Organized Case Analysis (aka Pew Pew Pew)

The Columbia and Challenger Explosions:



After seeing this, what do you feel?

Many questions come to mind:

• Who should we have turned to?
• What should we have done?
• What precautions should we have taken?
• Who should we have listened to? 

• The Issues and The Problems

The answer to this is that there was a communications block between the scientists and managerial staff at NASA.

Who knew the shuttles were unsafe? The scientists knew they were unsafe!
Who didn't listen to the scientists? The managers.

The scientists say...


So... how do we solve this problem?

Will you listen to the geeks? 

('Cuz they sure as hell didn't... and that's why we can't have nice things.)

With all seriousness now!



.

• What happened with the two shuttle explosions was that the scientists identified a serious safety concern on each of the shuttles and advised the high ranking managers of this but they authorized the launches anyway - probably due to budget concerns.  In the end, then, the scientists knew that these problems existed but were not heeded because of their place in the organizational structure. 

Think about what kind of structure NASA uses!
Did this structure have an impact on what happened?

• What kind of structure does NASA have?
• It has a tall structure
• The concept that corresponds to this case is Likert's System I, which is "the expoitive authoritative organization, is characterized by motivation through threats and fear, downward and inaccurate communication, top-level decision making, the giving of orders, and top-level control"
• The case study did not mention anything about NASA's managerial staff using threats or fear, but there was an abundance of downward communication, top-level decision making - with little to no regard to the advice of their experts - and top-level control - which overrode the scientists' objections to a launch due to safety concerns.
•  Solutions they could use:
• Reorganize their structure to be more wide and flat.
• Require a meeting between the managers and the scientists to discuss issues and concerns on a regular basis.
• Revise acceptable safety regulations.