Have you been to Denver airport? It is
one of the more modern airports in the US.
It handles vast numbers of travelers, with surges of visitors arriving
for skiing weekends. Many bring
oversized ski gear, mountain bikes, various outdoors equipment. The airport uses a manual system to handle the
luggage.
At the time Denver International
Airport (DIA) was being built, there was a project to build a state-of-the-art
automated luggage-handling system to improve speed and efficiency of the operations. The luggage-handling system was being built
by BAE Systems, an independent vendor who was originally hired for a smaller
project. When airport authorities sought
bids for building the all-airport system, none of the submitted proposals
promised to deliver this highly complex project within the offered timeframe. So BAE was approached directly, and soon
agreed to a fixed scope, schedule of under 2 years and fixed budget deal to
deliver the all-airport baggage handling system.
As the project went on, it became
apparent that the deal with BAE has been made in haste, many stakeholders in
the system did not get a chance to provide their input. Thus the project was pressured into accepting
more changes later in the cycle. Having started working on the system, BAE
Systems ran into many technical problems both with system design and system
constraints, while at the same time changes of directions were still being
introduced. In addition, death of Chief Engineer for the
Denver International Airport and subsequent change of leadership complicated the
project even further.
Throughout this ordeal, neither BAE
Systems nor DIA team raised the question about terminating the project. For nearly 3.5 years seasoned managers and
engineers continued to press on (and spend taxpayers money) on a project that
was late from the start, was handled by an inexperienced vendor, and was continuously
pressured to agree to yet more last-minute changes, with no risk management or
mitigation in place.
BAE Systems did not have the expertise
in building systems of that magnitude, and was looking to gain experience on
the Denver airport project so that it could pursue more big projects in the
future. While some people at BAE realized
the risks and complexities, the management chose to press on because the stakes
were so high. DIA was shooting for a most modern, state-of-the-art
airport facility, and deemed the project too big to fail. Both groups chose to
ignore reality and expert advice in the pursuit of building the most complex
system in the world.
DIA baggage-handling system of the
1990x is one of the more spectacular failures among IT projects to date. Bad technical problems, poor planning,
scheduling pressure, unexpected last-minute changes and complete lack of risk
management all contributed to the situation. The scary part is, all of these are present
in most software projects. High (or
perceived high) stakes cause people to press on to the breaking point, demanding
managers up the pressure, inexperienced technical people struggle with problems
and plan poorly, over-confident customers insist on last-minute changes. The
successes still happen – often by a miracle of dumb luck, an amazing technical
genius, blatant disregard to work-life balance, -- but not nearly as often as
they could, and should.
