Essays on The Boeing High-Level Change Drivers Case Study

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing

The paper 'The Boeing High-Level Change Drivers " is a good example of a management case study. Readiness for organizational change is a construct at a multi-level, and readiness could somewhat be available at the individual, group, unit, department, or organizational, department, unit, group, and individual (Khang et al. , 2014, p. 242). Basically, readiness can be hypothesized, measures, as well as studied at any of such analysis levels. Yet, Vandore (2008) maintains that readiness for organizational change is not a construct at homologous multi-level. Explicitly, the construct's relationships, meaning, and measurement with different variables vary across analysis level.

Boeing, which is the leading Aerospace Corporation in the world, offers military and commercial aircraft as well as other security, defence, and space-based services and products to governments as well as commercial users across the globe (Hoiness, 2006, p. 72). Boeing produces, develops as well as markets commercial aeroplanes (like the Boeing 767 and 747), military jets (like the CH-47 the F/A-18 Hornet) as well as other products like surveillance systems, satellite systems, and missile systems. Boeing as well offers to fund like leases and loans for its military as well as commercial aircraft clients (Irwin & Pavcnik, 2004, p. 225).

The report seeks to summarize the Boeing high-level change drivers presented in the case situation, diagnose the change agenda using the chosen frameworks, and outline the integrated change areas that the organisation should address.   High-level Change Drivers Fundamentally, aircraft demand is connected to air travel, which as a result, is associated with the heightening wealth, rising per capita income as well as a positive outlook in Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Ibsen (2009, p. 343) posit that the rise in air travel has taken place in countries like China and India; both countries indicate a robust expectation for the Boeing.

Other drivers bringing about Boeing growth consist of globalization as well as international trade. However, the worldwide economy has exhibited slow recovery signs from recent economic depression. In this regard, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) projects that the global economic recovery is expected to continue and world GDP is likely to increase to 4.6 percent by 2015. Tong and Lee-Ing (2003) study of Boeing with regard to its past five decades in a business established that the unsurpassed indicator for examining the Boeing performance is the global GDP.

Their study further established that the recessions endured by the Airline industry on average equal the global economic depressions. Owing to the current economic state of affairs, Nolan (2012, p. 94) asserts that it is apparent that the Aerospace industry will continue to recuperate. on the horizon with growing demand from upcoming economies such as China and India, which will counterbalance the comparative demand slowdown from developed economies like Europe and the US. According to Jones (2004, p. 11) consumption of energy is the top concern for military and commercial airplane manufacturers like Boeing.

With soaring oil prices as well as community worries concerning carbon footprints, even the United States Air Force has begun to make use of energy efficiency as the key measure in its prospect purchasing plan. Besides that, driving demanding modernism for the likes of Rolls-Royce as well as GE with regard to their engines’ fuel efficiency, Irwin and Pavcnik (2004, p. 231) posit that this has as well been paid attention by Boeing with regard to the weight of the controls, the seats as well as the aircraft.

Above any other concern at present, doing anything to decrease consumption of fuel in an environmentally resourceful way is the vital concern in Boeing. Besides this concern, the other two key change drivers in Boeing is the Pentagon as well as are NASA. Since the US is still leading in satellite production as well as space exploration, what the Pentagon and NASA need to accomplish is top of Boeing priority list.

Not only in the military platform but as well in the market of commercial aircraft, development of technology in areas like intelligent systems, virtual engineering, safer airframes as well as more dependable guidance systems are all being steered by requirements outlined by the Pentagon and NASA (Tong & Lee-Ing, 2003, p. 30). Equally from a competitive point of view, it is unsurprising that there is a major responsibility for the European Union in sustaining an autonomous aerospace industry. Whereas China, India and Brazil, all have wide-ranging military as well as commercial aerospace activities, with regard to scale just the likes of BAE Systems, Rolls-Royce and most importantly, EADS is in a position to compete with Boeing.

The European Space Agency (ESA) along with the governments of the Germany, France and United Kingdom particularly are all devoted to having dynamic innovation in the European Union; thus, they support numerous key programs. According to Ibsen (2009, p. 344), for the European-based Airline Corporation, the US remains to be the main market, the only one that lays down the program and therefore, politics is fundamental in innovation strategy.

References

Hoiness, M., 2006. Business Futures: The Boeing Co. And The Boeing 787 Dreamliner. Futurics, vol. 30, no. 3/4, pp.72-73.

Ibsen, A.Z., 2009. The politics of airplane production: The emergence of two technological frames in the competition between Boeing and Airbus. Technology in Society, vol. 31, no. 4, pp.342-49.

Irwin, D.A. & Pavcnik, N., 2004. Airbus versus Boeing revisited: international competition in the aircraft market. Journal of International Economics, vol. 4, no. 2, pp.223-45.

Jones, W.D., 2004. Boeing Runs Into Turbulence. IEEE Spectrum, vol. 41, no. 7, pp.10-13.

Khang, J., Yu, Y.-m. & Lee, H.-h., 2014. Moderating effects of the fit between service tangibilization and organizational performance. Service Business, vol. 8, no. 2, pp.239-66.

Lehtiranta, L. & Junnonen, J.-M., 2014. Stretching risk management standards: multi-organizational perspectives. Built Environment Project and Asset Management, vol. 4, no. 2, pp.128-45.

Nolan, R.L., 2012. Ubiquitous IT: The case of the Boeing 787 and implications for strategic IT research. The Journal of Strategic Information Systems, vol. 21, no. 2, pp.91-102.

Sompong, K., Igel, B. & Smith, H.L., 2014. Strategic alliance motivation for technology commercialization and product development. Management Research Review, vol. 37, no. 6, pp.518-37.

Tong, C.H. & Lee-Ing, T., 2003. Boeing vs. Airbus: Competing For The Future. Competitiveness Review, vol. 13, no. 2, pp.28-33.

Vakola, M., 2014. What's in there for me? Individual readiness to change and the perceived impact of organizational change. Leadership & Organization Development Journal, vol. 35, no. 3, pp.195-209.

Vandore, E., 2008. A theory of organizational readiness for change. [Online] Available at: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/01/16/financial/f132334S50.DTL&feed=rss.business [Accessed 2 May 2014].

Wang, E.S.-T., 2014. Moderators of the relationship between social bonding and organizational commitment. Managing Service Quality, vol. 24, no, 3, pp.300-14.

Download full paperFile format: .doc, available for editing
Contact Us