Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Too often, important issues are overlooked because people fail to realize that there are deeper concerns that are not being considered. When managers address problems, they have to frame them the right way, so anyone they communicate with sees the value of what they are trying to say and the goals they are attempting to reach (Bazerman & Moore, 2008). This was something that can and should have been done with the Challenger disaster, but that was not done. A significant number of lives were lost because of that, and that could have really been avoided with proper communication and framing techniques on the part of both NASA and the engineers at Morton-Thiokol. What happened with the shuttle that day was tragic, and many argued that it was unavoidable.
However, it was actually an avoidable issue that appeared to be brought on simply by improperly framed communication. Framing has to be accurate and correct in order for the person receiving the communication to understand...
Doing that will allow everyone who is working with one another to not only talk things through, but to see the other person's side of the issue in the right way (Bazerman & Moore, 2008). Contextual issues are among the most important issues that can be addressed, especially when the problem is very serious and lives are at stake (Bazerman & Moore, 2008). Therefore, the proper framing of information provided from one person to another has to be offered in the correct context. That allows it to be experienced the way the person providing the experience is offering it, and keeps everyone "on the same page" as far as what can and should be done in any given situation.
References
Bazerman, M.H. & Moore, D.A. (2008). Judgment in managerial decision making. NY: Wiley.
Pinkus, R.L. (1997). Engineering ethics: Balancing cost, schedule, and risk. NY: Cambridge University Press.
Space Shuttle Challenger disaster took place on January 28, 1986 as the Space Shuttle Challenger blew up into pieces just 73 seconds after its launch. The destruction blew the shuttle into flames and dust causing the death of all seven crew members. Even though the crash was a sad moment in the history of NASA and United States Space programs, it is still being studied merely to figure out
There was one thing or the other to delay the launch of the Challenger, until the D-Day, when the shuttle was launched at 11:38 AM as against the scheduled take off time of 9:38 AM on January 28. About seventy three seconds into the mission, the Challenger exploded in mid air, and all the seven crew members were killed instantaneously. For the hundreds of people, the family and friends
Space Shuttle Columbia Disaster: What Happened and Lessons The Space Shuttle Columbia (Columbia) disaster occurred on the 1st of February, 2003. On its return journey from space following its 28th mission, Columbia disintegrated after re-entering the earth's atmosphere, killing the entire crew.[footnoteRef:1] Whereas technical failures were responsible for the disasters, investigations have extensively faulted deficiencies in NASA's organisational culture, especially in terms of organisational structure, communication, and decision making processes.[footnoteRef:2],[footnoteRef:3] This
Space exploration he Space Shuttle Columbia disintegrated Texas 2003 return Earth. The Challenger exploded shortly launch 1986. An Apollo 1 spacecraft imploded fire launch pad 1967. In case, lives crew members lost. The hugely complex shuttle a bit airplane What are the pros and cons of manned space exploration from an ethical perspective? Should the U.S. spend billions of dollars to return an astronaut to the moon? During the Cold War, manned
2003, Space Shuttle Columbia destroyed lives crew lost. Within 2 hours loss signal Columbia, A thorough analysis of the interventions posited by the Columbia Accident Investigation Board (CAIB) following the 2003 Space Shuttle Challenger disaster provides a large amount of insight into what went wrong that fateful February day, as well as how to fix it. These interventions can be stratified into four different categories, those involving techno/structural changes, human
The report identifies NASA as "working with an unrealistic set of flights" (Cases Study. N.D.); timelines "which were retained and increased pressure to meet schedules by senior NASA managers" (Case Study. N.D.). The Challenger disaster was marked by the reality that "NASA had found evidence that O-rings had allowed hot exhaust to burn through a primary seal. Since 1982 the O-rings had been designated a "Criticality 1" issue. Indeed, a