Project Management Principles In The Orion Shield Case

2567 Words11 Pages

Week 8?: Project Management Principles in the Orion Shield Case

Week 8?: Project Management Principles in the Orion Shield Case
By Robert T. Jordan
University of Maryland University College

March 22, 2018
Professor Smith
DMBA 620
Executive?Summary?
Gary Allison has an extensive history working as a project engineer for the Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC), and a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering. He has a fourteen year history as a well respected project engineer. He recently accepted an offer from SEC to be promoted to the position of project manager for the ORION SHIELD PROJECT. Gary accepted the promotion even though he had prior knowledge that his boss, Henry Larsen, had questionable ethical practices which included …show more content…

He discloses to STI that he is using a new material and he mentions that the SEC research and development team will be covering the costs, when in fact STI would be acruing the bill. Informing STI of this data could lead to Gary losing his job and SEC losing the contract with STI. This was completely dishonest and violated the ethical principles of management. Gary?s use of the new material also demonstrates that JXB3 has a lower life expectancy than initially stated in the contract with STI. Because of his interactions with Larsen and Sarah Wilson, Gary feels it is in his best interest not to mention this discovery until after the contract is signed. This is dishonest and misleading. Gary is attempting to have STI enter into a contractual agreement without them having all the data/info needed to make a well informed decision. Gary is intentionally deceiving …show more content…

It was initiallydisclosed to Gary that the SEC contract was a FPIF. This would have established a base budget for the project and would have been beneficial for STI. It would have also allowed SEC to receive additional monetary incentives for exceeding performance standards and expectations. Gary later discovered, through Sarah Wilson and Paula Arnold, that the terms of the contract were that of an FFP. In this type of contract there is no incentive for good performance and the contractor (SEC) is responsible for all additional costs accrued throughout the project. Prior to taking the position as project manager Gary neglected to review the contract, which made him ignorant to the terms associated with the project that are legally

Open Document