Space and aeronautics constitute one of the most perspective fields of manufacturing and research in the transportation industry. The world’s growing economy requires more planes, components, and systems to navigate around the world while reducing the costs and times of ferrying goods across the continents. Aviation market in Saudi Arabia is growing rapidly, following the liberalization of economics in the commercial flight sector. The growth rates for the country exceeded 8% in 2017, which is expected to increase further in the following years. It also represents the largest aerospace market in the Middle East, with nearly 30% of all commercial and military airplanes registered in the kingdom (“Connecting the Aviation”). The purpose of this paper is to analyze and outline the market needs for space and aeronautics technology in Saudi Arabia.
Political and Economic Development Context
In 2017, Saudi Arabia adopted the Saudi 2030 vision program, which suggested large-scale investments meant to diversify the economy and provide additional sources of revenue. This strategy is meant to reduce the dependence on oil prices and transform the kingdom into a global transportation hub between Europe, Africa, and Asia, taking advantage of the strategic positioning in between the continents. Between 2017 and 2018, the Saudi government increased the investment spending into space and aeronautics to 293 million USD, with expectations of generating revenue of 77 million dollars (“Connecting the Aviation”).
Aviation is an important position in the diversification and expansion of the Saudi economy. The country took a lesson from the UAE that invested heavily in its aviation sector in Dubai, which provides between 27% and 35% of the city’s entire revenue flow (“Connecting the Aviation”). According to the development plans, aviation will be an important catalyst that would propel the Saudi economy forward by helping establish new airports and promote the expansion of existing facilities. The country hopes to attract additional investors, entrepreneurs, and participants to the project.
Market Needs and Information
Saudi Arabia has a well-developed infrastructure to support the burgeoning aerospace industry, with 27 airports dotting the kingdom (“Connecting the Aviation”). Out of them, six handle international flights, eight provide support for regional transportation, and 13 are dedicated to domestic, commercial hauls. However, one of the primary market needs in this area revolves around the upgrading of existing airports and the construction of new ones. These trends are justified by financial and market forecasts, which anticipate significant growth in the number of passengers traveling to or through the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, following the growth of the tourism industry. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) estimates an increase in passenger demand from 3.8 billion in 2016 to 7.8 billion air travelers a year by 2035 (“Connecting the Aviation”).
The major aircraft producers and operators are already preparing for this eventuality, as evidenced by the Global Market Forecast of 2017-2036, provided by Airbus, which claims that the Middle Eastern region will add substantial capacity to the market (“Global Market Forecast”). Boeing’s Current Market Outlook 2017-2036 estimates that between 5,000 to 6,000 new aircraft will be delivered to the Middle East in the next 20 years, roughly split between the major producers and competitors (“Current Market Outlook”). Smaller companies are also preparing to meet the needs and demands of the region. With Saudi Arabia constituting around 30% of the entire market, the needs of the region by 2035 are estimated at around 2,000 airships; This makes the Kingdom a very desired investment target in the future as well as a competitive platform for numerous aircraft producers.
Space Needs
While the majority of the country’s aerospace needs are revolving around aviation, Saudi Arabia also has a developing space industry. The recently-created Saudi Arabia space agency is already addressing the country’s needs for space exploration by acquiring over 1 billion dollars in yearly investments. This agency addresses the primary demand in Saudi Arabia, which includes space satellites to be used for commercial and military purposes. The primary needs of the local companies and agencies include geolocation, weather prediction and control, satellite TV and the Internet, as well as various military purposes. The latter is understandable, as Saudi Arabia and the countries of Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) remain some of the only stable governments in the region. Saudi Arabia is also engaged in localized conflicts with Yemeni religious rebels, further increasing the need for independent satellite reconnaissance. Saudi Arabia is cooperating with NASA and Roscosmos in order to get these satellites to orbit.
Conclusions
Saudi Arabia’s market needs for avionics and aerospace products is already large and is expected to grow considerably in the next 20 years. The industry attracts significant investments from all over the world in order to ensure the upgrading of the local infrastructure, the provision of over 2,000 planes, and the creation of various satellites to be launched into orbit. The country’s market needs are estimated to grow even higher, as motivated by the increase in population numbers as well as the overall tourism activity around the world.
The given prompt outlines the difference between advocacy and inquiry using the example of the Challenger’s case. It is agreeable that the two concepts differ. Indeed, whereas advocacy mainly refers to activities that support an idea in an attempt to influence a decision based on personal or group bias, inquiry refers to a solution-seeking approach where the pros and cons of different options are considered before a final decision is made (Kahneman & Charan, 2013). In the Challenger case, parallel thinking by de Bono would have applied better as compared to the advocacy approach that was employed. First, the fact that advocacy aims to get an idea passed regardless of the consequences (Paul & Elder, 2014), was the wrong decision-making approach as it led to the death of 7 people. It is clear that the decision-making process was also not complete due to the nature of advocacy.
Main body
Paul and Elder (2014) argue that advocacy is sometimes perceived to be more democratic than other processes of decision-making. However, it is important to note that this method of decision-making only presents one side of the argument. Levels III and IV of the management team were responsible for deciding to launch the Space Challenger Shuttle. Ideally, one can state that the managers involved formed a quorum to make such a decision. Thus, no other influence was made. It is this team that used the advocacy approach to convince other management teams of the benefits of launching the shuttle. Indeed, to do so, the team had to withhold vital information on the faulty O-Rings. It is the said faulty O-Ring that eventually led to the crashing of the space shuttle.
The argument that parallel thinking would have been a better decision-making approach as compared to advocacy is supported by the fact that parallel thinking supports the inquiry approach as well (Hammond, Keeney, & Raiffa, 2015). De Bono’s parallel thinking involves the division of an idea into several angles. Different teams then take up the different aspects and thoroughly investigate their pros and cons. After the investigations, the teams join up and agree on one way to deal with the situation at hand. The nature of parallel thinking by default also gives it an inquiry approach. There are two levels of inquiry in the stated case. The first would be inquiry at the team level. Where each team has to use the stated approach to determine the pros and cons of the angle of the decision they are investigating. The second level of inquiry is at the management level. The management level involves all the relevant persons including management members who were not involved in the team investigations. A presentation would then be made from the different teams that were involved. It is important to mention that such submissions should be honest and should not withhold any information to allow the larger group to understand all possible outcomes of the decision. A final decision combining all the different angles would then be reached.
Conclusion
It can be argued that such thorough investigations and decision-making processes might be affected by time. Indeed, decision-making should be timely to be effective. Thus, even in the inquiry approach, the involved have to be time conscious. One might argue that the level III and IV management teams used the advocacy approach because it requires less time and bureaucracy. Overall, it cost NASA its reputation and led to the death of 7 people. The public outcry was justified as NASA had other options that were ignored.
References
Hammond, S. J., Keeney, L. R., & Raiffa, H. (2015). Smart choices: A practical guide to making better decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Kahneman, D., & Charan, R. (2013). HBR’s 10 must reads on making smart decisions. Boston, MA: Harvard Business Review.
Paul, R., & Elder, L. (2014). The miniature guide to critical thinking – concepts and tools (thinker’s guide) (7th ed). Sacramento, CA: Foundation for Critical Thinking
Today, marketing can be characterized by a new trend that gains more and more popularity, whose supporters believe that the most sought-after products are not material values but emotions, impressions, and dreams. In modern society, consumers need more than just goods and services since they want to enjoy the process of their purchase. Accordingly, the consumption per se is likely to become more individual, which should be taken into account by the companies that pursue the idea of keeping their customers engaged (Mcintyre, Melewar & Dennis 2016). It is important to understand how Servicescape, the physical environment, affects customer responses and their willingness to buy products and services. This paper aims to explore the ways Servicescape impacts customer experiences and the process of value co-creation. It is hypothesized that atmospherics is an essential part of any interaction between a customer and frontline employee, resulting in the creation of a space for value co-creation as a mutually beneficial process.
Potential of Servicescape to Provide Value Co-Creation
Identifying the Links Between Servicescape and Value Co-Creation
While the available academic literature does not directly identify the correlations between value co-creation and Servicescape, it is possible to provide some relations between these issues. In order to better comprehend the role of Servicescape in marketing, it seems to be important with its definition. The concept of Servicescape refers to the integration of landscape and service that shape the physical environment in which customer experience occurs (Chang 2016; Bitner 1992). The furnishing, machinery, equipment, navigational signs, and any other elements along with their colors, shapes, sizes, and spatial relationships design the environment. The traditional approach to Servicescape views a customer as a passive recipient of the spatial layout, while emotions and cognitions are regarded as the outcomes (Lunardo, Roux & Damien 2016; Nilsson & Ballantyne 2014). However, a more recent approach implies that Servicescape provides the opportunity to establish interactive relationships between the members of the purchase. According to Pareigis, Echeverri, and Edvardsson (2012), the constellation of resources is used by both customers and employees yet with different purposes. If the customers conceive Servicescape and products as a whole, the employees are to distinguish between its various elements.
The impressions of a product or service are never abstract, and they do not arise on their own. Instead, they are sets of the accumulated emotions and cognitions of individual consumers, which are dynamic and collaborative in nature (Andersson et al., 2012; Dagger & Danaher 2014). When a customer learns or uses a product, he or she receives specific impressions, depending on their unique needs and preferences. The value proposition and value co-creation are the new trends in marketing and innovation management, which attempt to explain the links between customer engagement and cooperation. Based on the concept of Prahalad, value co-creation can be defined as the interaction of the company and customers, during which the participants’ resources are combined to cooperatively compose additional value (Pareigis, Echeverri & Edvardsson 2012). A client, in the broad sense, can be considered not only a direct customer but also a group, community, and even society as a whole.
The value proposition is a summary of product features that are of importance to a customer and that are promised to be delivered (Pareigis et al., 2012). From the admiration for the merits of the product, which is usually found in advertising, the value proposition is distinguished by a focus on a consumer. In terms of the mentioned concept, a product is considered as a set of benefits for the buyer, and this change in emphasis fundamentally alters the perception (Fernandes & Neves 2014). The value proposition creation is possible only if a company has an understanding of how the customer perceives certain properties of the product. According to Lunardo et al. (2016), there may be several value propositions, or they may be formulated differently for different customers, but without them, it is impossible to properly conduct marketing activities. Otherwise, the results of these activities will not be predictable in terms of specific returns because the value that one wants to sell is not entirely clear to target customers.
As a strategic task, the value proposition includes Servicescape and aims to shape customer behaviors and experience. The results of its implementation will directly affect the sales results of the given product through the impact on customers in the process of making a purchasing decision. As stated by Kaplan and Norton, sustainable value creation is closely associated with satisfying customer needs, balancing benefits and costs (Alcántara‐Pilar et al., 2017). The effective Servicescape is likely to promote the process of value co-creation through value proposition since customers would understand the advantages of purchasing the desired product in the given store or organization. For instance, the physical environment of a store can be designed in a way that translates some symbolic cues to reflect the distinctive features of the product. Accordingly, in the given case, Servicescape would act as a message-creating medium.
Understanding Internal Mechanisms of Servicescape
There is a range of internal mechanisms that identify how Servicescape affects customer responses and further experience. The key elements include a set of holistically designed environmental dimensions, a stimulus-organism-response (SOR) model, and experiences came. One should stress that these elements are useful to examine the specifics of using Servicescape in practice. The SOR model, for example, may be based on such environmental stimuli as lights, music, or service, which ultimately cause one of the two reactions of customers: approach or avoidance responses. In this connection, the stimulus is regarded as the internal (intermediate) variable that denotes a reaction, which is evoked by mental moments inaccessible to direct observation, such as expectations, attitudes, and knowledge. Alcántara‐Pilar et al. (2017) argue that internal processes, which are open only to self-knowledge, can be brought out and given their research the same accuracy as the study of any physical phenomena. In particular, the element of an organism is associated with emotional states, arousal, dominance, or pleasure.
In the context of value co-creation, customer behavior should be understood not as a chain of individual reactions but from the point of view of its holistic organization. In other words, a person builds a cognitive map of the path that must be followed to solve the problem, gradually mastering the situation. The customers are guided in situations to which they adapt due to the fact that it identifies certain signs associated with the choice point. At the same time, the awareness of the environmental stimuli equips companies with valuable information, allowing distinguishing between positive and negative issues that cause or impede the desired actions. In other words, any degree of complexity of perceptions or cognitions determines how people feel about a product or service in the given environment (Alcántara‐Pilar et al. 2017; Nguyen 2006; Rosenbaum & Massiah 2011). In case a stimulus triggers higher-level cognitions, it is more likely that the impact of setting would be more powerful.
The response of a customer to a particular stimulus composes the organism changes as well as cognitive conclusions that are usually made rapidly, which gives energy to the behavior and creates an invisible reaction potential. This potential is discharged with reinforcement, and then the reaction becomes fixed. In general, the formula can be presented as follows: stimulus – organism – reaction. The behavior begins with stimulation from the outside world or from a state of need and ends with a reaction. For example, it is suggested to use an effective method of influencing consumers, such as Benefit Reinforcement, which means giving importance to those benefits for consumers that is indicated in the value proposition statement (Kauppinen-Räisänen, Rindell & Åberg 2014). As a rule, these are customer reviews, awards, or likes of customers’ friends to the product. In general, all of the above is the practical part of creating an appropriate physical environment.
The servicescape model elaborated by Bitner (1992) involves three major components, such as ambient conditions, functionality, along with spatial layout and artifacts. The physical environment serves as a material component that visualizes the level, style, and quality of the service provided. For example, it is possible to use online platforms as a tool to promote technological solutions and products, which is an element of the marketing mix promotion. In the case of offline marketing, there are much more opportunities of impacting customers through setting: scents, music, size perceptions, temperature, and color schemes (Wattanacharoensil, Schuckert & Graham, 2016; Pizam & Tasci 2019). At the same time, equipment, facility, and furnishing compose a part of the physical environment of the company, which represents the spatial layout and provide various functions. By employing symbols, signs, and artifacts, a company not only promotes its products but also creates a unique image and guidance that also sends signals to customers and partners.
The notion of experiences came should also be clarified since it incorporates the idea of hospitality and a comprehensive approach to building relationships with customers. The five elements point to the key features of this concept: social, cultural sensory, functional, and natural (Lin & Worthley 2012; Payne, Korczynski & Cluley 2017). In other words, these elements serve as stimuli to shape the positive customer experience and employee perceptions through approach reactions. E-servicescape is a more advanced form of Servicescape that is presented on the Internet when the companies sell their products online (Wu, Quyen & Rivas 2017). Due to the limitations of this type of setting, auditory and visual cues become the main influence and response tools. The telepresence allows targeting particular groups of customers and meeting their needs in speed and comfort of providing products and services.
Combining Servicescape and S-D Logic
The classic marketing approach views customers as passive recipients of the value provided by the company. Currently, the focus in marketing has shifted from the product to the buyer, the buyer has appeared in the center of marketing, and the marketing of relations has begun to gain popularity. The most widely customer-oriented service approach is presented in the studies of Vargo and Lash, who argue that marketing is currently developing in the direction of a new logic from the good dominant logic (G-D) to service-dominant logic (S-D) (Girard et al. 2016; Fernandes & Neves 2014). In marketing, the company focuses on existing and potential customers, customer communities in networks that enable value creation together. The dominant service approach implies that the service (service) is the main goal of the exchange between the company and the buyer; the value is created jointly as a result of interaction between the company, the consumer, and other interested parties. Co-creation of value occurs as a result of the participation of the buyer, whose behavior transforms the customer experience in a unique way.
In implementing a customer-oriented strategy, relationship management is not a function of one separate unit but for the basis for designing the company’s business processes and an integral part of the company’s corporate culture. Wetter-Edman et al. (2014) put forward the thesis that a properly built network of relations inside the company becomes a decisive competitive advantage and leads to success. The strategic role of the service environment, in this connection, acts as an integral part of value co-creation. The customers and employees who communicate in properly designed settings exchange information and accumulate it, which can further be used by a company for improvements. Accordingly, the customers share the issues that they consider valuable, thus facilitating the processes of positioning, packaging, and delivery of products and services.
Building processes with client engagement creates new opportunities for ensuring the flexibility of the company in a competitive environment and a quick response to the emerging challenges of the market field for the development of customer-oriented service. The changes occur as consumer information accumulates and processes, gradually turning into a corporate knowledge system of the company (Ardley & Chen 2017; Lugosi 2014). In turn, Servicescape, being a source of progressive changes, becomes important know-how that sets the company apart from its competitors. The results of the study by Carù and Cova (2015) demonstrate that the problems of improving the competitiveness of organizations can be successfully solved by enhancing the processes of interaction with customers, during which consumer values are created. Improving the processes, in this case, can be carried out taking into account the consumer perception of these processes, thus contributing to achieving higher customer satisfaction with the service provided. However, it is emphasized that in order to establish and develop long-term and mutually beneficial relationships between a company and customer, it is necessary to ensure the satisfaction of both parties involved in the interaction.
Exploring Role of Employees in Servicescape
While discussing the contribution of customers to value co-creation, the role of employees is often underestimated. Kearney, Coughlan, and Kennedy (2013) state that internal marketing should perceive frontline employees as customer-conscious employees, who are the people that either prove or deny the promises provided by external marketing. Servicescape implies that attention should be paid not only to customers but also employees, whose interaction contributes to the process of value co-creation. The literature on internal marketing shows that employees can also be considered as internal customers, and their satisfaction largely determines that of customers. The employees deliver the company’s image and ensure a high quality of products and services, which impacts how customers view the organization in general. For example, if an employee is rude, tired, or not engaged in selling, it is unlikely that the profit of this store would be high.
While external marketing makes promises, the interactive form of marketing implies that the employees are expected to keep these promises via communication with customers. A well-designed and attractive physical environment not only motivates employees to work better but also helps in retaining talented personnel and developing their skills and knowledge. The key idea is that the creation of an appealing atmosphere with proper lighting, music, and scent should portray the corporate image. Brand value communication occurs mainly in the course of the direct communication between customers and frontline employees. Kearney, Coughlan, and Kennedy (2013) distinguish between several indicators that point to successful employee engagement in value co-creation. The desire to physically stay in the store and communicate with personnel, as well as the intent to explore the products, demonstrate that Servicescape is effective in the given store.
Conclusion
To conclude, a number of conclusions and patterns discussed in this paper have theoretical and practical significance, which is relevant for marketing and management fields of knowledge. In particular, a proper focus on Servicescape in terms of value co-creation that is aimed at creating a preferred consumer perception by improving interaction processes can be effective in the management of the customer-oriented company, regardless of their industry sector. In addition, it is fundamentally important that the use of the interaction marketing complex should not be limited only to situations of interaction between the organization and the consumer. Instead, it can be recommended to pay attention to both employees and customers, the interaction of whom promotes value co-creation and leads to the satisfaction of both parties.
Reference List
Alcántara‐Pilar, JM, Del Barrio‐García, S, Porcu, L & Crespo‐Almendros, E 2017, ‘Language as a cultural vessel in online servicescapes: its impact on consumers’ perceived risk, attitudes, and behavioral intentions, Journal of Consumer Behaviour, vol. 16, no. 6, pp. 61-75.
Andersson, P, Kristensson, P, Westlund, E & Gustafsson, 2012, ‘Let the music play or not: the influence of background music on consumer behavior’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 19, no. 6, pp. 553-560.
Ardley, B & Chen, N 2017, ‘Strategies and servicescapes: delivering user‐focused health care in Europe and China’, Strategic Change, vol. 26, no. 3, pp. 273-280.
Bitner, MJ 1992, ‘Servicescape: the impact of physical surroundings on customers and employees’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 55, pp. 57-71.
Carù, A & Cova, B 2015, ‘Co-creating the collective service experience’, Journal of Service Management, vol. 26, no. 2, 276-294.
Chang, KC 2016, ‘Effect of servicescape on customer behavioral intentions: moderating roles of service climate and employee engagement’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 53, pp. 116-128.
Dagger, TS & Danaher, PJ 2014, ‘Comparing the effect of store remodeling on new and existing customers’, Journal of Marketing, vol. 78, no. 3, pp. 62-80.
Fernandes, T & Neves, S 2014, ‘The role of servicescape as a driver of customer value in experience-centric service organizations: the Dragon Football Stadium case’, Journal of Strategic Marketing, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 548-560.
Girard, M, Girard, A, Suppin, AC & Bartsch, S 2016, ‘The scentscape: an integrative framework describing scents in servicescapes’, Journal of Business Market Management, vol. 1, pp. 597-622.
Kauppinen-Räisänen, H, Rindell, A & Åberg, C 2014, ‘Conveying conscientiousness: exploring environmental images across servicescapes’, Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 520-528.
Kearney, T. Coughlan, J & Kennedy, A 2013, ‘An exploration of the effects of the servicescape on customer and employee responses in a grocery retail context’, Irish Journal of Management, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 71-91.
Lin, I & Worthley, R 2012, ‘Servicescape moderation on personality traits, emotions, satisfaction, and behaviors’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 31-42.
Lugosi, P 2014, ‘Mobilising identity and culture in experience co-creation and venue operation’, Tourism Management, vol. 40, pp. 165-179.
Lunardo, R, Roux, D & Damien, C 2016, ‘The evoking power of servicescapes: consumers’ inferences of manipulative intent following service environment-driven evocations’, Journal of Business Research, vol. 69, no. 12, pp. 6097–6105.
Mcintyre, C, Melewar, TC & Dennis, C 2016, Multi-channel marketing, branding and retail design : new challenges and opportunities, Bingley, Emerald Publishing.
McNeill, L & Mather, D 2016, ‘Social involvement and consumption motivation: co-creation of magic in the servicescape’, Australasian Marketing Journal, vol. 24, no. 4, pp. 315-321.
Nguyen, N 2006, ‘The collective impact of service workers and servicescape on the corporate image formatio’, Hospitality Management, vol. 25, pp. 227-244.
Nilsson, E, & Ballantyne, B 2014, ‘Reexamining the place of servicescape in marketing: a service-dominant logic perspectiv’, Journal of Services Marketing, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 374–379.
Pareigis, J, Echeverri, P & Edvardsson, B 2012, ‘Exploring internal mechanisms forming customer servicescape experiences’, Journal of Service Management, vol. 23, no. 5, pp. 677–695.
Payne, J, Korczynski, M & Cluley, R 2017, ‘Hearing music in service interactions: a theoretical and empirical analysis’, Human Relations, vol. 70, no. 12, pp. 1-17.
Pizam, A & Tasci, AD 2019, ‘Experienscape: expanding the concept of servicescape with a multi-stakeholder and multi-disciplinary approach (invited paper for ‘luminaries’ special issue of international journal of hospitality management)’, International Journal of Hospitality Management, vol. 76, pp. 25-37.
Rosenbaum, M & Massiah, C 2011, ‘An expanded servicescape perspective’, Journal of Service Management, vol. 22, no. 4, pp. 471-490.
Wattanacharoensil, W, Schuckert, M & Graham, A 2016, ‘An airport experience framework from a tourism perspective’, Transport Reviews, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 318-340.
Wetter-Edman, K, Sangiorgi, D, Edvardsson, B, Holmlid, S, Grönroos, C & Mattelmäki, T 2014, ‘Design for value co-creation: exploring synergies between design for service and service logic’, Service Science, vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 106-121.
Wu, WY, Quyen, PTP & Rivas, AAA 2017, ‘How e-servicescapes affect customer online shopping intention: the moderating effects of gender and online purchasing experience’, Information Systems and e-Business Management, vol. 15, no. 3, pp. 689-715.
Risk management is one of the most important managerial tasks that every organization has to deal with in order to operate successfully. As Vinnem says, it is not possible to avoid risks, but an organization can have measures in place to help deal with them before they can have adverse effects (45). Sometimes risks may be ignored or a firm may fail to realize the potential risk factors until when it is too late. In such circumstances, it may not be easy to manage such risks in a proper manner, especially when handling costly and complex projects such as those undertaken by space agencies. In some cases the risks may have fatal consequences to those involved in the project or members of the public. It is for these reasons that organizations are now trying to come up with risk management models that they can use to prevent or manage risks to avoid their effects. The Bowtie method is one of the models of risk management that have gained massive popularity over the recent past. “Bowtie method is a risk evaluation method that can be used to analyze and demonstrate causal relationships in high risk scenarios,” (Munier 58). It is believed that the method was first developed by Chemistry Professor Hazan of University of Queensland, Australia in 1979. Since then, the model has become popular across the world when it comes to risk management. In this paper, the focus will be to determine how bowtie method of risk management can be applied in space projects at UK Space Agency.
UK Space Agency
UK Space Agency was established in April 2010 as a replacement of British National Space Center to take over the responsibilities of space exploration from the government (Munier 20). Headquartered in Swindon, this agency handles very expensive space exploration projects on behalf of the government of the United Kingdom. In its mission statement, it is clear that the firm’s primary objective is “to improve coordination of UK efforts in fields such as Earth science, telecoms and space exploration” (Rausand 26). With such a mandate, this organization is in charge of a wide range of tasks and it has a close working relationship with the European Space Agency. It handles numerous space projects, most of which are very risky and costly. This agency has an annual budget of over £322.6 million (Rausand 26). Katherine Courtney is the current chief executive officer at this firm.
Risk Management at UK Space Agency
UK Space Agency handles numerous complex projects, most of which may have serious consequences on the team members of the general public. Most of the space projects are very costly and require high level of technology-based skills to execute successfully. Although this organization has been successful, not all of its space projects have been a great success. Some of these projects have failed with varying degrees of impact on the firm. The management of this agency understands that these risks cannot be avoided, but with proper measures put in place, they can be easily managed.
In this paper, the researcher is interested in analyzing how this agency, in coordination with the European Space Agency, will be able to manage risks in the newly launched ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission. According to Rausand, “Sentinel-4 mission focuses on monitoring of trace gas concentrations and aerosols in the atmosphere to support operational services covering air-quality near-real time applications, air-quality protocol monitoring and climate protocol monitoring,” (19). This ambitious project has numerous risks that need to be managed to avoid their negative consequences. In this space project, numerous risk management methods can be applied. The paper will only focus on bowtie method as one of the most effective risk management tools.
Using Bowtie Method to Manage Risks at UK Space Agency
ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission is a very ambitious project that will not only benefit the United Kingdom and the European Union but also the entire continent. However, its success can only be guaranteed if the risks involved are properly managed to ensure that they are either prevented from taking place or their effects are made less destructive. The bowtie risk management method may be very instrumental in such processes. The figure below shows the bowtie risk management model.
When using this model, risk analysis starts by identifying the potential threats and the possibility of their occurrence. As shown in the above diagram, there can be numerous threats that this space project may face. According to Fraser and Simkins, the threats can be put into different classes (25). For instance, there may be threats associated with cost, inadequate expertise, terror attack, failure of the system, or natural calamities when undertaking the ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission. This model helps in identifying these risks long before they occur and then proposes ways in which they can be effectively managed. Once the potential risks have been detected, this model offers two ways of dealing with them based on the available resources, the nature of the risks, and the level of preparedness of the agency. The first approach, which is often the most preferred, is the prevention method. In this proactive method, the agency identifies the risks involved and comes up with control measures that will stop the threat before it can occur. The control measures are designed to ensure that the hazardous event does not occur. In most of the cases, the prevention method may be costly and may require high level of preparedness and adequate resources. However, its overall impacts significantly reduce the cost of the project because most of the risks are managed before they can take place.
The second approach is the recovery method that takes place after the hazardous event. In this reactive method, a firm will be trying to find ways of reducing the consequences of hazard that has already occurred. The firm appreciates that it lost control and was unable to prevent the risk from occurring and as such it will try to find ways of managing the consequences. Depending on the approach that is used to manage the consequences, the impacts of the event may vary. Fraser and Simkins say that it may not be possible to avoid negative impacts of a risk factor if a firm takes a reactive approach of handling issues after the loss of control (112). However, the level of adverse effect would vary depending on the nature of the reaction. Factors such as time that the team takes to react, the resources available for the reaction and the nature of hazard that has just occurred will determine the potential outcome. It is necessary to determine how each of the risks in ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission mentioned above can be managed.
Associated costs and other economic risks
ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission is one of the most ambitious projects that UK Space Agency, in collaboration with European Space Agency, has initiated in the recent past. The costs associated with this project have been clearly defined. However, the recent events in Europe may have direct impacts on the total cost of the project. For instance, the BREXIT referendum that saw United Kingdom citizens vote to exit the European Union is a serious risk that should not be ignored by the team leading this project. It should consider taking a proactive approach in handling the risks. One of the risks that should be anticipated is the inflation of the cost of the project. United Kingdom’s government was one of the leading financiers of the project. However, the country has already started experiencing inflation soon after the outcome of its referendum was announced. The inflation is likely to result into increased cost of undertaking the project.
The agency may be forced to change from using sterling pound to euro or American dollar to avoid the impact of the devaluation of the sterling pound. Although this may be seen as an unethical behavior, it may help this firm to avoid serious negative effects of the expected further devaluation of the sterling pound. If the team managing this space project fails to take this proactive method, then the hazardous event will occur and the amount of money it has, as budgeted before, will be inadequate for the project. The team will, therefore, be forced to embrace a reactive approach of having to search for additional funding from the donors. If the donors accept its request, then the project will be completed, but at a higher cost. If the donors reject the request, then the project will be paralyzed.
The BREXIT referendum is also likely to lead to less economic cooperation between the United Kingdom and its European Union counterparts. ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission, when it was initiated, was a partnership among all the European countries with the United Kingdom being the main player through its UK Space Agency. However, it is not yet clear how this partnership in the space exploration will work following the vote to exit the European Union. The team responsible for this project should be proactive enough to find ways of dealing with the risks that may come from a possible withdrawal of some of the partners in this project. Using the bowtie method, the team can move with speed and get every partner to commit to continue supporting this project even after the exit of the United Kingdom from the European Union. In case this proactive strategy fails, then there will be no other option but to request the remaining members to increase their contributions in this project to cover for the part that was to come from the parties that have withdrawn from the project. The team should ensure that these events do not bring its operations to an immature halt. Such an undesirable eventuality is possible if the team fails to secure the resources early enough when the parties are still committed to the project.
Inadequate expertise
According to Ao and Gelman, space projects require high level of expertise to execute successfully (35). In most of the cases, major space projects such as the ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission require close coordination of experts from various countries to achieve the set objectives. The ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission is very complex and requires skilled astronauts, geologists, engineers, economists, and numerous other professionals. With the disintegration of the European Union, it becomes challenging for the team to have the skilled resources it needed from various European countries. The project manager will need to take a proactive approach in managing this risk by ensuring that it has a team of skilled experts from various countries and that the disintegration of the union does not affect its current and future needs of skilled labor. It may be necessary to sign a pact with the relevant governments and get their commitment that the needed specialists will be made available to them without any pre-conditions.
The aim will be to avoid cases where some countries withdraw their agents sent to participate in the project soon after United Kingdom’s exit from the European Union. The project manager may also consider working closely with the space agencies of other regions such as that of the United States and Russia. These two countries have proven to be successful in space exploration and may offer the expertise that this team may need at advanced stages of the exploration. Using these proactive approaches, as defined in the bowtie method, will prevent the risks from taking place. It will ensure that the project runs smoothly without getting interrupted in any way.
Terror attack
The world is increasingly becoming a global village with the emergence of modern means of transport and communication (Rausand 78). Although globalization has numerous benefits, it also comes with a number of challenges and terrorism is one of them. Terror groups such as ISIS, Al Qaeda, Al Shabbab, and many others are currently using different strategies to achieve their selfish interests. The recent attacks in Paris, France and Brussels, Belgium are a clear indication that Europe is currently one of the primary targets of these terror groups. The attacks used by these terror groups are becoming very sophisticated and it is not known what their capacity may be in the near future. Major scientific centers such as the space exploration agencies may be their next target.
Using the bowtie risk management model, the team undertaking the ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission is able to analyze the nature of this risk and the ways of overcoming it. A direct attack on the agency’s facilities is one of the possible ways that the terrorists can use when they decide to attack. Taking a proactive approach may involve installing state-of-the-art security technologies that will help in detecting any security threats in the facilities of this agency. It may even be necessary to conduct an investigation to determine that the current employees are not in any way working in the interest of the terror groups. The agency can seek for government support in protecting its facilities from possible terror attacks. The team will also need to have mechanisms that will eliminate chances of the terrorists accessing its data or manipulating it in any way for their own interests or the interests of their agents.
Failure of the system
In space exploration, system failure is a common problem that often occurs when it is least expected. Its occurrence does not mean that the team failed to take adequate measures to manage it. Sometimes such projects may involve a number of system failures before a successful launch can be made. According to Hopkin, system failure is one of the most common risks in space projects (38). In most of the cases, reactive approach to these system failures is what defines the success of the entire project. When there is a failure in the system, it offers the team an opportunity to learn something new. From the failure, the team learns how to make adjustments to achieve success in future attempts. It does not mean the team may not need to mitigate the risks before they occur. The team will need to develop mechanisms that will reduce the impacts of any system failure in terms of costs, damages, and injuries. This can be done by tests before the actual launch of the space projects. Such tests will be conducted to identify the weaknesses in the system and to address these weaknesses before the actual launch. The team is also expected to prevent foreseeable risks in a proactive manner.
Natural calamities
Natural calamities may also pose risks to the space project on varying degrees depending on the nature of the risk and its magnitude. According to Popov, Lyon, and Hollcroft, natural calamities in Europe are becoming more frequent and they are causing more damages than ever before based on the existing records (46). This is partly due to the climate change and related factors such as global warming. Earthquakes, tsunamis, storms, and floods are some of the calamities that may affect ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission. It is not possible to stop any of these natural calamities from taking place. However, it is possible to come up with measures that may help in mitigating these risks in cases where these natural calamities occur. Based on the bowtie method, it is appropriate to take a proactive approach when dealing with these natural calamities. The possible consequences of each of these natural calamities are known. As such, it is necessary to be proactive and develop preventive measures. The team manager in this project may need to develop small teams that will be responsible for each of the possible risk factors. The risk management team may coordinate very closely when developing mitigation measures and sometimes they may even share resources. The management of the agency will be required to provide the resources needed to manage these natural calamities. The primary aim will be to eliminate the devastating consequences of these natural calamities whenever they occur.
Conclusion
Risks are forces that an organization cannot completely eliminate in its normal operations. However, it is possible to reduce their consequences by having effective risk management strategies. At UK Space Agency, there are numerous space projects that are being undertaken for various purposes. One of the main space projects currently in progress is ESA’s Sentinel 4 mission which is being undertaken in collaboration with European Space Agency. This ambitious project is faced with numerous risks which may have serious negative consequences if they are not properly mitigated. Bowtie method of risk management offers the best way of dealing with these risks in a proactive manner to ensure that the space project is a success.
Works Cited
Ao, Iong, and Len Gelman. Electronic Engineering and Computing Technology. Dordrecht: Springer, 2010. Print.
The name of the engineer, entrepreneur, inventor, and investor Elon Musk becomes more popular every year. His inventions not only surprise the world with their unpredictability and originality but also serve as an engine of progress in many sectors. SpaceX was founded in 2002 by Elon Musk, who had a goal to create a rocket to colonize Mars (Reddy, 2018). The inventor is convinced that humanity should learn to survive on other planets. Otherwise, society will disappear because of a global catastrophe or overpopulation. Therefore, it is appropriate to investigate the motives for developing the company and its perspectives for the future.
The Motivation for Creating the Company
Musk estimated that energy sources on planet Earth would not increase, and the population was growing, which is why he decided that humans should adapt to life on other planets. The basic idea behind the creation of SpaceX is to enable interplanetary travel. Another motive was to rid humankind of the ever-present threat of Earth’s collision with an asteroid. Musk was convinced that exploring other planets could save civilization from any global cataclysm. The inventor decided to initiate a company because aerospace manufacturers were making too expensive rockets, which prevented them from constant launches and stopped progress in interplanetary travel (Schilling, 2018).
The Strengths and Weaknesses
It seems to me that Elon Musk was highly enthusiastic about his idea because his passion made it possible to find a low-cost solution for producing rockets. However, the first launch attempts were unsuccessful, and Elon Musk had no resources of his own to finance the project, which is why his attempts were limited. At the same time, the team worked extra hours and felt a great responsibility for the next launch, which could have been the last. Although Musk was on the verge of bankruptcy, NASA appreciated his motivation and considerable success, providing him with a grant. Therefore, despite the limited opportunities, the team was capable of obtaining victory. This was possible through the innovative thinking, knowledge, and substantial motivation of Elon Musk (Schilling, 2018). Significantly, even his previous failed rocket launch permitted him to correct his mistakes to reach fruition.
The Company’s Special Features
Elon Musk’s enterprise competed with Delta IV and Atlas V launch systems made by United Launch Alliance (ULA). It is significant to note that SpaceX, unlike other companies, designed instruments that could be tested quickly and then enhance deficiencies. Thus, this presented advantages to the company, such as relatively low cost and rapid response to market needs. At the same time, the use of a single core made the BFR rocket easier and more idea-driven to launch (Schilling, 2018). In contrast, SpaceX’s competitors at the time practiced the usage of three cores, which was cumbersome to operate.
The Competitor
It seems to me that incumbent companies will not adopt elements of SpaceX’s model. This is because they will be capable of producing most rocket parts themselves or recycling non-SpaceX parts for rocket purposes. At the same time, the application of reversible engines and heat shields requires additional explanation by SpaceX engineers. Therefore, it is difficult for other companies to compete with Musk’s unconventional approach, reducing costs and making SpaceX a significant market player. It is worth mentioning that Jeff Bezos’s Blue Origin is a competitor to SpaceX, although Musk’s firm has considerable market advantages (Reddy, 2018). Its technology, instead of Blue Origin’s, is primarily experimental and can assist NASA in returning to the Moon.
Conclusion
Hence, for the first time in the history of spaceflight, the government entrusted the fate of its astronauts to private engineering companies. This decision was made because of the significant advantages of SpaceX and the new approaches to space activities. Accordingly, it can be observed that Musk’s enthusiasm and creation of interplanetary transportation have justified itself in the market. Thus, SpaceX remains a leader in the space industry and will continue to work toward its primary purpose.
