Case Study
Managing Organizational Change *ƒ²*ƒ”€š Challenger
Case Study
Managing Organizational Change *ƒ²*ƒ”€š Challenger
A review of the external and internal threats will help determine the weakness of the
problem analysis related to the launching of space shuttle Challenger. At the time of the
accident, the country was experiencing an economic slowdown. Considering the economic
climate, Congress wanted to know if the American people still support the huge
requirements of the program. The government ruled out increase in taxes being an election
year. Simultaneous to the congressional investigation was a launch of space shuttle
Challenger. The National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) wanted a
successful launch. A no-launch situation might convince Congress to slash the program
budget. Furthermore, Americans were anticipating the first female astronaut-teacher
crewmember. Internally, NASA undertook cost-cutting measures and approved the use of
materials approved by sister industries. At the time of the launch, engineers expressed
concern over two factors: a) The o-ring which is not designed to operate at the existing
temperature of -32 degrees Fahrenheit; b) There was a question on the stability and
predictability of engine propulsion.
Given the above problem considerations, NASA formulated two alternative decisions:
launch now or wait for better weather conditions.
NASA was faced with decision traps, the framing trap and the confirming evidence trap
(Langlois, H, 2007). Unfortunately, it was not able to identify and cope with them. NASA
management argued a successful launch would guarantee congressional budget approval
(framing trap). There was a presumption the launch will be successful, as previous
launches before. This line of thinking blocked the consideration of safety factors. It only
considered the external threats. In this case, the reframing trap would have been resolved if
the framing option considered the internal technical weaknesses related to the planned
launch. Other possible outcomes could have surfaced with the reframing of the problem.
At this point, it is not important if ultimate problem was one of the possible outcomes.
What is valuable to NASA is that there is free flow of communication among its
employees who are receptive to ideas due to the logic of any proposed outcome.
The group of administrators led by Dr. Loyal downplayed the technical considerations and
believed launch should proceed. It got support from smaller groups involved in the
lobbying efforts *ƒ²*ƒ”€š who naturally would like the launch to proceed as scheduled
(confirming evidence trap). Getting the support was a selfish move since the outcome
would definitely be in Dr. Loyal favor.
