Project Failure Analysis: The Blue Spider Project Report - Assessment

This report analyzes the Blue Spider Project, a case study highlighting failures in project management and leadership. The project, aimed at enhancing the Spartan missile, suffered due to Gary Anderson's lack of project management skills, poor communication, and inadequate risk management. Key issues included an undefined project scope, a tactically unsound decision to begin the project, and the lack of early stakeholder involvement. The report identifies problems such as inadequate support from top management, poor budget control, and the absence of a robust risk management strategy. The report emphasizes the importance of clear communication, effective stakeholder management, and a skilled project manager to avoid project failures. The analysis underscores the impact of these factors on project outcomes and offers insights for future project success.

The Blue Spider Project
Student's name
Student's ID
Lecturer
Date: 29/03/2020
Assessment: Assessment (Part B)
1

Table of Contents
Executive Summary.........................................................................................................................3
Introduction......................................................................................................................................5
The Project Scope was not clearly defined......................................................................................6
The decision to begin the Blue Spider Project was not tactically sound.........................................7
Early involvement of stakeholders is critical in any project............................................................7
Qualification of Gary Anderson as a project manager....................................................................8
How risks in the Blue Spider Project were handled........................................................................8
Conclusions......................................................................................................................................9
References......................................................................................................................................11
2

Executive Summary
The advancement in the business field has compelled corporations to develop techniques
grounded on projects. The strategies guide them to enhance their practices and efforts on project
management. Nonetheless, it is uneasy to develop proficient projects due to the numerous
aspects that affect companies. The success of any project depends entirely on the project
manager and their team, including organizational culture and the resources that the corporation
can channel in the project. The Blue Spider case study is an excellent illustration of ways in
which a project manager inappropriately balanced the work and staff, resulting in improper
project performance. We notice Parks Corporation requesting to be part of a government pact,
and it indicates inappropriate communication from the beginning. Usually, projects can fail for
several reasons such as inadequate resources from the organization, poor assessment of deadlines
and costs; however, the project is worsened when task evaluation is inadequate before the
commencement of the project. Also, the management of human resources can lead to problems
in situations of industrial action or incapability to employ qualified staff.
The delays from the project manager, Gary Anderson, resulted in a demand for more
documentation and meeting. The project manager felt more accountable for the development
activities and did not wish to offer his staff with more administrative work. As a result, all the
demands of other units had to be sent through the heads of departments. However, as the Blue
Spider project failure augmented, nobody wished to be connected with the project, and the
primary staff was moved to other projects. The outcome saw the corporation receiving the
contract, but the project manager never received gratitude because of management recalling the
problems experienced earlier in the project. The project success could only be achieved through
proper relationship and balance between staff. From the Blue Spider projects, issues such as risk
3

management, lack of project management skills, a roll of the project office, and poor budget
control can be identified. Moreover, there was minimal support from the top managers.
Therefore, if we analyze the problems highlighted and prevent the same mistakes in the future,
we can overcome any project failures in the future.
4

Introduction
The Blue Spider is a project accepted by the Parks Corporation whose main objective is
to try to increase the abilities of the Spartan missile. The project was contracted to the Lords
Industries, and the Parks Corporation was the sub-constructor for the Spartan program of the
Army. Henry Gable and Gary Anderson were managing the project. As a result of the fact the
survival of the Parks Company relied on profits obtained from the manufacturing programs, they
needed to recruit the most exceptional production managers to minimize the project cost and
increase profits; therefore, Gary Anderson was selected among those leading the project. The
critical problem for the failure of the project was Gary Anderson, who was given a role to be a
project manager owing his R&D setting; however, he had no understanding of the
responsibilities of his new position (Anantatmula, 2010). Immediately he took the project
activities; everything begins to go erroneous for him. It is self-evident that the entire project
required profound experience combined with advanced know-how.
Gary Anderson later came to realize that possessing a high technical background setting
does not primarily mean that one will be a proficient project manager (Vale, Nunes, & Carvalho,
2018). The lack of adequate skills and experience makes Gary to encounter problems related to
decision making. Importantly, he does not understand the areas to focus on most. For example, at
one moment, he is solely focused on the administration roles while other times, he commits to
R&D work. Gary never understands the significance of the technical tasks to go in handy with
the administrative duties.
The Blue Spider project never received priority in the Parks Corporation; only
manufacturing programs seemed to get preference resulting in poor prioritization (Simplício,
Gomes, & Romão, 2017). The project manager, Gary Anderson, was worried from the start that
5

the matrix stated in the technical amount of the proposal could not generate outcomes that would
fulfill specification. However, he does not escalate the issue or raises the problem. Therefore,
this is clear he was unaware of the duties of a project manager (Meng & Boyd, 2017).
Anderson's communication, both internally and with the customer, Lord Industries, was abysmal.
There is a lack of evidence of regular project meetups taking place with any internal or
external stakeholders. After the bidding was accepted, there was evidence of poor functional
management support. Gary Anderson put all the pressure on himself to deliver and did not use
his team efficiently. As a project manager, he was not keeping the right balance between his
administrative and technical accountabilities (Montequin, Nieto, Ortega, & Villanueva, 2015).
The act of the customer, Lords Industries, threatening to station a customer office in Parks
Corporation, is an indication of a significant lack of trust. Henry Gable is seen issuing directives
to Paul Evans and secretly testing parts of the projects. The objective of the report is primarily
geared toward evaluating the problems in the project and propose a technical change.
The Project Scope was not clearly defined
The constraint of the project and the requirements of the customer make up the input in
the development process. The process requirements are directly linked to the performance
metrics of the project being designed. Most of the time, the requirements expound on the urge of
a customer in the system and the needs for a given project. The requirements of how the system
is expected to function in the provided setting (Mirza, Pourzolfaghar, & Shahnazari, 2013).
At the present moment, the Parks Corporation design could not function beyond 130F.
Despite this, among the significant constraints in the system requirements was that the initial
design material would not be applied in environment setting with over 130F and this shows that
the project manager, Gary Anderson, including his technical team would not meet the
6

requirements (Mirza et al., 2013). The customer requirements are significant in any design
activity since they define customer expectations and the measurements of the sustainability and
effectiveness of the project requirements (Fageha & Aibinu, 2013). The procedure of
determining the project requirements offer the preliminary step in the system development.
The decision to begin the Blue Spider Project was not
tactically sound
The resolution to begin the Blue Spider project was a deliberately sound. The key
individuals involved in the project did not understand the specification, and thus, it was hard to
implement the project successfully. There were also conflicts between the project manager and
the functional managers (Montequin et al., 2015). The triumph of the Blue Spider Project relied
on the capability of the project manager and the desire of the technical managers to collaborate in
their activities. Surprisingly, Gary Anderson, who was not familiar with the project management
duties, was instated as the project manager (Diaz, Fraguela, & Iglesias, 2018). The direction by
the administration saw the failure of the project from the start. Also, Henry Gable knew from the
start that he was unwilling to be consulted by Gary Anderson. Further, there was minimal
understanding of the relationship between various functional units, and this later resulted in poor
communiqué among the project manager, team workers, and other administrative managers
(Diaz et al., 2018).
Early involvement of stakeholders is critical in any project
The main stakeholders in the Blue Spider Project were both internal and external. The
internal participants included Parks Corporation, the subcontractor, and the Lords Industries,
while the customer became the external stakeholder. The interests of the customer were
presented to Lords Industries, who, in turn, consulted with the Parks Corporation. Lords
7

Industries had the power to cancel and reassign the project to other subcontractors in the case the
Parks Corporation failed to complete the project successfully (Aapaoja, Haapasalo, &
Söderström, 2013). The interests of the Lords Industries was to acquire an operational Blue
Spider project within the specified timeline and cost. Parks Corporation was more interested in
making profits from the Blue Spider Project. The customer was involved in producing a quality
end product at a reasonable cost and within the deadline (Aapaoja et al., 2013).
Qualification of Gary Anderson as a project manager
Gary Anderson was an experienced and exceptional engineer and was enthusiastic about
undertaking the roles of project manager for the Blue Spider Project. Gary had enough technical
business abilities; however, he did not have an adequately extensive capability and experience to
be expertly familiar with all aspects involved in the project (Montequin et al., 2015). Gary had
enough aggressiveness and drive. Nonetheless, he did not have the adequate skills in business
administration, and his expertise in budgeting, estimating, project control systems, planning, and
work definition was as well missing. Gary was capable of establishing a team workforce with his
capabilities to work with individuals and instate passion.
How risks in the Blue Spider Project were handled
Every project includes some extent of risk; therefore, a risk management strategy is
required to document and define the plan that will be utilized throughout the project life cycle.
Risk involves any aspect that may hinder successful project completion. Thus, it follows that by
identifying the probable problems, the team and project managers can avoid the majority of the
issues via appropriate actions (Pimchangthong & Boonjing, 2017). A risk plan specifies the
person or persons accountable for dealing with the various fields of risk, how inadequacies will
8

be tracked throughout the project lifecycle and methods of implementing contingency plans as
well as how project funds will be assigned to tackle the threats.
If the Blue Spider Project had a good risk strategy in place, the temperature range
problem could have been handled excellently (Sols, 2018). Having a good communication
strategy is a vital component in solving risk problems in their initial stages. With excellent
communication, the stakeholders can be informed on when, why, and how the discussion will
take place. Excellent communication is, in most times, an effective means to handle risks, solve
problems, and warrant tasks that are finished on time. Effective communication strategies
classify the information to be communicated and how the updates will be conveyed to
stakeholders. A contingency strategy must have been established to define the directives to take
in case a risk or emergency takes place (Rodrigues & Crispim, 2014). For example, in the case of
funds unavailability, critical changes in customer requirements, and project being out of scope.
Gary needed to identify and address all potential risks before the project commencement.
Conclusions
Blue Spider project headed by Gary Anderson is an example of a failed project. Several
factors increased the risk of the project, thus contributing to the issues faced. Most of the risks
encountered could have been resolved only if the project manager adopted an excellent
methodology for managing the project. Generally, in any project, among the most contributing
aspects to the success of the project is being capable of communicating efficiently. Gary failed to
communicate both externally and internally effectively. For example, Anderson had continuously
been not updating the progress of the project, and any resolution made to other managers.
Some of the issues faced would not have been resolved if Anderson had used a standard
methodology for managing the project. The most substantial reason for the failure of the Blue
9

Spider Project had poor communication. Most of the problems would not have occurred if
Anderson, the project manager, had established contact with stakeholders, project financiers,
customers, and team members. At the beginning of the project, if there is early interaction with
the project manager and the customer would have understood the requirements from the
customer regarding communication such as ease of project progress report, the mandate of giving
the plan in advance. Therefore, having advance interaction with the stakeholders, financiers, and
the customer was significant in building proper customer relationships. The customer would
have trust and confidence with the manager of the project, hence reducing the frequency of
technical interchange meetings, which would minimize the project cost and Anderson's workload
on administrative activities. In the Blue Spider Project, there was a total mess in the
communication between stakeholders and the project manager. Anderson kept all those involved
in the dark and only notifies the problems and risks in the last minute.
10

References
Aapaoja, A., Haapasalo, H., & Söderström, P. (2013). Early Stakeholder Involvement in the
Project Definition Phase: Case Renovation [Research Article].
https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/953915
Anantatmula, V. S. (2010). Project Manager Leadership Role in Improving Project Performance.
Engineering Management Journal, 22(1), 13–22.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2010.11431849
Diaz, E., Fraguela, J. A., & Iglesias, G. (2018). Complexity and Project Management: A General
Overview [Review Article]. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4891286
Fageha, M. K., & Aibinu, A. A. (2013). Managing Project Scope Definition to Improve
Stakeholders’ Participation and Enhance Project Outcome. Procedia - Social and
Behavioral Sciences, 74, 154–164. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.03.038
Meng, X., & Boyd, P. (2017). The role of the project manager in relationship management.
International Journal of Project Management, 35(5), 717–728.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijproman.2017.03.001
Mirza, M. N., Pourzolfaghar, Z., & Shahnazari, M. (2013). Significance of Scope in Project
Success. Procedia Technology, 9, 722–729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2013.12.080
Montequin, V. R., Nieto, A. G., Ortega, F., & Villanueva, J. (2015). Managerial Style Profiles of
Successful Project Managers: A Survey. Procedia Computer Science, 64, 55–62.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2015.08.463
Pimchangthong, D., & Boonjing, V. (2017). Effects of Risk Management Practice on the Success
of IT Project. Procedia Engineering, 182, 579–586.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2017.03.158
11

Rodrigues, L. H., & Crispim, J. A. (2014). The Project Risk Management Process, a Preliminary
Study. Procedia Technology, 16, 943–949. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.protcy.2014.10.047
Simplício, R., Gomes, J., & Romão, M. (2017). Projects Selection and Prioritization: A
Portuguese Navy pilot model. Procedia Computer Science, 121, 72–79.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2017.11.011
Sols, A. (2018). A Comprehensive Approach to Dynamic Project Risk Management.
Engineering Management Journal, 30(2), 128–140.
https://doi.org/10.1080/10429247.2018.1450030
Vale, J. W. S. P., Nunes, B., & Carvalho, M. M. (2018). Project Managers’ Competences: What
Do Job Advertisements and the Academic Literature Say? Project Management Journal,
49(3), 82–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/8756972818770884
12