Managing Change Requests in an Airport Baggage Handling Project
This paper examines how Boeing Airport Equipment Automated Systems, Inc. (BAE) should revise its initial policy of rejecting all change requests during the development of an airport baggage handling system (BHS). Written from the perspective of the project manager, the paper identifies two core challenges — workflow disruption and increased costs — and proposes three solutions: maximizing existing project management software, leveraging organizational process assets, and establishing a formal change control board. The paper concludes that systematically absorbing stakeholder input from airlines will improve communication, enhance system design from ergonomic and safety standpoints, and optimize overall workflow.
- Introduction: Project manager argues for revising change-request rejection policy
- Challenges of Accepting Change Requests: Workflow disruption and cost implications of change requests
- Project Management Solutions: Three solutions: software, process assets, and change control board
- Expected Results: Improved communication, design quality, and workflow efficiency
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The memo-style, first-person perspective is appropriate for the scenario and gives the argument a clear authority and decisiveness.
- The paper directly supports each proposed solution with a textual citation, grounding practical recommendations in project management theory.
- The three-part solution structure (technology, process assets, change board) is logically sequenced, moving from existing tools to new institutional structures.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied problem-solution structuring: it defines a specific professional problem (a blanket rejection policy for change requests), identifies the risks that policy creates, and proposes actionable, cited remedies. Each solution is mapped to a tangible expected outcome, showing cause-and-effect reasoning that is characteristic of applied project management writing.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized into four sections. The introduction establishes the professional context and the project manager's rationale for policy revision. The challenges section briefly identifies two risks — workflow disruption and cost increases. The solutions section is the core of the paper, offering three detailed recommendations. The expected results section closes with three projected benefits, tying outcomes back to the solutions proposed. The structure is concise and practitioner-oriented.
Introduction
The baggage handling system (BHS) project is currently underway at Boeing Airport Equipment Automated Systems, Inc. (BAE). Initially, our company stipulated that no change requests would be accepted. However, it has proven impossible to ignore the influx of change requests arriving from major stakeholders — namely, the airlines.
As project manager, I have determined that our policy regarding change requests must itself be revised, both from a practical and a public relations standpoint. We cannot risk further isolating core stakeholders, as doing so creates the danger that the entire project could unravel later due to technical, design, conceptual, or implementation flaws that might otherwise have been caught. It is my responsibility as project manager to attend to these change requests, and I believe that BAE stands to learn a great deal by reading and responding to them. We will do so in a systematic and organized manner.
Challenges of Accepting Change Requests
1. Change requests may interfere with our workflow. Each requested change and recommended action must be processed through the integrated change control process. Approved changes affect the project management plan, which must then be updated accordingly ("Part IV: Monitoring and Controlling the Project," n.d., p. 310).
2. Costs incurred could be significant. The recommended corrective actions, preventive actions, and defect repairs may highlight flaws in our existing planning, resulting in added expenditure.
References
"BPR-Bechtel." Retrieved from:
"Part IV: Monitoring and Controlling the Project." (n.d.), p. 310.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.