Challenger Disaster

In: Business and Management

Submitted By fuaadh32
Words 1164
Pages 5
Ques:1 Vision and mission statements provide information about the organization? What are they? How should they be developed and used?
Ans: The term “strategic planning” is defined as process of an organization that clearly defines its strategy, or direction and making decisions on allocating its resources for proper planning. These two statements Mission statement and Vision statement clearly and concisely convey the direction of the organization. The Mission statement identifies a starting point or current state of business, but a Vision statement is necessary to determine what direction should be pursued. These help to communicate intentions and motivate team or organization to have a successful and common vision of the future.
Mission statement: its development and use:-
It defines the purpose of the organization and their primary objectives. The main functional point is internal and there is an involvement of leadership team and stakeholders. A perfect mission statement should determine why organization exists and what will achieve in future. Every organization has its own unique Mission statement. It should be easy to understand and should be simple so that every new employee could use it frequently. Generally mission statement of organization answer keys questions: * Purpose of the organization * Business of the organization * The value of organization
Vision statement: its development and use:-
It also defines the purpose of an organization but at the same time, organization’s values are considered more rather than bottom line measures. It communicates both purpose and values of the organization. It determine path because it shows what the organization need to do, to become successful in the future. It describes what they are planning to reach success in the future.
Vision and mission statement useful in maintain relationship to customer…...

Similar Documents

Space Shuttle Challenger

...Space Shuttle Challenger Case I have read and studied the Space Shutter Challenger Case thoroughly and I believe that the most important failure of the case study was due to many factors which include personality, communication and motivation among the members of the group. In terms of personality, I believe the part of the failure was due to the mix of strong and weak personalities among the group. The stronger personalities which included Mason and Wiggins used direct pressure to influence Lund in to agreeing with their decision. Mason told Lund to take off his engineering hat and to put on his management hat. I believe that Mason and Wiggins used their strong and domineering personalities to influence Lund. This is a contributing factor to the failure of the space shuttle launch. Another aspect of the failure of the case is due to the poor communication between the Thiokol engineers and management. The Thiokol engineers had expressed their concerns to management about the reliability of the O-Rings being used on the space shuttles but a review committee concluded that they were safe to use and if a problem did arise there were secondary O-rings in place. In the flights leading up to the challengers departure, there was evidence that there were serious problems with the O-rings. On the eve of the launch, the weather forecast was unusually cold for Florida weather, with temperatures in the low twenty’s. Thiokol expressed concern that the O-rings would not work properly...

Words: 662 - Pages: 3

Challenger

...I have never taken much interest in the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) and their efforts until recently, and it was because of this curiosity that I came across a very well known disaster. The United States has always taken pleasure in its space exploration program and has been very successful in their efforts of getting man to the Moon and back. But, on January 28th, 1986 the space shuttle Challenger exploded only seventy-three seconds after take off from Cape Canaveral. Six astronauts and a school teacher fell to their death into the Atlantic Ocean. There were many ethical issues that were faced with this launch, but the one that I will refer to for this case study was the fact that NASA’s leadership failed because they did not consider the safety of these individuals, but merely were concerned about getting the Challenger off the ground and making “history.” The politics and managerial decisions that were involved outweighed the importance of human safety to them The Challenger spent 3 nights on the launch pad, and an O-ring on one of the solid rocket boosters had become brittle within these 3 nights of cool temperatures. The engineers were concerned that the cold temperatures on the launch pad were below the design threshold for the O-rings and a teleconference took place the night before the launch. The engineers had little time to put together a presentation and upper management felt pressured by numerous reasons. One large pressure......

Words: 596 - Pages: 3

Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster Case Study Memo

...Re: Case Study Memorandum Subject: Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: Disloyal Employee or Courageous Whistle-Blower? Facts: The focus of this case study is on Roger Boisjoly's attempt to avert the launch of the Challenger and his act of employee loyalty to set the record straight despite the negative outcome. Boisjoly was employed with Morton Thiokol Inc. as an engineer and an expert in rockets. During an examination of the Challenger (STS 61-C), Biosjoly and the Seal Erosion Task Force discovered a problem with the hot-gas blowby or ignited fuel which came from joint leaks and the O-ring convincing the team that it was not safe to launch until the problem was fixed. Boisjoly notified his boss in writing of what was found. Despite what Boisjoly informed his boss, NASA went ahead and did the launch. Predictions came true when a catastrophic explosion resulted from the failed O-ring seals and the Challenger and the crew was lost. President Reagan appointed a commission to look into the devastation and found that the interviews given by senior management of Morton Thiokol and Boisjoly and a fellow engineer contradicted eachother which lead Boisjoly to believe that senior management was trying to cover up what had happened. Boisjoly and his fellow coworker were reprimanded for telling the truth about what really happened. Eventually, Boisjoly resigned from his position due to psychological strain and a hostile working environment. Ethical......

Words: 521 - Pages: 3

Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster Case Study Memo

...Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster Case Study Memo Re: Case Study Memorandum Subject: Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: Disloyal Employee or Courageous Whistle-Blower? Facts: The focus of this case study is on Roger Boisjoly's attempt to avert the launch of the Challenger and his act of employee loyalty to set the record straight despite the negative outcome. Boisjoly was employed with Morton Thiokol Inc. as an engineer and an expert in rockets. During an examination of the Challenger (STS 61-C), Biosjoly and the Seal Erosion Task Force discovered a problem with the hot-gas blowby or ignited fuel which came from joint leaks and the O-ring convincing the team that it was not safe to launch until the problem was fixed. Boisjoly notified his boss in writing of what was found. Despite what Boisjoly informed his boss, NASA went ahead and did the launch. Predictions came true when a catastrophic explosion resulted from the failed O-ring seals and the Challenger and the crew was lost. President Reagan appointed a commission to look into the devastation and found that the interviews given by senior management of Morton Thiokol and Boisjoly and a fellow engineer contradicted eachother which lead Boisjoly to believe that senior management was trying to cover up what had happened. Boisjoly and his fellow coworker were reprimanded for telling the truth about what really happened. Eventually, Boisjoly resigned from his position due to......

Words: 314 - Pages: 2

Challenger Case Study

...Q1. How would you characterize the broader context surrounding the January 1986 teleconference? What impact might that have on the group’s decision making process? The Challenger Launch decision on January 28th 1986, proved to be one of the crucial decisions ever made as it lead to one of space science's most talked about disasters. The Challenger launch project was faced by a major financial constraint owing to the ongoing Vietnam War. Thiokol won the contract to build the SRBs since they asked for a lower emolument that their competitors and also provided an innovative modular design for the SRBs that would ease the transportation. There were many reasons NASA was pressured to launch, one being the need to launch the 51L space shutter without any delays so the launch pad could be restored in time for the next mission. Also, any delay in the mission would only result in negative publicity through the media. Under such pressurised circumstances, NASA and Thiokol could not look in the right direction and lacked consensus. So, communication breakdown was perhaps the major contributor in the decision making process here. It is evident that Thiokol was not prepared for the Teleconference since it did not have all the necessary statistical inputs required to arrive at a conclusion. This lead to an internal communication failure within Thiokol. The primary factor for such a communication failure was the lack of structured data and no proper way of seeking the data. Apart from......

Words: 1338 - Pages: 6

The Challenger Report

... 8 Conclusion………………………………………………. 9 Bibliography…………………………………………….. 10 Executive Summary This Report attempts to unfold the management flaws and terrible decision making that marked the morning of the 28th of January 1986 as a terribly tragic disaster. What it sadder is that this disaster was mainly due to inhumane practices conducted by the NASA and the management bodies of companies associated with this project than natural reasons. The whistleblowing led to the loss of billions of dollars and more importantly loss of 7 innocent lives. The space shuttle was propelled by the two attached Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) and an external fuel tank. The SRBs were joined to the External Tank. aOnce the SRBs ignited, hot gases heated the rubber O rings and they eroded to seal the joints. SRB joint design had a serious flaw in it and the engineers knew it meant a catastrophe and yet they passed the design for flight. The O rings worked only down to a temperature limit of 12 ̊ C, but the morning of the launch saw temperatures as low as -1 ̊ C which was much lower than the prescribed limit. Many engineers voiced to postpone the launch and wait for the weather to be stable but the management turned down these arguments and the challenger was cleared to launch at 11:38 A.M. As the shuttle took off, the right SRB emitted puffs of smoke which meant that a gap was punched into the SRB and hot gases were escaping it. The O ring was supposed to seal the gap off but it was frozen so it......

Words: 2491 - Pages: 10

The Challenger Disaster

...The Challenger Disaster: And My Interpretation of the Ethical Flaws The Challenger disaster was not only a disaster in terms of the destruction of the spacecraft and the death of its crew but also in terms of the decision-making process that led to the launch of the investigation into the "causes" of the disaster. The decision to recommend for launch was made by lower-level management officials over the objections of technical experts who opposed the launch under the environmental conditions that existed on the launch pad at the time. Furthermore, the lower-level managers who made this decision both NASA and contractor personnel, chose not to report the objections of the technical experts in their recommendations to higher levels in the management chain- of-command to proceed with the launch. Finally, it seems that the lower-level managers had also received out-of-the-ordinary pressure from higher levels of management to proceed with the launch on time. The investigation began with an effort to determine the technical causes of the explosion of the Challenger. Initially, the decision-making process leading to the launch was not considered by investigators. This suggests that the initial purpose of the investigation was not concerned with ethical issues or issues of responsibility. As the investigation proceeded information appeared that suggested that NASA had been aware of the risk of explosion under the environmental conditions that existed for the......

Words: 1074 - Pages: 5

Challenger Disaster

...Challenger case study analysis Facts 1. Space shuttle challenger disaster leads to the death of its crew members 7. 2. NASA’S organizational culture and decision making process is a key contributing factor of the accident. 3. NASA managers had known contractor Morton Thiokol’s design of the SRB contained a potentially catastrophic flaw in the o-rings since 1977. 4. NASA disregarded warnings from engineers about the dangers of launching posted by the low temperature of that morning. 5. The ROGER”S commission offered NASA 9 recommendations that were to be implemented before shuttle flight resumed. 6. The o-rings had no test data to support any expectation of successful launch in such conditions. 7. Challenger was originally set to launch from Kennedy space center in Florida at 2:42 EST Jan 22. 8. Launch was delayed 1st to Jan 23 then 2nd to Jan 24, 3rd to Jan 25 due the bad weather at the TAL site in Senegal. NASA decided to use Casablanca as TAL site but it wasn’t equipped for night landings so they had to move it to the morning to Florida. 4th to Jan 27 9:37 as of unaccepted weather at Kennedy space center and5th to Jan 28 as by problems with the exterior access hatch. 9. Delayed 5 times shows lack of good decision making and management of NASA’s managers. 10. Morton Thiokol is the contractor responsible for the construction and maintenance of the shuttle’s SRBs. 11. Rockwell international is the shuttle’s prime contractor. ...

Words: 1586 - Pages: 7

Challenger Catastrophy

...The Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster was a preventable disaster that NASA tried to cover up by calling it a mysterious accident. However, two men had the courage to bring the real true story to the eyes of the public and it is to Richard Cook and Roger Boisjoly to whom we are thankful. Many lessons can be learned from this disaster to help prevent further disasters and to improve on organizations ethics. One of the many key topics behind the Challenger disaster is the organizational culture. One of the aspects of an organizational culture is the observable culture of an organization that is what one sees and hears when walking around an organization. There are four parts to the observable culture, stories, heroes, rites and rituals and symbols. The first one is stories, which is tales told among an organization’s members. In the Challenger Space Shuttle incident there were mainly four organizations thrown together to form one, Morton Thiokol, Marshall Space Flight Center, Johnson Space Center and NASA Headquarters. All of these organizations had the same type of stories to be told. At Morton Thiokol, they talked about their product and their big deal, which they received from NASA. At NASA, it’s members retold stories of the previous space missions and being the first people to have landed on the moon. Second are their heroes. At Morton Thiokol, their heroes might have been the founders of the organization or it’s top executives like Charles Locke or Jerry Mason. At NASA,......

Words: 2909 - Pages: 12

Challenger Disater

...The Challenger disaster could have easily been avoided. STS-51L (Challenger's last mission) was originally scheduled to launch on January 22. However a vast ammount of delays and aborts pushed thelaunch to the 28th. The morning on the 28th had been particularly cold, with temperatures close to 31 degrees Fahrenheit, the minimum temperature allowed for launch. The low temperature brought up concerns from engineers at Morton Thiokol, the manufacturers of the Space Shuttle's Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs). They were concerned about the effects of the cold weather on the space shuttle'srubber O-rings, which prevent hot gases from escaping the joints in the shuttle's SRBs. On previous shuttle missions, cold weather had caused the O-rings to fail, allowing hot gases to escape. Thoughthis very dangerous problem had occured multiple times before, NASA and Thiokol management believed that because all of the past shuttle missions had been successful, the cold temperatures and athis very dangerous problem had occured multiple times before, NASA and Thiokol management believed that because all of the past shuttle missions had been successful, the cold temperatures and athat had already taken place, NASA did not want to delay the mission any longer. Not only were Thiokol engineers worried about the cold temperatures, but Rockwell International (The manufacturers ofthe Space Shuttle orbiters) were also concerned. When they saw the large amount of ice formed on the shuttle launch pad, they......

Words: 533 - Pages: 3

Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster Case Study Memo

...Re: Case Study Memorandum Subject: Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: Disloyal Employee or Courageous Whistle-Blower? Facts: The focus of this case study is on Roger Boisjoly's attempt to avert the launch of the Challenger and his act of employee loyalty to set the record straight despite the negative outcome. Boisjoly was employed with Morton Thiokol Inc. as an engineer and an expert in rockets. During an examination of the Challenger (STS 61-C), Biosjoly and the Seal Erosion Task Force discovered a problem with the hot-gas blowby or ignited fuel which came from joint leaks and the O-ring convincing the team that it was not safe to launch until the problem was fixed. Boisjoly notified his boss in writing of what was found. Despite what Boisjoly informed his boss, NASA went ahead and did the launch. Predictions came true when a catastrophic explosion resulted from the failed O-ring seals and the Challenger and the crew was lost. President Reagan appointed a commission to look into the devastation and found that the interviews given by senior management of Morton Thiokol and Boisjoly and a fellow engineer contradicted eachother which lead Boisjoly to believe that senior management was trying to cover up what had happened. Boisjoly and his fellow coworker were reprimanded for telling the truth about what really happened. Eventually, Boisjoly resigned from his position due to psychological strain and a hostile working environment. Ethical......

Words: 324 - Pages: 2

Challenger Disaster

...when assessing the erosion and blow by incidents, they likely would have come to a different conclusion when they decided to launch the Challenger shuttle. 10. Which risks should be elevated? To whom should they be elevated? Who should have the final say in the response mechanism for a risk? All risks should be elevated to whatever level of responsibility are related to the task or component the risk is assigned to. For example, lower level risks should be assigned to lower level management and the critical risks, as described in exhibit V, should be the responsibility of the program manager and the NASA administrator. It's also important to note that for the risks involved in space travel, the astronauts on the flight should also be aware of the assumed risks that are taking place during the development of the space shuttle. One of the issues that NASA faced during the space shuttle development is that risks weren’t assigned to a specific level of authority. No one person had the responsibility for saying yes or no to a specific risk, rather it was done in a “group think” environment. 11. What response mechanism was used when waivers were used? What about when they ignored the engineer’s recommendation? In order to reduce paperwork, NASA utilized a waiver system. This system was in place decades before the Challenger disaster. It allowed project managers and contract administrators the authority to bypass standard protocol in order to save time.......

Words: 1112 - Pages: 5

The Challenger Project

...Final Paper: The Challenger Project Christopher A. Pantoya PJM 520: Project Leadership and Communication Dr. Paul Sam March 30, 2014 Abstract The purpose of this paper is to examine the space shuttle Challenger from a project management perspective. The project team, controls, metrics, and the overall process will be evaluated. An emphasis will be placed upon the communications project leaders had with personnel responsible for critical deliverables in order to identify risks that were overlooked, which could have contributed to the catastrophic outcome. The Challenger Project The space shuttle Challenger is among the most studied events in U.S. history, especially from quality assurance and project management perspectives. At the time, NASA had recently successfully completed a series of significant accomplishments and seemed on the verge of achieving even more. However, program managers began to let small details escape scrutiny or ignored them altogether in order to meet established timelines, which eventually led to the catastrophic shuttle launch. Thus, numerous processes have been developed in order to prevent repeating the tragedy. In fact, many facets of project management can be attributed to the Challenger shuttle launch project failure. Specifically, the project’s leadership needs to be assessed in order to categorize some of the indicators, which were identifying risks that were overlooked. The plans execution from......

Words: 3237 - Pages: 13

The Columbia Disaster

...English 101: College Composition 14 May 2015 The Columbia STS-107 Disaster: Why Did It Happen and Why Wasn’t It Prevented? At 9 a.m. on February 1st 2003 NASA’s (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) Space Shuttle, Columbia STS-107 disintegrated over the southern United States upon re-entry. There was some controversy surrounded this disaster, mainly how the Mission Management Team (MMT) (leader, Linda Ham handled the entire situation. Could this disaster been prevented? NASA could have prevented the issue with all the new age technology that they posses. How are teams like Debris Assessment Team (DAT) and MMT prepared now to take action against problems that arise in the future? This disaster should not have occurred but it did, why did it? Who is responsible? Will it happen again? If more time was spend of trying to rectify the issue before it got out of hand, maybe the crew of the Columbia would have landed safely as it was supposed to. The space shuttle Columbia STS-107 launched on January 16, 2003 from Kennedy Space Center. During the launch a briefcase-size chunk of foam insulation fell away from a bi-pod ramp on the ships external tank 81.7 seconds after liftoff (Harwood). The foam chunk with velocity smashed a hole in one of the protective shields panels that make up the left wing leading edge. Photos and video shows this happening very clearly. What you cannot see is where the foam actually hit. The only thing that is visible is when the foam......

Words: 1942 - Pages: 8

Challenger

...October 14, 2015 OSCM 3322 Midterm Challenger Disaster On the morning launch of the challenger on January 28th, 1986, at approximately 9:41am an unexpected event happened. The shuttle, within 75 seconds of taking off, exploded in the air. Citizens and NASA staff were shocked and confused as to what they had just seen, but there was a small group knew this type of problem could occur. They had little evidence but still chose to launch that day, now worrying about the events that will transpire thereon. Many questions as to why the shuttle had exploded arose such as, “What caused it to malfunction?” “Was there any known facts before the incident?” And if so, “why was there no action taken?” Unfortunately, some of these questions were addressed and brought to a few personnel in top management positions such as managers, vice presidents, supervisors, and engineers. One of the main issues was the failure to communicate the problem of the O-rings in a timely manner. The fact that they waited until the night before the launch to discuss the problems that the seals were causing, was an obvious point leading us to believe that the organization of communication within the chain of command was faulty. Another issue was that Larry Mulloy saw the data that Roger Boisjoly and Arnold Thompson provided, lacked details to support their theories. In all retrospect, they were the ones who had done the research and work that lead them to their conclusions. It was obvious that they knew...

Words: 806 - Pages: 4