Case Analysis: Jurassic Park
Jurassic Park is a marvel of human innovation that will captivate the imaginations of people for decades to come. We all know what happened that fateful evening when there was a total system meltdown. It is important that we address the issues that led to the breakdown and ensure that the proper corrective and preventative measures are implemented to ensure something like this never happens again. This report details the areas of concern, from most important to least. Recommendations are then made to address these issues, the possibility and plausibility of government regulation over this industry is examined, and concluding remarks are ...view middle of the document...
Although the ability to quickly shut everything down was a blessing in the original situation, the ability to bring the entire park’s computer system to a hault could prove to be disastrous on another occasion.
Another issue to examine is the transfer of dinosaurs around the park. A worker was killed by a velociraptor due to the poor procedure that had been implemented. Employees were provided with tazers to try and subdue the dinosaur, but this proved to be an insufficient measure for the risk involved in the transfer.
Velociraptors themselves are a very large risk to the operations. These creatures have been shown to possess strong memories (not inherent in any other dinosaur on the island), and an ability to learn from their surroundings. They systematically tested electric fences, constantly prodding different points to see if there was an area of weakness to escape from.
There were also numerous issues with the vehicles that transported patrons around the park. Although they were cutting edge, echo friendly vehicles, they were missing a few basic safety features. The lack of automatic door locks was the largest concern. People were actually able to get out of their vehicles and go exploring, through a jungle full of dinosaurs. To make matters worse, the vehicles’ bodies were not created with any additional reinforcements, and were not secured to the ground.
Finally, the hiring process itself was flawed. Dennis Nedry had been an employee of BioSyn, a corporate rival of InGen, and was paid a substantial price to steal the fertilized dinosaur embryos.
Recommendations for Improvement
There are three possible methods that could be used to address the primary issue of power that was held by the head computer programmer. The first, which is applicable in different degrees to all three solutions, is a segregation of duties. Although the head programmer will always have the most knowledge and power (if the current management system is maintained), certain aspects of the security should require at least two passwords to be entered by upper management. A decentralization of the head programmer’s power to two or three individuals who all have their own passwords would also aid the system. These passwords would be required by the system to proceed with any high risk requests, and authorization would have to be provided by John Hammond, the head technician, or one of the other head programmers. The system could require that at least two, possibly three people enter their passwords before an action is allowed in certain situations. For example, the ability to turn off the electric fences around the park is something that should require everyone’s knowledge and approval of the situation. Another option is to contract a third party security company to take on the project to ensure that the desired level of safety and transparency is achieved. This would be a more expensive option, but could prove to be very beneficial in the long run if...