Gunfire At The Sea
Essay by richy • February 17, 2012 • 626 Words (3 Pages) • 1,412 Views
Gunfire at Sea
1. What was noteworthy about how was this innovation discovered/created in the British Navy?
It was happened by incident and found by serendipity. The changes were not new technology creation but it was an innovations and improvements of existing technology. In this case we can notice that an innovator was not an expert in this field. He was a good observant leader. This process was consisting of the interaction of fortune, intellectual climate, and the prepared imaginative mind. However, this "original thinking" and Scott's contribution were not really implemented and developed for British Navy.
2. What was noteworthy about how was it introduced to U.S. Navy?
He had tried 3 times to introduce to U.S. Navy. It was cleared that there was resistance to changes in new innovation. He has tried harder and harder to the higher position in the organization with more serious reports. Finally, he had to write to the President of United States, the highest commander, to get attention. It shows that the innovator should have ability to argue with authorized people who has an ability to get it done. The opposition to change is always existed.
3. What were three reasons why U.S. Navy had difficulty adopting continuous-aim firing?
a. Resistance
There are always other people who resist it even if it was better and beneficial. Accepting new innovation or changes will changes people's habits, comfortable, and social structure. It is nature of most of people that do not want to be affected by any changes. We would need to identify clearly of the concept between the old and new design. We would also need to identify the benefits to the society and convince the society, changing their attitude.
b. U.S. Navy is complex organization
Since it is a complex organization, there are many groups of people who responsible different jobs. As we can see when the Bureau of Ordnance replied on second attempt, they think the trouble is with men, which is not within their responsibility. It was hard to get all related people to consider it together. We will need someone who has full
...
...