Case Problem

Issue: Success and sustainability, quality vs time&budget

Prob: The project's phases overlapped and real-world testing would be minimal. And, most
importantly, it failed.
Analysis

2 ways:
1. Parallel: Speed and budget okay, but quality problem
2. Stricter QA but invoke budgetary cuts and unsustainable Areas:

Crisis management

Project Design (agreements and contracts)

Quality control

Renew to a smaller scale-OR Siroys report will likely raise questions about whether
the project should be scrapped altogether. A new contract, smaller scope, and
greater focus on QA and quality may be the minimum Van Sant needs to consider to
protect the CAA project from getting cut entirely. 4 years and 1.2 Billion-> for simpler
projects

Recommendation

The only way is to go forward. Changing the contract is not the solution
Push for QA and QC, Strike the right balance between quality, speed and results
Improvement on phases
During the early phases of execution such as specification and design,
more quality control done in those early phases (specifications and design) to catch
incorrect assumptions or bad design. This will prevent expensive (both in time and
money) rework in later phases.
more and better process monitoring and control for the later phases(structure building
process or execution)
Incentives

in such a way that it does not spiral the cost so much to invoke budgetary cuts. A pure flat
fee arrangement would probably never be acceptable to the contractor given the potential
exposure for these complex engagements. Performance based incentive should be
implemented with a negative incentive clause that failure would result in deduction of
incentive.
Internal control/QA checks
person in-charge of QA checks needs to be firmed up / replaced. Perhaps a QA task force
needs to be put in place that has representatives from both parties.
Budgetting
partially defective REACH devices could be a course of budget ,outsource research findings
and knowledge to other Govt. owned firms. Live support from Webb is a great help
Management(agreements, contracts) and Planning
There needs to be a fuller understanding of the goals before the contract can work.
I agree with Dindo Sy Chu - the contract should be renegotiated but not just with the
supplier - there also needs to be a re-evaluation with the stakeholders. The internal project
team (MacDonagle & Van Sant) should agree their approaches. Then they should align their
agreement in principle with the key stakeholders and providers (Truss & Siroy). Then write a
contract around what they agree. flaw in the partnership between CAA and Hollenbeck: the
risk weightage was clearly disproportionate leading to different objectives.The mission
objectives and standards should be chalked out clearly and incentives linked directly to
them. The contract should set the required quality standard and highly incentivize the time
factor.