Here is the synopsis of our sample research paper on NAVSEA AND DAFT: A PARADOX?. Have the paper e-mailed to you 24/7/365.
Essay / Research Paper Abstract
This 4-page paper examines a part of the management system of NAVSEA, the company that manufactures and maintains battleships for the Navy. The paper also examines the management system through management expert Richard L. Daft's perspective, and sees where there might be problems. Bibliography lists 2 sources.
Page Count:
4 pages (~225 words per page)
File: D0_MTnavsea.rtf
Buy This Term Paper »
Unformatted sample text from the term paper:
Because there isnt anything written on Dafts comments as they pertain particularly to NAVSEA, well discuss this paper in two parts. First, well provide an overview of NAVSEA and NAVSEAs
management. Then well give an overview of Dafts management theories. Then well conclude with comments about how one might fit with the other (if this is the case).
NAVSEA is short for the Naval Sea Systems Command, and its responsible for engineering, building and supporting the entire U.S. Navy fleet (Overby and
Ash, 2002). As such, the organization (and it is a government organization), has managed more than 130 acquisition programs at the tune of about $20 billion a year involving everything
from solid waste shredders to nuclear aircraft carriers (Overby and Ash, 2002). In 1999, NAVSEA tried to move its huge acquisitions program
into a knowledge-based database management system - and this provided some interesting challenges (namely, getting its 45,000 employees on board with doing things this way) (Overby and Ash, 2002). The
sharing of information, according to some experts who reviewed the case, was a major roadblock (Overby and Ash, 2002). Another concern of
NAVSEA was an ageing workforce (which, in many cases, was near retirement) (Overby and Ash, 2002). One concern was, in the words of one analyst, "all that knowledge walking out
the door, even in the civilian ranks" (Overby and Ash, 2002, p. 126). Another challenge here was trying to encourage employees to share knowledge, to give them the idea that
knowledge was more of an organizational asset than a personal one (Overby and Ash, 2002). The huge problem here, understandably enough, was
...