The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disasters - Research Paper Example

The investigators were able to figure out the technical causes of the disaster, which called for several suggested changes that NASA needed to employ (Ryan, 2012). After the Challenger disaster, NASA implemented several changes in accordance with the recommendations made by the Commission that investigated and reported on the disaster. NASA embarked on creating a solid Rocket motor design in collaboration with other bodies that included the Marshall Space Flight Center (MSFC) and Solid Rocket Motor (SSRM).

The involved parties scrutinized several designs for tests and analysis in order to come up with the best new design that minimizes on the utilization of existing hardware (Ryan, 2012). NASA and the group were to implement tests and virtual launch before the real launch. NASA also changed its space shuttle management organization and its relations with its field centers and the headquarters. This eased the communication hurdles ensuring a clear sending and reception of information at all levels.

This also included the implementation of efficient management and flight readiness review that entailed including documentation for the entire flight crew. The aftermath of the Columbia disaster showed that several aspects of recommended changes to NASA after the Challenger disaster were not implemented. . The structure had also retained numerous locations hindering efficient decision-making process by the stakeholders. The realization of efficient management and flight readiness review that entailed including documentation for the entire flight crew was also not followed accordingly.

The report indicated that the flight program managers did not consider all the opinions from relevant sources. Instead, they established huge barriers by using their knowledge and experience in contrast to the real solid data regarding the flight. This compromised the readiness review because to the managements lack of flexibility and adoption of the real data. Actions for sustaining change may have contributed to the changes being sustained because they have the capacity to embed the changes made.

Redesigning of roles shows changes made are paramount to the organization. A modification of roles may also indicate long-term success of the changes made. Redesigning of the reward systems entails changing the organizations culture. Consequently, modifying its culture has a direct impact on the core values in place at the organization. This also influences the mode through which operations are carried out. Linking selection decisions to change objectives is an action whose selection criteria are signs of whether fresh initiatives and change are being encouraged.

These actions ensure that changes are sustained. Measuring the progress of the implemented changes quantifies the progress made on the changes (Ryan, 2012). Measuring progress entails measuring the results and measuring the advancement of the implemented changes in an organization. A measure of results indicates the actual achievement of the objectives while the measure of