The Deepwarter Horizon Case

The rational model shows that individuals use the data that they have obtained to develop a decision and plan of action. The normative model states that the individuals involved in the decision-making process are bound by rationality and therefore are limited in their solution development. A decision-making process that assumes that none of the data is connected and relies on each other is the garbage can model. Deepwater Horizon does identify with the normative model, but it also incorporates the garbage can model. The companies had positioned themselves in a partnership that designed in the rig using a cost-effective plan. However, they did not consider the effects of their solution on the well’s pressure and just how imbalanced it would become. Instead of forming a combined decision to shut down the well, they determined that each problem on its own would not be severe. However, they did not discuss the connection between all the problems and the eventual escalating deterioration of the situation on the rig. The signs were there in front of them had they evaluated all as part of the whole problem instead of individualized, they could have seen that the problem was greater than they

Dysfunctional decision making is the poison that kills technology projects and the Denver Airport Baggage System project in the 1990’s is a classic example. Although several case studies have been written about the Denver project, the following paper re-examines the case by looking at the key decisions that set the project on the path to disaster and the forces behind those decisions.

In the text, Kreitner and Kinicki (2013) states that decision making is one of the primary responsibilities of a manager, and the quality of one’s decisions can have serious consequences. As the title of this cause study shows Faulty Decision Making is the Cause of the Deepwater Horizon Disaster. Faulty decision making or lack of any decision making is the key to this disaster.

A more appropriate ethical analysis would seek to understand the ways in which the decision-making process itself fostered or hindered responsibility among individuals within the organization and of the organization itself. In this respect, when viewed as a problem of responsibility, the Challenger disaster presents a much more insightful lesson on the nature of decision-making in a large organization such as NASA. While it seems clear that the decision that led to the explosion of the Challenger was made by those lower-level managers who chose to ignore the objections of technical experts who opposed the launch, the subsequent investigation revealed how the decision-making processes within NASA (and it contractors) worked to limit the agency of decision-makers and to obscure accountability for their decision-making. The problem of responsibility in the decision-making process focuses upon three issues: the availability of information, the role of technical specifications and formal regulations, and the management chain-of-command. Each of these factors contributed to the exercise of poor judgment and to the obscuring of accountability in the decision-making process. The availability of information--more precisely the lack of information--had an impact upon the decision-making process in three different ways. The technical experts who recommended against launching were not aware of the nature of the

NASA continues to explore beyond Pluto with interesting space findings. The New Horizon NASA project may have stumbled upon a new icy rock that looks like a UFO. Far from Pluto, New Horizon has had some success. Now they continue deeper and further into space as they collect more data. But what is NASA looking for? And why is the Kuiper Belt so interesting? Pooling resources for Mars or moon colonization doesn’t appear to be in mind for NASA. The distant icy rock that looks like a UFO may have some deeper significance. And the public may never know the truth.

MEJRI, Mohamed, and Daniel DE WOLF. 2013. "Crisis Management: Lessons Learnt From The BP Deepwater Horizon Spill Oil". Business Management And Strategy 4 (2): 67. doi:10.5296/bms.v4i2.4950.

When any major disaster occurs involving a large organization we automatically assume that is was because of some reckless decision made by managers or it was the cause of equipment failure. This seems to be the case with deepwater horizon. The contributing factors to the deepwater horizon disaster were misguided assumptions on the part of workers and managers as well as flawed decision making and mechanical issues. The behavior of the rig workers is an example of “group think”, this is the explained as where members of a group often times yield to the desire for consensus or unanimity at the cost of considering alternative courses of action (Ohlin, 2007). Group-think is said to be the reason why intelligent and knowledgeable people make disastrous

Applying the theory of Utilitarianism to the Deep Water Horizon Oil Spill we see that BP’s decisions in this case don’t appear clearly ethical. The harms to human and environmental stability caused by the spill seem to weigh heavily against the benefits to the local and U.S. economy of deepwater drilling itself.

Project Horizon had challenged me to grow my knowledge, my skills as a nurse and communicator, and to enrich my values and attitude in a personal, professional and social manner to help those in need in my community. The whole experience opened my eyes to a part of my community that I was not familiar with. I heard before about shelters and people in need, but was never involved that close to experience how hard it is for the homeless to survive, and the challenges that they have to overcome. My rotation was at IMMACARE Shelter, a non-profit organization which purpose is to help the homeless population at the Hartford area. The shelter serves 75 homeless males from the area, especially veterans and those with HIV/AIDS, criminal histories,

Some of the takeaways from this case I have noted are using the Evidence Based Decision-Making process will help remove all emotions and biases on the decision as we will be using supporting facts that are accurate to help support generating the best decision possible. In the Deepwater Horizon Disaster case study, the team members were aware of the well performance issues as they were happening and informed executives. One of the major takeaways was once they were notified of the problems with the well’s performance, they did not act on the notifications which resulted in the problems continuing to build up. If the team had taken action when the irregularities were happening and treated each deviation from the norm as such and had a standard

Decisions are made in organizations based on attribution, gender bias and in crisis situations. Conversely, there are good decisions made in organizations and those decisions are more likely to benefit an organization and the organizations employees in a positive manner.

The third frame we are looking at is the Political Lens which looks at the power within an organization. Organizations for this lens are looked at as arenas so to speak, in that the people working within the company compete for power and scarce resources. The actions of bargaining, coercion, compromise, and negotiations are a part of everyday life within these establishments. If power is too concentrated inside a workplace, it can result in having a problem or problems. However, the same thing goes if power is too delegated in an organization, it can cause problems because it can result in nothing getting done. Making decisions within an organization involves assigning the scarce resources among the individuals who work for the company. Decision

In the determination of the decision making model utilized at the Deepwater Horizon disaster, it appears the etiology of the explosion was based upon a series of irregularities that cascaded into the final explosion (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013). The importance of this description documents the scenario is not based upon a single decision by one individual but a series of decisions by multiple groups. For obvious reasons, it can be asserted that a rational model of decision making was not used. There was incomplete information available and shared, there was no lack of emotion involved in the process, alternatives weren’t actively evaluated, and finally time and resources were at a premium (Kreitner & Kinicki, 2013).

Leadership of a large workforce requires skill and time-tested methodical approaches. BP’s history of near bankruptcy in the 1980s to oil mogul in the early 2000s highlights difference effective leadership can cause. However, the leadership flaws were made apparent when Deep Water Horizon plummeted into the ocean in a fiery flame in 2010. Our paper, however, is not focused on the countless mistakes that attributed to this result. For the purpose of this class and this essay our concern lies in what changes and attitudes existed at the corporate level and what leadership BP needed to accelerate radical change afterwards.

Applying the utility theory seems a rational choice as it can reflect the decision maker’s attitude toward risk. Still problems arise when the decision is made by more than one person. Based on their experiences within General Motors, Michael W. Kusnic and Daniel Owen have found that when there were more than one decision makers, it was less