Christopher

Truong, 52742674 McLaughlin, Management 5 Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico: A Case of An Ounce of Prevention? 1. The Deepwater Horizon case was a pure example of the proverb An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, because the actions that led up to the catastrophic explosion are perfect examples of what doesnt happen when one neglects the simplest of preventative measures in the name of cost efficiency. The Deepwater Horizon disaster could easily have been prevented, and many (lack of) measures were taken to neglect these expensive preventions to protect BPs bottom line on the already late-leased oilrig. 2. The most important control issue in this case was BPs intentional delay of the blowout preventer test by the Minerals Management Service (MMS). This alone would have behooved repair/replacement of the blowout preventer, the component that failed in the first place. 3. In regards to cost, the most effective control step BP could have taken would have been to increase the number of centralizers from six to the originally planned twenty-one. The installation of the six centralizers took 10 hours to do, and the extra time for the extra centralizers is a very small cost to pay when one is insuring the safe operation of the oilrig. 4. The biggest management issue stemmed from BPs newly emphasized importance of a much stronger performance culture that encouraged strict monitoring and quick reduction of expenses. This issue alone started this whole mess, as a stronger danger awareness of oil drilling and a culture of preventative measures could have saved Deepwater Horizon from certain doom. The second management issue was BPs decision to end the mud tests that assessed the performance of the smaller quantity of centralizers. The case study does not inform whether the tests were ended because BP knew what outcome would exist from the tests, already or if the tests needed more information for conclusion, but the bottom line is a very important part of testing a dangerous, mile-deep oil well was cut short in the name of cost- cutting. The third management issue stemmed from the disorganization and obliviousness to who was in charge. The confusion of authority created quarrels within the management structure, as no one knew exactly who had the authority to alert the outside world of the impending danger that the oil rig was facing.