Running Head: The Vasa Capsizes Case Assignment
The Vasa Capsizes Case Assignment
The “Vasa Capsizes Case Assignment”, is a project management case. We’ll find that if the project leader used many of the project management tools used in today’s projects the Vasa probably would have made numerous voyages for the Swedish fleet. However, because of the lack of a clear written procedure when deviations to the ship building process occurred, no risk analysis and action plan if the risk occurs, along with no project progress reporting the Vasa building team failed and the Vasa sank. Setup - Definition
In our project management checklist under the setup-definition verification there are two key questions to the Vasa ship being built correctly.
The primary factor is if the shipwright – Mr. Henrik Hybertson “assessed the risk(s) and put a plan into action to monitor the risks throughout the project.”1 A typical risk analysis lists many of the risks that could occur during the project, the affects of the risk, the priority, the owner and the appropriate action plan if the risk occurs. Below is a possible risk analysis that the project leader, and in this case it seems to be the Admiral Klas Fleming. [pic]
A secondary factor is: “Have you carried out a stakeholder analysis and planned accordingly?”1 A stakeholder analysis in a project such as building the Vasa is a key tool that identifies stakeholder support so the project leader can develop an action plan for the project. The stakeholder analysis shows whose interests (project leaders, process owners, managers, apprentices) that the project will come into contact with that display a level of ownership and commitment to the success of the Vasa construction. In the Vasa project the project leaders – the Admiral and King, the owners – Henrik and Hein, along with the captain, others assisting in the building of the ship. Delivery Planning
Next, when considering the delivery planning of the Vasa construction many of the check sheet items indicate where the project broke down, however the two that best suit the project are primarily – “Have you developed a communications plan and included its component parts into the Gantt charts?”1 The communication plan identifies with the rest of the team, shipyard, stakeholders who needs to be communicated, what is to be communicated, how are you going to communicate the information and how often. Below is a communication plan that Admiral Fleming could have used on this project. [pic]
A secondary factor to the Vasa’s demise was the fact the project leader did not answer the question: “Are you continuing to carry out risk analysis throughout the project?”1 If the Admiral had regular team meetings and eliminated the risk of changing the design length, the death of the shipbuilder, and not passing the stability test, etc, the Vasa would have been a formidable ship in the Swedish fleet.
Concerning the delivery of the project the secondary factor: “Project Reporting – are you clear who reports what and to whom and how?”1 The project report is another key tool to keeping the project’s goal and deliverables attainable and on time. The project report indicates to the stakeholders and team whether or not milestones are completed and action items to be completed. Today, many companies call these meetings toll gates, and are to be approved by all stakeholders, project leader(s), before going further in the project. In the Vasa case there was the beginning, numerous changes in design, no clear direction for the next shipbuilder to continue to work, a speed up in the project and then it sank. If the project had meet regularly and reviewed each tollgate, hull design and building, deck design, testing the concerns of the project would have been more apparent throughout the project. In my estimation the primary and largest contributor to the Vasa’s sinking is “Do you have a...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document