1) Suppose you were a consultant called into the project by the federal government in 1990, when it still seemed viable. Given the start to the project, what steps would you have taken to reintroduce some positive “spin” on the Superconducting Supercollider?
2) What were the warning signs of impending failure as the project progressed? Could these signs have been recognized so that problems could have been foreseen and addressed or, in your opinion, was the project simply impossible to achieve? Take a position and argue its merits.
3) Search for “superconducting supercollider” on the Internet. How do the majority of stories about the project present it? Given the negative perspective, what are the top three lessons to be learned from this project?
A famous example of a project that started with great fanfare and was quietly shut down was the Superconducting Supercollider. A particle physics structure as it was conceived, the project received funding after an intense (and some would argue, divisive) competition among various communities seeking to house the complex. A combination of incremental funding coupled with very poor project oversight led to allegations of shoddy work, inflated costs, and unnecessary expenses. All these problems contributed to a rapid decline in the attitude of the federal government toward keeping the project alive, and it was finally killed through withdrawal of funding. This case also makes an excellent discussion point for the argument that good project management also requires good stakeholder management; that is, keeping all the powerful project stakeholders happy and supportive of the project.