This story is an example of centering your design around a high-tech solution to a problem when a low risk proven technology would have more than sufficed. Technical expertise egos got in the way of a practical low-cost approach resulting in unplanned schedule and cost growth.
Background
A defense company won a competitive contract to design, build, and deliver an expendable acoustic target for training sonar personnel at sea. It was common to use actual submarines for the training, but they were expensive and difficult to schedule frequently enough to be effective for the training program. Hence the need for the expendable target. Expendable implies low cost and low risk but, in this case, to gain additional performance capability a bad decision (as was evident in hind sight) was made to use Lithium Thionyl Chloride batteries in lieu of the Alkaline batteries. Lithium batteries had several advantages: double the energy density of Alkaline batteries; long storage life; flat discharge rate preferred to achieve constant target speed; and wide operating temperature range. As was found out later, they also had several disadvantages: high cost; must have DOT (Department of Transportation) approval to ship; and can be dangerous as they have been known to explode under certain circumstances. However, the die was cast at the beginning of the program when the decision was made to go with high performance batteries.
The Training Target
In operation, the target was deployed from the deck of the ship. As it sunk, it moved in a spiral direction. When it reached a predetermined pressure, a pressure switch was activated and turned the motor on causing the target to move upward towards the surface along the azimuth angle it was at when the motor turned on. When the target reached a certain depth near the surface of the water, the other pressure switch actuated and stopped the motor and the target spiraled down. This cycle repeated itself until the training exercise was over or the battery ran out. As a result of the way the target operated, it represented a random walk (not a predetermined course) that allowed sonar personnel to track the target and sharpen their acoustic tracking skills. The target design was not complicated, and the performance requirements were very achievable.
First Article Safety Tests
The design and build phase went well. A small number of targets (called First Article units), were built for functional and safety testing. A good ground rule to remember is, be prepared for failure for any test conducted because there was always a risk of failure. The functional tests went well but the safety tests did not. The safety tests were conducted at a government test facility. This test site specialized in explosives and since the target contained potentially explosive Lithium batteries, they had to undergo and pass several tests. The most difficult test comprised heating the target to high temperatures (in a bunker) and deliberately causing the Lithium batteries to explode, which they did. The target had to vent the instant high-volume gases to prevent flying debris caused by the explosion. To achieve this goal, the target vents had to be large and high in number. Unfortunately, the target failed the first test and later (after modifications) failed the second test. The question was: How do we resolve this issue?
Compressor/Turbine Scenario 3 Risk
It was clear the Lithium batteries were a bad choice. A decision was made to replace the Lithium batteries with the Alkaline type even though there would be a significant schedule and cost impact for the project. Fortunately, the contract included a large production order with several options that allowed project recovery over time. The loss in performance by replacing the Lithium batteries turned out to be a non-problem because there was enough power to meet all the contract requirements. The project continued to perform to plan with the Alkaline batteries. It turned out to be a very successful project for the company.
Lessons Learned
- Do not assume greater risk than necessary to meet the contractual requirements with reasonable margins.
- Do not take on unproven, immature, or potential safety risk technology, components or features in your design. If required to do so, include budget and schedule time in the project baseline to adequately research and test these items beforehand.
- Do not let your lead technical person drive the program. Technical folks focus on functionality. How can I make it more functional? Project Manager (PM) focus on cost, schedule and meeting contract commitments. In the story above, the PM was swayed by the technical lead to use Lithium batteries when he/she was unsure about it. Lesson learned: in the future, do not be swayed by a technical lead in the future unless if you are comfortable with it.
- Always perform a risk/benefit analysis for a new approach or major design change. It was not done in the above story. If it was, the Lithium batteries would not have been used because the risks outweighed the benefits.
SUMMARY
Good judgment comes from bad judgment. This story is a case in point for this message.
The PM is responsible for final decisions. In this story, the PM made a bad decision because he/she relied too much on the lead engineer. A risk assessment should also should have been conducted but it was not. The project suffered a cost and schedule impact as a result. Fortunately for the PM there was sufficient schedule and budget margin to recover.
Bio:
Currently John is an author, writer and consultant. He authored a book entitled Project Risk Management. It went on sale on Amazon in August 2019. He authored a second book titled How to Get a Project Management Job: Future of Work. It is on sale on Amazon. The first book is a text book that includes all of the technical information you will need to become a PM. The second book shows you how to get a PM job. Between the two, you have the secret sauce to succeed. There are links to both books on his website.
He has presented numerous Webinars on project risk management to PMI. He writes columns on project risk management for CERM (certified enterprise risk management). John also writes blogs for APM (association for project management) in the UK. He has conducted a podcast on project risk management. John has published numerous papers on project risk management and project management on LinkedIn.
John earned a BS in Mechanical Engineering and MS in Engineering Management from Northeastern University. He has extensive experience with commercial and DOD companies. He is a member of PMI (Project Management Institute). John has managed numerous large high technical development programs worth in excessive of $100M. He has extensive subcontract management experience domestically and foreign. John has held a number of positions over his career including: Director of Programs; Director of Operations; Program Manager; Project Engineer; Engineering Manager; and Design Engineer. He has experience with: design; manufacturing; test; integration; subcontract management; contracts; project management; risk management; and quality control. John is a certified six sigma specialist, and certified to level 2 EVM (earned value management). Go to his website to find links to his books on Amazon as well as numerous papers he has written. https://projectriskmanagement.info/