Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System

Communication is a critical component in project delivery. It must be delivered in a timely and effective manner to all project stakeholders in order to meet objectives and achieve project goals. This document will detail the execution of all communication regarding the Denver Airport Project. This includes, but is not limited to, communication to and from executives, managers, and the project team. It will also discuss the means and frequency by which communication will be delivered.

646). Both stakeholders have valid ideas but this contrasting battle pushed all decisions toward reactionary efforts. There is a need for a win-win situation for those decisions but no proper process was in place to balance the issue. The city of Denver also allowed United Airlines and Continental to make major scope changes to the project construction. The increase in scope changes meant increase cost, more work and more delays were on the way. This in turn, will hinder the project construction’s progress. At this point of major scope changes, the airlines still had no signed agreement.

There were a number of threats which are the following: expensive for the airlines due to delays; economic free-fall in 1987, airlines are likely to limit operations below the level for which the airport was designed – fewer flights and passengers increase the cost per passenger thus encouraging airlines to route connecting traffic through alternative and competitive hubs; the new mayor who was elected inherited the project with no commitment to it by the major airlines; City of Denver invited reporters to observe the first test of the baggage system without notifying BAE.

Time is a risk for this project on several levels. 173 employees this will be affected as well as their customers. The company has agreed that this is a good move, however, if the process of setting up the equipment, managing the security and providing training goes on too long, then it will start to negatively affect the company over-all. Currently there is concern if the

Issue: The ASRS system that Jack has chosen is expensive and also would pull personnel from other projects to work on the integration of the new system

Rajib, S. U., Alam, S., & Arefin, S. (n.d.). A case study on integrating logistics information systems with the corporate resources. Retrieved from http://www.academia.edu/1213764/A_Case_Study_on_Integrating_Logistics_Information_Systems_with_the_Corporate_Resources

took thirty years to be fully formed. Various complications wrought the projects. One of the

*This was a build/design project. The idea of making design decisions after construction was underway is an recipe for catastrophe in a project of this magnitude. The city's insistence that this be held to a tight schedule yet allowing multiple design changes was unfortunate. There were too many players, lots of pressure, and the whole project was run by committee with differing agendas. The project administrators had to balance administrative, political, and social imperatives.

No airport anywhere in the world is as technologically advanced as the Denver International Airport.1 It’s dramatic. If your bag [got] on the track, your bag [was] in pieces.2 In November 1989 ground was broken to build the Denver International Airport (DIA). Located 25 miles from downtown Denver, Colorado, it was the first major airport to be built in the United States since the opening of the Dallas-Fort Worth Airport in 1974. In 1992, two years into construction, the project’s top managers recommended inclusion of an airport-wide integrated baggage-handling system that could dramatically improve

While BAE was already working on United’s baggage system, the PMT recognized the need for a fully integrated baggage-handling system for all of DIA. Since no other airlines were emerging with plans to develop their own baggage system, airport planners and consultants drew up plans for an airport wide baggage-handling system and sent out request for bids to several different companies. Initially BAE declined to bid on the project due to one main reason; the technology required to operate a system of such a large size and complexity should be determined very early in the project life cycle. BAE had the technology that was needed (destination-coded vehicles moving at high speed) but implementing this technology into such a complex project would have required much more time then was available.

The 3 bids are all rejected Denver Airport Project Management team approach BAE directly requesting a bid for the project Denver Airport contracts with BAE to expand the United Airlines baggage handling system into an integrated system handling all 3 concourses, all airlines, departing as well as arriving flights. In addition system is to handle transfer baggage automatically. Contract is hammered out in 3 intense working sessions United Airlines changes their plans and cuts out plans for the system to transfer bags between aircraft. Resulting changes save $20m, but result in a major redesign of the United Airlines portion of the system. Change requests are raised to add automated handling of oversized baggage and for the creation of a dedicated ski equipment handling area Continental requests ski equipment handling facilities be added to their concourse as well Chief Airport Engineer, Walter Singer dies. Mr Singer had been one of the driving forces behind the creation of the automated baggage system Change orders raised altering size of ski equipment claim area and adding maintenance tracks so carts could be serviced without having to be removed from the rails Target opening date shifted from 31 Oct 93 to 19 Dec 93 and soon thereafter to 9 Mar 94 Target opening date is shifted again, new target date is 15 May 1994 Original target for

From the city of Denver’s perspective, it was an easy choice to award BAE Automated Systems with the contract. The initial project design (as cited in Montealgre et al, 1996, p. 8) did not incorporate an airport-wide baggage system; the city expected the individual airlines, largely consisting of United and Continental Airlines, to build their own systems in their respective concourses as in most other American airports. The city sent out initial requests for bids to take on the first attempt at implementing such a complex baggage system, with not much response. Eventually they had no choice but to approach BAE, whose superior reputation in the field of baggage handling had already motivated United Airlines to contract them to design their baggage handling system. This system was to be implemented in United’s Concourse B without integration with the other concourses (Montealgre et al, 1996, p. 8). In return, BAE offered the city of Denver a proposal to develop the “most complex automated baggage system ever built” (Montealgre et al, 1996, p. 9). The whole DIA project was to be a public works project involving many shareholders with various financial sources and intentions. The main shareholders

Firstly, R.Ryan Nelson (2007) referred to 10 of the most infamous IT projects to assert the importance of making a careful analysis of projects that have occurred to help future projects. In order to attest this opinion, he illustrated the case of United Kingdom’s

The main objective behind the Automatic baggage handling system was to reduce the delay of luggage transportation and passenger waiting time at the baggage carousel. Key stake holders for every project are Project manager, consumers, Performing organizations, PMO, Project team members, Project Management team, Project sponsors and influences (PMI, 2004) .For this project clients were the Airlines and passengers. Performing organization i.e. Airport authorities also got affected by the project; as the project was failure they suffered during the managing the travelers on the airport. Project management team led by Walter slinger was one of stakeholder of this project. The

This case study sheds light on the value of information as Integrating Siting Systems INC (ISSI) has to make a decision on whether to conduct a test or go with a regular decisionmaking process in deciding whether to produce a standard or robust system. Our aim is to decide whether we should install the standard system, the robust system or to carry out a test that would help us make a better decision.