March 28th, 2009 | 
Author: success ?
The recent book "Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin" attempts to discuss the project.
By its nature a "key factor for success" can be not widely known. If key factors for success were widely known they would be more obvious and not always necessary to include in a list of key factors for success.
One thing that is not widely recognized is the importance of rerunning factory tests throughout the integration. Neither customer representatives nor supplier representatives will necessarily be aware of this this importance.
The contract documents almost unquestionably would have highlighted this importance.
So "rerunning factory tests throughout the integration" is very likely to have been one of key factors for success of the Collins project,and was quite likely to have been neglected, thereby impeding the project.
Hopefully there's an attempt to keep chain of custody of documents.
Looking at the key people who contributed, as listed in "Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin" won't tell us what impeded the project. For that we'd need a list of suspects, non-key people who didn't contribute except to throw a spanner in the works.
It seems to me that staff are replaced periodically (I note the six Project Directors).
While a key person is being replaced might provide an ideal window for the spanner-thrower.
Posted in Success Factors
These people are listed as key people, in the book. (8 people of the 173 people listed – of course there were other key people not listed)
Perhaps there was no problem. It's hard to see how there could be a problem, given there were people of this calibre.
One thing to remember is that there are not enough quality inspectors in the universe to assure a good product if the person producing it does not know how to, or does not want to.
Andrew Millar (Commander RAN), staff officer to Project Director [12 August 2005; 17 January 2006]
Peter Hider, Deputy Project Director; negotiated contracts [22 August 2006]
Graham White (Captain RAN), first Project Director 1982–85 [5 August 2005; 6 August 2006]
Oscar Hughes (Rear Admiral RAN), engineer; second Project Director 1985–93 [16 January 2005; 20 February 2007]
Geoff Rose (Commodore RAN), submariner; third Project Director 1993–97 [20 August 2006]
Eoin Asker (Commodore RAN), submariner; fourth Project Director 1997–2000 [14 June 2006]
Paul Greenfield (Commodore RAN), submariner; fifth Project Director [1 March 2006]
Mark Gairey, naval architect; sixth Project Director [22 August 2006]
References :
It's not clear there was any problem.
<<In August 1991, because of the combat system schedule slippage, the contract was amended to provide a two-stage delivery. This was to allow submarine platform trials to proceed in advance of a fully compliant combat system being available.>>
, according to
http://www.defence.gov.au
/minister/1999/collins.html
either the project directors were in the loop regarding August 1991 decision, or they were not.
If they weren't in the loop then it wasn't authorised by them so it's of no concern.
If they authorised it, then fine, they had that authority.
So too regarding "rerunning factory tests throughout the integration".
Either the project directors were in the loop regarding any failure to rerun factory tests, or they were not.
If they weren't in the loop then it wasn't authorised by them so it's of no concern.
If they authorised it, then fine, they had that authority.
References :
Cerainly someone could have impeded the project by ignoring guidelines.
Perhaps legacy software was reused. (Think Ariane V rocket).
Some of the legacy systems might have been allowed to get out of sync with each other.
In a legacy system you could imagine quality almost falling off to the extent where developers release a "fix", and then test software is modded to "reflect the released code". This sounds ridiculous and probably is ridiculous but you could imagine that it might make sense in a very limited application.
If there was such a legacy system it might be totally unusable to "reuse" "as is". There'd obviously be a caveat on any reuse at all of such a system.
We can envisage algorithms being reused so that the resultant system look like a dog's breakfast and there's simply no way of restoring the system to anything meaningful.
To fix the system would require acknowledgement by the head honchos of their malfeasance. So it won't happen.
It's like something out of "Macbeth".
References :
Hopefully there's an attempt to keep chain of custody of documents.
Looking at the key people who contributed, as listed in "Collins Class Submarine Story: Steel, Spies and Spin" won't tell us what impeded the project. For that we'd need a list of suspects, non-key people who didn't contribute except to throw a spanner in the works.
It seems to me that staff are replaced periodically (I note the six Project Directors).
While a key person is being replaced might provide an ideal window for the spanner-thrower.
References :
Was there secret outsourcing of responsibilities ? (Typically one or more highly paid board members outsource the job they are being paid to do, but for some reason are neglecting to do. The job if outsourced to someone with less clout than them is therefore less likely to be done).
References :
Sherlock after eliminating the other possibilities, might be left with this insight :-
<<"men are so simple, and so subject to present necessities, that he who seeks to deceive will always find someone who will allow himself to be deceived. One recent example I cannot pass over in silence. Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, nor ever thought of doing otherwise, and he always found victims; for there never was a man who had greater power in asserting, or who with greater oaths would affirm a thing, yet would observe it less; nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to his wishes, because he well understood this side of mankind."
(machiavelli, the prince, ch 18, para. 21)>>
or this insight :-
<<As one Source of Narcissistic Supply dwindles, the narcissist finds himself trapped in a frantic (though, at times, unconscious) effort to secure alternatives. As one Pathological Narcissistic Space (the narcissist's stomping grounds) is rendered "uninhabitable" (too many people "see through" the narcissist's manipulation and machinations) – the narcissist wanders off to find another.
These hysterical endeavours sometimes lead to boom-bust cycles which involve, in the first stage, the formation of a Grandiosity Bubble.
A Grandiosity Bubble is an imagined, self-aggrandising, narrative involving the narcissist and elements from his real life – people around him, places he frequents, or conversations he is having. The narcissist weaves a story incorporating these facts, inflating them in the process and endowing them with bogus internal meaning and consistency. In other words: he confabulates – but, this time, his confabulation is loosely based on reality.
In the process, the narcissist re-invents himself and his life to fit the new-fangled tale. He re-casts himself in newly adopted roles. He suddenly fancies himself an actor, a guru, a political activist, an entrepreneur, or an irresistible hunk. He modifies his behaviour to conform to these new functions. He gradually morphs into the fabricated character and "becomes" the fictitious protagonist he has created.
All the mechanisms of pathological narcissism are at work during the bubble phase. The narcissist idealises the situation, the other "actors", and the environment. He tries to control and manipulate his milieu into buttressing his false notions and perceptions. Faced with an inevitable Grandiosity Gap, he becomes disillusioned and bitter and devalues and discards the people, places, and circumstances involved in the bubble.
Still, Grandiosity Bubbles are not part of the normal narcissistic mini-cycle (see the resources in the section titled "Also Read" below). They are rare events, much like trying on a new outfit for size and comfort. They fizzle out rapidly and the narcissist reverts to his regular pattern: idealising new Sources of Supply, devaluing and discarding them, pursuing the next victims to be drained.
Actually, the deflation of a grandiosity bubble is met with relief by the narcissist. It does not involve a narcissistic injury. The narcissist views the bubble as merely an experiment at being someone else for a while. It is a safety valve, allowing the narcissist to effectively cope with negative emotions and frustration. Thus cleansed, the narcissist can go back to doing what he does best – projecting a False Self and garnering attention from others.>>
reference
http://
http://www.narcissistic
-abuse.com
/journal56.html
http:
//samvak.tripod.com
/grandiositybubbles
.html
References :