Understanding How and Why a Project Fails, Coursework Example

Introduction

The field of travel and tourism are two specific components of international and local affairs that every state in America tries to conquer. Basically, the idea behind this is the fact that imposes the capacity of a local economy to support and embrace the improvement and progress that the said field of industry brings. Relatively, in connection to such changes and adaptations to the industry, even smaller states tend to dream big and plan hugely in support to the expansion of their major tourism businesses to further welcome the aspect of tourism and its economic impact to the local community. Denver, although not as huge as New York or Chicago was as ready as possible to jump into the trend of development that tourism offers. Although the state already has an existing airport, the administrators observed that perhaps a new and larger airport would be able to host a bigger number of visitors who would relatively bring in larger amount of revenue for the entire state. Nevertheless, creating a new and large airport involves the indication of a much larger course of planning that needs constant attention so as to address the larger concerns involved in the situation. How then was the DIA or the Denver International Airport Project handled and how come it has been seen to trail a path of failure amidst great expectations from the administrators? The discussion herein shall provided a concise presentation on what and why the DIA project management approach did not work quite as it was expected.

Background of the Case

Denver is among the top states in the United States to host a number of tourists on a regular basis. Relatively, it could be observed that such a connection with the performance of Chicago and New York alike creates a possibility for the administrators to think that if perhaps they add one more airport to their already existing one, the Denver Stapleton Airport.  Due to the increase of regulations and rules from airfare regulations and noise-based acts released in the late 1970s towards the early 1980s, it could be analyzed that the function of the airport in the area was then rather controlled and alienated from its actual expected revenues. Nevertheless, the administrators, seeing that tourism has become a major source of economic progress in several neighboring states, they feel that they are ready to take on the challenge as well. The creation of the Denver International Airport however involved several points of downfalls that resulted to the failure of the project later on. Discussed in the section that follows are some of the specific areas of failure that the administrators as well as the project managers failed to see.

Primary Components of Failure

• Extensive Expectations

Expecting millions of passengers, the creators of the project imposed that the DIA be finished in the soonest possible time. Nevertheless, with the huge amount of labor needed and the currently pressing economic hardship in the state, such a need for labor needs to be given another thought. The recession was a huge factor that contributed to the failure of getting the right number of men to finish the job that has been prepared for. Notably, the administrators of the project have also foreseen great expectations on the revenue that the airport would bring in especially in relation to new waves of tourism campaigns that they were planning to pursue. They forgot that the existing regulations in the state would keep them away from realizing such ideas’ fulfillment.

• Branched-out Project Management

IN line with the desire to finish the task early on, it was the need to take two branched out project managing firms to oversee the operations and how they are completed that created much more chaos to the process. Having one firm attend to labor efforts of the people and another dedicated to the actual application of the project’s details into action, the connection between two firms failed to create a more unified approach to the project.

• Undefined Proceedings

Although a feasibility study was pursued and the construction was approved, the lack of concern for those who would be affected by the project have become a lesser concern of attention. This meant that displacing most of the families whose lands were affected in the expanded measures of the land that the airport would occupy was less given proper attention to. Relatively, the relocation sites where the displaced families would be transferred to were not properly prepared hence imposing neglect on the part of the administrator’s social responsibility to the people.

• Failure to create alternative for Project-Related Risks

One of the risks that the placement of the new airport took is that of its location. It is far more convenient for visitors to land in Stapleton as it is where the business district is closer to whereas the DIA’s location is at a much farther distance. Hotels and other business establishments then felt that their position in the industry has been less given regard by the administration in relation to the creation of the plan.

Conclusion

Huge projects like the DIA naturally provide a more defined indication on how public administrators should handle their desires and expectations in line with the realization of the actual resources and systems of operation that are available for them. Notably, the failure to see the need to move further and dig deeper into the situation from the point of planning rather than put their eyes on what ought to be expected has caught them off guard especially in pointing out the vital sections of the project that needs serious attention. In relation to this particular projection of a new airport, it could have been more successful if the administrators looked closely as to what aspects of the society they might actually affect and how they would need to face the said issue. Making faster move towards the indication of development that DIA could provide is likely something that should have been given more thought than a procrastinating action from the administrators and those who they hired to manage the project.