|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture
Despite all its human flaws, the "NASA culture" has a strong can-do,
will-do attitude that makes it possible for them to achieve what organizations ten times their size cannot. This sets a very bad standard for industry, giving the shareholders and investors a high expectation of their capabilities. Without the shining example of NASA, industry can plod along and people are perfectly content with shoddy products, nominal innovation, high prices, and poor customer support. I would even go so far as to say that the aerospace industry was to blame for the Challenger disaster, not NASA employees. Industry has motive, the employees do not. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture
Bill Clark wrote:
Despite all its human flaws, the "NASA culture" has a strong can-do, will-do attitude that makes it possible for them to achieve what organizations ten times their size cannot. This sets a very bad standard for industry, giving the shareholders and investors a high expectation of their capabilities. Without the shining example of NASA, industry can plod along and people are perfectly content with shoddy products, nominal innovation, high prices, and poor customer support. I would even go so far as to say that the aerospace industry was to blame for the Challenger disaster, not NASA employees. Industry has motive, the employees do not. Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA. You give pretty much any major company in the United States around 1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY 2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what they will accomplish. Pat |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
... Bill Clark wrote: Despite all its human flaws, the "NASA culture" has a strong can-do, will-do attitude that makes it possible for them to achieve what organizations ten times their size cannot. This sets a very bad standard for industry, giving the shareholders and investors a high expectation of their capabilities. Without the shining example of NASA, industry can plod along and people are perfectly content with shoddy products, nominal innovation, high prices, and poor customer support. I would even go so far as to say that the aerospace industry was to blame for the Challenger disaster, not NASA employees. Industry has motive, the employees do not. Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA. You give pretty much any major company in the United States around 1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY 2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what they will accomplish. Pat Are you truely sure of that. A great many U.S. companies, and foreign companies do in fact have revenues of greater than 1/200th of the U.S. annual budget. 1/200th of 15 Billion is ONLY 75 Million. The mid-sized company I work for does better than that!!! The proposed budget for 2004 is of the order of 2.2 TRILLION. Even then, the bar for meeting your criteria for amazement is pretty low since many of our major companies have revenues of greater than 15 Billion. Examples abound: General Electric -- 134 Billion FY2003 Annual Report Lockheed-Martin --- 31.8 Billion FY2003 Annual Report (Net Sales ;; a highly massaged figure) HP/Compaq --- 19.5 Billion expecte annual revenue (Annual report not released yet.) etc etc |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture
Anthony Garcia wrote:
Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA. You give pretty much any major company in the United States around 1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY 2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what they will accomplish. Pat Are you truely sure of that. A great many U.S. companies, and foreign companies do in fact have revenues of greater than 1/200th of the U.S. annual budget. 1/200th of 15 Billion is ONLY 75 Million. The mid-sized company I work for does better than that!!! NASA's budget is 15 billion. Boy, I _would_ be impressed if they did what they do on only 75 million a year; that's around 1/8th the price of a Shuttle flight. The proposed budget for 2004 is of the order of 2.2 TRILLION. Even then, the bar for meeting your criteria for amazement is pretty low since many of our major companies have revenues of greater than 15 Billion. Examples abound: But a great deal of what "NASA" does is actually done by contractors working for NASA, be it Shuttle upkeep and refurbishment, unmanned launch vehicle construction, or building equipment for space and planetary probes- so NASA really _is_ major and minor aerospace related firms when you look at it. General Electric -- 134 Billion FY2003 Annual Report Lockheed-Martin --- 31.8 Billion FY2003 Annual Report (Net Sales ;; a highly massaged figure) HP/Compaq --- 19.5 Billion expecte annual revenue (Annual report not released yet.) The interesting thing here is that these are the company's revenues, NASA doesn't really have any annual revenues, as it costs far, far, more to fund than any small amount of money it might bring in annually through sales of its research information and patent rights on any of its new equipment or processes... in fact, its not _supposed_ to make a profit, but freely distribute everything that it invents or discovers. Around 25 years ago, I heard a former NASA scientist come up with a really novel idea- NASA should make a profit on both it's telecommunication satellite launches, and develop a constellation of earth-resource, weather, and imaging satellites, whose products would then be sold to whoever is interested- with the moneys thus realized, NASA could afford to run a modest exploration program at _zero_ taxpayer expense. But of course we aren't going to do that...we aren't going to launch space tourists like the Russians, build imaging satellites whose data is for sale like the French, or sell advertising space on the side of the Shuttle's ET Like many corporations would surely buy... our hands shall remain clean; and completely unsullied by profit. Pat (Picturing a Mars rover imbedding a sign on the Martian surface reading: "Future home of a McDonald's Restaurant- over 1 billion served...on Earth alone.") |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture
Pat Flannery wrote:
But of course we aren't going to do that...we aren't going to launch space tourists like the Russians, build imaging satellites whose data is for sale like the French, or sell advertising space on the side of the Shuttle's ET Like many corporations would surely buy... our hands shall remain clean; and completely unsullied by profit. All the national agencies hands are thus unsullied. The for-profit parts you list above are all private corporations. D. -- Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
NASA Culture versus Corporate Culture
"Pat Flannery" wrote in message
... Anthony Garcia wrote: Behold the Nicene Creed of NASA. You give pretty much any major company in the United States around 1/200th of the total national budget (over 15 _billion_ dollars in FY 2004) to work with, and I think you will be downright amazed with what they will accomplish. Pat [snip] But a great deal of what "NASA" does is actually done by contractors working for NASA, be it Shuttle upkeep and refurbishment, unmanned launch vehicle construction, or building equipment for space and planetary probes- so NASA really _is_ major and minor aerospace related firms when you look at it. How convenient, and silly of a distinction. As it happens few companies .... very few companies don't have to contract SOMETHING out. When producing an end product no one goes to a contractor/mfg firm and say's this doesn't count because you contracted the work out. Do some research and you most certainly need to come to that conclusion. Do you think Boeing makes air frames, jet engines, fuel pumps, hydraulic pumps, computers, etc, etc, etc. NOT!!! The same is true of ANY manufacturer of end products. NASA being a government agency is best described as a contractor. Any private company given the task of putting a comsat into orbit is ..... you guessed it ... a contractor. ;-)) General Electric -- 134 Billion FY2003 Annual Report Lockheed-Martin --- 31.8 Billion FY2003 Annual Report (Net Sales ;; a highly massaged figure) HP/Compaq --- 19.5 Billion expecte annual revenue (Annual report not released yet.) The interesting thing here is that these are the company's revenues, NASA doesn't really have any annual revenues, as it costs far, far, more to fund than any small amount of money it might bring in annually through sales of its research information and patent rights on any of its new equipment or processes... in fact, its not _supposed_ to make a profit, but freely distribute everything that it invents or discovers. [snip] Call it revenues, call it funding, call it grants it all represents resources allocated to an agency/private company with the goal of producing an end result. It doesn't matter if it is tax $$ or investor $$. The process for getting funding for projects is in most corporations very much like it is in government. You have an idea, you run it by some people. They like the idea and you then put proposals together, prepare studies showing feasibility, sell, sell sell the idea; finally perhaps you might get all the signatures you need to spend the money the board decides to allocate toward this fantastic idea. Again your distinction between revenue and ... well revenue; in this case NASA gets the $$$ for filling it's mission of putting golf balls into space. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|