After studying The Orion Shield Project, each

ORION SHIELD PROJECT

Analyzing the Orion shield project case, one can easily capture failure by key stakeholders in
making the project a success. The basic principal of project management such as integrity,
responsibility, risk recognition, organization alignment and standard of engagement were lengthy
overshadowed.
Henry Larsen who was the director of engineering is an opportunistic person who knows how
well to win project for the company. Larsen, give new project managers contracts that he knows
exactly that it will be difficult to meet the requirement. For instance, when Gary learnt about
ethical issues in the project but he was forced to falsely offer wrong information in the proposal.
It is a requirement that project taker should inform project sponsors and stakeholders about all
the information that will influence the success or failure of the project to enable them to make
the right decision (Kshama, 2017). Despite that, Larsen chose to pressure Gary to lie about the
ability of the company to meet the project requirements within the specified schedule.
Another principal that was violated is the principal of responsibility (Kshama, 2017). Project
manager has a responsibility of developing a project plan and ensuring that team members
perform tasks assigned to them adequately and correctly within the set time. Besides that, it is the
work of the project managers to secure acceptance and deliverables from the project sponsor.
The project manager also has the responsibility of communicating emerging issues, progress, and
risk management. Therefore, for the project managers to be conversant with their activities they
need to know the technological requirement of the project, ability to manage all kind of resources
including human and he/she should also have the ability to view the project as open thus include
both internal and external factors. Gary was the project manager for Orion shield. Accepting the
responsibility as they manager he needed to offer both administrative and technical supervision.

3

ORION SHIELD PROJECT

Gary seemed to lack the ability to keep schedule plan and engage other team members. Besides
that, Gary never communicates about the project fundamentals requirement with other key
stakeholders. Inability to communicate at all made the project tempered and unable to meet the
schedule requirements. Gary also never understood correctly the type of contact, for example, it
was FFP while he assumed it to be FPIF. Gary also never understood the requirement for the
project correctly and that is why they changed the ingredient and schedule in last minutes.
Cost management is under the fundamental principle of the project management. The cost was
not effectively managed and that is why it went off the budget occasionally. Towards the end of
the project additional $150,000 needed to complete the project which is way too high. Paula
Arnold, even though he knew that fixed nature in terms of financing the project was cooperated
with Henry Larsen to test new material using the project money. Besides that, Larsen knew that
the components available could not withstand extreme temperature need of the project but he
chooses to force Gary to lie about the temperature sustainability. The result of such move is high
cost since new component with the ability to withstand extreme temperature needed to be
implemented.
Gary even after identifying the potential risk that would jeopardize the success of the project he
chooses to continue due to threats. For example, he knew that it was wrong to provide false
information but he did not do anything about it built instead choose to continue. Henry Larsen
was a big interference in the project but Gary also never set record straight and make everything
right with the project. Henry used the project budget to work on another objective hence further
undermined the duty. Gary knew his struggle in administrative duty but he never did anything on
times to resource it. Ignorant of fundamental aspects made Gary unable to meet the requirement

4

ORION SHIELD PROJECT

of the project within the specified time. Project managers should be good in risk management
since any failure in managing risk always lead to increase in expenses and made it difficult to be
within schedule (Gilbert-Jamison, 2010).
The project also lacked organization alignment and teamwork among the key stakeholders.
Failure to unite toward the common goal made Gary work extremely hard for the six-month but
never met the target (Gilbert-Jamison, 2010). From the beginning, Gary was pressured by chief
engineer and at the same time, the chief engineer betrayed him by using the project budget on
other activities. Sarah Wilson also made the work even harder for Gary by discouraging him and
applying more pressure to him instead of assisting which was needed the most. Gary falls short
of administrative capability thus making it very hard to assign and supervise other staff.

SEC organization culture seems to be built on lies rather than professionalism. Director of
engineering seems to use all the mean possible occasionally to get the new project. His tactics
include bending the law, test results and ability of the company. T6he culture of the company
also seems not to focus on the experience as the mean of promotion but rather on selfish interest.
The key behaviors that can be identified include dishonesty, intimidation and betrayal. Henry
Larsen occasionally threatens Gary and force him to go against the standard requirements.
Besides that, he also betrays him by taking the test engineer and places him under another project
when he was needed urgently by Gary on Orion project. The company also do not give the client
correct information about the temperature the component can withstand instead they
overestimate them. The structure of SEC also did not consider important aspect such as
experience in the promotion. Besides that, the structure did not set procedure on how an engineer

5

ORION SHIELD PROJECT

becomes a project manager. The process was purely out of director of engineering. The structure
also does not specify what employees will be doing. Ther4efore, an employee can be called out
of the project even if it is not completed and assigned a new task. Lack of clear framework and
specifying what employees will be doing for a given period of time made it very difficult for
projects to be done within schedule. Another problem is a hierarchy. We find that Gary was
subjected to different superiors including director of engineering, director of program
management and project and space technology industries representative. Answering to all of
many people always bring challenges such as different requirements. For example, Sarah needed
Gary to focus on an administrative task while Henry wanted him to get research and
development ready and on time. Excess requirements from different people made Gary have too
much work which also contributed to the failure to meet deadlines.
Project management body of the knowledge address structural framework of the organization by
specifying that each staff need to have only one clear superior (Indelicato, 2009). Besides that, it
suggests that organization should be subdivided into smaller departments such as engineering,
marketing and sales and many others. On culture, project management body of knowledge
suggests that there should be cultural understanding. For example, the manager of the project
should understand how new projects affect the organization and how the organization affect the
project. Understanding of such factors is important since it will determine the employees that
will be included in project management plus the resources need to make it a success (Indelicato,
2009).