External Factors that Affected NASA Operations - Case Study Example

Task CASE ANALYSIS REPORT Question History of NASA NASA was a body that was formed by United s government in the periods of 1958. The body was mandated to undertake space exploration and was merely an attempt to counter Russian Sputnik. It developed the shuttle program and was massively funded by the Congress so that it could become a world leader in space activities. However, in attempts to launch its program, it experiences massive challenges that led to repeated postmen of the launching dates that caused delays in its objectives and vision of the government. External factors that affected NASA operations and impacts on decision-making External environment is outside sources usually initiated by either contractor, natural causes such as weather, competitors just but to mention a few. They are situations that are merely beyond control of the organization. First, there were technical problems caused by weather conditions and malfunctioning of the parts manufactured by the contractors. At the time of different scheduled launches, there existed poor atmospheres that could not allow spacecrafts to operate. As a result, there was an adjournment at various dates. On the other hand, the parts that were manufactured by Thiokol were an ineffective and an exposed danger to human beings. Thus, there was need to correct them before NASA could operate as a result hindered NASA operations and reduced confidence from the stakeholders. NASA experienced economic shortage in finance due to reduced funding from the Congress. The country was embroiled in war with the Vietnamese, hence had reduced their support to the organization. Thus, they could not work as per their specifications and had to revert to more cost effective ways. This limited their goals and could not make effective decision on their own since there was a control from the government sect. Due to these inefficiencies, it meant that the organization could not achieve its objectives and had to be rational enough if they were to succeed. They had to prolong maturity dates of the project, abandon the most sophisticated space crafts and manufacture according to budget. The management also had to spread work as they did in the three branches to allow for more consultations and smooth workflow. Question 2 Roger Bosjoloy was an expert in the solid rocket booster at the Morton Thiokol. He was charged to oversee an efficient manufacture of the O-ring rocket parts. The unit he led played a significant part in the launch of the challenger however much they experience technical problems. He was however in support of the launch of the challenger regardless of the problems he knew existed. To persuade persons at teleconference, Roger used basic charts and diagram and to draw conclusions from past examples. Having exhausted all the alternatives and failure to find the data to support the O-ring functions, he was rational enough to illustrate by use of past experiences of rockets like F15 to make the final decision. At least he showed he was aware of the problem statement. This convinced the management of the NASA to take the risk with the launch that ended up persuading the whole conference to accept the launch. Roger stood the test by admitting the challenges, informed both the parties so that critical measures could be taken. He initiated an appeal for compensation to those who lost their lives and finally joined lectures in professional ethics. This shows an individual who is concerned and always takes responsibilities pertaining to their actions. These aspects thus should be incorporated from both different levels and corporate standards. However, Roger should not have represented the Morton without facts to support their project. This makes the stakeholders and customers not to trust you since they were only working on presumptions and thus cannot draw accurate conclusion. They were aware of the risks involved, and as a management team from Thiokol, they would have agreed on a single decision before presentations rather everyone with his opinion. This may make the organization to lose its market to competitors and to damage the image of the company due to conviction failure on the part of the management. Furthermore, having experienced difficulties in the room, it was necessary Roger to have his team outside for some time to agree on a common stand instead everyone was left to make his own decision before the group. Question 3 Bob Lund was the vice president of engineering at Thiokol. Under the basement of 53 degrees, the engineer supported the launch. This can also explain by the fact that information flow from top to bottom and if Roger was his team member, he must have been articulating the opinion of the management. At the conference, Bob was supportive to Roger to make and bring out the facts explained in a more clear view. He does so by providing alternative meanings to the ideas presented, stressed on them and was almost available for any misinterpreted information. This helped to convince the audience about the launch despite the challenges involved. Lund was not being realistic and rationally failed. He couldn’t have supported the launch when he knew very well the system had massive errors. As a leader, he should have exhausted other options that would help him make good decision. Bob again would have been tactical enough to request time extensions to carry out more research and provide accurate information that will help to sell the company products rather than forcing something they can’t even explain. Instead of allowing room for your customer to analyze you in a negative way (Goetsch, and Stanley, 2014), develop new plans on how to convince them so that you increase your market value and increase trust in the stakeholders. Lund should have been a critical thinker. He supported the system even without factual evidence but merely to succeed since it was from their company. This caused massive loss of lives and as a company management team he failed. Question 4 Larry Mulloy was the manager at solid rocket booster that was a critical part of the rocket from Kennedy Space Centre. Thus, he was charged to oversee the manufacture of the SRB section. His opinion was against the launch of the rocket due to technicalities involved with the O-ring component. The manager tried to convince the stakeholders by use of key analysis to the system. He analyzed all parts holistically. He brings out all the components of o-ring functions. To do so, he interrogates Roger to provide factual evidence that supports an idea and not merely assumptions. By doing so, the members at the conference can have a good picture or ideas and decide on proper conclusions before the launch of the Challenger. Larry as a manager should be able to sense their existed a problem with the O-ring. Instead of critiquing Roger and the team in all aspects, he should propose other alternatives that could remedy the situations. As a planner, he ought to participate in correction measures. Counter analyzing the component will only bring more problems and mistrust to the company. This lowers the competitive edge of the firm. Problems exist but taking them all at a time is neither their solutions (Goetsch and Stanley, 2014). Thus, he should concentrate on one at a time. Group decision making usually generate good ideas and a collective responsibility but at times one must stand for their own. Such was the case when Larry and the core decided to follow other person’s opinions on launching the system. He should have stand by his word as he analyses the O-ring but instead went ahead to support the launch when he clearly observes the device wasn’t safe. Question 5 NASA had distributed the manufacture of the rocket to three major areas. However, they had poor planning on how to coordinate the three departments to be at the same level. This was the case by what during the launch; Morton had not finished its part and was merely basing its work on assumptions of other planes such as F15 to draw conclusions to the operations of the o-ring. Thus at the launch, there was diverse opinions since the management was of different observations concerning the launch of the rocket. This was as a result of high risk that did not warranty operations. NASA thus had no common consensus concerning the launch that almost rendered its operations ineffective despite the funds and time they have an investment in the program. NASA formed various units and to ensure that they remain in their objectives and vision, they should coordinate all the departments by monitoring their outcomes at each level so that any delays that might arise are easily noted. This will help the organizations strategy to remain in place, and all the stakeholders and customers are satisfied. Work cited Goetsch, David L., and Stanley B. Davis. Quality management for organizational excellence. pearson, 2014. Read More