Case Study Americas Cup

Group 1 03 November 2015

Case 06: America’s Cup: The Tension between Technology and Human Decision Makers Case ummary Oracle or Team USA won over Team New Zealand on the America’s Cup 2013 held at the San !rancisco "a#$ %et the victor# was not a smooth one& Oracle initiall# lost in a ei)ht row with a score '(1 andAlthou)h mana)ed to turn )ame around in itsseven latter races part with consecutive wins$ there wasthe a )reat leap *orward on the advancements made to +oat control procedure it had less o* the contri+ution to the USA Team winnin) America’s Cup 2013$ "oat desi)n was improved to a twin(hulled catamaran du++ed AC,2s model which claimed the *astest model at the time this was done to enhance speed$ -n terms o* +oat control in*ormation technolo)# pla#ed a ma.or role in/ ( Data Collection/ The +oat was euipped with 20 sensors on the win)s hull and rudder *or pressure an)le load strain ( Data Analysis/ Usin) ata+ase 11) near real(time anal#sis usin) velocit# prediction *ormulas so*tware en)ineers provide advices +ased on )ather in*ormation$ Some o* which were also sent to Oracle site in Austin *or in(depth anal#sis$ ( !n"ormation #resentation/ ia the pla#ers’ mo+ile handheld computers and captain’s sun)lasses advices were sent throu)h i$e$ advices on rope load +alance an)le ad.ustment$ espite hu)e investment on in*ormation technolo)# to enhance +oat control the result was not a pleasin) one$ Team USA lost , races in a row to Team New Zealand until then a timeout was reuested )ivin) Team USA the opportunit# to o+serve that with di4erent sailin) an)le Team USA at 5de)rees 6as su))ested +# the so*tware7 and Team New Zealand at 0de)rees Team New Zealand was *aster on the upwind le)$ This surprised the whole team and it was decided that ever# pla#er in the team stop listenin) to so*tware advices and act as conventional sailors$ A*ter the chan)e Team USA was a+le to sail *aster on the upwind le) and the )ame ended with Team USA winnin) the cup with ei)ht consecutive wins$ Case Discussion 1$ 8ow did in*ormation technolo)# chan)e the wa# America’s Cup +oats were mana)ed and sailed9 : $oat Design/ ; !rom sin)le(hulled catamaran to three(hulled catamaran in 2010 and to a twin( hulled catamaran du++ed AC,2s in 2013 6AC,2 is euipped with h#dro*oils to li*t the +oat out o* the water completel# and Data Collection and Analysis / Sensors collect the data on pressure an)les loads and strains > Data #resentation/ Small mo+ile handheld computer to displa# the data and use it to per*orm the +est *or each person’s responsi+ilities$ > Decision Making/ ?er*orm ad.ustments accordin) to what the so*tware advises

Group 1 03 November 2015

> #urpose: !or mana)in) massive data rapid real(time data anal#sis to )et the uic= decision ma=in) and results 2$ 8ow did in*ormation technolo)# impact decision ma=in) at Team USA9 : @ithout -n*ormation Technolo)# ecision ma=in) o* Team USA was +ased on the captain loo=in) at +oat and seas *or clues to)ether with utiliin) trainin) eBperience )ained in order to command the other pla#ers *or an# ad.ustments to +e made$ : @ith -n*ormation Technolo)# ata collection and anal#sis were done throu)h so*tware pro)rams where sensors around the +oat inputted raw data and were then ta=en into data processin) usin) velocit# prediction to enhance optimied speed$ !or e4ective ad.ustments optimied commands were sent to crew mem+ers thou)h small mo+ile handheld computer containin) each and ever# person’s responsi+ilit# and throu)h sun)lasses *or the captain$ Computer so*tware is the decision ma=er +# usin) al)orithms that pro)rammers thou)ht it was how sailin) wor=s rather than actuall# loo=in) at the natural environment and usin) human’s .ud)ment to decide on neBt actions$

3$ 8ow much was technolo)# responsi+le *or Team USA’s America’s Cup victor#9 Bplain #our answer$ : Technolo)# was not at all responsi+le *or USA’s victor#$ ; Those ' races o* victor# 6rule/ Drst team to in nine races ta=es the cup7 were the latter part in the race where Team USA decided to opt out *rom listenin) to so*tware en)ineers’ advices it is clear that technolo)# did not contri+ute to an# o* its victor#$ : @hat technolo)# contri+uted to was the learnin) that no matter how advanced it was in*ormation technolo)# was not a+le to replicate human’s decision ma=in) *or this certain =ind o* sports$ As stated in the case Team USA lost seven races in a row due to inaccurac# in*ormation 6advice provided +# the so*tware7$ The so*tware could have i)nored some *actors that sailin) eBperts could easil# spot and ta=e into account o* that *actor to )enerate optimum advices$ 5$ Compare the role o* +i) data in Team USA’s America’s Cup victor# with its role in the Eerman Team’s 2015 @orld Cup victor# descri+ed in the chapter(openin) case$ : The di4erence was the e%tent to which in"ormation technology was used while +oth cases purpose*ull# utilie +i) data to improve per*ormance and strate)ies Eerman team was success*ul at usin) while USA ( the# *ailed to do so$ & Eerman Team devised an anal#tic tool called Fatch -nsi)hts to collect massive amount o* pla#er per*ormance data and also statistics a+out avera)e possession o* their own and competitors’$ This )ives in*ormation critical *or improvin) pla#er’s per*ormance and was success*ul because the team took what the so"tware presented' learn it and impro(e either themsel(es or the o(erall strategies' not )ust taking the ad(ice and per"orm according to what they are told to* +et' the e%tent to which in"ormation technology was used "or the ,A team was a real-time one where e%plicit ad(ice was gi(en' none o" human’s innate )udgment was in(ol(ed' it devised ata+ase 11) data mana)ement so*tware received input *rom multiple sensors and )enerate outputs

Group 1 03 November 2015

as advices *or the pla#ers$ !t was clear that the so"tware Team ,A used could not emulate human’s decision making*