The war industry is the most high tech business in the world. And that is also their biggest technical problem. Old news is new news into things changes. Like in the accident of the submarine Kursk K-141. In does tragic accidents the responsible only ask their technique employees what did go wrong (they build the problem).
But working together with media they could ask readers to improve their submarines in the stories they report. They could then work with BBC in the covering of the Kursk disaster.
If so I could send them this simple idea that could save life in the future: Why not build a “baby submarine” inside the big ONE? So the people onboard can save them self (and escape into the “baby submarine)? Does kind of ideas is as low tech as a Bond movie, but when it works it will save lives (that is high tech for me).
How can media fuel evolution of business, products and brands? What is the “baby submarine” for corporation? What is your favorite peace submarine?
Update 28 April: (Respond from an expert)
I see the point of your blog is simple solutions or common sense, But in this case your idea has been tried and implemented to a certain degree. Submarines are very expensive as they are, and space is high commodity. Unfortunately the crew safety takes a back seat to the operational purpose of the sub which is to deter or wage war. Most boats when designed are crammed full of gear first and then the living and operational quarters are designed around them. Safety, is adhered to as much as possible, because obviously you need a crew to operate it. Since the operational environment of a submarine is very hazardous, when something goes wrong, it goes wrong quickly, weather it is a explosion on board, fire or flooding. That’s why Submariners are screened and highly trained to maintain their gear and recognize and bring casualty situations under control rapidly. But in the case of the Russians or the collapsing old Soviet Union fleet boats, when you let preventive maintenance and training slide because of cost, your asking for problems.
Update 29 April:
Thanks to Eric, not often does so different thinkers meet (I am not the perfect soldier).
My interpretation of Eric expert opinion on saving soldiers is that in war they do not have the interest of saving soldiers (at least it does not come first). If they could save them self they maybe become prisons (that is a big risk – they now secrets). There lives are not as expensive as the submarines and soldiers are easy to replace (not unique – schooled to an standard). I find this most interesting and wonder if it isn’t is the same situation in the corporate world with employees and costumers – “risk management”?
If the soldiers on the submarine hade an option to not stick around they also maybe not been so motivated to stay and fight the battle out. This remind me of Caesar’s army landed on the British Isles, he knew he had to motivate his troops more than usual. He ordered all the boats burned before the soldiers’ eyes. By the light of the burning boats he explained that there was no turning back, no retreat. They had to win or die.
Today we don’t need a Caesar to tell us that there’s no turning back. If corporate leaders don’t start including customers in their corporations, they will be the ones that will go down in flames.
Make love not war, they say, but most companies still approach the marketplace as a battlefield when they should spend more time wooing their consumers instead. When the corporate world is so busy waging war, it is so much easier to get closer to your customers and exceed their expectations.
I am not the perfect soldier, because I don’t like wars. But I love to take part in changing the war industry to work with making “good” profit.