Explore BrainMass
Share

Managerial Decision Making in the Concorde Project

This content was STOLEN from BrainMass.com - View the original, and get the already-completed solution here!

In the 1960s, Britain and France decided to jointly fund and build a supersonic transport that became known as the Concorde. Research the decision to build and fly the supersonic transport Concorde. Then, discuss how the sunk costs and an escalation of commitment affected their decisions. 200-300 words APA

© BrainMass Inc. brainmass.com October 16, 2018, 11:16 pm ad1c9bdddf
https://brainmass.com/business/business-policy-and-implementation/managerial-decision-concorde-project-252745

Solution Preview

The response addresses the queries posted in 595 words with references.
//We will discuss the aspect of 'Managerial Decision Making' in this paper, through a case analysis. Managerial Decision Making is very important in any Organization and it has a noteworthy impact on the decisions and the overall performance of the Corporation. Here, we talk about an agreement between France and Britain, who jointly funded a supersonic transport namely Concord and the decision making in the process. First, we start with a brief introduction under the heading of introduction, for example: //

Introduction

Escalation of commitment occurred, when the British Government continued the funding of the 'Concorde' even after it came to know about lack of its feasibility. This decision was a result of the escalation of commitment because even though the Government of Britain knew that is not a viable project however, it carried on with it. The decision to build and fly ...

Solution Summary

The response addresses the queries posted in 595 words with references.

$2.19
Similar Posting

1. How did the decision making process help to create the problems for the Ford Pinto? Do these decisions represent optimizing behavior or satisfying on the part of Ford? If you were Lee Iacocca, would you have decided differently? How?

During the decision making process, I find that Ford failed to consider what is in the best interest for the consumers, the organization wanted to create a quick fix solution thus alleviating responsibility to a nationwide safety concerns. When making decisions the organization is suppose to compare and contrast the pros and cons of every intricate detail within the manufacturing process. Instead of conducting primary and secondary research, the organization decided to take a shortcut in producing a product that compromised the safety of others and generated unnecessary legal ramifications that could have otherwise been prevented. The organization was more focused on manufacturing a compact vehicle for convenience in which case the product turned out to be a convenient death hazard. It is my belief that due to the organization reducing the time span of product concept and development, the company was at a disadvantage for the reason that the organization could not properly assess whether or not every need was being facilitated within the vehicle which opened the door to shoddy product distribution and decreased customer service satisfaction, with the increased number of casualties as a result.

Lee Iaccoca's decision to speed up the process was definitely optimizing behavior, Lee felt as if speeding up the process would enable the organization to quickly launch the product in order to boost productivity and profitability. On the surface, this decision did not pose a threat within the organizations competitive analysis, however, speeding up the process of making a vehicle for consumers will only increase the probability of fatalities. Although, Lee knew that something needed to change within Ford's product infrastructure, I find that the organization would have had a better advantage if the organization did not conduct the tooling procedure simultaneously with the product development. I would have waited until the product development, research analysis and beta testing were completed first before tooling. Another mistake the organization made was not taking the crash test seriously, when they discovered that Pinto was failing the crash test, the organization should have continued developing the product in order to increase safety measures and reduce safety hazards. The organization needed to take time to further develop the product to ensure all potential glitches were examined and eliminated before launching the product to the public. It is better to ensure all safety procedures, regulation, and precautions are taken into consideration before actually launching the product.

1. How did the decision making process help to create the problems for the Ford Pinto? Do these decisions represent optimizing behavior or satisfying on the part of Ford? If you were Lee Iacocca, would you have decided differently? How?

During the decision making process, I find that Ford failed to consider what is in the best interest for the consumers, the organization wanted to create a quick fix solution thus alleviating responsibility to a nationwide safety concerns. When making decisions the organization is suppose to compare and contrast the pros and cons of every intricate detail within the manufacturing process. Instead of conducting primary and secondary research, the organization decided to take a shortcut in producing a product that compromised the safety of others and generated unnecessary legal ramifications that could have otherwise been prevented. The organization was more focused on manufacturing a compact vehicle for convenience in which case the product turned out to be a convenient death hazard. It is my belief that due to the organization reducing the time span of product concept and development, the company was at a disadvantage for the reason that the organization could not properly assess whether or not every need was being facilitated within the vehicle which opened the door to shoddy product distribution and decreased customer service satisfaction, with the increased number of casualties as a result.

Lee Iaccoca's decision to speed up the process was definitely optimizing behavior, Lee felt as if speeding up the process would enable the organization to quickly launch the product in order to boost productivity and profitability. On the surface, this decision did not pose a threat within the organizations competitive analysis, however, speeding up the process of making a vehicle for consumers will only increase the probability of fatalities. Although, Lee knew that something needed to change within Ford's product infrastructure, I find that the organization would have had a better advantage if the organization did not conduct the tooling procedure simultaneously with the product development. I would have waited until the product development, research analysis and beta testing were completed first before tooling. Another mistake the organization made was not taking the crash test seriously, when they discovered that Pinto was failing the crash test, the organization should have continued developing the product in order to increase safety measures and reduce safety hazards. The organization needed to take time to further develop the product to ensure all potential glitches were examined and eliminated before launching the product to the public. It is better to ensure all safety procedures, regulation, and precautions are taken into consideration before actually launching the product.

2. Compare and contrast individual and group decision-making. What are the advantages and disadvantages of each? Are there certain decisions that are better suited to individual decision-making? What bounded awareness issues are found in individual versus group decision-making? Cite a minimum of two sources.

Individual and group decision making are both beneficial within an organization, however, there are critical decisions to make that either individual or group may not be able to make without relying on others or one's own ability to make pertinent decisions based on analytics and critical thinking. It is believed that when dealing with a group the old cliché holds true such as; "too many chiefs and not enough Indians." Oftentimes, there is a possibility that division may arise due to various personality characteristics and/or traits that does not always cause individual to move forward on one accord. Each member will have their own ideas about forward movement and may not always agree with the direction, policies, vision, mission, or how to complete a task.

View Full Posting Details