Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
agencies (Federal Grand Jury, SEC, Government Accounting Office and the Federal
Aviation Administration) had started or requested investigations into the project
(Montealegre and Keil, 2000, p. 424). There was, however, no inkling of government
dissatisfaction in the original case study.
This new fact caused us to reassess our understanding about the amount of public concern
that existed during the latter days of the project. In particular, it made us aware that
there must have been considerable pressure brought to bear on the management of the
project. The consequences of this pressure could have been to panic, or take some other
course of action. The original document describes the Webb administration bringing in
external consultants to look at the baggage handling system in an almost 'matter-of-fact'
way. There was no indication of weight of pressure present at the time.
The second new piece of knowledge that emerged from the document was that Moody's,
the credit rating agency, reduced the DIA bonds to level BAA, just one level short of
'no-investment status'. This added pressure of dried up funds sources again served to
add the words 'crisis' and 'panic' to the prevailing atmosphere.
The third new addition was that Mayor Webb established a task force to look at altern-
atives that could be deployed with the express purpose of opening the airport as quickly
as possible. There was no mention of this task force in the case study, even though it
preceded the report tabled by the LogPlan company. This was truly the first piece of
evidence of high level flexibility being brought to bear on the problem - if a problem
becomes intractable, try to get around it.
The new horizons added by this further knowledge provided a relief to the tension that
developed around what appeared at first sight to be an inflexible administration and
management.
Reflections
It was not until the researchers actually engaged with the original case study document
in such detail that the real benefits of the hermeneutic investigative process became
apparent. The detailed creation of the derivative texts that focused on one perspective
at a time forced us to review and in a way to confront our own prejudices. Each hermen-
eutic cycle, as evidenced by the different perspectives and subsequent derivative docu-
ments, enhanced the understanding. It was as if each text created its own horizon and
in that process this fusion occurred very quietly.
The introduction of the second hermeneutic investigator who created another derivative
text from a completely different perspective allowed an almost three dimensional view
of the problem. This contribution had the potential to create a conflict not unlike a debate,
where one seeks a winner. But when the principles of dialectic were enforced, rather
than a debate ensuing, it seems that fusion occurred, leading to an even broader under-
standing.
Another interesting side effect of this
collaborative hermeneutics
was that each of the
researchers again had another view of their own prejudices, as well as what turned out
to be a quite stimulating debate, not on the respective validity of these perspectives,
but on the sheer value and importance of dialectics.
The first researcher then wanted to locate and feed every possible available document
on the Denver International Airport into the investigation just to make sure that nothing
had been left unchecked and that there were no more hidden reasons for the events that
occurred.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search