Access Millions of academic & study documents

Questions 2 And 3.

Content type
User Generated
Subject
Management
School
University of Massachusetts Lowell
Type
Homework
Showing Page:
1/4
1
Management Question 2 & 3
Student’s name
Institution
Instructor
Course
Date

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
2/4
2
2.Given the long history of expensive and years-late military equipment projects, why
wasn’t this approach used sooner?
The war in the Middle East was far from over, and the enemy was equipped with
advanced weapons, and the army had to upgrade as well. The need for better-armoured trucks
arose the technical know-how lacked. The ultra-efficient schedule approach was not feasible
before due to insufficient technological capacity and could not meet time requirements for better
war equipment’s. In addition, the saturation of bidders in the market was not as it was in the late
21
st
century. Back then, due to limited resources, manufacturers could not match the army's
weaponry expectations.
Furthermore, the technology to tap into raw materials suitable for advanced war
equipment was far from being utilized. The delivery and testing period was not reasonable before
as manufacturers used more than two months to develop a concept. The time frame for testing
and production was also unreasonable.
3.What might be the weakness of this new approach?
While the ultra-efficient fast approach has proven successful recently, it may not be as
effective. Primarily, the cost of designing and delivering rush vehicles is almost quadruple as the
previous costs. Due to the demand for high-tech combat vehicles, the price of raw materials to
match the demand have increased rapidly. Furthermore, the use of guided weapons has almost
eliminated combat vehicles. Due to the expensive nature of developing armoured vehicles,
upgrading existing systems is lucrative compared to starting from scratch.
Additionally, the fast delivery approach could be ineffective due to inconclusive testing
runs. During bidding, a firm is awarded the tender and instructed to develop a prototype that

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
Showing Page:
3/4

Sign up to view the full document!

lock_open Sign Up
End of Preview - Want to read all 4 pages?
Access Now
Unformatted Attachment Preview
1 Management Question 2 & 3 Student’s name Institution Instructor Course Date 2 2.Given the long history of expensive and years-late military equipment projects, why wasn’t this approach used sooner? The war in the Middle East was far from over, and the enemy was equipped with advanced weapons, and the army had to upgrade as well. The need for better-armoured trucks arose the technical know-how lacked. The ultra-efficient schedule approach was not feasible before due to insufficient technological capacity and could not meet time requirements for better war equipment’s. In addition, the saturation of bidders in the market was not as it was in the late 21st century. Back then, due to limited resources, manufacturers could not match the army's weaponry expectations. Furthermore, the technology to tap into raw materials suitable for advanced war equipment was far from being utilized. The delivery and testing period was not reasonable before as manufacturers used more than two months to develop a concept. The time frame for testing and production was also unreasonable. 3.What might be the weakness of this new approach? While the ultra-efficient fast approach has proven successf ...
Purchase document to see full attachment
User generated content is uploaded by users for the purposes of learning and should be used following Studypool's honor code & terms of service.
Studypool
4.7
Indeed
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4

Similar Documents