WMBA 6620 Week 1 Missed Project Target Post Example

Course	WMBA 6620 Practices in Project Management
Week	Week 1
Paper type	Discussion post
Length	About 510 words, 3 pages
Format	Discussion post, APA 7 citations
School	Walden University
Program	Master of Business Administration (MBA)
Updated	October 2026

Free sample paper for WMBA 6620 Week 1

Week 1 Discussion: A Project That Missed Its Target

Sixteen Months Late Because the Scope Would Not Move: What the Denver Airport Baggage System Shows About Which Constraint a Sponsor Protects and What Absorbs the Pressure Instead

Denver International Airport was scheduled to open in October 1993. It opened in February 1995, sixteen months late, and the main cause was its automated baggage system, which was meant to carry bags in thousands of individually controlled carts along miles of track serving every concourse. One contemporary analysis put the cost of the delay at roughly $1 million a day in interest and operating costs while the finished airport sat idle (de Neufville, 1994).

The constraint the city refused to move for most of that time was scope. The system was designed to serve the whole airport at once, at a scale and level of integration no baggage system had attempted. The contract for it was signed after much of the building design was fixed, so the system had to fit spaces not designed for it, and the schedule left little time for testing. When tests in 1994 showed carts jamming and bags thrown from the track in front of reporters, the city did not cut scope at first. It extended the schedule, and the schedule absorbed the pressure, along with the budget, as interest charges and contractor claims mounted.

Scope finally moved in 1994, when the city decided to build a conventional tug-and-cart system as a backup and to scale the automated system back to part of the airport. Montealegre and Keil (2000) traced how the city de-escalated its commitment, showing that the decision to scale back came only after repeated failures had made continuing politically harder than stopping. The airport opened once scope was cut.

The lesson I take is that the triple constraint does not let a sponsor hold all three corners. Denver held scope and quality, and time and money paid. A sponsor who protects one constraint should say which one will give, before the project says it for them. The PMBOK Guide treats this kind of tailoring of constraints as a decision for project leaders to make deliberately rather than by default (Project Management Institute, 2021).

In your project, which constraint did the sponsor protect, and did anyone say aloud which one would absorb the pressure?

I chose Denver because the numbers are public and the pattern is common.

What this page is doingNaming what absorbed the pressure is the point of the exercise, since a refused constraint always moves the pressure somewhere else.

Reply to Erin

Erin, you said your hospital wing opened eleven months late because "the budget was fixed." I wonder whether the budget really held. If change orders added cost over those eleven months, then budget moved too, and the fixed constraint may have been the floor plan, which the medical staff had approved. What did the final cost come to?

What this page is doingThe reply tests the classmate's reading of which constraint was fixed.

Reply to Sam

Sam, your product launch, pulled two weeks out, is a useful contrast with Denver: your sponsor moved the date rather than shipping with a known defect. That was a choice to protect quality and spend time. Do you know whether the two-week slip cost the company a seasonal sales window?

References

de Neufville, R. (1994). The baggage system at Denver: Prospects and lessons. Journal of Air Transport Management, 1(4), 229-236. https://doi.org/10.1016/0969-6997(94)90014-0

Montealegre, R., & Keil, M. (2000). De-escalating information technology projects: Lessons from the Denver International Airport. MIS Quarterly, 24(3), 417-447. https://doi.org/10.2307/3250968

Project Management Institute. (2021). A guide to the project management body of knowledge (PMBOK guide) (7th ed.).

WMBA 6620 Week 1 instructions, in plain terms

The opening discussion asks students to examine a project that missed its target, usually one they know or a well-documented public case. A good post starts with one project you can name, not a type of failure, with a paragraph of facts: the original target, the actual result and the size of the miss in time or money. The next paragraph identifies which constraint the sponsor refused to move, scope, schedule, budget or quality, and what absorbed the pressure instead. A short lesson and a question for classmates usually close the post. Replies should test the classmate's reading of which constraint was fixed, often by asking for a figure the post did not give.

Inside the WMBA 6620 Week 1 example

The post opens with Denver's planned and actual opening dates and the baggage system's role, citing de Neufville's estimate of the daily cost of delay. A paragraph explains why scope was the protected constraint: an airport-wide integrated system fitted into spaces designed before its contract. It shows schedule and budget absorbing the pressure as tests failed. A paragraph describes the 1994 decision to build a conventional backup and scale back, citing Montealegre and Keil on de-escalation. A lesson about naming the constraint that will give cites the PMBOK Guide. One reply asks whether a hospital wing's budget really held; the other contrasts a product launch that protected quality by moving its date. Margin comments flag the named project and the absorbed pressure.

Reading the WMBA 6620 Week 1 rubric

Credit begins with a specific, named project and accurate facts about its target and result. Graders then look for a clear identification of the protected constraint and an explanation of what absorbed the pressure, supported by evidence. A lesson that follows from the case, rather than a general statement about project failure, earns further credit. Citations to documented sources strengthen the analysis. Replies are judged on whether they test the classmate's reading with a specific question or figure. A post that reports one target missed by a stated margin, and says what the team changed afterward, reads as honest project experience. Posts that quantify what the protected constraint cost the project show the strongest grasp of trade-offs.

WMBA 6620 Week 1 help: mistakes that cost marks

Pick a project with documented facts, whether from your workplace or a public case. Write down the original target and the actual outcome in weeks or dollars. Then ask which constraint the sponsor would not move and trace where the pressure went. Students often lose marks by describing a failure in general terms, by naming several causes without choosing one or by omitting the size of the miss. Another frequent gap is a reply that agrees instead of asking for evidence. Ask which figure would confirm the classmate's reading. If you need a custom sample post on a project from your own experience, send us its targets and results.

Get a WMBA 6620 Week 1 example written to your instructions

Week 1 needs the thread instructions and whatever participation rubric a section publishes, plus the project if that choice was made for the class. A finished post with both replies returns inside 24 to 48 hours, the first one free. Real employer projects get described without identifying detail attached to them.

More WMBA 6620 papers and MBA samples

WMBA 6620 Week 1 questions, answered

Where can I find a free WMBA 6620 Week 1 sample paper?

The missed project target post on the Denver airport baggage system is on this page with both replies.

How late was the airport?

Sixteen months, opening in February 1995 instead of October 1993.

Which constraint did the city protect?

Scope, an airport-wide automated baggage system.

What absorbed the pressure?

Schedule and budget, until the city built a conventional backup system and scaled back the automated one.

What lesson does the post draw?

A sponsor who protects one constraint should say in advance which one will give.