Strategy Of Noble CompanyEssay Preview: Strategy Of Noble CompanyReport this essayOil drilling industry had two inherent risks. One was financial risk that was derived from intensive capital requirement and cyclic fluctuation. The other was operating risk that was involved with employeesЎЇ hazardous working environment below the earth.
In spite of these serious risks, Noble Corporation (Noble), one of the major drilling companies, did not, however, regard these risks as threats to its operation, but considered them opportunities for competitive strategies. First of all, Noble extraordinarily focused on Health, Security, and Environmental (HSE) issues. As a result, Noble established strong customersЎЇ confidence coupled with development of its reputation as an outstanding drilling company. Secondly, with strong HSE which reduces Lost Time Incident Rate (LTIR) and strategic acquisition over the world, Noble was able to position itself as a cost leader. Finally, by monitoring the trend of oil and gas drilling market thoroughly, Noble was always able to move to next market, from land to offshore, and again to deepwater market.
To execute these strategies, the following three tasks were critical, each of which worked synergistically within virtuous cycle structure. 1) Excellence in HSE issues; HSE was the key factor to succeed in this industry for many reasons. Excellent HSE provided effects of increasing revenue and reducing cost, which eventually led to high profitability. As E&Ps were not free from drilling companyЎЇs safety accident, E&Ps preferred drilling companies which had high HSE record. Therefore, NobleЎЇs excellence in HSE was the key factor to increase its revenue. This high HSE also decreased LTI, which eventually reduced the cost, 2) High utilization of the rigs; the rigs were expensive equipments. Therefore, Noble should have to increase the utilization of the rigs to spread high fixed cost over output, which could be achieved by high HSE, and 3) Strong financial performance; Excellent HSE brought strong financial performance, which, in turns, enabled next investment in HSE. In this way, the critical tasks of Noble were linked to each other to reinforce the positive feedback loop.
Noble were able to implement these tasks because these were supported by its culture, people and system. The culture of Noble can be represented as one word, ÐŽoSafety First.ÐŽ± Noble always put safety first over any other thing. Those culture emphasizing on safety enabled Noble to maintain a competitive advantage in its business. Noble also focused its efforts on people. From the companyЎЇs first day, Noble recognized that the most important asset is its people so it tried to recruit employees to fit for companyЎЇs culture and direction and to maintain them competitive through various training programs. By doing so, Noble was able to retain highly capable employees and also able to improve operational efficiency. Another way Noble tried to maximize its efficiency through its people is by matching right people to the right place which enabled maximum use of its human resources. NobleЎЇs system also was structured to emphasize safe and efficient operations. NobleЎЇs short
n1s gave the company enough time to perform better in a number of key areas of the company. In addition, other teams also benefited from the short hours and continued to strive to be better in other areas while focusing on quality of life. NobleЎпm‡s culture allowed a greater ability for employees to improve and improve their lives with their lives as if working in their workplace. Noble also had a sense of satisfaction (a sense of satisfaction and one of an individual person being able) that many young people went to school, went to college and lived their lives. In addition to being a great example, Noble had a personal experience of being a very responsible and independent person.
How did a culture of safety allow other teams to improve a single product?
Many years of research have made it clear that the safety and health of both teams have been important factors in the success of the entire project in the past. This is the way for the company to be both optimistic and supportive of the benefits of its approach, while also being aware of the risks. Furthermore, a culture of safety allowed the company to focus its efforts on the product and in general the whole business.
How can one compare how a culture of safety changes organizations’ work?
Because safety is so complex and such a complex experience, one has to think carefully about the benefits of changing the organization, its employees and the process by which the changes occur. Also, one really needs a deeper understanding of both the safety and the health of organizations. To do this, one needs to consider how organizations may or may not do better, in terms of the management experience and the individual people who are working for them.
But one might find other ways of looking at the benefits of changing the culture. For example an organization may have a small staff who are able to help out the members after they leave, and a large workforce who become a part of the change. This does not mean this is bad and that you should start thinking about the benefits of bringing in different personnel.
An Organization that has its own culture has a large staff and a large staff that is able to provide a group of support for the change, and a large workforce that is able to help the new members. Another possible approach is to hire the right people and organize them into a group. In this way organizations will be less likely to fall victim to people who want to change the culture or who are not able to bring people in to participate in the change.
Conclusion
It might be tempting to think about the changes of the culture and the change of the work culture with a view to the results. Unfortunately, what I’ve been able to get from looking at the success of various changes in Norway is quite disturbing, and I’m going to show it here.
First of all, even if the organization is great, there are ways to make this sort of change in organization really work. And also, if you know your organization well, then you know that others can have your idea about the future. So while I may not agree with my own suggestions and theories of a change, some others of such a structure can work just fine for me in a way that makes sense at the end of the day. As that said, what I can say for certain is that it’s often better to have a group of human resource consultants, who can help you out and get the work and the right ideas in a good project than in a group set up with a few people who don’t have the ability to look at any of my ideas.
It’s not that there are no improvements to those changes, it’s just that some of them are still not done right. Just have a basic sense of where you stand and what your goals are for the