Dhow safety in Dubai

'No single body' to monitor dhow safety in UAE


Concerns have been raised about the dhow boat industry in Dubai in the light of a tragedy that took place in Bahrain last week where 57 passengers were killed on a cruise. The concerns about the safety of the boat trips offered in Dubai raised the question of whether there is sufficient monitoring from official entities over this industry which already has its own inherent risks.
To analyze this article I will use Baron’s non- market framework.

Issues: the main issue that is discussed in this article is the fact that there is concern about the safety that dhow trips offer to passengers and whether there are enough rules that regulate this industry. This issue of cruise safety has been identified (issue identification stage) after the Bahrain accident. The fact that there is no single body to control passenger dhow operations on Dubai creek is an issue on its own. Concerns have also have been raised on the way some dhow operations are run. For example you can find some three- deck dhows crowded with passengers dancing on board with loud music.

Interests: interests in this issue are: the dhow industry, there are at least15 dhows operating in Dubai offering cruise trips to passengers especially tourists. The industry is trying to avoid any future litigation on the cruises which might be costly to them. That is why they are trying to state that they follow strict safety measures and are denying that there are any risks inherent in the cruise trips they offer. Another interest might be the Ministry of Tourism in Dubai which might be concerned about the safety of the boats since they are a major tourist attraction and any accidents happening might affect tourism.

Institutions: institutions might be: regulatory and government bodies, that might consider to control passenger dhow operations in Dubai. This can be done by imposing stricter rules and regulations governing safety measures on dhows and cruise trips in the Creek in order to avoid any tragic accidents. Another institution might b the media, like the Gulf News that has raised the issue to be known by the public and call for more monitoring on this industry.

Information: information pertaining to this issue comes from two sides. On one hand, the dhow industry claims that their dhows undergo technical inspection annually to ensure safety; vessels are checked annually for their seaworthiness, engine condition, safety standards and passenger capacity. They operate in shallow waters and are connected with emergency services. That is why they believe that safety concerns are not valid. On the other hand, the way some operations are run raised some concerns; some dhows are overloaded with customers dancing on them although belly dancing was banned on board, some passengers still do it. There are also fears that accidents would happen because the creek is busy at night.

Dhow safety in Dubai

'No single body' to monitor dhow safety in UAE


Concerns have been raised about the dhow boat industry in Dubai in the light of a tragedy that took place in Bahrain last week where 57 passengers were killed on a cruise. The concerns about the safety of the boat trips offered in Dubai raised the question of whether there is sufficient monitoring from official entities over this industry which already has its own inherent risks.
To analyze this article I will use Baron’s non- market framework.

Issues: the main issue that is discussed in this article is the fact that there is concern about the safety that dhow trips offer to passengers and whether there are enough rules that regulate this industry. This issue of cruise safety has been identified (issue identification stage) after the Bahrain accident. The fact that there is no single body to control passenger dhow operations on Dubai creek is an issue on its own. Concerns have also have been raised on the way some dhow operations are run. For example you can find some three- deck dhows crowded with passengers dancing on board with loud music.

Interests: interests in this issue are: the dhow industry, there are at least15 dhows operating in Dubai offering cruise trips to passengers especially tourists. The industry is trying to avoid any future litigation on the cruises which might be costly to them. That is why they are trying to state that they follow strict safety measures and are denying that there are any risks inherent in the cruise trips they offer. Another interest might be the Ministry of Tourism in Dubai which might be concerned about the safety of the boats since they are a major tourist attraction and any accidents happening might affect tourism.

Institutions: institutions might be: regulatory and government bodies, that might consider to control passenger dhow operations in Dubai. This can be done by imposing stricter rules and regulations governing safety measures on dhows and cruise trips in the Creek in order to avoid any tragic accidents. Another institution might b the media, like the Gulf News that has raised the issue to be known by the public and call for more monitoring on this industry.

Information: information pertaining to this issue comes from two sides. On one hand, the dhow industry claims that their dhows undergo technical inspection annually to ensure safety; vessels are checked annually for their seaworthiness, engine condition, safety standards and passenger capacity. They operate in shallow waters and are connected with emergency services. That is why they believe that safety concerns are not valid. On the other hand, the way some operations are run raised some concerns; some dhows are overloaded with customers dancing on them although belly dancing was banned on board, some passengers still do it. There are also fears that accidents would happen because the creek is busy at night.

The Other Dubai Deal

The Other Dubai Deal

The controversy that has been going on in the United States over the Dubai Ports deal has not been resolved and the acquisition offer has not found its way to approval. Yet another Dubai deal has surfaced recently, this time to sign a contract with the Navy to provide shore services for vessels in the Middle East. The bidding firm is called Inchcape Shipping Services (ISS), an old British company that last January was sold to a Dubai government investment vehicle. In the U.S., the company operates out of more than a dozen port cities, including Houston, Miami and New Orleans. The question that remains to be asked is: “Is this deal less threatening to the US national security than the first deal?” I will use Baron’s non- market framework in order to assess the issues surrounding this deal and see how the non- market environment will affect this deal.

Issues: the issues that are associated with the ISS deal are not much different from those associated with the DPW deal. The main issue is whether foreign control over US assets that are critical for national security should be allowed. The husbanding contract that is given to a Dubai- government owned company would provide potential for mischief. Especially that the husbanding agent will be providing a critical job, that ranges from fresh vegetables to fuel and spare parts and most importantly security. Another critical fact is that the husbanding agent learns information that the Navy tries to keep private. This information might be misused if it reached the hands of terrorists. This shows that the Dubai firm will be handling a job that is critical to the US national security and this is the main issue of this case.

Interests: the main interests involved in this deal are the Dubai government and its firm, ISS which claim that the national security issue is invalid since ISS” has undergone rigorous external security checks" and has "comprehensive internal policies on security." Regarding its U.S. port operations, the company states that all port staff “are fully vetted and cleared and undergo a background check to enable them to work within the port limits." The other interest is the US government (The Pentagon) which has signed the contract with ISS for services and maintenance of the navy operations. We can see that both interests merely have business purposes. Dubai government is looking for new investment opportunities and the US government wants to allow foreign investors in the United States because local investors might not be able to provide the same services with the same efficiency.

Institutions: institutions are represented by the media which covers the issue and affects the American public opinion. Time magazine is the only media outlet reporting on this latest Dubai deal. The article is trying to form a public opinion regarding foreign investments in the US. They are calling for a policy that specifies which assets should and which should not be controlled by foreign investors. The article is also attacking the US government for asking the Americans to give up their privacy rights in order to protect the national security of the country which is prone to terrorist attacks, while at the same time is handing over ports and critical assets to foreign owned governments.

Information: information available on this issue is contradicting. The American public fears terrorist attacks that might result from giving control of critical assets and critical information to governments that have a history of facilitating banking transactions for terrorists as the article claims, and predict that many American lawmakers will lose their jobs if this continues. On the other hand, other information shows that Dubai- based firm is trustworthy and will emphasize security in its operations.

I think that this identified issue of foreign control over critical assets in the United States should be legislated in order to avoid any future controversies because especially in this environment of globalization and international investment opportunities, many similar cases will take place soon.

Al Maya Group plans expansion

Al Maya Group plans expansion

Al Maya Group, a Dubai based company is investing 40 million Dirhams in an expansion process that involves supermarkets and fashion retail stores. They do not intend to compete to hypermarkets like Carrefour.

To this case, we can apply the Hamel Business concept:
Core strategy: if we look at the essence of how the firm chooses to compete we can find:

• Business mission: the business mission of Al-Maya Group is to expand in the retail sector by opening neighborhood supermarkets and avoid the hypermarket sector. The objective of the Al Maya group is to grow in neighborhood stores, something in the range of 3,000 feet offering convenience shopping. They do not plan to enter the hypermarket race.
• Product/market scope: the company’s strategy is geographical expansion; it has opened 10 stores past year and intends to expand its market scope by increasing the number of stores within the next twelve months to a total of 25 stores. The company is also opening the first British Home Stores (BHS) in Poland on September 9, part of a global expansion.
  

Strategic resources: if we assess the resources that give the Al- Maya group its competitive advantage we find:

• Core competencies: the supermarkets’ competitive advantage will come from the locations chosen for them. The company’s managers are aware that this segment of the market has a potential for growth because of several factors: the traffic, the increasing price of the gasoline and the parking problems will make people prefer neighboring stores instead of driving to the hypermarkets like Carrefour. The fact that the supermarkets have witnessed significant growth shows the managers are on the right track.
  

Customer interface: if we assess how the firm is planning to reach the customers we find:

• Fulfillment and support: Al Maya group chose the supermarket sector as opposed to the hypermarket sector as a channel to reach customers. This is because a growing number of consumers will shop at the neighborhood retail outlets which offer them a great deal of convenience. This kind of supermarkets will spare customers the inconvenience of driving to the hypermarkets.
  

In my opinion, the idea of having neighborhood supermarkets is convenient and good and will make many people’s lives easier. People will not have to worry about getting stuck in traffic and drive just to buy a few things from Carrefour or Spinney’s.

White House Effort to Block Challenge to Ports Deal Collapses

House Agrees To Vote On Ports


The Dubai Ports World, a UAE government owned company, has caused a controversy in the United States as to whether its offer to acquire six US ports should be approved or not. The U.S congress is trying to pass a legislation that will block the deal on one hand, and President Bush decided to veto against the legislation on the other hand. This political controversy that Dubai Ports World is facing is an example of the extent to which a firm’s non- market environment can affect its activities. Applying Baron’s framework to this case will help understand it better.

In order to understand how the U.S political environment is affecting the Dubai Ports Deal, we need to analyze the four components of the non- market environment:

Issues: the main issue that was triggered by the DPW offer to acquire six US ports is “National security”. The fact that DPW is government owned means that six of the most important ports in the US would be controlled by a foreign government. Moreover, the Dubai government is an Arab government which is associated with terrorism by many, especially after September 11. On the other hand, those who support the deal say that Dubai is one of the US allies and the country will be no less safe as a result of the transaction.
Interests: the principal interests in this case are the DPW and the US government which is represented by the President, the Congress, and other government officials and legislative bodies. The DPW will try to ease the US concerns by proving that Dubai is a friend country that is not associated with terrorists and will guard the safety of the ports. The US government is still split between support and opposition for the deal. One group will try and kill the deal; the other will try and make the deal go forward. These groups have different stakes in the deal, supporters believe that it is a good commercial deal and opponents believe that this deal threatens the U.S national security.
Other interest groups might be the people who work in the ports and whether they will be affected by the deal. Labor unions might be concerned with the wages and work practices under a foreign firm. Which labor laws would be applicable in that case? Import and export administration will also be concerned with any potential changes in regulations applicable in that respect.
Institutions: is represented by the news media and the public sentiment towards the deal.
Information: information pertaining to the issue can be presented from two view points. Opponents to the deal believe that allowing a foreign government to control American ports poses a threat to the U.S national security. US seaports are very crucial to the issue of national security given the fact that they handle about 2 billion tonnes of freight each year, 5% of which is only examined upon arrival. Therefore a foreign control over these ports is a risk. The deal supporters including the Bush administration and Dubai government believe that these concerns are unreasonable given Dubai’s close ties with Washington and DPW record as a world operator. For example, US warships often call at the UAE’s Jebel Ali port, which is run by Dubai Ports.

The issue represented in this case can be also understood in terms of a lifecycle.

Issue identification: when DPW submitted its acquisition for the U.S ports last month, a new issue exploded for the U.S government. The fact that this deal would lead to a foreign- government control of the American ports pointed out national security issues that would be associated with deal.
Interest group formation: once the concerns about the threats to national security surfaced, the congress, the Appropriations Committee, the Armed Services committee and their supporters decided that legislation should be introduced to block the DPW deal. Nevertheless, the Bush administration position remained unchanged.
Legislation: the issue has not reached this stage yet. However, now that the House Republican leaders allowed a vote that would kill the issue, the question that remains to be asked: Will the White house be able to hold off a legislation mandating that owners of critical infrastructure in the US be American? Or will the President be able to use the veto and block legislation?

Bush defends DP World ports deal, threatens veto

Bush defends DP World ports deal, threatens veto

Should the state-controlled Dubai Ports World of the United Arab Emirates be allowed to control the U.S ports?

Well, President George Bush doesn’t seem to agree with members of the Congress regarding this deal. On one hand, the congress is questioning whether the company could be trusted to guard the ports at a time of terrorism. On the other, Bush supports the takeover of management of the major U.S seaports by DP World and does not believe that this poses any security issues. According to Bush, the deal which will cover six shipping terminals should go forward because the Dubai firm will not be in charge of security. Dubai is also a U.A ally; therefore, the country will be no less safe as a result of the transaction.

US seaports handle 2 billion tonnes of freight a year. Only about 5 percent of containers are examined on arrival and the fact that these ports are purchased by companies owned by foreign governments is a security issue. The issue of ‘national security’ was raised and as a result, Congress, lawmakers, and leaders from both parties: Democrats and Republicans formed interest groups to try and pass legislation to stop the deal. The president intends to use the veto to deal with any attempt to introduce this legislation. This veto is the first to be used by the Bush administration and it will be used to save DP deal. Bush believes that blocking this deal will send a bad signal to the friend countries from the other part of the world.

In my opinion, the Congress should not rush into blocking the deal without investigating the facts surrounding this deal. Dubai Ports World is about to take over Britain’s P&O for 6.8 billion making it the world’s third-largest ports group. So the ports were already controlled by foreign countries and if they weren’t acquired by Dubai, they would have been acquired by another foreign company like Singapore. Moreover, the government of Dubai said that the security concerns were unreasonable given his country’s close ties with Washington and Dubai Ports’ record as global operator. For example, US warships often call at the UAE’s Jebel Ali port, run by Dubai Ports.

Seniors At Senior Level

80 is not 80 anymore!!!

For those who think that the top executive jobs are so demanding and cannot be filled by old people, I would like to give the example of Dana Cable. The fact that cable is 80 years old doesn’t not prevent him from working 10 hours a day or coming up with inventions that won’t hit the market for years.

Cable is only one of many managers and executives who are in their 70s and 80s but refuse to quit. The need for these genius experienced leaders created a trend in extending their retirement age beyond the traditional age of 65. This big change in the age of retirement is due to many factors: First, due to the improved medical care people live longer, healthier and have the energy to work. Whereas in the 1950s, according to the article, about a quarter of the executives died before they hit 65. The second reason is the increasing need for these older executives to fill the shortage in skills and talents that are needed in the workplace.

In my opinion, people like Dana Cable and Warren Buffett are considered as a valuable human resource. With their experience, skills and unique ideas they add value to the companies that they work in. they are an example of the (social complexity) factor that add rareness to the company and is hard to imitate.

The American workplace cannot keep depending on these old giants in adding value to the businesses. I believe that a good idea would be for younger executives and business people to learn from these valuable experiences in order to be able to replace these figures in the future.

Effect of Danish Boycott Patchy

E-mails and messages have been going around lately urging the boycott of Danish products after a Danish magazine published cartoons that are offensive to Muslims. I myself got plenty of these messages and stopped buying all the Danish dairy products that I used to buy. Imagine what will happen to the Danish dairy producers if everyone who gets the message reacts the way I did?

The case has been more severe in Saudi Arabia, until an official satisfying response is initiated; all Danish products are being removed from the supermarket shelves. The Saudi retail sector was under pressure to react to this offense; otherwise it will have a bad public image. This means that Saudi retailers will stop the import of Danish products which account for 5% of their sales. This will in turn result in a detrimental economic effect on the Danish exports to this part of the world especially if the issue continues and spreads to neighboring countries.

What the Saudi retailers and consumers are actually doing is using their bargaining power as buyers to affect the political stand of the Danish government. All Danish products are canceled and replaced by local products, which in my opinion will benefit the local products and bring losses to many Danish Dairy companies.

Another aspect that can be found in this article is the element of customer interface described in Hamel’s Business model. SADAFCO, a Saudi company that had a Danish partner, tried to communicate with its Saudi customers (relationship dynamics) in order to clarify to the public that their company has nothing to do with Denmark and it is 100% Saudi company. This kind of interaction with customers is vital since customers are refusing to buy any products associated with Denmark and had to be reassured that SADAFCO, like the rest of the Saudi society, is boycotting the Danish.

In my opinion, the Danish dairy producers should attempt to protect their business by lobbying the government and urging them to apologize. This controversy is not only political; it is also affecting the economy of Denmark especially if the boycott becomes regional.

The Real Cost of Google’s Sellout to China

Why would Google, the second largest technology company in the U.S, cave to Chinese pressure and cooperate with its communist government in barring access to anything on the World Wide Web that the government feels might destabilize its authority? Why is it defending the privacy of the U.S users and suppressing that of the Chinese? The answer is simply that this freedom interfered with Google’s pursuit of profits.

China represents a great commercial opportunity for Google, and will soon become the largest internet market in the world. However, the Chinese government policy, which restricts the information its citizens are exposed to, posed a challenge for Google who was facing a “government policy barrier to entry” in the Chinese internet market. The government has limited entry to the market by placing filtering systems to block any unwanted internet materials, which slowed the search speed and put Google at a competitive disadvantage.

In order to obtain the license to operate in china, Google had to block any internet material that the government finds offensive. Google’s compliance would allow it to penetrate the market and reap profits from the estimated 100 million Chinese internet users.

Between the profits that the Chinese market promised and defending the privacy of internet users, Google chose to agree to government demands. Although I personally think that denying the right of free access to the Chinese internet users is unethical, I also believe that it would have been hard not to comply and turn down an opportunity in the world’s fastest growing market.