Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Table 6.3. Decisions (extract)
Dec-11
1992
DIA decided to seek bids to build an
airport-wide baggage system
DIA PMT
They contacted 16 companies and
of the three who responded, none
was considered suitable.
Dec-12
1992
DIA approaches BAE to bid directly
for the airport-wide baggage system
DIA PMT
BAE developed a proposal for the
most complex and innovative
baggage handling system for the
entire airport.
Dec-13
1992/04
BAE awarded contract for the
building of an airport-wide baggage
handling system
DIA PMT
$175.6 m contract signed. BAE
required no changes in design, and
that they would need unrestricted
access to any place in the airport.
Dec-14
1992/08
United altered plans for a transfer
system for bags changing planes
United
Airlines
System redesign necessitated.
Dec-15
1992/09
Continental requested that an
automated baggage sorter be added.
Continental
Implemented at a cost of $4.67 m.
Dec-16
1992/09
Addition of extra maintenance tracks
for servicing of baggage carts
DIA PMT
Additional cost of $912 000.
Dec-17
1993/02
Projected opening of airport delayed
from Oct. 1993 to December then
later to March 9 1994
Mayor
Webb
Panic set in.
Dec-18
1993/09
BAE loses maintenance contract for
baggage handling system
DIA PMT
Industrial action by millwrights and
electricians over BAE's proposal for
a lower than union endorsed
payment. BAE loses maintenance
contract.
Dec-19
1993/09
Projected opening again delayed
until May 15 1994
Mayor
Webb
Dec-20
1994/04
Reporters invited to witness the
opening.
Mayor
Webb
Disaster - everything broke.
Dec-21
1994/04
Opening delayed indefinitely.
Mayor
Webb
Delay costs set at $330 000 per
month.
Dec-22
1994/05
LogPlan engaged to review the
baggage handling system and airport
Mayor
Webb
LogPlan report recommended a
backup system be implemented.
Dec-23
1994/08
Backup baggage handling system
announced.
Mayor
Webb
$50 m project.
This cycle also highlighted the communication gaps between the major stakeholders
(DIA, Continental, and United), as well as the assumption made by DIA that each airline
was responsible for its own baggage handling system. It is noted that United proceeded
to take responsibility for its own system because '… They concluded that the schedule
had gotten completely out of control from the standpoint of baggage, and they acted to
serve their own needs' (Montealegre et al., 1999, pp. 553-4).
What had been revealed to the researchers by now was that there was a substantial
change in the project environment with the death of the Chief Airport Engineer, Slinger,
and the succession of Gail Edmond with the attendant loss of autonomy and flexibility
and (evidently) project management skills that entailed.
Fifth cycle
In this fifth hermeneutic cycle, the second researcher developed another text based on
the case study document and sought to interpret the text in terms of key stakeholders
and the intentions of their communicative actions, and the opinions expressed by the
authors. The researcher then included his interpretation of the case study authors' in-
tentions and opinions.
Table 6.4, which we have titled 'flexibility factors', provides an extract of the stakeholder
intentions, authors' opinions and researcher interpretations, developed during this cycle.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search