Public projects are put in place to achieve certain objectives. However, as a result of different
factors, both avoidable and unavoidable, such projects may end up failing or causing a
catastrophe which may be associated with loss of life, property or both. Lack of risk
management, unreliable estimates, over allocated resources, poor communication, scope creep
and lack of monitoring and control are some of the reasons why projects fail. The 1990’s Denver
International Airport Baggage Handling System Originally viewed as the most advanced system
in the world is an example of a failed project(Crowder, Carbone & Demijohn,2015). This
report aims at exploring the causes of failure of the project and options that could have been used
to avert the failure of the project
What went wrong with the project?
The growing demand for Airport services in the United States led to the establishment of the
Denver Airport which housed the largest baggage handling system in the world in the City of
Denver. The Airport which was established on a 140 km area of land was intended to handle at
least 50 million passengers on a yearly basis that would make Denver a hub for air
transportation. With this significant number of anticipated clients, an automated baggage
handling system became a necessity. The automation of baggage handling system would
significantly lead to improved efficiency by lowering the aircraft turnaround to 30 minutes and
hence making Denver airport, the airport of choice for many travelers (In Reussner,2016).
Although the aims of the automated baggage handling system were quite positive and would
have transformed Denver Airport into one of the Best Airport not only in the United States of
America but also globally, the underestimation of the complexities involved in the project

transformed the project into one of the most humiliating project failures in the recent times for all
the stakeholders involved. The automated system was anticipated to serve all the airlines and
concourses of the Denver International Airport by facilitating movement of luggage between
planes, from check-in to plane and from plane to baggage claim. Although there were some
concerns over the complexities involved in the project which made it unfeasible according to
some, these were not addressed before the implementation went on (Winch & Dawsonera,
2010). Involved were also constant project changes and challenges with the supply of
electricity. An unplanned for media demonstration of 1994 was the biggest public display of the
failures of the project team tasked with the implementation of the project. During the
demonstration, the system was characterized by the collision of carts moving at high speed and
crushing of bags and scattering of their content. After this incidence, the system was nicknamed
the baggage system from hell. What followed was a blame game between the contractors and
officials from the Airport (Hart & Gregor, 2005).
The project challenges that were experienced led to the postponement of the opening date for the
Airport by a whole 16 months. The expenditure for maintaining the empty stadium escalated the
cost of the project by $1.1M per day, costs which were pegged on the City of Denver. On the
final day of the opening of the Airport, the complete system was just a shadow of the initial plan.
While the project contained in the initial plan, had all the concourses and airlines of the Airport
integrated into a single system, the complete system could only be used by a single airline, a
single concourse and by Outbound flights only. Although intended to be fully automated the
complete system relied on manual tug and trolley system and the use of conveyor belts which
were hurriedly incorporated into the project on the realization that full automation was a distant
reality. Although the shadow project remained in operation for ten years it missed its initial

targets by far and required maintenance cost of $1 million per month which was not tenable, the
project was abandoned entirely in 2005 and was replaced with a manual system (Hass, 2009).
How the project should have been completed
Several factors should have been considered to facilitate the success of the project.
Addressing of Complexity concerns
It is clear that the failure of the Denver baggage handling system was as a result of failure to
make critical decisions on the complexities involved in the project by the project team as well as
underestimation of the complexities (Van & Punter, 2011). Although this issue was brought
to the attention of the project team, the implementation process still went on without any
changes. The project team should have taken sufficient time to analyze the technological
challenges that were involved in the project from the planning phase without underestimation of
any aspect of the system. This would have led to the identification and elimination of the
complexity challenges experienced
Risk management strategies
Just like any other project risks are common phenomena but which can be mitigated. This,
therefore, requires possible risks to be identified before the implementation of a project which
should then be followed by identification of strategies that can be applied to manage any
potential risks. The implementation of the project was characterized by numerous technical
challenges including power fluctuations for which no allowances or remedy strategies had been
put in place (Rebentisch & Prusak, 2017). The project team should have engaged in risk
management activities to identify some of these possible challenges so that sufficient risk

management strategies to address them would have been put in place in advance. This would
have eliminated the delays experienced in the various stages of project implementation.
Implementation of the initial strategy
Change of strategy was one of the factors that led to the failure of the Denver project. In the
initial planning before requesting of bids for the project, the strategy under consideration had
each airline make individual baggage handling arrangements which hand prompted United
Airline to proceed with a plan to implement their automated luggage handling system. However,
two years before the official opening of the system, the project team changed the strategy and
decided to implement the adoption a single luggage handling system for all the airlines to
facilitate central control (Kock,2007). The schedule pressure experienced was partly because of
the uninformed change of strategy. Although the change of strategy was appropriate for the
project, its timing was wrong. The project team should have therefore set out the correct strategy
for the project in the onset or avoided change of strategy in the in the middle of the
implementation of the project
Conclusion
In conclusion, several factors need to be considered in any given project. Failure to weigh
different options can lead to an absolute failure of a project or its inability to achieve its original
objectives. Failure to consider the complexities involved in the Denver International Airport
luggage system led to the realization of a shadow of the intended plan, which led to wastage of
significant amounts of money, time and other resources. These challenges could have been
avoided by putting in place risk management strategies, sticking to the original plan of the

project and addressing the complexity related concerns that were raised before the
implementation.
Reference List
Crowder, J. A., Carbone, J. N., & Demijohn, R. (2015). Multidisciplinary systems
engineering: Architecting the design process. Cham: Springer.
Hart, D., & Gregor, S. (2005). Information Systems Foundations: Constructing and
Criticising. Canberra: ANU Press.
Hass, K. B. (2009). Managing complex projects: A new model. Vienna, VA:
Management Concepts.
In Reussner, R. (2016). Modeling and simulating software architectures: The Palladio
approach.
Kock, N. F. (2007). Systems analysis & design fundamentals: A business process
redesign approach. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications.
Rebentisch, E. S., & Prusak, L. (2017). Integrating program management and
systems engineering: Methods, tools, and organizational systems for
improving performance.
Van, . L. P., & Punter, T. (2011). Views on Evolvability of Embedded Systems
[recurso electrónico]. Paises Bajos: Springer Netherlands.
Winch, G., & Dawsonera. (2010). Managing construction projects: An information
processing approach. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell.