Challenger Case Answers

PSYC 342 – CHALLENGER CASE

Dynamics of the process and how it unfolds

* Both NASA and Thiokol’s managers had little regard to the concerns of Thiokol’s engineers because of not having reliable data.

* Managers gave excessive priority to operational goals while ignoring safety concerns.

* Role ambiguity- Management versus Engineer identities had clashed with each other in decision making process. As managers, they did not want to damage the reputation.

* They both needed to gain political and economic support which later will put pressure both on NASA and Thiokol.

* Confirmation bias and selective perception – MT only focuses on the data with incidents occurred ignoring the data with no incident.

* Internal problems - Lack in cooperation between NASA and MT led MT not to get enough data.

* Government puts pressure on NASA regarding the launch and NASA puts pressure on MT leading MT to be the scapegoat.

* Data presented did not conclusively support a correlation between low temperature and O-Ring erosion hence NASA increased their pressure on the launch against Thiokol’s recommendation.

* There was a power imbalance which created a tension on MT and the group itself to launch rather than delaying.

* Since they understood that there was not enough data to convince NASA against launching, they relied on observed past data and made predictions regarding the past data.

* “Getting worried versus getting used to it.” - NASA officials got used to O-Ring explosion rather than getting worried about it.

* MT’s focus on less tangible data such as color led NASA to refute or ignore MT’s recommendations.

* Joe Kilminster underestimates the scope of the problem and makes it seem less problematic.

* Engineers in NASA over trusted the booster system where problem occurred.

* Ambiguity of the problem

* Both parties (NASA and Thiokol) attempted to suppress each other rather than collectively arriving at the best...