Orion Shield Project: Key Project Management Violations
This paper examines the Orion Shield case study through the lens of project management principles, identifying violations committed by the project manager and key personnel including the Director of Engineering, Director of Program Management, and Project Engineer. The analysis explores how SEC's organizational structure and culture enabled unethical behavior such as falsified test results, budget mismanagement, and poor stakeholder communication. Drawing on the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK) and supporting literature, the paper evaluates failures in communication planning, departmental coordination, and project scope management, ultimately concluding that the project manager failed to meet the fundamental objectives of successful project delivery.
- Project Management Principle Violations by Key Personnel: Violations by Gary, Larsen, Grey, and Arnold
- Organizational Structure and Culture at SEC: How SEC culture enabled unethical behavior
- Effective Communication in Project Management: PMBOK communication principles and Gary's gaps
- Larsen's Advice vs. PMBOK Standards: Contrasting Larsen's advice with PMBOK requirements
- Coordinating Functional Departments: Four departments and coordination principles
- Did Gary Fail? Evaluating Project Outcomes: Final verdict on Gary's project management failure
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Each analytical question is addressed in a clearly organized section, making it easy for readers to follow the case analysis from individual violations through to organizational context and final project evaluation.
- The paper consistently connects observed behaviors back to recognized project management principles, particularly the PMBOK framework, grounding the analysis in authoritative professional standards.
- The conclusion on project failure is supported with specific technical evidence — the temperature range shortfall and the age-life discrepancy — rather than relying solely on managerial critique.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates applied case analysis: taking a real-world scenario and systematically evaluating each actor's conduct against an established professional framework. This technique requires the writer to move beyond description and explicitly connect observed facts to theoretical or professional standards, a skill central to business and management writing at the undergraduate level.
Structure breakdown
The paper is organized as a Q&A case study response with six analytically distinct sections. It opens by cataloguing violations per individual stakeholder, transitions into organizational diagnosis, then addresses communication principles, managerial advice quality, departmental coordination, and finally renders a verdict on overall project success. The references are formatted in APA style.
Project Management Principle Violations by Key Personnel
By the Project Manager
One of the key principles of project management is ensuring that all project stakeholders are sufficiently informed about the project phase and status, and that issues requiring attention are promptly communicated to the appropriate parties (Mauk, 2009). Gary violated this principle from the outset of the project. He failed to plan project schedules and communicate them to the relevant teams. Due to a prolonged emphasis on technical testing, Gary also failed to maintain contact with his partner Sarah Wilson from Space Technology Industries (STI), despite her repeated requests to be kept informed in a timely manner.
Gary was hands-on and proactive in submitting expenditure reports to management; however, by failing to inform and involve Elliott Grey before submitting those reports, he created funding complications. His lack of planning also led to last-minute requests to production planning, confusion at STI due to late changes to material specifications, and ultimately a deliberate decision not to disclose information about the product's age life to all project parties. Furthermore, Gary chose to follow Larsen's advice and did not disclose to stakeholders that the SEC component could not function beyond 130 degrees Fahrenheit, even though the requirement was 150 degrees.
By Henry Larsen, Director of Engineering
Henry Larsen violated project management principles related to transparency about project status, project definition, and proper communication. Specifically, Larsen provided ill-advised guidance to Gary by instructing him to falsify test results and to deceive STI by claiming that new material was tested using funds from Scientific Engineering Corporation (SEC). Larsen also misrepresented the nature of the contract agreement. It was assumed at the outset that the contract was a Fixed-Price Incentive Fee (FPIF) contract when it was actually a Firm Fixed Price (FFP) contract, which created additional difficulty in completing the project within the outlined budget.
By Elliott Grey, Director of Program Management
Elliott Grey's violation involved authorizing additional funds beyond the budgeted amount without a concrete justification and without adequately considering the associated risks.
By Paula Arnold, Project Engineer
Paula Arnold colluded with Henry Larsen in testing a new material, JXB-3, for several weeks. This work was not part of the project contract with STI, and they were not authorized to spend STI funds on testing new materials. Had this activity been discovered, it could have resulted in cancellation of the contract.
Organizational Structure and Culture at SEC
Several structural and cultural characteristics of SEC permitted each of these individuals to behave as they did. To begin with, the organization lacked a proper organizational culture that could guide personnel on appropriate conduct. SEC also operates as a functional organization, which tends to produce employees who are operationally efficient and expert within their specific areas of specialization. Gary, for instance, was an expert engineer and therefore not well prepared to take on project management responsibilities. The core behavioral violation throughout the case is deceit and a lack of honesty. This behavior was normalized, in part, because leaders such as Henry Larsen modeled it, leading employees like Gary and Paula Arnold to treat dishonesty as acceptable.
The project management and general management principles that a project manager can draw upon to positively influence these organizational characteristics include open communication, establishing a clear project scope, refining objectives, and outlining courses of action (Mauk, 2009).
Organizational structure and culture significantly influence the success of project management. In the Orion Shield case, SEC's culture lacked complete honesty and open communication. Its functional structure further complicated matters because the Orion Shield project extended across multiple functional divisions in which the project manager lacked direct authority over those divisions, creating a constant need for collaboration. According to the Project Management Body of Knowledge (PMBOK), a participative organizational culture helps overcome the challenges encountered in managing cross-functional projects. With respect to structure, PMBOK recommends a projectized organizational structure in which team members are largely co-located, most organizational resources are dedicated to project work, and project managers have substantial independence and authority. Even where departments exist within such a structure, they report directly to the project manager (Duncan, 1996).
Effective Communication in Project Management
Project management principles provide clear guidance for creating effective communication. This includes developing a communication approach based on stakeholders' informational requirements, as well as ensuring that the project manager generates, collects, distributes, stores, and retrieves information appropriately. A project manager must also monitor and control communication throughout the entire project life cycle (Stackpole, 2013).
Had Gary been well versed in these principles, he would have developed a comprehensive communications plan enabling him to share progress updates with key stakeholders and meeting details with project team members. He also would have communicated openly with the marketing department and all other relevant stakeholders during the second testing phase.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.