DIA+Assignment

//Contributions after 11:59 PM on March 29 will not be considered. Refer to the case details in D2L to answer the questions.//
 * Denver International Airport Case**


 * 1) What went wrong in terms of the stages in the systems development life cycle**

The phases in a systems development life cycle (sdlc) are planning, analysis, design, development, testing, implementation and maintenance. The problems in each of the stages are:
 * Planning - No consideration to the automated baggage system was even addressed. They probably did not properly write or follow the project scope document, as there is obviously scope as well as feature creep in the development.
 * Analysis - During this stage the airlines were supposed to have gathered,and have agreed on their system requirements. However, they made a large mistake by changing their business requirements in the middle of the project, resulting in mechanical failures. If they could have identified any of the mistakes in the analysis phase, the cost of the error would have been nowhere near the levels they were. Since they did not complete the analysis stage in good shape, and passed over many mistakes, the costs after implementation was astronomical. Also, communication between the key stakeholders, the city, project management team, consultants and the airlines, was nonexistent, which lead to many problems later on.
 * Design - No baggage handlers were included in the design phase and the systems development life cycle was rushed. The design was based on a smaller system and did not consider the amount of traffic that a larger system would be handling.
 * Development - It is apparent that they did not have or build the proper platform, nor did they implement the necessary equipment to support the system. We also begin to see the consequences of not including key stakeholders in discussions in this stage, because the system could not function the way it should have been if these people would have been included.
 * Testing - There was no testing done before the grand opening, leading to great embarrassment when reporters saw the mess they had created.
 * Implementation - No pilot implementation to ensure accurate routing and proper care of baggage was attempted. A plunge implementation was used here which led them to just abandon the old method when a parallel method could have prevented the shut down.
 * Maintenance - Because of the poor planning from the beginning, it would be difficult to have mechanisms in place to maintain the system. If they had made ways to maintain the system and fix small problems that arose over time, there could have been a possibility that the shut down would not have been necessary. Unfortunately, this was not taken into complete consideration.

Since this was not properly planned out, DIA did not budget their plan correctly either. One obvious example is where it was stated that : "The baggage handling system requirements increased during the project. This caused numerous issues including the implementation of inadequate power supplies which resulted in overloaded motors and mechanical failures." Though most plans have a contingency fund to handle mishaps, they would have needed to completely replace or update their power supplies, which would have been a huge amount of money, putting them far over their budget. Unfortunately, this was only one of many mistakes which should have been taken into consideration. An example of another mistake during the planning, design, and development stages was not considering baggage handlers in the initial designing, which lead to inevitable efficiency issues. Because of this, one could assume there would be need for improvements and alterations almost immediately to this brand new project. Aside from mishaps in their budget, the implementation method also may have cost them greatly over time. People that fly often choose certain airlines and airports because of positive experiences. If you have serious luggage problems, and it is due to an obvious issue with the airport or airline, it is highly likely you will steer away in the future. Even one bad experience could cost a lifetime of business from that particular customer, if not more.
 * 2) Explain the cost overruns as they relate to the phases in the systems development life cycle.**

They seemed to use the plunge implementation methodology. The rationale behind this decision was that they were so sure of its success that there was no need to have a backup. This ultimately led to the failure and shut down of the airport. Had they used a parallel implementation they could have worked out the bugs and at the same time kept the airport running. The implementation methodology used in this project wasn’t given the proper thought from beginning to end. They couldn’t make the correct adjustments to the machine because they did not know exactly what the problem was. They didn’t go through any tests before they brought the design to DIA, and had no backup plan, in case of an emergency.
 * 3) Identify an implementation methodology used in this project and explain your rationale as it relates to the project success or lack thereof.**

I believe that they should have tried to use an extreme programming methodology in developing this system. I would say this because an extreme programming methodology allows for changes in requirements even late in the developing process. The type of methodology DIA seems to have used was the waterfall methodology. The planning, analysis, design, and development were all done fair enough, but there was no testing involved. Those who operated the machine did not receive any training on how to run the automation machine. The maintenance phase was also went horribly wrong. No one knew exactly why the bags were being delivered to the wrong places. If no one knew how to fix it, how would they ever implement this automation process to other airports? It's easy to see that the methodology DIA used was not correct for the industry they were in: fast-paced and technology driven. They should have used a methodology which could easily accept change so that they could adapt to changes in technology and demand, so to always stay ahead of the competition.
 * 4) Identify the systems development methodology used and explain your rationale as it relates to the chapter.**

British Aerospace (BAE) had experience creating a similiar system on a much smaller scale for an airport in Germany. BAE lacked the specified level of service needed to sucessfully create a system for DIA. The outsourcing of the project to BAE, who lacked any credentials for a project of this magnitude, was an irresponsible decision, with taxpayers footing the bill for millions of dollars. As it states, “the project consultants, had no experience creating a system of this magnitude”, and “no one bothered to get a small system up and running in the first place – they went for the big bang”. This means they really had no clue what they were doing, or how to make educated decisions. It was DIA's responsibility to monitor how (and what) BAE was doing to accomplish this project. It does not seem that DIA did this; I wonder if there was a service level agreement and if anyone was monitoring to see if BAE was meeting it. If proper monitoring was done DIA should have known much earlier on that this project was failing, and would lead to incredible losses.
 * 5) Comment on the outsourcing of the project to the BAE consultants and a success or failure as it relates to the concepts taught in the text.**

Though it can be argued that BAE did their best with the resources (and experience) they had, it's possible that BAE did develop exactly what they were asked to do. I believe that the fault lies with DIA, who failed in their planning and analysis phase of the development (which lead to failures in almost every other area). Had BAE been at fault we would have seen a lawsuit against them for breech of contract, for breaking the service level agreement. Also, if that was the case, then DIA failed in evaluating the RFP returns when they were selecting a vendor. Even though they had no experience in creating a project this big, DIA still selected them over other companies. The communication problems, which was the beginning of their downfall, was started before BAE was even selected. So even though selecting BAE was a failure in and of itself, this project was doomed from the get-go, before BAE was even a thought.