Question

Complexities of Large-Scale Technology Project Failure: A Forensic Analysis of the Seattle Popular Monorail Authority Introduction History shows that large scale innovative technology projects, financed with public funds, are fraught with dangers and often fail to deliver the product or the results promised at the start of the initiative (Iacovou and Dexter, 2004; Montealegre and Kiel, 2000; Collingridge and Margetts, 1994). For instance, the Las Vegas monorail system promised easy public transportation, increasing ridership and gradual expansion; instead, riders never reached high numbers (largely because of the route, lack of park and rides, and station placement) and to recover costs, officials raised the price of a ticket, causing ridership to fall even further (Schumaker, 2006). An even more costly project was the baggage handling automation at the Denver Airport, an information system and mechanical engineering innovation that flat-out failed to deliver and far exceeded budget (Johnson, 2005). When automation was dropped in favor of old-fashioned human sorting of baggage, it was estimated that over $1 million would be saved per month (Johnson, 2005). The Denver innovation failure became part of software engineering lore as a disaster to avoid (Brooks, 1987). Projects that do ultimately deliver their product do so with significant cost and time overruns, such as the Boston Big Dig, a project to create an underground tunnel to relieve a heavy traffic problem. The Boston Big Dig took twenty years and $14.6 billion dollars and still has problems with leaks and faulty construction to this day (Powell, 2004). The project was originally budgeted at $2.5 billion (Powell, 2004). Projects that have technology as the central piece are particularly prone to failure, leading some to question whether or not such projects should be started at all. Prior research on the failure of large scale projects suggests that one of the main reasons such projects fail is due to poor leadership (Roepke, Agarwal, and Ferratt, 2000). CEOs often call into the trap of 'launch and forget' rather than 'launch and monitor' large IT-innovation projects. The underlying reasons for the failure of technology-based innovation projects often have little to do with the technology itself. Instead, factors for failure are usually associated with organizational change issues (such as poor leadership, unclear strategy, poorly communicated goals, ineffective project management, invisible sponsorship, no common language and vocabulary, loss of business engagement and inflexible structure and hierarchy) (McAfee, 2003). While many of these reasons are well researched in the literature, we believe that there are more fundamental reasons that drive failure. We argue that the roots of failure of large-scale, government-run innovative technology projects can best be explained by analysis of stakeholders. In large-scale projects an abundance of stakeholder groups with unique needs is inevitable. Each stakeholder group might have different views of the project, its goals, its deliverables, and even its costs. Moreover, the conflicts that occur between stakeholder groups, and even within these groups, can detract attention and energy from the innovation being considered or the essence of the project. We argue that the roots of failure of large scale government run infrastructure projects are better explained by examining stakeholders. Broadly speaking, we can identify nine critical stakeholder categories. Each category can be subdivided into several separate stakeholders as exemplified by the category Seattle citizens which numbers many millions of individuals. Stakeholder categories are porous as specific stakeholders can fit into more than one category. For example, a group might be part of the Anti Monorail pressure group as well as potential passengers. Each stakeholder has its own interests and expectations of the Seattle Monorail Project. SMP Board The SMP Board is made up of several critical roles including the Board Chairman and Executive Directors. This group took all key decisions. The SMP board held public hearings and decided to adopt a Monorail Action Plan. “The goal of the Monorail Action Plan is to determine the best path for the Seattle Monorail Project through a thoughtful, deliberate and open public process, involving the full Board, with all options on the table and all views considered" (Seattle Monorail Project Board of Directors, 2005). The Board also voted to delay the opening of a short section of line in 2007 and planned to finish the entire 14-mile-long Green Line by June 2009, 6 months ahead of schedule, to save money which would have

A) Analyze the need for managing change in the case attached.

B) How would you distribute change roles you would consider if you were a decision maker in
the project?

Note: Not more than 100 Words.

Answer 1

As you have asked for the word count to remain below hundred, I will try to be as specific as possible during my answer.

(A) The need for managing change is absolute in this case as absolute because of the following reasons:

1. Now as per the analysis of the above case, it only looks at how there were different needs of stakeholders, each craving for different sets of objectives to be met. The need to manage change is always absolute so as to avoid any chaos between different competing stakeholders needs.
2. The need to manage change is huge so as to keep everyone aligned and informed because the change that is not informed and managed properly will have dangerous consequences.
3. The above case mandates to manage the change so as to avoid any resistance from any pressure groups. If the change agent is successful in bringing everyone on board for the changes that are taking place, then the concept of change management is flourishing.

Word Count (139 Words)

(B) Being a decision-maker, I would distribute the change roles as per the following :

• Informer: This person shall inform everyone about the change that is going to take place in the course of the project so as to make it informed change.
• Aligner: This person would be responsible for bringing alignment between various stakeholders.
• Arbitrator: This changemaker should be responsible for all the negotiation and persuasion that might be between different parties.
• Cost-Controller: This person should be responsible for keeping a check on all the costs of the project.
• Auditor: This authority should deal with the improvements that are required and checking the requirements of the successful change.

Word Count (108 Words)

Thanks for your question. If you think my effort is worthwhile, please give an upvote as it really helps me improve further and contribute more towards this knowledge society (of which you are an integral part).