1. What are the risks the federal government runs when it depends so heavily on a contractor such as Lockheed Martin for a wide variety of its functions? What are the advantages in such relations?
Given how large some of these contractors are like Lockheed Martin, it could be a potential concern for who has control. Some issues may arise in budget concerns, project completion dates, and ownership of projects. As the book points out Lockheed Martin had total control of the NASA program and information did not flow through the channels like it would without having contractors in involved (pg. 84). As the author labels such large contactors as “megacontractors” they have become common place in the government planning process. Some of the risk …show more content…
The mindset to have such a large corporation with the government would be superior to others. As Weber’s noted, this type of control would achieve the highest level of efficiency. I would have to disagree with this statement. It is not a strong argument at all. Seeing how the bureaucracy changed after the changing of the guard at the COE, I can honestly say that concept of having such a large partner to the government is noble, but the outcome is not as it would appear to be. The powers to be never seem to materialize. Once the bureaucracy is in place employees do not achieve the authority to delegate, or the power to own the areas that the work in. In my opinion, if management is not local they should not be overseeing the projects that are being worked. The structure of the organization should include boots on the ground. Having eyes and ears in the local environment is critical to success. The weakness here would be that people like to work independently and be able to shine in their own role. Weber seems to label humans as mechanical. This title of being a machine could be a problem with morale. Even the name human capital seems to be less fitting as compared to an associate, or a partner to the
Given how large some of these contractors are like Lockheed Martin, it could be a potential concern for who has control. Some issues may arise in budget concerns, project completion dates, and ownership of projects. As the book points out Lockheed Martin had total control of the NASA program and information did not flow through the channels like it would without having contractors in involved (pg. 84). As the author labels such large contactors as “megacontractors” they have become common place in the government planning process. Some of the risk …show more content…
The mindset to have such a large corporation with the government would be superior to others. As Weber’s noted, this type of control would achieve the highest level of efficiency. I would have to disagree with this statement. It is not a strong argument at all. Seeing how the bureaucracy changed after the changing of the guard at the COE, I can honestly say that concept of having such a large partner to the government is noble, but the outcome is not as it would appear to be. The powers to be never seem to materialize. Once the bureaucracy is in place employees do not achieve the authority to delegate, or the power to own the areas that the work in. In my opinion, if management is not local they should not be overseeing the projects that are being worked. The structure of the organization should include boots on the ground. Having eyes and ears in the local environment is critical to success. The weakness here would be that people like to work independently and be able to shine in their own role. Weber seems to label humans as mechanical. This title of being a machine could be a problem with morale. Even the name human capital seems to be less fitting as compared to an associate, or a partner to the