Richard J. Bocchinfuso

What are five problems within the case study?

1. Fractured culture with poor interdepartmental and/or interdisciplinary communication and relationships.
   E.g. – Al Moody: “I’m getting complaints from the engineering and operations departments that they can’t get any priorities established on the work to be done in your group. What can we do about it?” (Kerzner, 2017, pp. 534)
2. Lack of organizational alignment.
   E.g. – Ralph Gregg: “I set the priorities as I see fit, for what’s best for the company.” (Kerzner, 2017, pp. 534)
   It seems like Ralph Gregg might be making unilateral decisions on “what’s best for the company.” Ralph probably thinks that to fix things he needs control when in reality the organization would benefit from a leader who can deliver value and drive adoption of standards. Make the life of others easier, deliver value and answer the WIIFM (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. question and the organizations starts to move in the same direction and the yield is exponential rather than linear.
3. Empire building with a myopic departmental focus and bureaucracy as a means to maintain control.
   E.g. – Al Moody: “I’m more concerned about this closed shop you’ve developed for your department.” (Kerzner, 2017, pp. 534)
   “If engineering wanted a computer program written, it would now have to submit a formal request and then have the person requesting the program spend a great deal of time explaining the problem to the scientific programmer assigned to this effort.” (Kerzner, 2017, pp. 534)
   Ralph Gregg is using a process to maintain control, but approach this is not in the best interest of Jackson Industries.
4. Employee morale, escalating animosity and no proposed solutions or path to a resolution.
   E.g. – Ralph Gregg: “because you people upstairs do not feel as though we contribute anything to company profits. (Kerzner, 2017, pp. 534-535)
   Al Moody: “Between you and me, all of your comments are correct. I agree with your concerns. But my hands are tied, as you know.” (Kerzner, 2017, p. 535)
5. Motivation is viewed more as a result of ascribed authority where perform is mandated vs. self-motivated to contribute to an organizational objective.
   E.g. – Ralph Gregg: “You bet I do. Make me director and I’ll see that the work gets done.” (Kerzner, 2017, p. 535)

Does the creation of a MIS group solve any problems? Why or why not?

An MIS group could help by creating cross-department standards where MIS could enable innovation rather than trying to gate it. If MIS delivered shared services, documented standards, APIs, etc… MIS could become an enabler for engineering and operations. Rather than taking ownership of writing all the computer programs as a means to create consistency (Kerzner, 2017, p. 533) the MIS department focus would be on providing a framework that enables cross-department developers to write software while naturally adopting standards. In this case, MIS becomes a catalyst that increases the velocity of innovation rather than a gatekeeper which slows innovation.

An example of a documented standard could be as simple as the development of a readme.md template (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. and style guide.  Or it could be a set of standard libraries that developers will use to access shared services. An example of this would be the AWS Boto 3 python library (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..  The availability SDKs and libraries make life easier for developers and this indirectly drives standardization.

A central MIS team could also metric KPIs (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. that would drive things like bonuses, merit increases, etc… If there are agreed upon standards, APIs etc… that will be used by engineering and operations MIS can own shared services in the CI/CD pipeline (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.(Sai, 2016), these might include items such as version control, code review, and unit test. Metrics captured from these shared services would provide valuable insight and could drive organizational decisions.

MIS should become an enabler, not a gatekeeper within the organization.

What recommendations do you have?

1. I just went through something similar regarding pay increases and job titles. I think in technical roles this can be a challenge for many companies, Jackson Industries is not unique. I would suggest a leveling system that decouples title from level, meaning that there is a clear income variance between levels but not explicitly tied to a title. Using a composite from an employee review and employee level should determine the pay increase. Increases should be objective and not subjective. If the metrics are clear, income increases should be straightforward and not open to conjecture.
2. Establish a cross-departmental standards body to gather requirements, define and review standards. Not congressional hearings, but small two pizza groups (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. (Connley, 2018) that can accurately represent stakeholders.
3. Align departmental initiatives with macro-level business objectives. Executive management should work to help departments understand that individual department contributions do not deliver the desired outcome. For the organization to meet its goals, all departments need to work together to provide a result that is greater than any one individual or department. I would look at connecting compensation (stock, bonuses, increases) to the overall performance of the organization. Creating the connection between organizational performance and compensation can help drive behavior aligned with organizational objectives.
4. Focus on solving problems elegantly not by single-threading the process. There are elegant ways to achieve and enforce standards without having to single-thread everything through one department. From a development perspective in 2018, this is insanity, the emergence of Twelve-Factor Apps (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.(Wiggins, 2017) and microservices (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. is the result of organizations needing developers to move faster. It was crazy to read Ralph’s Gregg approach to standardization. Automated code review tools like Codacy (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., CodeFactor (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., CodeIt.Right (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., etc… can all automate ensuring that code meets standards.

References

Amazon. (2014). Boto 3 Documentation. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://boto3.amazonaws.com/v1/documentation/api/latest/index.html

Codacy. (n.d.). Automated code reviews & code analytics. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://www.codacy.com/

CodeFactor. (n.d.). Let’s make software better. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://www.codefactor.io/

Connley, C. (2018, April 30). Jeff Bezos’ ‘two pizza rule’ can help you hold more productive meetings. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://www.cnbc.com/2018/04/30/jeff-bezos-2-pizza-rule-can-help-you-hold-more-productive-meetings.html

Fvcproductions. (2015). A sample README for all your GitHub projects. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://gist.github.com/fvcproductions/1bfc2d4aecb01a834b46

GitHub. (2016, July 15). Documenting your projects on GitHub. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://guides.github.com/features/wikis/

Google. (2017, February 21). API Design Guide | Cloud APIs | Google Cloud. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://cloud.google.com/apis/design/

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management Case Studies (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Sai, M. (2016, December 20). What is a Continuous Integration and Delivery Pipeline, and Why Is It Important? Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://codefresh.io/continuous-integration/continuous-integration-delivery-pipeline-important/

SubMain. (n.d.). CodeIt.Right. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://submain.com/products/codeit.right.aspx

What are microservices? (n.d.). Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://opensource.com/resources/what-are-microservices

Wiggins, A. (2017). The Twelve-Factor App. Retrieved December 12, 2018, from https://12factor.net/

Andrew, it’s been fun, but our time together is drawing to a close. 🙂
Comment/thought on your thought of shifting bonuses to be based on the project team and project performance vs. by a department. This is an area that I think so many organizations struggle with. If a department does well this does not necessarily translate into an organizational win if a project goes well this often does not translate into an organizational win, so what’s the difference? This is an aspect of performance management and incentive structures which I have been challenged by for years. I am a big fan of Geoffrey More and I believe deeply in Zoning to Win, but organizationally the metrics for the incubation, transformation, performance and productivity zone are very different but highly dependent. If those in the performance zone don’t execute well then those in the incubation zone have no funding to incubate, this can be very challenging because incubation is very different than performance. Performance is binary, selling and delivering what’s in the bag while incubation is intangible, visualizing the future and experimenting. In essence, the performance and productivity zones need to fund the innovation and transformation zones, while tangible returns are far less in the innovation and transformation zones, these zones are critical to ensuring that an organization is relevant tomorrow. This is well explained by Geoffrey Moore in the video I embedded below.

We’ve worked for years within my organization to try to solve this problem and in 2018 we implemented a variable performance compensation plan that we think did a pretty good job addressing it. The plan focused on incentivizing engineering resources to cross zones, making performance incentives about macro-level organizational goals rather than individual, departmental, project, or zone success. The model provides transparency to the goals from both a financial and runway perspective, as well as expected individual and departmental contributions. I think it’s really hard to be strategic and still be tactical, but both are critical to being able to operate a business which has to balance sustaining and innovating.

In addition to financial incentives, I think we need to look at new ways to increase employee engagement. Things like hackathons, innovations days, discretionary time, gamification, etc… We love ChaOps (Slack (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. is our platform of choice) and we love HeyTaco (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. for a public job well-done accolades and gamification. Getting people publically engaged has made a huge difference in how we operate, the other thing we have done is developed a sentiment analysis engine which analyzes Slack messages and determines the user’s sentiment, overlays the time of day, what they are working on, etc… to allow us to better manage employee engagement.

For me, it’s always about how to drive an organization to the “one team, one dream” culture, something that seems to be lacking at Jackson Industries, a systemic cultural issue that I am not sure an MIS department can or will solve.

References

Moore, G. (2016, December 07). GOTO 2016 • Zone To Win • Geoffrey Moore. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://youtu.be/fG4Lndk-PTI

Moore, G. (2015, November 04). Zone to Win: Organizing to Compete in the Age of Disruption. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://www.slideshare.net/rstrad1/zone-to-win-organizing-to-compete-in-the-age-of-disruption

James, I enjoyed reading your post. Curious about your perspective of how the documentation of code is a “Computer Use Policy” issue? I agree that there should be a defined standard on documentation (e.g. – readme.md template (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.), but does MIS posses the knowledge to create a template and the systems that engineering and operations value? I see this all the time, policies and decisions made that make no sense outside of skewed perspective and perceived simplicity. In a world where best-of-breed technologies with well documented and published APIs provide the ability to connect any system, the idea of moving to a monolithic application because “it’s easier to manage everything in one place” drives me crazy, yet we my organization just went down this path for two years, only to scrap the entire project, but not before spending millions on it.

Do you see the MIS department as a shared services organization who will create shared services which engineering and operations will want to consume or do you see MIS as an organization who will set, mandate and police standards? Should MIS be responsible for building and delivering information systems which deliver value to the engineering and operations teams? What are the performance metrics for a shared services organization? What defines success or failure? This is a topic near and dear to my heart.

IMO it’s the job of MIS to deliver value to the business, not to create mandates. Too often MIS develops things like an acceptable use policy (AUP) which actually isn’t acceptable at all. John Kehoe the CIO of Valmont Industries does a nice job of explaining the value of standards, but also the realization that standardization doesn’t always work. (Heller, 2017) I think today with the massive focus on machine learning, deep learning, and artificial intelligence departments are investing in data scientists and developers that will transform the business, and while these resources need access to shared services they need flexibility and velocity that many MIS departments struggle to deliver. This gave way to “Shadow IT” then shared services groups accepted Shadow IT and called is DevOps (Everitt, 2018), but no matter how you look at it the developers want control of the pipeline and they want to move at a pace that traditional MIS departments are struggling with, see cloud adoption. 🙂

References

Everitt, G. (2018, May 29). Reducing the Danger of Shadow IT With DevOps – DZone DevOps. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://dzone.com/articles/reducing-the-danger-of-shadow-it-with-devops

Heller, M. (2017, April 05). The path to IT shared services and standardization. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://www.cio.com/article/3186828/it-industry/the-path-to-it-shared-services-and-standardization.html

Lyndon, I think you make a good point about organization structure and the link between MIS and finance. Many legacy enterprises still have CIOs (Chief Information Officers) reporting to CFOs (Chief Financial Officers) which I find astonishing, but in recent years there has been a shift. Information Technology (IT) in these legacy enterprises is thought of as cost centers, and it’s the job of the CFO to manage cost so this makes sense, what is different is the fact that the CIO needs to be driving innovation that delivers efficiency, velocity, quality, and differentiation, so we now see more CIOs now reporting to CEOs (Kark, Shaikh & Brown, 2018) as organizational leaders and profit centers rather than cost centers. Let’s face it, if you are a manufacturing company that has been around manufacturing widget X since 1945 it may be hard for executive management (manufacturing C-Suite types) to quantify the value of technology, executives might say we have been manufacturing widget X like this for 70+ years and they may be reluctant to invest in innovation if it’s not mandated (e.g. – compliance). In many of these organizations, we are seeing the CMO (Chief Marketing Officer) drive more innovation than the CIO because the CMO is responsible for driving customer acquisition (Pemberton, 2017), and we all know in this market if you’re not growing, you’re dying.

References

Kark, K., Shaikh, A., & Brown, C. (2018, May 3). Who’s the boss? Trends in CIO reporting structure. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/cio-insider-business-insights/trends-in-cio-reporting-structure.html

Pemberton, C. (2017, January 10). 2016-2017 Gartner CMO Spend Survey Reveals the CMO’s Growing Mandate. Retrieved December 16, 2018, from https://www.gartner.com/smarterwithgartner/2016-2017-gartner-cmo-spend-survey-reveals-the-cmos-growing-mandate/

Perform an analysis for strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) on the decision to build DIA

Internal Factors

Strengths(+)

• The new DIA would satisfy the needs of the Denver area for the next 50 to 60 years. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 467)
• DIA would be a model airport and the benchmark for other airports to follow. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 467)
  Ability to operate as a hub with 50 percent of passengers changing planes at DIA. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 469)
• Reduction in traffic bottlenecks and fewer delays. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 469)
• Solve the lack of runway increasing the airports capacity. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 469)
• Improved air traffic and ground traffic control; greatly improving flight operations efficiency. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 469 – 470)
  • E.g. – Flight operations would be able to shift takeoff and landing direction base on wind patterns in 4 mins vs. the current 45 mins.
• Ability to handle more large aircraft at concourse gates. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 470)
• Increased opportunity to handle international traffic. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 470)
• The new DIA could be a potential hub for Northwest and USAir creating a significant opportunity to increase revenue. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 473)
• The land site would be larger than the Chicago O’Hare and Dallas–Ft. Worth airports combined providing room for expansion and the required noise buffer zone. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 474)

Weakness(-)

• United and Continental who comprised 80% of the flights in and out of Denver object to the idea of building a new airport, fearing the added cost burden. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 467 – 469)
• The land agreement limited DIA to such businesses as airline maintenance, cargo, small-package delivery, and other such airport-related activities. The land agreement places restrictions on air cargo and air freight revenue streams. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 475)
• Zoning regulations, calling for no residential development with an LDN noise level of 60 and land use could limit expansion abilities. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 474)
• Competition from Front Range Airport, potential expansion of the airport and/or lost revenue through for air cargo and freight. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 474)
  • E.g. – Cargo and freight carrier continue to use Front Range Airport because of the restrictions imposed by DIA.
• Cost, economic pressure and design decisions.
  • E.g. – The terminal roof design would increase the cost of the project by $48 million and increase the duration of the project. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 477)
• Availability of qualified contractors and suppliers. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 479)

External Factors

Opportunities(+)

• Expansion and increased revenue opportunities.
• Operational efficiency could lower operating costs over time.
• Region, city, state economic prosperity.
  • E.g. – Jobs, tourism, corporate operating taxes, etc…

Threats(-)

• Build plans scaled back due to the recession. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 475)
• Funding volatility. Dependence on municipal bonds to fund the construction of DIA. Rating agencies and like S&P and Moody’s can impact the value of these bonds. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 479)
• Airport operational timeline.
  • E.g. – Can BEA deliver eight years of work in two years, so the baggage handling system is operational? (Kerzner, 2017, p. 482)
• Slow or no economic recovery.
• Increases costs and fees at DIA impact threatens fight volume for the major (Continental) and low-cost carriers (Southwest). (Kerzner, 2017, p. 485)
• Cost overruns and poor operational planning. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 486)
• Staffing and personnel logistics. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 485)
• Results of SEC investigation. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 488)
• Faulty workmanship, failing construction and falsified records. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 492)
• Ability to offset the increased cost per enplaned passenger. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 496)
• Distance from downtown Denver. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 497)
• Runway high wind shears. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 477)
• Bad weather. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 479)
• Mayoral race and political climate. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 479)
• Denver lacked an agreement with Continental and United Airline securing the use of DIA. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 479)
• Continental filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection in December 1990 (Kerzner, 2017, p. 479)

Who are the stakeholders and what are their interests or objectives?

City of Denver: The city of Denver financed DIA with bonds. The city of Denver does not want to run out of cash as a result of DIA failing and default. If the city of Dever were to default it would be unable to pay its bondholders. Defaulting on these bonds significantly impacts the city’s ability to operate DIA and also impacts creditworthiness and future financing opportunities could impact the entire community.

Adams County and the residents of Adams County: Adams County is where the airport would be built. Ordinances were put in place to protect the residents of Adams County, but the reality is that there is now a massive airport in your backyard.

Federico Pena, Secretary of Transportation (previously Denver’s Mayor): While now the Secretary of Transportation I would imagine the legacy of being the Mayor who kicked off a major transportation project, and now the transportation secretary he would still have a stake in the success of the project. In politics every decision follows you, meaning that Pena is invested in the success of DIA or some way to disassociate himself from the failure. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 465)

Denver Mayor, Wellington Webb: The politician on the hook when DIA is opened. Probably not fun when he found out DIA may be built over an old Native American burial ground. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 465)

Greiner and Morrison-Knudsen the engineering firms hired to design and build DIA. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 476 – 477)

Union Pacific who was planning to put the rail lines in place which would connect downtown Denver to DIA. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 485)

Cargo carriers (UPS, FedEx, Airborne Express and others)impacted by delays associated with DIA and had committed to conduct operations from DIA. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 484)

United Airlines who was concerned that low operating costs at Front Range airport could see low-cost operators like Southwest Airlines move in and increase competition. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 484)

Other commercial airlines impacted by the success or failure of DIA. The Ability to survive in the market, market expansion and routes could/would all be impacted.

Financial markets and bondholders. Because bonds are similar to other financial instruments, they are held by individuals and also held in ETF, mutual funds and other financial instruments. Someone was betting on the success of DIA otherwise there would be no funding. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 501)

Airport and airline employees. Longer commutes, a significantly larger airport with underprovisioned equipment (Kerzner, 2017, p. 487) and wind shear (Kerzner, 2017, p. 487).

BAE who was responsible for a baggage management system that normally takes six years to install and two years to debug needed to execute in two years successfully. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 487)

U.S. West Communication Services: Awarded a $24.4 million dollar contract for DIA’s telephone system. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 483)

What appears to be the single greatest risk in the decision to build DIA?

Sure commitment from the airlines were critical, without airlines DIA cannot be a thriving airport, but I believe that the greatest risk to the sustainability of DIA was the ability for DIA to managed income to debt ratios and control bond ratings. Could DIA do what was required to generate enough income to outrun their debt given outside influences like higher enplanement costs, carrier volume reductions, an economic recession, the reliance on bond ratings to continue finance day-to-day operations, the political climate and a pending SEC investigation? DIA needed to understand their runway (how much time they had, not the tarmac), how the financial markets would react to decisions so they could establish DIA.

Bond rating agencies like Moody’s, S&P and Fitch Ratings will rate bonds based on the ability of the issuer to repay. A bond rating merely represents the issuer’s creditworthiness. Metrics like income to debt ratio indicate if a bond issuer can repay the principal and interest owed to bondholders. While DIA has many significant risks the biggest risks, I believe that access to the capital (potentially more capital) required to run day-to-day operations, market DIA, solicit carriers and remedy issues presents the most significant risk. Cash can help overcome issues because cash provides both the means and the time to remedy the situation.

What is the function of the project management team (PMT) and why were two companies involved?

The project management team (PMT) is a group who works together to achieve a task or goal. Bringing the right people together is extremely important, the skills required to accomplish the objective should govern team selection. These skills include technical subject matter expertise in a specific discipline, problem-solving skills, communication skills, and organizational skills.

The city of Denver engaged Greiner Engineering an engineering, and airport planning firm and Morrison-Knudsen Engineering a design-construct firm.
I believe the reason that both Grainer Engineering and Morrison-Knudsen Engineering were both engaged was to provide oversight and attempt to balance the city’s goal of creating a “thing of beauty” and airport personnel desire for the airport to be easy-to-clean. I think the goal was to provide focus while separating standards creation and conflict resolution from execution. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 476 – 477)

IMO the challenge here was not so much that there were two firms involved but more so that there was a lack of alignment on the design and construction objectives. Balancing the design aesthetic and operational efficiency requirements were extremely challenging.

When did the effectiveness of the project management team begin to be questioned?

The PMT effectiveness was questioned because it could not effectively manage the conflict between an aesthetic and operation efficiency. The PMT had the task of architecting a “thing of beauty” (Kerzner, 2017, p. 477), that was highly efficient, and it seems there was little it the way of compromise between the city and airport personnel. There were also numerous outside influences such as the recession and an uncertain economic climate, the carriers refusal to participate in design efforts, etc.

The PMT did not do a good job identifying project risks and contingencies. As a result, there were many unknown unknowns, rather than known unknows. (Projecttimes, n.d.)

References

14 Free SWOT Analysis Templates. (2018, November 07). Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www.smartsheet.com/14-free-swot-analysis-templates

Harvard Business Review Staff. (2016, November 03). Five Critical Roles in Project Management. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://hbr.org/2016/11/five-critical-roles-in-project-management

How do Cities Default and Recover, and What Does It Mean for Bonds? (n.d.). Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://neighborly.com/learn/municipal-bond-defaults-and-recoveries-chapter-8

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management Case Studies (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Kim, S. D. (2012). Characterizing unknown unknowns. Paper presented at PMI® Global Congress 2012—North America, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada. Newtown Square, PA: Project Management Institute.

Projecttimes. (n.d.). Things Known and Unknown. Retrieved December 5, 2018, from https://www.projecttimes.com/articles/things-known-and-unknown.html

Andrew, nicely done, as always.

The case study states that “The final part of the agreement limited DIA to such businesses as airline maintenance, cargo, small-package delivery, and other such airport-related activities.” (Kerzner, 2017, p. 474)
In reading this I felt that DIA might not be as attractive as Front Range for the cargo carriers. I realized after reading your post, and going back and looking at the text, that I probably misinterpreted the division on cargo and small-package delivery, thinking that DIA was restricting cargo to just small-package delivery, no I realize that was probably the wrong interpretation.

Do you not think the politicians were stakeholders? Would be hard to believe that any politician associated with a project of this magnitude would not have a stake in either taking credit for its success or distancing themselves from failure.

Border control was an interesting one that I didn’t think about but definitely could see that they would have a stake given that Denver would become a key entry point into the U.S.

References

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management Case Studies (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Scott, yep, this was a long read and a pretty nuanced analysis.

How much open land is there for expansion? It seems like there is lot’s of land but it also seems that there are ordinances that could potentially be impactful. If a jet fires up its engines in the center of the 53-square mile radius, and the noise level is LDN is 30 what happens to the LDN if the jet moves ten miles to the north, south, east or west? My question is while there are 53-square miles, what is the usability of the land. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 474)

Is DIA in a prime location? 26 miles from downtown Denver vs. Stapleton which is 8 miles from downtown Denver. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 474)
“Prime location” as a strength and “far from city” as a weakness seems to be at odds. Is the prime location a prime location for carriers from a route perspective? Took me a minute to realize this was where you were going, but I get it.

Interesting that no one seemed to call out the politicians as stakeholders. What do you think? Are Federico Pena and Wellington Webb stakeholders?

References

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management Case Studies (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Lyndon, nicely done, I like the use of HTML tables. 🙂

Do you think that bond ratings are a weakness or a threat? Given DIA’s reliance on bonds and bond ratings which impacted their ability to issue more bonds, interest rates, etc. I thought this was more of a threat than a weakness.

Does it seem reasonable that the city chose to engage Greiner Engineering and Morrison-Knudsen Engineers to try to balance the competing agendas and conflict between the city and airport personnel? Was there an issue with two companies being involved or was it more about a general lack of alignment on project objectives. Do you think the two engineering firms were engaged as an approach to try to attack what you mention in your response to “When did the effectiveness of the project management team begin to be questioned?”, focusing on standards and execution and thinking they could get this done without compromise?

References

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management Case Studies (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.

Greggory, while the runways at DIA were 6x the length of the runways at Stapleton I wouldn’t want to be there when it snowed and they only had 25% more equipment than Stapleton. (Kerzner, 2017, p. 474) I would have rather had taken a connection through Stapleton. This a case of what could be a strength becoming a weakness. There is no way they are clearing those runways and getting flights out during a Colorado winter storm. Looks great on paper, but the operational execution would be poor because of bad operation decisions.

Should the underprovisioning of equipment relative to the size of the airport be listed as a potential threat?

References

Kerzner, H. (2017). Project Management Case Studies (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.