|
Single Subcontractor vs. Multiple
Subcontractors
Presently, there are only a handful of aerospace companies
capable of rapidly producing Dynalifter aircraft in-house should
the near-term orders be realized.
|
|
Large
Airframe Company |
Multiple
Subcontractors |
|
Name
recognition |
x |
|
|
Speed to
production |
|
x |
|
Cost of
production |
|
x |
|
Quality
of work |
x |
x |
|
Capital
resources |
x |
|
|
Customer
focus |
|
x |
Using this simplified analysis, the production model choice
becomes clearer. Going with one of the “big two” aerospace
companies will likely bring higher confidence to the project by
customers and investors. While using an equally qualified
network of smaller subcontractors will likely bring greater
control to Ohio Airships in terms of production speed and cost,
and keeping designs focused on customer needs.
Either choice would suffice if its major concerns could be
resolved. On one hand, the single subcontractor model could
work if the subcontractor would agree to (1) keeping to the
aggressive production schedule and being penalized if benchmarks
are not reached, (2) abandoning their typical high-cost methods of
production in favor of more simplified methods, and (3) to keep to
the proposed designs rather than adding features which they
believe customers want.
On the other hand, the multiple subcontractors model would
work if (1) customers and investors could become satisfied that
product quality would remain high, and that (2) the necessary
capital resources would be covered by large, initial investment,
customer down payments, and the collective resources of the
multiple subcontractors.
The company will remain open to both models as talks continue
with potential subcontractors. However, much of the
following discussion will focus on the “multiple subcontractors”
model.
next > |
