BA 105 WFW | Case Study 1: A Rush to Failure?

Bonnevie, Alexandra | Magalin, Ayesha | Nuruddin, Mardheeya | Pansar, Amenah

CASE PROBLEM
All eyes are on the Retractable Extended-Arms Compatible Holder, or simply REACH, as it is
now attached to the international space station. It is a set of robot hands that would aid the
space crew in repair services. The programs manager, Samantha Van Sant, is confident about
REACHs potential but believes that their team should take concrete steps to improve their
quality assurance especially after it experienced system failure in space while trying to perform
a critical repair task. Although the project was able to make the deadline and still come in on
budget, they are faced with the problem of quality. The glitches in the software, reporting errors
and mechanical breakdowns say so. Van Sant thinks that effectiveness in speed and cost is
unacceptable if it compromises quality. Even when Webb, one of the astronauts, was able to put
REACH back into action, the question remains. In the coming phases, what action can the team
take to ensure the success and sustainability of the project?
ANALYSIS
To ensure that the project is successful and sustainable, the following should be considered in
analyzing what action to take: the use of parallel development, test data and the terms of the
contract. First, parallel development raises several important issues and concerns for the
success of the development projects. It is ideal to decrease development time and cost but must
be managed with good work environment and good ergonomics to succeed. It also may result to
many recurring problems. One of the major problem in the project is the concentration on speed
and cost in expense of quality. The quality was compromised because the projects schedule
was too compressed. It was rushing a decades worth of work in six years. All the factors must
be balanced to achieve the specifications of REACH in an efficient way.
Second, one of the reasons behind the system failure that REACH experienced in space was
that the same problem was neglected when it came during one of their on-ground testing.
Citing the failure during the on-ground test as reporting error failed to reflect a true mechanical
breakdown. Acquiring and managing test data is essential because it helps ensure proper
validation of functionality. In a project like REACH, testing forms an integral part of the overall
process of development. Using computer simulations instead of thorough and rigorous ground
testing is indeed a recipe for disaster. Third, In this project, all risk is taken by the agency, Civil
Aviation Authority (CAA), since a cost-plus-fixed fee contract is being implemented. The goal of
the CAA is an effective and efficient REACH. However, in this type of contract, the contractors
are not incentivised to give their best and produce an effective and efficient REACH. They may

BA 105 WFW | Case Study 1: A Rush to Failure?

Bonnevie, Alexandra | Magalin, Ayesha | Nuruddin, Mardheeya | Pansar, Amenah
prioritize the speed and cost and compromise the objective and overall quality of the project so
that they may get the most out of the contract.
RECOMMENDATION
Given the analysis above, the only way to go forward is through renegotiating the contract. The
solution is to strike the right balance between speed, cost and quality. The team must ensure
that they are equally prioritizing the factors without compromising one or the other. To do so, we
recommend the following: the use of iterative development, internal control/QA checks and
performance-based incentives.
A large, complex, costly government-sponsored project needs a detailed requirement analysis
and perfect project design to achieve a working finished product. These kinds of project require
developers to make several test and improve product based on the results of the test.There
must be an iterative development process in which product is enhanced after several tests. As
for the coding, agile development must be implemented.
Furthermore, there needs to be a fuller understanding of the goals before the contract can work.
The contract should be renegotiated with the REACH contractors and there must be a reevaluation with the stakeholders.The mission objectives and standards should be chalked out
clearly and incentives linked directly to them. The contract should set the required quality
standard and highly incentivize the time factor. Performance-based incentive should be
implemented with a negative incentive that failure would result in deduction of incentive. This
would entice the contractors to give importance to both the factors of speed and quality which
also ultimately affects the cost or budget for the project. An internal control or QA task force
needs to be put in place that has representatives from both parties. In this way, project
development is closely monitored.