Mar 10, · A Study of the Adoption of Science-based Drug Discovery." Advances in Strategic Management 21 Harvard Business Review 72, no. 1 (January–February ): – Harvard Business School Case , January (Revised January ) Business ethics has increasingly becoming one of the most contentious issues in today’s business society. Due to the globalisation of markets and production processes, an increasing number of Multi-National Companies (MNC) are having to deal with ethical issues in the different counties they are operating in (Dunn and Brooks, ) Apr 07, · Dr. Jill Avery is an authority on brand management and customer relationship management and a senior lecturer in the marketing unit at Harvard Business School, where she created and teaches the course Creating Brand Value. She is a former brand manager at Gillette, AT&T, and Samuel Adams and an advertising agency executive, and remains close to
Getting Brand Communities Right
Nike Zeus was an anti-ballistic missile ABM system developed by the US Army during the late s and early s that was designed to destroy incoming Soviet intercontinental ballistic missile warheads before they could hit their targets. It was designed by Bell Labs' Nike team, and nike case study harvard business review initially based on the earlier Nike Hercules anti-aircraft missile. The original, Zeus Awas designed to intercept warheads in the upper atmosphere, mounting a 25 kiloton W31 nuclear warhead.
During development, the concept changed to protect a much larger area and intercept the warheads at higher altitudes. This required the missile to be greatly enlarged into the totally new design, Zeus Bgiven the tri-service identifier XLIMmounting a kiloton W50 warhead. In several successful tests, the B model proved itself able to intercept warheads, and even satellites, nike case study harvard business review. The nature of the strategic threat changed dramatically during the period that Zeus was being developed.
Originally expected to face only a few dozen ICBMs, a nationwide defense was feasible, although expensive. Ingrowing fears of a Soviet sneak attack led it to be repositioned as a way to protect Strategic Air Command 's bomber bases, ensuring a retaliatory strike force would survive. But when the Soviets claimed to be building hundreds of missiles, the US faced the problem of building enough Zeus missiles to match them.
The Air Force argued they close this missile gap by building more ICBMs of their own instead. Adding to the debate, a number of technical problems emerged that suggested Zeus would have little capability against any sort of sophisticated attack. The system was the topic of intense inter-service rivalry throughout its lifetime.
When the ABM role was given to the Army inthe United States Air Force began a long series of critiques on Zeus, both within defense circles and in the press. The Army returned these attacks in kind, taking out full page advertisements in popular mass market news magazines to promote Zeus, as well as spreading development contracts across many states in order to garner the maximum political support.
As deployment neared in the early s, the debate became a major political issue, nike case study harvard business review. The question ultimately became whether or not a system with limited effectiveness would be better than nothing at all. The decision whether to proceed with Zeus eventually fell to President John F.
Kennedywho became fascinated by the debate about the system. Inthe United States Secretary of DefenseRobert McNamaraconvinced Kennedy to cancel Zeus. McNamara directed its funding towards studies of new ABM concepts being considered by ARPAselecting the Nike-X concept which addressed Zeus' various problems by using an extremely high-speed missile, nike case study harvard business review, Sprintalong with greatly improved radars and computer systems.
The Zeus test site built at Kwajalein was briefly used as an anti-satellite weapon. The first known serious study on attacking ballistic missiles with interceptor missiles was nike case study harvard business review out by the Army Air Force inwhen two contracts were sent out as Project Wizard and Project Thumper to consider the problem of shooting down missiles of the V-2 type.
Existing radar systems would have difficulty seeing the missile launch at those ranges, and even assuming one had detected the missile, existing command and control arrangements would have serious problems forwarding that information to the battery in time for them to attack. The task appeared impossible at that time. These results also suggested that the system might be able to work against longer-ranged nike case study harvard business review. Although these traveled at very high speeds, their higher altitude trajectories made detection simpler, and the longer flight times provided more time to prepare.
They were transferred to the US Air Force when that force separated from the Army in The Air Force faced significant budget constraints and canceled Thumper in in order to use its funds to continue its GAPA surface-to-air missile SAM efforts.
The next year, Wizard's funding was also rolled into GAPA to develop a new long-range SAM design, which would emerge a decade later as the CIM Bomarc.
ABM research at the Air Force practically, although not officially, ended. By the early s the Army was firmly established in the surface-to-air missile field with their Nike and Nike B missile projects. These projects had been led by Nike case study harvard business review Labsworking with Douglas. The Army contacted the Johns Hopkins University Operations Research Office ORO to consider the task of shooting down ballistic missiles using a Nike-like system. The ORO report took three years to complete, and the resulting The Defense of the United States Against Aircraft and Missiles was comprehensive.
The first section of the Bell study was returned to the Army Ordnance department at the Redstone Arsenal on 2 December They considered attacks against the RV while the missile was in the midcoursejust as it reached the highest point in its trajectory and was traveling at its slowest speed. Practical limitations eliminated this possibility, as it required the ABM to be launched at about the same time as the ICBM in order to meet in the middle, and they could not imagine a way to arrange this.
Working at much shorter ranges, during the terminal phaseseemed the only possible solution. Bell returned a further study, delivered on 4 Januarythat demonstrated the need to intercept the incoming warheads at mile km altitude, and suggested that this was within the abilities of an upgraded version of the Nike B missile.
Due to the RV's relatively small size and limited radar signature, this would demand extremely powerful radars. To ensure the destruction of the RV, nike case study harvard business review, or at least render the warhead within it unusable, the W31 would have to be fired when it was within a few hundred feet of the RV. Given the angular resolution of existing radars, this limited the maximum effective range significantly.
Bell considered an active radar seekerwhich improved accuracy as it flew toward the RV, but these proved too large to be practical. The interceptor would lose maneuverability as it climbed out of the nike case study harvard business review and its aerodynamic surfaces became less effective, so it would have to be directed onto the target as rapidly as possible, leaving only minor fine-tuning later in the engagement.
This required that accurate tracks be developed for both the warhead and outgoing missile very quickly in comparison to a system like Nike B where the guidance could be updated throughout the engagement. This, in turn, demanded new computers and tracking radars with much higher processing rates than the systems used on earlier Nikes. Bell suggested that the recently introduced transistor offered the solution to the data processing problem.
After running 50, simulated intercepts on analog computersBell returned a final report on the concept in Octoberindicating that the system was within the state of the art. The Army and Air Force had been involved in interservice fighting over missile systems since they split in The Army considered surface-to-surface missiles SSM an extension of conventional artillery, and surface-to-air designs as the modern replacement for their anti-aircraft artillery.
The Air Force considered the nuclear SSM to be an extension of their strategic bombing role, and any sort of long-range anti-aircraft system to be their domain as it would integrate with their fighter fleet.
Both forces were developing missiles for both roles, leading to considerable duplication of effort which was widely seen as wasteful. By the mids some of these projects were simply tit-for-tat efforts. When the Army's Hercules began deployment, the Air Force complained that it was inferior to their Bomarc and that the Army was "unfit to guard the nation".
In a 26 November memorandum, US Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson attempted to end the fighting between the forces and prevent duplication of effort. His solution was to limit the Army to weapons with mile km range, and those involved in surface-to-air defense to only miles km. To some degree, this simply formalized what had largely already been the case in practice, but Jupiter fell outside the range limits and the Army was forced to hand them to the Air Force.
The nike case study harvard business review was another round of fighting between the two forces. Jupiter had been designed to be a highly accurate weapon able to attack Soviet military bases in Europe, [20] as compared to Thor, which was intended to attack Soviet cities and had accuracy on the order of several miles, nike case study harvard business review.
In return, nike case study harvard business review, the Air Force complained that Zeus was too long-ranged and the ABM effort should center on Wizard. But the Jupiter handover meant that Zeus was now the only strategic program being carried out by the Army, and its cancellation would mean "virtually the surrender of the defense of America to the U.
F at some future date. In MayEisenhower tasked the President's Science Advisory Committee PSAC to provide a report on the potential effectiveness of fallout shelters and other means of protecting the US population in the event of a nuclear war. After ascribing an expansionist policy to the USSR, along with suggestions that they were more heavily developing their military than the US, the Report suggested that there would be a significant gap in capability in the late s due to spending levels.
While the report was being prepared, in August the Soviets launched their R-7 Semyorka SS-6 ICBM, and followed this up with the successful launch of Sputnik 1 in October. Over the next few months, a series of intelligence reviews resulted in ever increasing estimates of the Soviet missile force.
National Intelligence Estimate NIEissued in Decemberstated that the Soviets would have perhaps 10 prototype missiles in service by mid But after Nikita Khrushchev claimed to be producing them "like sausages", [24] [a] the numbers began to rapidly inflate.
NIEreleased in Augustsuggested there would be ICBMs in service byand by or at the latest. With the NIE reports suggesting the existence of the gap Gaither predicted, near panic broke out in military circles. In response, the US began to rush its own ICBM efforts, centered on the SM Atlas.
These missiles would be less susceptible to attack by Soviet ICBMs than their existing bomber fleet, especially in future versions which would be launched from underground silos. But even as Atlas was rushed, it appeared there would be a missile gap ; NIE estimates made during the late s suggested the Soviets would have significantly more ICBMs than the US between andat which point US production would finally catch up.
With even a few hundred missiles, nike case study harvard business review, the Soviets could afford to target every US bomber base. With no warning system in place, a sneak attack could destroy a significant amount of the US bomber fleet on the ground. The US would still have the airborne alert force and its own small ICBM fleet, but the USSR would have its entire bomber fleet and any missiles they did not launch, leaving them with a massive strategic advantage. To ensure this could not happen, the Report called for the installation of active defenses at SAC bases, Hercules in the short term and an ABM for the period, along with new early warning radars for ballistic missiles to allow alert aircraft to get away before the missiles hit.
Douglas Aircraft had been selected to build the missiles for Zeus, known under the company designation DM This was essentially a scaled-up Hercules with an improved, more powerful single piece booster replacing Hercules' cluster of four smaller boosters.
Intercepts could take place at the limits of the Wilson requirements, at ranges and altitudes of about miles km. Prototype launches were planned for For more rapid service entry there had been some consideration given to an interim system based on the original Hercules missile, but these efforts were dropped.
Likewise, nike case study harvard business review, early requirements for a secondary anti-aircraft role were also eventually dropped. Wilson signaled his intention to retire in earlyand Eisenhower began looking for a replacement. During his exit interview, only four days after Sputnik, Wilson told Eisenhower that "trouble is rising between the Army and the Air Force over the 'anti-missile-missile'.
Shortly after taking office, McElroy formed a panel to investigate ABM issues. The panel examined the Army and Air Force projects, and found the Zeus program considerably more advanced than Wizard. McElroy told the Air Force to stop work on ABM missiles and use Wizard funding for the development of long-range radars for early warning and raid identification. These were already under development as the BMEWS network, nike case study harvard business review. The Army was handed the job of actually shooting down the warheads, and McElroy gave them free hand to develop an ABM system as they saw fit, free of any range limitations.
The team designed a much larger missile with a greatly enlarged upper fuselage and three stages, more than doubling the launch weight. This version extended range, with interceptions taking place as nike case study harvard business review as miles km downrange and over miles km in altitude. An even larger booster took the missile to hypersonic speeds while still in the lower atmosphere, so the missile fuselage had to be covered over completely with a phenolic ablative heat shield to protect the airframe from melting.
The new DMB Nike Zeus B the earlier model retroactively becoming the A received a go-ahead for development on 16 January[36] the same date the Air Force was officially told to stop all work on a Wizard missile. With their change of nike case study harvard business review after McElroy's decision, nike case study harvard business review, Army General James M. Gavin publicly stated that Zeus would soon replace strategic bombers as the nation's main deterrent.
In response to this turn of events, the Air Force stepped up their policy by press release efforts against the Army, as well as agitating behind the scenes within the Defense Department. As part of their Wizard research, the Air Force had developed a formula that compared the cost of an ICBM to the ABM needed to shoot it down.
Sport Obermeyer (Harvard Business Review Case Study)
, time: 23:54How To Write a Literature Review - Sample & Example
Apr 07, · Dr. Jill Avery is an authority on brand management and customer relationship management and a senior lecturer in the marketing unit at Harvard Business School, where she created and teaches the course Creating Brand Value. She is a former brand manager at Gillette, AT&T, and Samuel Adams and an advertising agency executive, and remains close to Nike has been designing all of their products in-house since it launched its own name branded shoes in Nike employs people for the design and development of footwear, apparel, and sports equipment located at headquarters in Beaverton, Oregon. Globalization has led Nike to understand that different countries have other performance desires More than two decades ago, Harvard Business School professor Theodore Levitt provocatively declared in a HBR article, “The Globalization of Markets,” that a global market for uniform
No comments:
Post a Comment