Transcript BS311- U6- Challenger Powerpoint

(Clockwise starting in left back row)

Ellison S. Onizuka, Mission Specialist

Sharon Christa Mc Auliffe, Teacher

Greg Jarvis, Payload Specialist

Judy Resnick, Mission Specialist

Ron McNair, Mission Specialist

Dick Scobee, Commander

Mike Smith, Pilot

My purpose is to analyze the communication
and organizational behavior components
that played a significant role in the
Challenger space shuttle tragedy.
 Image of the Challenger
Space Shuttle crash of 1986.

Where did the communication breakdowns occur in this
tragedy?

What could have been done to have prevented these
communication breakdowns and the ultimate explosion?

How did formal roles and reliance on the chain of
command influence the events?

Are the communication problems that led up to the
launch decisions inevitable in complex, hierarchical
organizations?

What role did structural design play in this event?
Where did the communication breakdowns occur in this
tragedy?
› NASA was unaware of recommendations by MTI (Morton
Thiokol International) advising against the launch.
 Temperatures below 53 degrees were deemed unsafe
(NASA, 1986).
 Constant opposing views on safety by MTI engineers and
upper management further contributed to the breakdowns in
communication.
› They disagreed over the seriousness of the O-ring problem
› They failed to use the same communication style for better
understanding.

 (Winsor, 1988).

Winsor states, “Communication is not just shared
information; it is shared interpretation” (p. 101, 1988).
› Implies that information was received, but there was a
failure by NASA to properly interpret its severity.
› The O-ring failure should not have been as
unexpected as it was.

Management at Marshall appeared to have the
tendency to withhold important information rather than
bringing it forward (NASA, 1986).
› Portrayed Marshall as a part of the system not
interfacing or communicating with the other parts to
produce successful flight missions

What could have been done to have prevented these
communication breakdowns and the ultimate explosion?
› There could have been more coordination between
MTI, Marshall and NASA.
 Integration would have ensured that the overall
goals of each organization were achieved (Anthony,
Gales, & Hodge, 2003).
 Major goal: To have a safe, successful flight mission

The engineers and managers of MTI could have
developed a communication style that Marshall and
NASA would have been able to interpret and
understand.


How did formal roles and reliance on the chain of
command influence the events?
› Three main organizations put pressure on NASA to
launch the Challenger as quickly as possible.
 Military
 Congress
 Media
 (Neuner & Rider, n.d.)
Without the pressure from these organizations, the
Challenger wouldn’t have been rushed to launch.
› May have prevented overlooking technical problems
with the shuttle

Morton Thiokol International (MTI)
› Contractor responsible for solid rocket boosters
 (Winsor, p. 101).

Between MTI engineers, management in NASA, and
Marshall Space Center, news moved slowly.
› “News moved slowly among the organizations
because they were in a hierarchical relationship, with
MTI dependent on Marshall for the contract and
Marshall dependent on NASA for funds and career
opportunities” (Winsor, p. 101).

Are the communication problems that led up to the
launch decisions inevitable in complex, hierarchical
organizations?
› Miscommunication is inevitable to some extent when
dealing with different corporate roles, agendas and
personalities.
› Because there are so many levels, communication is
especially vital.
› Unfortunately, in this situation, it was a matter of life
and death.

Differences in corporate roles lead to greater difficulty in
communicating (Winsor, p. 101).
› Concerns and values often differ
› Levels of experience are broad

Lower-level employees are more likely to pass bad news
upward than middle- high level management. Why?
› In this situation, politics were involved at the higher
level.
› Pressure to succeed grows stronger as you go up the
hierarchical ladder.


What role did structural design play in this event?
› The structural design of NASA was lacking..
 Adequate planning and control systems
 Adequate procedures and policies for safe practices
 Structure for centralized decision-making
 Decisions were being made at all levels of
employment
 The military, Congress, and the media swayed the
decision to launch, thus straying further away from
centralized decision-making
With as big of an organization as NASA, decision-making
should be centralized.

Failure to communicate effectively allowed warnings to
be dismissed on the part of MTI, Marshall and NASA.

Communication breakdowns resulted from opposing
perspectives and mismatched communication styles.

Hierarchical pressure was evident and the decision to
launch was influenced by this pressure.

Structural design impacted the ability to effectively
communicate.

It seems that MTI and Marshall both did not want to
acknowledge safety standards were not all up to par
because of hierarchical pressure to launch on time.

“Even when MTI engineers came to believe that a
problem existed, they had a difficult time convincing
management” of the severity, as well as Marshall, which
both shared the same opposing perspective (Winsor, p.
106).

Although the Challenger crash was the result of various
technical problems, the ultimate cause of the crash was
the communication breakdown.

Anthony, W. P., Gales, L. M., & Hodge, B. J. (2003). Organization
Theory: A Strategic Approach (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Education, Inc.

NASA. (1986, February 3). Report of the Presidential Commission on
the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident. Retrieved August 24,
2010, from:
http://science.ksc.nasa.gov/shuttle/missions/51-l/docs/rogerscommission/table-of-contents.html

Neuner, K., & Rider, J. (n.d.). The Challenger Disaster. Retrieved on
August 24, 2010, from:
http://studenthome.nku.edu/~riderj/challenger%20report.pdf

Winsor, D. A. (1988). Communication Failures in the Challenger
Accident. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication,
vol. 31, no. 3. 101-107. doi: 0361-1434.1988.0900.0101.
Retrieved August 24, 2010, from:
http://people.emich.edu/jsteichma/winsor_challenger.pdf

Cover Image
http://www.starstryder.com/2008/01/28/remembering-the-rolemodels-on-the-challenger/

Seven Astronauts Image
http://www.webbooks.com/eLibrary/ON/B0/B58/070
MB58.html

Challenger Explosion Imagehttp://www.popularmechanics.com/science/space/nasa/

Astronaut in Air Imagehttp://www.allbestwallpapers.com/space-nasa_
_space_shuttle_challenger_astronaut_mccandles_wallpapers.ht
ml