Project Management Case

Government contracting is a lucrative industry, both large and small management and technology consulting firms along with defense, aerospace and other companies who bill themselves as "experts" in various different areas complete for billions of dollars in government contracts each year. The benefit of the federal government leveraging the skills and expertise is great; but there is also a downside. Ethical violations can and have occurred within the government contracting arena. This paper will discuss a case that demonstrates ethical violations in government contracting as well as answer the question of how ethical violations in government contracting affect the role of contracting management acquisition.

Three factors define the success of any project; these are time, cost, and quality (Wysocki and RK 2013: 4). This paper identifies three main facets of project management that were inappropriately implemented, namely; Resourcing, Stakeholder Management, and Risk Management and how their improper implementation led to the violation of the three constraints (i.e. time, cost, and quality).

This review will address several issues associated with the legal, business, and ethics related with the case. First, it will address the legality of the case by reviewing the difference between a written and oral contract, and the results of recovering fees. Next, this review will analyze the business effect of the case as it relates to the monetary bottom line and Chuckrow’s attempt to protect his profits. Subsequently, it will highlight the unethical behavior of Chuckrow and its potential effects on future subcontractors’ trust in

The Orion Shield Project was analyzed, particularly in regard to the program manager, Gary Allison. Having never managed a program before, Gary was given an opportunity to do so on this valuable project. Several stakeholders came into play; some that helped contribute to Gary’s demise, and others who were often left to pick up the pieces where Gary may have failed. Ultimately, it was determined that in more than one way, Gary was not a successful program manager. Technical, ethical, legal, and contractual shortfalls were addressed to see where Gary and his team may have gone wrong.

One problem is that NASA, as an organization, has obstacles that inhibit effective communication of vital safety

The failure of the solid rocket booster o-rings was attributed to several factors, including faulty design of the solid rocket boosters, insufficient low temperature testing of the O-ring material and lack of communication between different levels of NASA management.

Another potential issue was related to the contract itself.   Once the proposal was accepted, the contract was set for 10 months, at $2.2 million fixed price incentive fee.   This type of contract allows for a base payment with incentives for meeting parameters of exceptional performance (http://project-management-knowledge.com/definitions/f/fixed-price-incentive-fee-contract/).   While this is advantageous for the contracting company, as it allows for a reasonable base price, it may not have been the best vehicle for the subcontractor.   With the subcontractor being new to R &D, it could be a challenge to attain the performance required for the incentive payment.   Additionally, being a relative novice also means more risk, in terms of unforeseen problems, causing scheduling and/or cost tensions; as the price is fixed, those costs would have to be borne by the subcontractor, taking funds away from other activities.

Allison’s boss, Henry Larsen. Because this is a process which should occur prior to project planning, it serves as the foundation of all processes to follow. The inception of the Orion Shield project was founded on shaky ground. An ethical issue displayed itself from the very beginning when Mr. Larsen coerced, beyond comfort, Gary to accept and issue a dishonest statement regarding the successful functionality of the product. The scientific evidence, realized by Gary, suggests the inability of the Shield to operate successfully at the temperature range provided as a necessary measure by the customer, Space Technology. When a project manager does not support the project it is responsible for, the project will inevitably fail. With faith in execution comes the driving force perpetuating a project forward in compliance with milestone achievement. The process of planning seems to be almost completely non-existent in this scenario. Here is where roles of team members are defined, a scope is drafted and agreed upon by all involved stakeholders, and contractual metrics are realized and mapped out. There are various tools and techniques

8. Upper management needs to be committed to project of such a huge scale and support it. They should be informed about individual risks and it is up to project manager to provide true information about project. It seems that culture of NASA accepted waiver as a way to determine acceptable risk and considered then as a part of official protocol.

However, the project was cancelled in 2005 due to issues with the integrity and design

AstroTech’s projections of long-term growth and profit potential was over-estimated and may not have needed to be separated from the rest of the corporation and given divisional status (Eisenbeis, Hanks & Sheehan. 2001). Further, AstroTech may have needed to review the safety and FAA violations against the previous owner of the fuel manufacturer, before making the purchase

The study of NASA’s case study is an analysis that has been observed and discussed since its occurrence

On February 1st, 2003 seven Americans lost their lives while returning to earth after finishing a mission for mankind. These Americans were aboard the space shuttle Challenger that broke apart during reentry into the earth’s atmosphere and was completely destroyed. After an extensive investigation the cause of the accident was determined to be the result of a hole that was punctured into the leading edge of the aircraft during takeoff (NASA). This hole resulted in an excess heating on the leading edge of the wing and then the failure of the wing. This was just the physical cause of the accident that destroyed the shuttle. There were other aspects

There are only very few engineers who failed in program management and permitted to return to the project. In real life, failing managing a project means you will get fired in most cases. In this case the project manager should count himself lucky of getting back his job as an engineer.

The bad influences that were paid by Lockheed Martin had a discernible part with open deliberations and examinations inside the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act in the United States. These Defense Industry Initiative Principles had been thought to give better administrative actions that would guarantee the organizations would take after the directions and that the trust by society would be reestablished. The position for the DII Coordinator was made to watch over the general population, gather the most production, sort out any diverse errands, stay aware of information, and direct the day by day business that would be associated with the Defense Industry Initiative. The defense industry assumed a more prominent part in the achievement by guaranteeing that the business was to be directed in a fair-minded proficient path with no conditions that would demonstrate any kind of debasement or uncalled for business. The standards and execution that were set up by the association would likewise be complied. These standards justified that the business practices would not profit over any of alternate contenders. This incorporated any kind of extortion or other deceitful systems. The principles that were set empowered the Lockheed Martin's ethics program to