Difference between revisions of "Denver Airport Baggage Handling System"

From SEBoK
Jump to navigation Jump to search
 
m (Text replacement - "SEBoK v. 2.9, released 13 November 2023" to "SEBoK v. 2.9, released 20 November 2023")
 
(72 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
This vignette describes systems engineering issues related to the development of the Automated Baggage Handling System for the Denver International Airport [[Acronyms|(DIA)]] from 1990 to 1995. The computer controlled electrical-mechanical system was part of a larger airport system.
+
----
 +
'''''Lead Authors:''''' ''Art Pyster, Heidi Davidz''
 +
----
 +
This example was developed as a SE example for the SEBoK.  It describes systems engineering (SE) issues related to the development of the automated baggage handling system for the Denver International Airport (DIA) from 1990 to 1995. The computer-controlled, electrical-mechanical system was part of a larger airport system.
  
==Vignette Description==
+
==Description==
In February 1995, the Denver International Airport was opened, 16 months late with a delay cost of $500 million dollars. A key schedule and cost problem was a unique feature of the Airport: an "Integrated Automated Baggage Handling System." The baggage system was designed to distribute all baggage, including transfers, automatically between check-in, the aircraft and pick-up on arrival. The delivery mechanism consisted 17 miles of track on which 4000 individual, radio-controlled carts would circulate. The $238 million system consisted of over 100 computers networked to one another and to 5,000 electric eyes, 400 radio receivers and 56 bar-code scanners, with the intent to ensure the safe and timely arrival of every piece of baggage. Significant management, mechanical and software problems plagued the automated baggage handling system. In August 2005, the automated system was abandoned and replaced with a manual one.
+
In February 1995, DIA was opened 16 months later than originally anticipated with a delay cost of $500 million (Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008). A key schedule and cost problem—the integrated automated baggage handling system—was a unique feature of the airport. The baggage system was designed to distribute all baggage automatically between check-in and pick-up on arrival. The delivery mechanism consisted of 17 miles of track on which 4,000 individual, radio-controlled carts would circulate. The $238 million system consisted of over 100 computers networked together, 5,000 electric eyes, 400 radio receivers, and 56 bar-code scanners. The purpose of the system was to ensure the safe and timely arrival of every piece of baggage. Significant management, mechanical, and software problems plagued the automated baggage handling system. In August 2005, the automated system was abandoned and replaced with a manual one.
  
The automated baggage system was far more complex than previous systems. As planned, it would be ten times larger than any other automated system, have an ambitious schedule, utilize novel technology, require shorter baggage delivery times, and as such, it involved very high risk. A fixed scope, schedule, and budget arrangement precluded extensive simulation or physical testing of the full design. System design began late: it did not begin until well after construction of the airport was underway. The change management system allowed acceptance of change requests that required significant redesign of portions of work already completed. The design did not include a meaningful backup system for a system that required very high mechanical and computer reliability. The system had an insufficient number of tugs and carts to cope with baggage expected, and this along with severe timing requirements caused baggage carts to jam in the tracks and for them to misalign with the conveyor belts feeding the bags – the result was mutilated and lost bags.   
+
The automated baggage system was far more complex than previous systems. As planned, it would have been ten times larger than any other automated system, developed on an ambitious schedule, utilized novel technology, and required shorter-than-average baggage delivery times. As such, the system involved a very high level of SE {{Term|Risk (glossary)|risk}}. A fixed {{Term|Scope (glossary)|scope}}, schedule, and budget arrangement precluded extensive simulation or physical testing of the full design. System design began late, as it did not begin until well after construction of the airport was underway. The change management system allowed acceptance of change requests that required significant redesigns to portions of work already completed. The design did not include a meaningful backup system; for a system that required very high mechanical and computer reliability, this increased failure risks. The system had an insufficient number of tugs and carts to cope with the volume of baggage expected and this, along with severely limited timing requirements, caused baggage carts to jam in the tracks and for them to misalign with the conveyor belts feeding the bags. This resulted in mutilated and lost bags (Neufville 1994; Gibbs 1994).   
  
The baggage system problems could be associated with the non-use or misuse of a number of system engineering concepts and practices: [[Architectural Design|system architecture complexity]], [[Planning|project scheduling]], [[Risk Management|risk analysis]], [[Configuration Management|change management]], [[System Analysis|system analysis and design]], [[Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability|system reliability]], [[System Integration|systems integration]], [[System Verification and Validation|system testing]], and [[Enabling Systems Engineering|insufficient management oversight]].
+
The baggage system problems could be associated with the non-use or misuse of a number of {{Term|Systems Engineering (glossary)|systems engineering}} (SE) concepts and practices: [[Logical Architecture Model Development |system architecture complexity,]] [[Planning|project scheduling]], [[Risk Management|risk management]], [[Configuration Management|change management]], [[System Analysis|system analysis and design]], [[Reliability, Availability, and Maintainability|system reliability]], [[System Integration|systems integration]], [[System Verification|system verification]] and [[System Validation|validation/testing]], and [[Enabling Systems Engineering|insufficient management oversight]].
  
 
==Summary==
 
==Summary==
The initial planning decisions, the decision to implement one airport wide integrated systems, the contractual commitments to scope, schedule and cost, and the lack of adequate project management procedures and processes led to a failed system – attention to system engineering principles and practices might have avoided such failure.
+
The initial planning decisions, such as the decision to implement one airport-wide integrated system, the contractual commitments to scope, schedule, and cost, as well as the lack of adequate project management (PM) procedures and processes, led to a failed system. Attention to SE principles and practices might have avoided the system’s failure.
  
 
==References==
 
==References==
  
===Citations===
+
===Works Cited===
*Calleam Consulting Ltd. Case Study – Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System – An illustration of ineffectual decision making. Available at http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=2086.
+
Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008. ''Case Study – Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System – An Illustration of Ineffectual Decision Making''. Accessed on September 11, 2011. Available at http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=2086.
*Gibbs, W. Wayt.  1994.  Software’s Chronic Crisis.  Scientific American, 72-81, September 1994.
+
 
*de Neufville, Richard. 1994.  The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons. Journal of Air Transport Management 1, no.4 (December 1994): 229-236.
+
Neufville, R. de. 1994.  "The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons."  ''Journal of Air Transport Management''. 1(4): 229-236.
 +
 
 +
Gibbs, W.W.  1994.  "Software’s Chronic Crisis."  ''Scientific American''. September 1994: p. 72-81.
  
 
===Primary References===
 
===Primary References===
Line 22: Line 27:
  
 
===Additional References===
 
===Additional References===
None.
+
DOT. 1994. ''New Denver Airport: Impact of the Delayed Baggage System.'' US Department of Transportation (DOT), Research Innovation Technology Administration. GAO/RCED-95-35BR. Available at http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/rc9535br.html
----
 
====Article Discussion====
 
[[{{TALKPAGENAME}}|[Go to discussion page]]]
 
<center>[[Vignettes|<- Previous Article]] | [[Vignettes|Parent Article]] | [[GE Birth of IDEF Vignette|Next Article ->]]</center>
 
Description:  Good
 
  
Balance: OK
+
Donaldson, A.J.M. 2002. ''A Case Narrative of the Project Problems with the Denver Airport Baggage Handling Systems (DABHS).'' Software Forensics Center Technical Report TR 2002-01. Middlesex University, School of Computer Sciences. Available at http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/SFC/Reports/TR2002-01.pdf
  
Scope: The scope of the article seems appropriate (does not stray outside of the intended subject matter).
+
----
+
<center>[[Apollo 1 Disaster|< Previous Article]] | [[Matrix of Implementation Examples|Parent Article]] | [[FAA Advanced Automation System (AAS)|Next Article >]]</center>
Writing:  The article is written in an appropriate and professional manner.
 
 
 
Qing Wang
 
  
==Signatures==
+
[[Category:Part 7]][[Category:Example]]
[[Category:Part 7]][[Category:Vignette]]--[[User:Hdavidz|Hdavidz]] 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
+
<center>'''SEBoK v. 2.9, released 20 November 2023'''</center>

Latest revision as of 22:25, 18 November 2023


Lead Authors: Art Pyster, Heidi Davidz


This example was developed as a SE example for the SEBoK. It describes systems engineering (SE) issues related to the development of the automated baggage handling system for the Denver International Airport (DIA) from 1990 to 1995. The computer-controlled, electrical-mechanical system was part of a larger airport system.

Description

In February 1995, DIA was opened 16 months later than originally anticipated with a delay cost of $500 million (Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008). A key schedule and cost problem—the integrated automated baggage handling system—was a unique feature of the airport. The baggage system was designed to distribute all baggage automatically between check-in and pick-up on arrival. The delivery mechanism consisted of 17 miles of track on which 4,000 individual, radio-controlled carts would circulate. The $238 million system consisted of over 100 computers networked together, 5,000 electric eyes, 400 radio receivers, and 56 bar-code scanners. The purpose of the system was to ensure the safe and timely arrival of every piece of baggage. Significant management, mechanical, and software problems plagued the automated baggage handling system. In August 2005, the automated system was abandoned and replaced with a manual one.

The automated baggage system was far more complex than previous systems. As planned, it would have been ten times larger than any other automated system, developed on an ambitious schedule, utilized novel technology, and required shorter-than-average baggage delivery times. As such, the system involved a very high level of SE riskrisk. A fixed scopescope, schedule, and budget arrangement precluded extensive simulation or physical testing of the full design. System design began late, as it did not begin until well after construction of the airport was underway. The change management system allowed acceptance of change requests that required significant redesigns to portions of work already completed. The design did not include a meaningful backup system; for a system that required very high mechanical and computer reliability, this increased failure risks. The system had an insufficient number of tugs and carts to cope with the volume of baggage expected and this, along with severely limited timing requirements, caused baggage carts to jam in the tracks and for them to misalign with the conveyor belts feeding the bags. This resulted in mutilated and lost bags (Neufville 1994; Gibbs 1994).

The baggage system problems could be associated with the non-use or misuse of a number of systems engineeringsystems engineering (SE) concepts and practices: system architecture complexity, project scheduling, risk management, change management, system analysis and design, system reliability, systems integration, system verification and validation/testing, and insufficient management oversight.

Summary

The initial planning decisions, such as the decision to implement one airport-wide integrated system, the contractual commitments to scope, schedule, and cost, as well as the lack of adequate project management (PM) procedures and processes, led to a failed system. Attention to SE principles and practices might have avoided the system’s failure.

References

Works Cited

Calleam Consulting Ltd. 2008. Case Study – Denver International Airport Baggage Handling System – An Illustration of Ineffectual Decision Making. Accessed on September 11, 2011. Available at http://calleam.com/WTPF/?page_id=2086.

Neufville, R. de. 1994. "The Baggage System at Denver: Prospects and Lessons." Journal of Air Transport Management. 1(4): 229-236.

Gibbs, W.W. 1994. "Software’s Chronic Crisis." Scientific American. September 1994: p. 72-81.

Primary References

None.

Additional References

DOT. 1994. New Denver Airport: Impact of the Delayed Baggage System. US Department of Transportation (DOT), Research Innovation Technology Administration. GAO/RCED-95-35BR. Available at http://ntl.bts.gov/DOCS/rc9535br.html

Donaldson, A.J.M. 2002. A Case Narrative of the Project Problems with the Denver Airport Baggage Handling Systems (DABHS). Software Forensics Center Technical Report TR 2002-01. Middlesex University, School of Computer Sciences. Available at http://www.eis.mdx.ac.uk/research/SFC/Reports/TR2002-01.pdf


< Previous Article | Parent Article | Next Article >
SEBoK v. 2.9, released 20 November 2023