FAILURE OF A

TECHNOLOGY PROJECT

Saleem Sabir-22
Asadullah Bappi- 12
Talal Shahid-23
Arsalan- 34

Dysfunctional Decision
Making is a

Why Technology Projects Fail?

Denver Airport Baggage Handling
System-An Illustration of ineffectual
decision making

Synopsis
Denver Airport Baggage handling
system failure is a classic example of
Dysfunctional decision making
This session will look upon:
1. Decisions that set the project on the
path to disaster
2. Forces behind those decisions

Background
Worlds largest automated baggage
handlings system
Need for greater airport capacity.
Need of new state of the art airport that
would cement Denvers position as an air
transportation hub
140Sq. Km airport was to be the largest
airport in US having capacity to handle
more than 50,000,000 passengers annually.

Background
By automating baggage handling,
the aircraft turnaround time will
reduce to as little as 30 Minutes I.e.,
more operations and a competitive
advantage for airport

System at a glance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.

88 Airport gates in 3 concourses

17 miles of track and 5 miles of conveyor
belts
3100 Standard carts and 450 oversized carts
14 million feet of wiring
Network of more than 100 PCs to control flow
5000 electric motors
2700 photocells, 400 radio receivers and 59
laser arrays

Background Continued
Despite the good intentions plan
rapidly dissolved as:
1. Underestimation of projects
complexity resulted in snowballing
the problems and public humiliation
for everyone involved
2. Airport opening was delayed by a
full 16 months

Background Continued
3. Expenditure to maintain empty airport
and interest charges on construction
loans cost the city of Denver $1.1
Million per day throughout delay
4. Media showed it highly thought
provoking milestone going to be
achieved but on opening day system
was just a shadow of original plan

Background Continued
Rather Than automating all 3
concourses into one integrated
system, the system was used in a
single concourse, by a single airline
and only for outbound flights.
Remaining baggage handling was
done via simple conveyor plus
manual tug and trolley system (built
as an alternative) when it became
clear that idea fully flopped.

The system Never Worked

well and in Aug 2005,
United Airline announced
that they will abandon
the system completely.
$1,000,000/Month
Maintenance Cost>

Tug & trolley

system

DIA Baggage System

Development Timeline

Basic Mode Failure Analysis

Systems Complexity Underestimated
Line Balancing Failure
Algorithm as a nightmare in the
mathematical modeling of Queue behavior.
Failure to anticipate the number of Carts correctly.

Project initiated too late based upon

complexity and risk involved.
Under Estimation of complexity led to a
corresponding underestimation of efforts
involved.

Key Decisions leading to

disaster
1. Change in Strategy.
2. The decision to Proceed.
3. Schedule , Scope and Budget
Commitments.
4. Acceptance of Change requests.
5. Design a physical building structure.
6. The Decision to seek a different
Path.

1.Change in Strategy.
Two Years Late decision.
Timing of the decision extremely poor.
United Airline
Continental Airline

Additional Two years needed to meet the

requirements.
Change of Mindset.
Additional Organizational Responsibilities.
Failure to understand how to build a
automatic baggage handling system.

2.The Decision to Proceed

Breir Neidle Patron.
Analysis of 3 Bids (1993).
Expert opinion from previous projects.
Munich Systems Reference

Communication between Walter Slinger

and BAEs senior management only.
Succession of Prototype

BAE Managements reluctance

2.The Decision to Proceed

Slingers Perspective
State of the art Airport and Baggage
handling system.
Slingers previous experience on manual
conveyors with tug and trolley system.
Civil Engineer ignoring the complexity of
technology systems (Line Balancing).
Hands on Leader , ignoring expert
advice.

2.The Decision to Proceed

From BAEs perspective
Big revenue opportunity , a chance to
grow business.
The prestige of securing DIA Contract
would position BAE to secure other large
contracts around the world.

3.Schedule , Scope and budget

commitments

4. Acceptance of Change
Request
Among the major changes were; the adding of ski equipment
racks, the addition of maintenance tracks to allow carts to be
serviced without being removed from the rails and changes to the
handling of oversized baggage.

5. Design of the Physical Building

Structure

Rather than being separate entities, the baggage system and the
physical building represented a single integrated system. Sharing
the physical space and services such as the electrical supply the
designers of
the physical building and the designers of the
baggage system needed to work as one integrated team.
Estimates to change the physical structure to suit the needs of the
baggage system are reported to have been up to $100M).
Sharp turns is reported to have been one of the major problems
that lead to bags being ejected from their carts. These problems
ultimately proved so severe that the speed of the system was
halved from 60 cars per minute to 30 cars in order to reduce the
physical forces when negotiating tight turns.

5. Design of the Physical Building

Structure

To make effective decisions about how to design the physical

building, the designers of the physical building needed to be
working alongside people who had expertise in designing baggage
systems.

6. The Decision to Seek a Different

Path

Mayor slashed project and ordered that a manual trolley system

built at an additional cost of $51M
By the time the Mayor took action, the airport was already 6
months behind schedule and four opening dates had already been
missed.

Other Failure Points

Leadership Change
Architectural and Design issues
The system had more than 100 individual PCs that were
networked together. Failure of any one of the PCs could result
in an outage as there was no automatic backup for failed
components.
The system was unable to detect jams and as a result when a
jam occurred, the system simply kept piling up more and more
bags making the jam that much worse.

Conclusion
1. The Underestimation of Complexity
2. A lack of planning resulting in
subsequent changes in strategy
3. Excessive schedule Pressure
4. Lack of due diligence
5. Making firm commitments in the
face of massive risks and
uncertainty
6. Poor Stakeholder Management

Conclusion
7. Communication Breakdowns
8. Poor Design
9. Failure to perform risk management

QUESTIONS
?