Chapter 13: Case Study 13.2
Question 1
Suppose you were a consultant called into the project by the federal government in 1990 when it still seemed viable. Given the start to the project, what steps would you have taken to reintroduce some positive “spin” on the Superconducting Supercollider?
Answer:
If I were a consultant in the SSC project in the 1990s, I would have taken the following steps to give the project a positive turn:
I would have applied Earned Value Management (EVM) to evaluate the status of the project as it progresses. The government of the United States of America had not even thought of abandoning the project before 1994 in spite of its increasing budget (Pinto, 2016). The main reason behind this project’s failure is the misjudgment of the project’s progress and conflict of interest between the two groups. The groups that do not want the Superconducting Supercollider (SSC) to become a reality had their reasons. The people who were in support of the project also had their part of logic. The authority had utterly failed to resolve the conflict. Thus the plan failed.
The progress of a project depends on the quality of interaction between its constituents to a great extent. The consortium that was in charge of the project had ignored the issues related to human interaction (Pinto, 2016). However, the result of such neglect showed itself as the project failed. I would have emphasised the human side of the project. It would allow me to understand the core conflict of interest between people. The prominence of social issues in evaluating the progress of a project would also assist in overcoming the vagueness of rough data handling. I would have been able to predict hazards related to the project and divide them into easily manageable parts.
One of the primary causes of failure was suspicion of commoners (Pinto, 2016). The concepts of quantum mechanics and its implications in understanding the very nature of reality is not easy to grasp. It is especially true for non-specialists. I would have developed a campaign to propagate the idea in comprehensible terms so that the United States of America government could have the entire support of is subjects.
Question 2
What were the warning signs of impending failure as the project progressed? Could these signs have been recognised so that problems could have been foreseen and addressed or, in your opinion, was the project merely impossible to achieve? Take a position and argue its merits.
Answer:
The key warning sign for this project’s failure was the increasing budget of the project. The initial estimation for the completion of the project was $5 billion. However, by 1993, the anticipated expenditure elevated to an amount of $11 billion (Pinto, 2016). The cost hike demonstrated a possibility of collapse for the SSC project. It showed a miscalculation from the management side. Another prominent signal was the mistrust of ordinary citizens. In a democratic country, no one can ignore the sentiments of the common people. The authority had failed to read these signals at the appropriate time. Thus the government had to abort the project. If the government had addressed these issues at the correct moment, there was a strong possibility that the authority could save the project from utter failure.
For the hike in the budget and comparative slow paced progression, the authority could have optimised the implemented workforce. Workforce optimisation would facilitate a better allocation of money for the project. Another way to control the budget is to convinced stakeholders, who were in this the European Nations and government of other countries. These countries backed off only because of the failure of the USA administration to assure their stakeholders about the completion of the project. The government of the United States of America should have invested a considerable amount of time for establishing effective communication with their stakeholders. If the SSC project got financial support from the European Union and other countries, the project might have thrived.
For the mistrust of people, the government should have run an extensive campaign to make people understand the importance of the project. The project was going to reveal some vital truth about the nature of our reality. The philosophical aspect of the project was not given enough significance. If the people comprehended the philosophical implication, the project might have been a success.
Question 3
Search for “superconducting supercollider” on the Internet. How do the majority of stories about the project present it? Given the negative perspective, what are the top three lessons to be learned from this project?
Answer:
The majority of the reports on superconducting supercollider emphasise the failure of the project. Many of them show the abandoned site and tell a story of wasted money. However, none of them will tell you how the project is going to reveal the answers to some of the vital questions of existence (Appell, 2013).
The top three lessons I have learnt from this project are:
Raw data is not a reliable means of understanding a project’s progress
Human interaction is the key driving factor of a project. The conflict of interest must be identified and eliminated to ensure the success of a project.
The citizens are an essential part of a nation. Without the support of its citizen, a government cannot succeed on a large scale project.