Project and Stakeholder Management Failures in the LAMP-H Project

Business Administration Department, University of the People

BUS 5611: Project Management

Dr. Sourabh Kumar

February 11th 2025

 Introduction

The LAMP-H project, initiated by the U.S. Army, serves as a case study in stakeholder
mismanagement that ultimately led to project failure. Despite the necessity of the project,
disagreements among key stakeholders, delays in decision-making, and inefficient project
governance contributed to its downfall. This paper analyzes the stakeholders involved before and
after the implementation of the Program Executive Officer (PEO) and examines changes in their
influence, threat potential, and cooperation. Lessons learned from these stakeholder dynamics
underscore the importance of proactive project governance and strategic stakeholder
management (Bourne & Walker, 2006).

Identification of Stakeholders Before the Implementation of the PEO

Before the introduction of the PEO, the LAMP-H project involved multiple stakeholders, each
with distinct priorities and levels of influence (Kerzner, 2003):

i. Project Manager: Responsible for the execution of the project, ensuring alignment with
Army requirements and managing competing interests.
ii. Department of Army Staff: Had overarching control over project approvals and funding
decisions.
iii. Troop Support Command (TSC): Managed the logistical execution of troop-related
projects, including LAMP-H.
iv. Army Materiel Command (AMC): Controlled financial resources, playing a critical role
in budget allocation.
v. Functional Managers: Ensured regulatory compliance but often resisted acquisition
streamlining efforts (Shimizu & Hitt, 2004).
vi. Watercraft Research and Development (R&D) Center: Provided technical specifications
and research on system capabilities.
vii. Transportation School (T-School): The end users of the LAMP-H system, responsible for
defining operational requirements but hesitant about commitment (Christenson &
Walker, 2004).
viii. DOD Inspectors and Auditors: Ensured adherence to military procurement policies and
regulatory compliance.
 ix. Contractors and Suppliers: External parties eager to participate in the project once
specifications were finalized.

Stakeholder Influence Analysis Before PEO Implementation

The influence and level of cooperation among these stakeholders varied significantly. The Army
Materiel Command (AMC) wielded considerable power due to its control over project funding,
frequently threatening budget cuts. The functional managers, focused on strict regulatory
compliance, opposed streamlined acquisition processes, creating bureaucratic delays.
Meanwhile, the Transportation School (T-School) wavered in its support, contributing to project
uncertainty (Kerzner, 2003).

Potential for Potential for

Stakeholder Strategy Adopted
Threat Cooperation
Project Manager Low High Collaboration
Department of Army
High Medium Compliance & lobbying
Staff
Troop Support
Medium High Consensus-building
Command
Army Materiel
High Low Defensive positioning
Command
Resistance &
Functional Managers High Low
bureaucracy
Watercraft R&D Center Medium High Technical collaboration
Transportation School High Medium Uncertain engagement
DOD Inspectors Medium Low Oversight-driven
Market-driven
Contractors Low High
engagement

Changes in Stakeholder Influence After PEO Implementation

The introduction of the Program Executive Officer (PEO) aimed to centralize project oversight
and expedite decision-making. However, this restructuring had unintended consequences
(Bourne & Walker, 2006):

i. The PEO became a new power center: Replacing the Troop Support Command (TSC),
the PEO now had direct oversight over project managers. Unfortunately, the PEO lacked
 acquisition experience and was hesitant to approve critical funding, causing project
delays.
ii. The Project Manager’s control was initially strengthened but later undermined: While the
new project manager attempted to implement innovative acquisition strategies, the PEO’s
resistance to change led to funding holdups (Christenson & Walker, 2004).
iii. The Army Materiel Command (AMC) lost financial control, but this did not translate into
smoother operations since the PEO did not actively advocate for the project.
iv. Functional managers maintained strong opposition, resisting streamlined processes and
reinforcing bureaucratic hurdles (Kerzner, 2003).
v. Transportation School (T-School) eventually supported the project, but by the time their
commitment was secured, delays had already destabilized the initiative.

Updated Stakeholder Influence Analysis After PEO Implementation

Potential for Potential for

Stakeholder Strategy Adopted
Threat Cooperation

Program Executive Officer High Low Passive resistance

(PEO)
Project Manager Medium High Tactical negotiation
Advocacy &
Department of Army Staff High Medium
persuasion
Army Materiel Command Low Low Indifferent
Functional Managers High Low Bureaucratic resistance
Watercraft R&D Center Low Medium Passive engagement
Transportation School Low High Proactive engagement
DOD Inspectors Medium Low Neutral oversight
Market-driven
Contractors Low High
engagement

Lessons Learned and Conclusion

The LAMP-H project serves as a cautionary tale on the importance of effective stakeholder
management. The key takeaways include:
 i. A strong and knowledgeable project sponsor is critical: The PEO, intended to streamline
project execution, lacked acquisition expertise, creating additional roadblocks (Hosking,
2005).
ii. Early stakeholder alignment is crucial: Conflicting technical requirements and hesitancy
from key stakeholders delayed project execution (Shimizu & Hitt, 2004).
iii. Resistance to change must be actively managed: Functional managers prioritized
traditional processes over innovation, impeding project efficiency (Kerzner, 2003).

Ultimately, the LAMP-H project was terminated after 15 years, despite its operational necessity.
Had stakeholder concerns been addressed proactively, the project could have navigated
bureaucratic challenges and secured the necessary approvals for success. This case reinforces the
necessity of a structured stakeholder management framework to mitigate risks and foster
cooperation in complex projects.

References
Bourne, L., & Walker, D. H. T. (2006). Visualizing stakeholder influence—Two Australian
examples. Project Management Journal, 37(1), 5–21.

Christenson, D., & Walker, D. H. T. (2004). Understanding the role of "vision" in project
success. Project Management Journal, 35(3), 39–52.

Hosking, J. E. (2005). Lessons learned: Seven keys to a successful replacement hospital

project. Journal of Healthcare Management, 50(1), 8–11.

Kerzner, H. (2003). Project management: A systems approach to planning, scheduling, and

controlling. John Wiley & Sons.

Shimizu, K., & Hitt, M. A. (2004). Strategic flexibility: Organizational preparedness to

reverse ineffective strategic decisions. Academy of Management Journal, 18(4), 44–
59.