The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disasters - Case Study Example

All these changes are clearly directed towards strengthening the internal control of the organization in order to trace down the factors that can pose risk to shuttles. The establishment of a specialized group for review of the design of the shuttles and the evaluation of the critical items was a clear attempt towards increasing the safety and quality of the shuttles and to avoid any further disasters from happening. Aspects of NASA Practice after Columbia Disaster In 2003, another disaster was faced by NASA when shuttle Columbia broke up.

It was found out that the cause of the disaster was a 1.67-pound slab of insulating foam that fell off the external fuel tank, hit the left wing and caused a breach in the tiles. Another cause that was disclosed was lack of proper funding. There was a policy called “Faster, Better, Cheaper” emphasized by the NASA Administrator that impacted the shuttle program. There were a number of management reforms done after the Challenger disaster but despite of the changes, the Columbia disaster took place.

It was observed that the changes done were merely for creation of specialized groups in order to increase safety but the organizational culture of NASA remained the same. Even after the Challenger disaster, deviations from expected performance were ignored. There was lack of testing in order to determine safety and reliability and reliance of past practices was placed in place of conducting comprehensive testing. Different Factors and their Contribution to Sustaining Change It has been observed that NASA recommended and implemented the change after the Challenger disaster but the agency could not sustain the change.

The organizational culture reverted back restraining the change and the bringing the agency back to the manner it was operating before the disaster. After the Challenger disaster, there were a number of reforms done by the agency and there were a number of policies and procedures set up to ensure safety and quality of the shuttles. However, with the passage of time, these policies and procedures were ignored and reliance was placed on the past successes of NASA. Therefore, it can be said that sustaining a change may be challenging.

Thus, in order to sustain a change, other factors may be used. Such factors include; redesigning the roles of the employees of the organization, introduction of reward policies and linking of selection decision to change objectives. Such policies would help in increasing the motivation of the employees who would work more efficiently as a result. It has been observed that there is a hierarchical structure at NASA and the employees at lower levels remain silent due to lack of authority. Even if there is a critical issue, it is not communicated to higher levels on a timely basis.

Thus, redefining their roles and introduction of rewards and whistle blowing policies can help NASA sustain the changes implemented. Similarly, measuring the progress can also help in sustaining a chang