National competitive advantage of technology

National competitive advantage of technology Is technology the basis of long-term national competitive advantage? Compare the differences in the innovation systems of leading economies, industries and firms? Kay (1993) describes â€Å"innovation† as a ‘distinctive capability that can help provide the foundation for competitive advantage. Technology has been shaping the world since the start of the human era. Even in the business world it has changed the way businesses works, it has changed the manner we perceive and even the way we manage business. There are three major forms of innovating; RD, imported technology and technological transfers.   So, to argue we will use porter and chandlers theories with comparing the three different tires of the Nation level, the Industry level and the Firm level to understand whether technology on itself or with factors leads to a National competitive advantage. And we will focus over the major five economies, which are USA, UK, Germany, Japan and China. Technological development and innovation is a quite vital for long-term national competitiveness and success. Porter (1998) defined the national competitive advantage as the capacity of nation to attract local and foreign firms to use a platform for conducting business and attaining economic success. Therefore, with better technology will bring in more options for business and will be more attractive. Porter stresses the importance of technological change as â€Å"The determinants of national innovative capacity†, 2002, by referring this as one of the principal drivers of competition, which is at the heart of economic growth and development. The major reasons which supports the argument of it being vital to competitive advantage is because of the way it leads to differentiation or lower costs from the competitors in product and service designs. Firms must broaden and extend the basis of their competitive advantage by innovation through technology development and update (Fitzge rald, 1994). Innovation through technological development can also lead to national comparative advantage. Even though technology is one of the primary determinants of national competitiveness, they are other factors. Moreover, distinguishing the â€Å"Invention† from â€Å"Innovation† is must and has been done by Schumpeter, in which the invention is just a scientific breakthrough and not necessarily a business one cause of the commercial viability, being unknown. However, the job of the research and development is more to bring in the commercial viability, which may turn out to be a competitive advantage. The phrase deemed â€Å"technological change† has altered the society and increased the national wealth through success of various governments, since the 19th century. One of the major contributors in the development of economies and technology are the large industrial enterprises, which earlier with their super-normal profits and evolving competition, embodied innovation in their processes and products. So the major factors that led to these technological enterprises were lower costs, better human resources inclusive of management, smooth flow of material and information with well-built distributing networks and a primary driver of technological advances, (Chandler, 1995) Metcalfe, (1995) defines National innovation systems as â€Å"set of distinct institutions which jointly and individually contribute to the development and diffusion of new technologies and which provides the framework within which governments form and implement policies to influence the innovation process. As such it is a system of interconnected institutions to create, store and transfer the knowledge, skills and arti facts which define new technologies.† As stated above, the major five economies have been analysed at the macro level amongst their National Innovation Systems. The resources for Japanese innovation are mostly through private firms, public research institutions and educational institutions; for the USA are mostly non-US firms and educational institutions (Buiges, 2009). While the UK, Germany and China share similar resources, which is mainly the government. So, to start we analyse the RD expenditure to the economic output of the countries. The USA has a stable expenditure share between 2.5 to 3% since 1996 (Dicken, 2003). While, Japan on the contrary has the highest share of expenditure for RD which has been more than 3% of the countrys output since 2007 and the percentage is increasing (Abe and Fitzgerald, 1995). U.K. and Germany have been steady with their RD expenditure ranging from 1.5 to 2% since 1996. The Chinese increased their input by 1% from 1996 to 2006. The second major consideration is the pool of scientists and engineers in which Japan overtakes the USA. Even though USA has a mighty infrastructure of education and research. One of the major origins of innovation in the USA is non-US firms, mostly related to Japan. Hence, Wright (1992) stated â€Å"following World War 2, USA was the worlds most productive economy by virtually any measure; however, this is no longer.† Students in Germany are not trained in school, while Chinese students are now trained occupationally in school to fill in the gap of the lacking of skilled and experienced work force in china mentioned by Buiges (2009). Hence we can see that to build innovation, the other investments like in financial, information, educational systems are required with government supporting policies and sometimes industry collectivity. The first industry we opt for in the pharmaceutical industry, as it has high relevance to innovation and RD, to contrast the national systems at an industry level. The â€Å"first mover† explained by (Chandler 1992), as a crucial role was done by Germany in the pharmaceutical industry for a stronger position. This national innovation system helps in explaining why German companies like Bayer and Salvesan are able to be at the upper hand. These companies R D investment started as early as in 1870s, which help them innovating aspirin and anti-syphilis drug. Sustaining the competitive advantage over first is not possible until it is cyclical (repetitive), after world war one, Germans lost to the Americans and the British. This happened after the US and UK were forced producing substitutes to those drugs from Germany, to which they lost supply, hence started focusing on developing the domestic industry (Owen 1999). The companies were like Burroughs welcome and May Baker in the UK and Eli Lilly in the US. Loosing out in the first mover, the dependencies of the UK had increased but to counter the affect and to create a national advantage, the National Health Service (NHS) was established in 1984. The NHS is referred as the â€Å"ultimate paymaster for the bulk of the industry sales.† (Owen 1999:371). Another exposure that the British gained for responding to the Germans was the presence of major multinationals which brought in mass capital from countries like US, Switzerland and France which acted as a stimulus rather than being a threat. Finally, government intervention as a supporter gave a platform to companies like SmithKline and Pfizer. As a result the British with its strong innovation index and its regulatory options attracted Research and development. To support this argument Nelson (1993:279), states, â€Å"Competitive success in pharmaceuticals depends on a domestic environment which encourages firms to invest in costly research and development programs.† The Ec onomist shows after the Nelson argument, expenditure on RD in the UK increased by a staggering 6% since 1995, (The Economist, March 2005). The major difference in NIS of US and the UK has been the government support, which was majorly lacking in the USA and enforced the pharmaceutical industry to heavily rely on the Market networks, to support stands Glaxo and La Roche as examples. Even the statistics show the dramatic rise of expenditure on marketing to 33% in comparison to the 19% investment on RD by Novartis. (The Economist, March 2005). Americas large domestic market has always been the excuse for super normal profits and then innovation and further by competitive advantage but there is a reason for the European counterparts to outsmart them even with lesser finances and resources was cause of the government support and culture. Even Owen supports the argument of having a domestic market is not the utmost reason for being more competitive. Due to lack of resources and government regulations about the usage of resources the Japanese were far behind in developing a NIS in the pharmaceutical industry and tend to follow the path of mergers and acquisitions to be competitive. A relevant instance was the takeover of La Roche over Chugai, a major innovator in Japans pharmaceutical industry. The second industry we opted for analysis is the semi-conductor industry. To start with USA the most competitive in this industry, where clusters have been the key to its NIS. Porter defines clusters, as a system of inter-related firms that are connected vertically and horizontally, with a value greater than its parts sum of its parts. The two major constituents of the American NIS are Route 128 and the â€Å"Silicon Valley†, which is the present core, (Dicken, 2004). The clusters have led to easier and much faster knowledge sharing which leads to an advantage. The use of clusters has also led to development of American FDI into Malaysia as another cluster for less expensive labour. The semi-conductor business being highly technical, educational system especially universities have been vital. The USA and Germany have provided with a better university network with close relationships between the firms and universities, facilitating with a stream of scientists and engineers with the skills to innovate, (Nelson 1993). The University of Stanford location around the Silicon Valley stands for a reason. This competitive NIS was firstly sheltered and supported by the government. A similar form of cluster evolved in Japan wit the five major semi-conductor producers, which are NEC, Fujitsu, Hitachi, Toshiba and Mitsubishi. The group was called MITI collaboration for research. The group was 40 % funded by the Japanese government leading the Japanese government to be a virtual part, (Dicken, 2004). As mentioned above the Americans protected the semi conductor industry, was because of Japans government support and restrictions on American semi-conductors with the supply of cheaper semi-conductors known as â€Å"Dump Chips† in the US. The Chinese followed the Japanese in making a hold in the international semi-conductor market, even though with their â€Å"open door policy†, they had generated FDI before like merging with Taiwanese company ACER Ltd. The major difference in innovation systems of the two late industrializing nations i.e. China and Japan and the rest three is that instead of being pioneers in the semi-conductor industry they choose innovation through â€Å"imitation.† In most cases the learned technology was diffused and made it into an easier adaptable version, following innovating the technology. The only price for them to pay was the license fee. Well, now the Asian countries have started to invest more in research and development for creating their own innovations. Japan is quite successful in implementing it and has been considered as the â€Å"powerhouse† in RD like the US. China is on the path and is using a techno hybrid technology, with FDI, technology transfer in it, they are evolving as a key player in the semi-conductor industry. (Fitzgerald Cirvagena, 2009) To conclude, Technology is important for a countrys national competitive advantage, but as this discussion has shown, technology is not the only factor that can stimulate a leading position in a particular industry and for the economy. As Dicken (2004) highlights â€Å"In an intensely competitive environment, the introduction of a continuous stream of new products is essential to a firms profitability and indeed survival†, which referred earlier a repetitive or cyclical innovation is must.   Furthermore, by analyzing the NIS of the todays five leading economies, we have seen that the role of the state, clusters, and corporate governance, education systems, culture, have been vital components. This discussion possibly asks us to consider which is the best NIS to gain a national competitive advantage. In reflection of the two industries that have been looked at, a blend of different factors can be identified and have been justified.   The challenging nature of the US pharmaceutical industry could be improved by following the UK NIS, which recently the Obama Administration in the USA had approved. The fact that the UK semiconductor industry is such a small player in this market could be due to a lack of RD investment, which its US counterparts achieved through clustering. It is clear that one single approach in NIS is not the key to a countrys national competitive advantage or industry. References Buiges, P Sekkat, K (2009). Industrial Policy in Europe, Japan and the USA. UK: Macmillan Publishers. p.180-220. Chandler, A, ‘Managerial Enterprise and Competitive Capabilities in Jones, G and Harvey, C. (1992) Organisational Capability and Competitive Advantage. London: Frank Cass. Chandler, A.D (1995). Strategy and structure: chapters in the history of the industrial enterprise. USA: MIT. p.1-20. Dicken, P. (2004) ‘Global Shift: Reshaping the Global Economic Map in the 21st Century London: Sage Dicken, P. (2003) Global Shift: Transforming the World Economy. E, Abe and R, Fitzgerald (1995) ‘Japanese Economic Success: timing, culture and organizational capability Fitzgerald, R Ciravgena, L. (2009) ‘Technological Innovation, MN 330 Lecture 10 Fitzgerald, R (1994). The Competitive Advantages of Far Eastern Business. Great Britain: Frank Cass Ltd. p. 1-16. Kay, J (1993). Innovation, technology and competitive strategy . USA: Economic and Social Research Council. 1-16. Metcalfe, S. (1995), â€Å"The Economic Foundations of Technology Policy: Equilibrium and Evolutionary Perspectives†, in P. Stoneman (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Innovation and Technological Change, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford (UK)/Cambridge (US) Nelson, R.R (1993) ‘National Innovation Systems: A Comparative Context, Oxford: Oxford University Press Nelson, R.R.   Wright, G. (1992) ‘The rise and fall of American technological leadership: the post-war era in historical perspective, Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 30. Owen, G. 1999. From empire to Europe. London: Harper Collins Porter, M. (1998). The competitive advantage of nations: with a new introduction. USA: Harvard Business Review. p.73-90 Porter, M. (2002). The determinants of national innovative capacity. Research Policy. 31 (6), p.899-933. Finefacts Team (2005) ‘RD scorecard Global top 1,000 Companies: US firms dominate, 86% of total RD comes from just 6 countries out of 36, Oct 24, 2005 The Economist (2005) ‘Prescriptions for change, A Survey of Pharmaceuticals, June 18th, 2005

Samsung Electronics Business Plan

Samsung Electronics founded in 1969 with its headquarters in Samsung Town, Seoul, is part of the Samsung Group, which includes dozens of companies with vast interests. Through the last 40 years, the company had risen to become a global leader in the consumer electronics brands market with its innovative products such as mobile phones, TVs, and monitors. At present, Samsung Electronics leads the Samsung subsidiaries with more than 157,000 employees in their various assembly plants and sales network across 65 countries around the globe. With its revenue of $117. 4 billion in 2009, it has become one of the world class electronics company. Furthermore, Samsung Electronics industry is consumer electronics, Telecommunications and semiconductor. According to information of their corporate website, from its pioneer operations of an export business, the company has divested into electronics with specialty in digital, media, and microchips, memories, and systems integration. At present, the company’s innovative solutions on products and processes are recognized globally. The company attained a leadership position in the year 2009 when it surpassed leader Hewlett-Packard the erstwhile leader. Importantly, as a response to the downturn in the economy in 2009, Samsung Electronics of Seoul, South Korea, ‘implemented a structural reorganization to become more efficient to deal with worsening economic conditions. According to a Samsung spokeswoman Hwang Eun-ju, the changes were necessary to â€Å"effectively respond to the current global recession. † Samsung embarked on a management structural change from the sole Chief Executive Officer system, to a dual management structure with effective teams. Goals. Given revolutionary changes and opportunities digital age has brought to global businesses, Samsung electronics has and will continually respond with advanced technologies competitive products and innovativeness. Over the next five years and more, Samsung Electronics’ goal is to display unflinching commitment to making life easier and more comfortable for its consumers by taking advantage of the group’s key strengths: â€Å"New Technology,† â€Å"Innovative Products,† and â€Å"Creative Solutions. † Suffice it to say at this point that, in all the aforementioned goals, controlling cash flow and profitability will be an undertone. Products Samsung Electronics is the global leading manufacturer of memory chips, LCDs, and flat screen televisions, and is competitive in mobile manufactures. For over a decade, Samsung has maintained its leading position in microchip making. The company also manufactures an array of home appliances, TV/audio and video, cameras, and camcorders, monitors, and notebooks, and print solutions. In the area of wireless networking, Samsung Electronics developed protocols that were accepted internationally and used widely in foreign markets. Summary Organizational structure, control, and coordinating mechanisms are key variables for strategic implementation. An adaptive organizational structure facilitates changes in strategy, competitive moves, and changes in the environment. (Deresky, 2010, p. 257). Samsung Electronics which is a flagship of the Samsung group has carved a niche for its self in the consumer electronics market. Their major goal is to stay innovative to give value to their core groups- the industry, partners, and employees. In doing this however, an organizational structure that supports cash flow management and profitability will be erected to combat negative economic trends. References * Deresky, H. (2011). International management: Managing across borders and cultures (7th ed.).   Boston, MA: Prentice Hall. Samsung beats HP to pole position. Financial Times. Retrieved April 23, 2011 from http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/c48d477a-0c3b-11df-8b81-00144feabdc0.html. Samsung Electronics Background. Retrieved, April 24, 2011 from ceridian.co.uk   www.ceridian.co.uk/hr/brochures/Samsung

Space Shuttle Columbia

On February 1, 2003, the Space Shuttle Columbia broke apart during re-entry resulting in the loss of the seven crewmembers and the shuttle. For the next several months an extensive investigation of the accident was performed by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). The board published their final report in August, 2003 and concluded that the cause of the loss of Columbia and its crew was a breach in the left wing leading edge Reinforced Carbon-Carbon Thermal Protection System initiated by the impact of thermal insulating foam that had separated from the orbiters external fuel tank 81 seconds into the missions launch. During re-entry, this breach allowed hot gas to enter the wing’s leading edge and support structure which ultimately led to the breakup of the orbiter. The CAIB also discovered multiple flaws within the shuttle safety program, the hazard analysis techniques, communication and leadership between management and engineering, and an obstructive organizational culture. NASA responded to the Columbia accident by grounding all space shuttle missions for a total of 905 days while they complied with all the recommendations made by the CAIB as well as restructuring their system safety and communication procedures. Space Shuttle Columbia The Columbia STS-107 mission lifted off on January 16, 2003, for a 16-day science mission featuring numerous microgravity experiments. Upon reentering the atmosphere on February 1, 2003, the Columbia orbiter suffered a catastrophic failure due to a breach that occurred 81 seconds into the launch when falling thermal insulating foam from the left bipod area of the External Tank struck the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) panels on the underside of the left wing. The orbiter and its seven crewmembers were lost approximately 16 minutes before Columbia was scheduled to touch down at Kennedy Space Center. Within this paper I will discuss the history, mission, and anatomy of Space Shuttle Columbia, the incident and the breakdown in communication and safety practices, as well as information found during the formal investigation by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB). History of Space Shuttle Columbia The Space Shuttle Columbia was built in the years leading up to 1981 when it was the first space shuttle to fly into earth orbit on April 12th. There were four sister ships in the fleet over the next ten years: the Challenger, Discovery, Atlantis, and the Enterprise. The Endeavour was built to replace the Challenger that was destroyed in 1986. Columbia was the first on-line orbiter to undergo the scheduled inspection and retrofit program. It was transported August 10, 1991, after its completion of mission STS-40, to prime space shuttle contractor Rockwell International's Palmdale, California assembly plant. The oldest orbiter in the fleet underwent approximately 50 modifications, including the addition of carbon brakes, drag chute, improved nose wheel steering, removal of development flight instrumentation and an enhancement of its thermal protection system. The orbiter returned to Kennedy Space Center February 9, 1992 to begin processing for mission STS-50 in June of that year. Primary Mission The primary objectives of this mission was to research in physical, life, and space sciences, conducted in approximately 80 separate experiments, comprised of hundreds of samples and test points. The crew was divided into two alternating shifts to achieve the most productive use of time for each 24 hour period. The crew’s payload consisted of the following: first flight of SPACEHAB Research Double Module; Fast Reaction Experiments Enabling Science, Technology, Applications and Research (FREESTAR); First Extended Duration Orbiter (EDO) mission since STS-90 (Wilson, 2006). The expected duration of the STS-107 mission was 16 long days. Anatomy of the Space Shuttle The space shuttle is made up of over two million moving parts and 150 miles of internal wiring, making it the most complex machine ever created. Empty the space shuttle weighs in at 158,289 lbs and with the main engines installed it tips the scales at over 178,000 lbs. Once all the fuel and cargo are added, the space shuttle weighs an astounding 4. 5 million lbs. There are three main parts to every space shuttle, the orbiter, solid rocket boosters, and the external fuel tank. The solid rocket boosters and the external fuel tank are ejected from the orbiter while the space shuttle is leaving the atmosphere. The orbiter has enough crew space for eight crew members and a cargo capacity of 50,000 lbs. The Incident On January 16, 2003 the Space Shuttle Columbia was launched from Cape Canaveral, FL. 81 seconds into the launch a small piece of thermal insulating foam, the size of a small briefcase, impacted the leading edge of the left wing, damaging the Shuttle's Thermal Protection System (TPS), which protects it from heat generated from the atmosphere during re-entry. The foam had a total weight of 1. 67 lbs which is equal to the weight of 100 marshmallows and originated from the left bipod area of the External Tank. At the time of the impact the Columbia was traveling at 2300 fps through an altitude of 65,900 feet. The impact velocity of the foam was 775 fps. While Columbia was still in orbit, some engineers suspected damage as early as day two of the mission, but NASA managers limited the investigation, on the grounds that little could be done even if problems were found and therefore, never informed the crew of any possible damage. The damage to the left wing’s Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) panel provided a pathway for hot gas to enter the wing’s leading edge and support structure upon the attempted re-entry. This resulted in major structural and skin damage causing the loss of control and all vehicle data at 207, 135 ft above the Earth while traveling at 12,500 mph. The Columbia Space Shuttle broke up over north-central Texas just 16 minutes prior to its scheduled landing at Florida’s Kennedy Space Center. The Investigation Soon after the space shuttle disaster NASA created the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) with the objective to determine the cause of the Columbia accident and to recommend ways to improve the safety programs and communication procedures within NASA. The Board published a working scenario along with several preliminary recommendations in advance of the final report which was published on August 26, 2003. Preliminary Recommendations The first of five recommendations the CAIB made was for NASA to develop an inspection plan for the examination of the Reinforced Carbon-Carbon (RCC) system components since the current inspection techniques were not adequate in assessing the structural integrity, its supporting structure, and the attached hardware. The RCC system is used on the leading edges of the wings, the area aft of the nose cap, and the area around the forward orbiter/external tank attachment structure due to the fact that these are the parts of the orbiter that are subjected to the greatest amount of heat during re-entry. At the time the CAIB conducted their investigation, they discovered and published that NASA did not fully understand the mechanisms that have caused foam loss on almost every space shuttle flight to date. They also found that the original and present day operating design specifications required the RCC components to have essentially no impact resistance. In order to mitigate future risk to the space shuttles and crew, the CAIB believed that NASA should look into the advanced non-destructive inspection technology and take advantage of it. The second recommendation made to NASA stated that they should amend their existing Memorandum of Agreement with the National Imagery and Mapping Agency (NIMA) to make it a standard requirement for every space shuttle flight to have on-orbit imaging available. The foam strike was first seen during the standard review of the launch video and high-speed photography, by the Intercenter Photo Working Group (IPWG) on the morning of Flight Day Two. The IPWG was concerned about possible damage to the Orbiter since this foam strike was larger than any seen in the past. No conclusive images of the foam strike could be found so the Chair of the IPWG asked management to begin the process of getting outside imagery from the Department of Defense (DOD) to help in damage assessment. This request, the first of three, along with the IPWG’s first report, including a digitized video clip and initial assessment of the strike, was distributed on Flight Day Two and began its journey through the management hierarchy. Even though the IPWG routed its request through the proper channels used during a mission, the management hierarchy yielded no direction, progress, or results. Therefore, the IPWG then routed its second and third requests for external DOD imagery through institutional, not mission-related, channels which diluted the urgency of the requests and the management viewed the requests as non-critical desires rather than critical operational needs. Communication did not flow effectively up to or down from the management hierarchy which lead to the three independent requests for imagery being subsequently denied. It was determined by the CAIB that the United States government along with NASA did not utilize every imaging resource it had in order to assess the damage of the Columbia while still in orbit. Recommendation three examined the repair capability of the space shuttle. The CAIB suggested that for all future missions to the International Space Station (ISS), NASA develop a method to inspect and conduct emergency repairs to the Thermal Protection System (TPS) tiles and RCC while docked at the ISS and recommended that a â€Å"comprehensive autonomous [†¦] inspection and repair capability† be developed for Shuttle missions that do not dock at the ISS. The end goal is to develop a â€Å"fully autonomous capability for all missions†, in the event â€Å"that an ISS mission does not achieve the necessary orbit, fails to dock successfully, or suffers damage during or after docking† (Troxell, 2009). The last two recommendations addressed the space shuttles imaging systems. The fourth recommendation recommended upgrading the imaging system to provide at least three useful views of the space shuttles from liftoff to at least Solid Rocket Booster separation, and further recommended exploring the possibility of taking additional pictures and observations of the space shuttle during launch using ships and aircraft. Recommendation five pertained specifically to the External Tank (ET) and the Thermal Protection System (TPS) imaging systems examination. The CAIB recommended modifying one of the two on-board umbilical cameras in order to â€Å"downlink high-resolution images of the ET after separation,† and further recommended that a similar system be put into place to â€Å"downlink high-resolution images of the underside of the orbiter’s leading edge system and the forward section of the TPS† (Troxell, 2009). Organizational Culture Communications procedures between managers and engineers at NASA were also investigated by the CAIB. The need to communicate effectively and efficiently between the individuals and organizations involved in the space shuttle program were found to be paramount, given the complex and high level of technology along with the extensive risks involved. The CAIB found that the original damage assessments contained substantial uncertainties for a variety of reasons, including management failures, communication breakdowns, inappropriate use of assessment tools, and flawed engineering judgments. The CAIB also determined that there were lapses in leadership and communication that made it very difficult for engineers and management to raise concerns and understand decisions. Management failed to actively engage and analyze the potential damage caused by the foam strike. Before the accident, flight managers had been under extreme pressure from Congress and the public to maintain launch schedules, and they had not followed established procedures for clearing unresolved problems. Based on these and other observations, the CAIB concluded that NASA was not a learning organization. Organizational learning is not one but several processes by which organizations seek to improve their performance by searching out the causes behind what they judge to be unacceptable results (Mahler & Casamayou, 2009). The CAIB concluded that the organizational causes to the accident included deficiencies in the command structure and safety monitoring systems, an inability to cope with strong external political and budgetary pressures, and an obstructive organizational culture. System Safety The CAIB found that NASA’s safety program was inadequate of achieving the level of safety necessary for the space shuttle program. As a result, the CAIB recommended that the safety system at NASA be restructured to include the system safety fundamentals. System safety is the name given to the effort to make things as safe as is practical by systematically using engineering and management tools to identify, analyze, and control hazards (Stephans, 2004) throughout all phases of the life cycle. At the time of the investigation, NASA’s definition of system safety was as follows: The optimum degree of risk management within the constraints of operational effectiveness, time, and cost attained through the application of management and engineering principles throughout all phases of a program. It was a great definition but NASA did not follow or operate under these fundamentals which were proven by the CAIB time and time again. They found that the system safety engineering and management was not vigorous enough to have an impact on system design, and it was hidden in the other safety disciplines and separated from mainstream engineering which proved extremely ineffective in regards to safety. They also found that the space shuttle safety program had conflicting roles, responsibilities, and guidance. Hazard Analysis The hazard analysis techniques used by NASA at the time of the accident were the Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FEMA) and the Fault Tree Analysis (FTA). The CAIB found that the risk information and data from the hazard analyses were not communicated effectively nor could they find adequate application of a process, database, or metric analysis tool that took an integrated, systemic view of the entire space shuttle system. Post Columbia Procedures at NASA Once the investigation into Space Shuttle Columbia’s accident was finished, NASA shut down all space shuttle missions until they felt their system safety and communication procedures where brought up to par. This space shuttle grounding lasted 905 days and finally ended on July 26th, 2005 when the Space Shuttle Discovery successfully flew the STS-114 mission. System Safety NASA took the recommendation of the CAIB and restructured their system safety program. The purpose of the new system safety program within NASA is to ensure that the optimum degree of safety is achieved through management and engineering practices that minimize the number and magnitude of hazards in NASA systems. This is coupled with the application of system safety engineering analyses to detect and assess the nature and magnitude of risks so that they may be eliminated, reduced, or accepted depending on project requirements, schedule, and cost. This purpose is reached through the application of management, scientific, and engineering principles during all phases of a system life cycle. The ultimate goal is to avoid loss of life or injury to personnel, damage to or loss of equipment or facilities, project or test failures, and undue exposure to risk and adverse environmental effects. To date NASA has flown 19 separate space shuttle missions with no incidents under their new system safety program. NASA’s space shuttle fleet is set to retire after just two final missions. Space Shuttle Discovery is expected to launch on November 1st, 2010 and Space Shuttle Endeavour will launch no earlier than February 26th, 2011. Post Columbia Improvements NASA spent $1. 4 billion in an effort to improve the space shuttle after the Columbia incident. The most notable area of improvement was the External Tank. The bipod foam that caused the Columbia disaster was replaced with an electrical heater to prevent ice from forming. Another notable area of improvement was too the Foreign Object Debris (FOD) procedures which improved safety. They also added over 100 tracking cameras to view launches as well as cameras mounted on the External Tank and Solid Rocket Boosters. NASA also has two aircraft equipped with high-definition cameras which offer the unique perspective of a shuttle flying toward the viewer (Chien, 2006). All of NASA’s improvements seem to have worked so far. In the years following Space Shuttle Columbia’s accident, NASA reinvented their company from the ground up and is now used as a model company that others look to for advice and operational information. Conclusion The Space Shuttle Columbia accident may or may not have been preventable. There are numerous things that could have gone differently that might have given the crew a different fate, however, the accident happened in the least bad manner possible. The astronauts were able to enjoy themselves the entire mission, complete essential mission experiments, and reach a goal many of them had worked toward their entire lives. They had no knowledge that the shuttle was damaged and their deaths were mercifully swift. Columbia’s re-entry path over the U. S. made debris recovery far easier than if it had fallen over the ocean. Because so much debris and information was recovered it was possible to determine exactly what happened without any shadow of a doubt. It will certainly always be regrettable that the accident happened, but the fate of the Columbia crew could have been far worse. They will always been remembered as heroes.

Impact Of The On The Oil Industry And Government Agencies

On the 20th of April, a malfunction occurred causing an oil explosion on the Deep water Horizon rig. Crews had experienced, what would be called a triumphant evening by the rupturing blast that they just encountered. Both crews worked tireless hours up on completing the well that lies 13,000 feet beneath the floor of the ocean. The Moncondo Prospect project was caped and completed while waiting for phase two, which resulted in harvesting the oil and gas. It was stated, the problem was not in technology, but from the list of errors made by the people in the company. According to C. Hoffman (2010), â€Å"The following lessons drawn from forensic engineering should spur changes in the oil industry and government agencies that will lead to better risk assessment, more useful regulatory oversight, safer operating procedures and rapid crisis response. The blowout was a punishing lesson: 11 workers were killed and 17 injured in the accident itself. The resulting oil spill damaged the econo my and environment of the entire Gulf Coast. But out of this calamity changes can come that will reduce the chances of such a tragedy occurring again, not just in deep water drilling but in other high tech, high-risk industries as well.† After, the explosion occurred, the BP crew had made attempts to activate the rig’s blowout preventer, designed to cut off the channel, which was releasing the oil. Instead, the fail-safe mechanism, device malfunctioned as well. With this in mind, a year later theShow MoreRelatedThe Giant Bomu Oil Field Essay1531 Words   |  7 PagesThe giant Bomu oil field in Ogoni located in Gokana Local Government Area, which has estimated ultimate recovery of 0.311 billion of barrels of oil and a total of 0.608 billion of barrels of oil equivalent including gas, was discovered in 1958 (Aniefiok et al 2013, Amanyie 2006, and Vassilion 2009). According to Amanyie (2005; 2006), in the late 1950s oil was struck in commercial quantity at Lekuma Khana i n Ogoni soil, and in Bomu oil field in 1958. In 1962 and 1963, the Korokoro and Ebubu fieldsRead MoreThe Nigeria Petroleum Corporation898 Words   |  4 Pagespossible future challenges that the organization might face as it grows will be discussed. BRIEF DESCRPTION OF NIGERIA NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION (NNPC) Nigeria National Petroleum Corporation was as a result of merger between the Nigeria National Oil Corporation (NNOC) and the Ministry of Petroleum Resources created the Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation (NNPC) on April 1, 1977. Nigeria joined the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) in 1971 and established the Nigerian NationalRead MoreGovernment Intervention On Kazakhstan Oil Industry Essay1449 Words   |  6 PagesStudent Name : Tinglin Zhang Subject : Assignment : Essay Topic : Government intervention in Kazakhstan Oil Industry The world concerned problem today the energy problem. Among other reasons of its country is growing thirst for oil and gas made thus a matter of strategic energy security. Oil is the stratagem industry of the development of economy and society. With the development phase of Kazakhstan’s oil resources is speeding, the world big powers seek the benefits here, Kazakhstan becomesRead MoreThe Deepwater Horizon Mobile Offshore Wells Exploratory Platforms1537 Words   |  7 PagesBritish Petroleum, on April 20, 2010, or known as BP oil spill. The BP oil catastrophe ignited due to high-pressure methane gas by drilling a deep exploratory at Macondo well, reported by Up Stream Online news. The Gulf of Mexico oil spill still outlasts as a great size accidental marine oil spill in the records of the petroleum industry. The date, report details, and location were based on a doctrine of New York Times. Multiple consequences of BP oil spill include business, environment of the Gulf ofRead M oreThe Deepwater Horizon Oil Drilling Rig1480 Words   |  6 PagesThe Deepwater Horizon oil drilling rig caught fire on April 20, 2010, exploring and sinking after some days. The explosion was as a result of the equipment failure, perhaps the blowout protector, and the emerging explosion and fire killed 11 people, injuring others. The aftermath of the explosion became the largest issue in the US, estimated to surpass 1989 Exxon Valdez spill. The environmental contamination was huge, greatly impacting marine life in the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding beaches ofRead MoreImpact Of The American Automotive Industry Essay1365 Words   |  6 Pages The American automotive industry is a massive force, to say the least. The historical impacts of automotive technology and assembly line manufacturing has effected economies around the world and has also created world-wide ecological challenges. Governments, under pressure from environmentalists, have had to realize, create, implement, and co nstantly refine manufacturing and emission standards. Consumers, who foot the gas bill for vehicles, continue to express their desire for less expensive autosRead MoreThe Spill Of The Gulf Oil Spill1020 Words   |  5 PagesThe Gulf oil spill has been considered as the worst oil spill in the history of Unites States. One of the world’s largest energy companies, British Petroleum had been held responsible for the deep-water horizon explosion, which killed 11 people in April 2010. As a result of the explosion, oil has leaked into the ocean killing the aquatic life. The impact of the explosion was so great that it was impossible for human diver to reach the ocean floor. Hence, remote control robots were used for this purposeRead MoreGovernment Intervention On Kazakhstan Oil Industry Essay1535 Words   |  7 PagesPrinciple of economics and economic theory in practice Assignment : Essay Topic : Government intervention in Kazakhstan Oil Industry The world concerned problem today is the energy problem. Among other reasons of its country is growing thirst for oil and gas made thus a matter of strategic energy security. Oil is the stratagem industry in the development of economy and society. As the Kazakhstan’s oil industry is speeding developing, becoming one biggest world resources station, that is the mainRead MoreOccidental Petroleum Corporation s International Company Exploration Oils And Gas1248 Words   |  5 Pagessummary An Occidental Petroleum Corporation. It’s international company exploration oils and gas. Company will conduct to work with each section as following: gas and oils, marketing and chemical. Develop and survey natural gas and oils In USA and abroad as well. The Occidental Petroleum does business in 3 sectors: natural gas and oils, midstream and marketing, chemical and so on. Exploration natural gas and oils in domestic are situated in Texas, New Mexico, Colorado and North Dakota. They alsoRead MoreInvestigating The External Factors That Act As Major Threats Facing Exxonmobil1553 Words   |  7 Pagesto be covered: †¢ Government regulation, †¢ Growing production costs, and †¢ Competition in energy production. GOVERNMENT REGULATION ExxonMobil has been penalized by the federal government and its regulatory agencies for their failure to comply with various standards issued to protect the safety of workers and the environment. Violation of these standards has resulted in serious injuries to workers and pollution to the surrounding environment in which the company operates. Agencies such as the Occupational