Check out the comments from the awesome students in this class
Organization Communications class today was about the space shuttle Columbia's final mission and the issues that arose within different areas of NASA that led to its distruction. The comments that follow will describe, through words and visuals, perspectives from the following disciplines:
1. People
2. Market
3. Capital
4. Technology
5. Organization
Check them out!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
Today in class I just kept thinking about how NASA seemed to care more about money and procedure then anything else. They seemed to think ’what can we get from the government, or our employees or the American people?’ rather then ‘what can we do for them?’ this out look and culture lead to some major problems in NASA’s community.
Within each engine there were complications that helped lead to the Challenger disaster. The People cared more about themselves. Lack of love in the work place created fear so they couldn't work as a whole. The organization was so thick with red tape that it was nearly impossible to get information to the right people. Marketing didn’t even really exist. NASA wasn’t producing a produced that consumers really needed or wanted. Technology was old and needed to be updated or replaced but because of lack of money improvements were pushed aside. Capital was spending more then they were making and cutting the budgets for safety improvements and developments in order to say on schedule.
I think that in any company if priorities are all about money and unyielding procedures disaster will eventually strike. In order for a company to be truly successful it needs to be built on a mind set of, ‘what can we do for them?’ (the consumers, employees etc.) rather then ‘what can they for us?’
Case Study: NASA: Organizational Analysis
I am currently part of the Organization Team. As a team we have been reviewing the Harvard Case Study on the contributing factors which lead to the Columbia Disaster NASA’s. Today our team analyzed the organizational problems. Here are a few of our observations:
• One of the main issues contributing to NASA’s overall poor organization its culture, a culture that starts with us, the citizens of the United States. We are a culture that has high demands and expectations. We want to see results, while at the same time we want someone else to find ways around the obstacles. If a short cut will equal faster results then we not only support them but expect them. This mind set has lead to an organization where an emphasis on results has lead to the neglection of using resources to properly analyze and reconstructs organizational structure. This unfortunately has minimized production as it has lead to insanely costly set backs and inefficient spending.
• NASA has amazing talent and incredible brains working in its organization but because of its complicated bureaucratic and unclear structure its most valuable resource are not able to contribute their full knowledge and capabilities. Vital information and insights that those at the ground level have are not able to effectively get to upper management where the major decisions are taking place.
http://theworldcanchange.blogspot.com/
I found it rather intriguing analyzing the problems of the Columbia mission while working with the technology group. We discussed the facts that while certainly evident that there were significant technological problems, they were overlooked and not given much importance. It wasn't just in this case, the article discusses several past complications that weren't taken care of either. With that in mind, a lack of awareness and communication each caused this breakdown, a serious technological problem occurred, and 7 innocent lives were lost as a result. Technology needed to be updated and better handled in this situation.
Our poster discusses these matters. We placed a space shuttle colored in retro sixties colors to symbolize the out-of-date technology used, we placed some bugs "beetles" signifying the sixties band, a peace sign in red and inside of the o-ring, we placed an o-ring-broke down in the challenger and a depiction of the weak panels that protected the foam, and we placed a marijuana joint also representing the sixties. The two men with a math problem in the middle represent the lack of problem acknowledgement, they are facing outwards with their backs to the problem, and below that is a stone wall representing the "stand still" and lack of communication pertaining to the matters. The money represents the significant costs involved.
Justin Pitcher
Hey everyone, come visit my blog
http://jpitcherblog.blogspot.com
We are in the technology group
Today was fun! Besides the fact that I got pastel all over my hands and arms, I really learned a lot. I was in a group with some great thinkers, and I think we gained a lot of insight into how people processes work at NASA. We decided that their biggest problem was their development of employees. They bring in the brightest minds, but then they don't develop them beyond the job description. Interpersonal skills are especially important: one, because "nerdy" people (I'm totally stereotyping - sorry!) tend to have low relational skills. Two, because the press eats alive people that can't make their point. NASA needs to keep developing their people and cross-training those skills, so that when a crisis does happen, other people are qualified to step in and get the problem solved before another Columbia disaster strikes.
Old dogs can learn new tricks, and for a company to stay on top they have to keep developing their product and their people. In the Columbia case we learn that the management wasn't up-to-date. Sure they were probably the smartest people the nation could offer, but they didn't have the press training, or the interpersonal skills, or the technology know-how to be completely effective. Poor Linda Ham was good, and the NASA should have been continually making her better. A company is only as good as its employees.
Also, people are like peas, and companies are like pods. The company should hold its employees together, give them boundaries, and offer focus. When the pod is "together" it can go wherever it wants to or needs to. Everybody is on the same track. However, once the pod opens, it disrupts that bond. It loses its peas, it loses its strength (which are the employees) and becomes worthless. The shell is nothing without something inside. Likewise, a company is only walls and flooring without people to run it.
Finally, a company is made up of many parts, and they are all needed! I wish I had a cool metaphor here, but I don't. . . my point though, is that we're all connected in the circle of life. (Hey! A metaphor!) We need marketing to get consumer knowledge, we need finance to give us money, we need to communicate, we need technology to survive in today's world, and we need people obviously to run everything. No department can function in isolation. Even the gopher boys should be honored for a job well done!
Besides understanding how we're all connected, I also learned that modern dancing is the best. A close second is ballroom. . .
Visit me at: http://niccisblog.blog.com/
Today we were put in our groups that we chose on Tuesday. In my group, the people. In the discussion we went through a questionnaire on a Practice Management Analysis. In this, from our people perspective, we rated it on the Colombia case study. Furthermore, in our discussion we made a visual on the people perspective which portrayed great employees but no room to expand their thoughts and ideas. Many things were not updated in the company which then made it the way it was. I learned that the in the case study they did not work as a team and were not expanding their thoughts with their fellow employees. The team was scattered like peas out of a pod and wanting "their piece of the pie" therefore being greedy and withholding information. I also learned through others' visuals about the market, technology, organizations, and capital perspective. They demonstrated the actions that took place in the case study. It is unfortunate when NASA may have had quite a few great employees that did not share with one another their knowledge which, therefore, crashed the whole deal and came to a horrible ending. I also learned in class that a company can not just function solo to its full potential. It needs all of its components to work as a whole, and be able to use all the brilliant minds.
www.ablangdon.blogspot.com
Insights for 25 January 2006
1. My first insight isn’t necessarily from something that happened in class today but is something that I have realized as we have worked in this class. One of the reasons that groups or organizations can be difficult to work in is that often people will understand words or directions in different ways. For one example, we had the word “courage” on the board when talking about win-win, lose-lose type situations. Some people in the group defined the word courage in its traditional sense, meaning moral courage. Others defined it as the will to accomplish a task regardless of the consequences. When we had these differing views, it was impossible to come to a conclusion. The same problem exists whenever we work in groups. So, it is important to make sure all people in an organization have the same definition for words and directions.
2. Another important insight I gained is the necessity of having a clear cut mission. This mission should be something that all members of an organization can work for. Also, when people participate in defining an organization’s mission, they are more likely to put their hearts and minds into the group. I don’t feel that NASA’s employees all had a clear cut sense of mission. The overall group probably had some broad goals, but I don’t get the feeling that there was a goal that ran throughout all the company. When there is an ideal or high mission to achieve, people tend to have a new sense of energy. When this happens, the whole organization gains the energy and bonds together.
3. Sharing information will win hearts and minds. We are all products of what others think about us. When good ideas are shared, people can receive positive feedback. When they receive positive feedback from the people in their organization, they will feel a greater desire to work with those people and there will be greater cohesiveness. Eventually this desire to work with people can build to unconditional caring or even compassion. Then, employees will work for the aggregate as much as themselves.
GROUP DRAWING EXPLANATION:
Our group was responsible for evaluating the people at NASA. In the top left, we have individual peas next to a pea pod. We described the people at NASA as peas without a pod- they aren’t unified and they tend to scatter (some even get smashed under the table). In the right middle, you will notice a rhubarb pie with hands eagerly reaching for a piece. This is symbolic of the “get what you can while you can” attitude that seems to be in NASA. In the bottom middle, you will notice a heart with a line drawn through it. This is obvious symbolism; there is no love among the organization. In the top right and bottom corners, you will be drawn to three boxes. All the boxes have carrots dangling in front of them, representing the “carrot-and-stick” motivational technique used in NASA. The different boxes separate each of the individual employees, once again emphasizing the lack of cohesiveness. In the top right box, there is a package of Linda brand thin-sliced water-added ham. This subtle hieroglyphic is representing Linda Ham. The bottom two boxes contain employees with rather large brains and their mouths sewn shut. These employees are smart, but their ideas are shot down, and they are separated by the walls of their boxes.
My wonderful blog is at:
http://byuiorgcomm.blogspot.com
Today in class we discussed how the Columbia case related to the 5 engines of adhocracy. We are all divided into groups and I am part of the “market” group. We talked about the market of NASA and who they market to. It was difficult to really know who NASA markets to. As we discussed we felt like they market the most to the American people. They want to show the people the great things that they have done and try to create in them a desire to see more space travel. We thought that this in turn would provide more funding for the space program. We also talked about how just like in any other company they need to market to there own employees so that they are able to have happy employees. This in turn can give them good PR. After discussing a little bit we filled out a questionnaire that had to do with how well NASA does in their marketing. It was surprising to note that they are not very successful and have almost no marketing. The American people don’t know much about what happens with NASA. We then made a visual to go along with our discussion. We drew a graph that we felt showed how NASA has done marketing itself to Americans. They started off very strong and people knew about them and what they did in the 60’s and 70’s and then they gradually fell off the graph to where no one knows or maybe even cares about them.
Throughout our discussion and after, I kept thinking about how they market themselves to their own employees. With the lack of communication that they had during this time and not being able to communicate with the right people, it would be a very unattractive place to work. It's every man for himself. “I’ll watch out for me and who care about anyone else.” It’s unfortunate to see in such a great organization that is capable of so much that they don’t take the time to help each other out. I wouldn’t want to work somewhere where people to work as a team to get things done. Many minds are much more effective than only one.
http://brentlovesnicole.blogspot.com/
Check out our beautiful art on my blog. O-RING. FOAM. COLD. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? Time and time again the space shuttle had technological problems. NASA's technology personnel was well aware that were problems. However, they didn't speak up enough or have enough gumption to see the problems resolved. Organized communication was hindered by selfishness, pride, and ignorance. Every time NASA made some kind of promise, it was rewarded with more and more money. The lack of money was not the problem. The problem was correctly identifying the problem. The space shuttle lost foam on something like 75% of all flights. Maybe that was a hint or maybe it was just "in house."
Today, within our little organizational group, (talking about the Colombia case) we discussed the problem that occurred and looked at it from an Organizational perspective. In other words we tried to answer the question of how was the organization as a whole and parts contributed to the demise of the shuttle Colombia, R.I.P. See in my opinion majority of problems that occurs in most everyday to corporate level situations are due to a little thing which I like to call miscommunication. According to Webster, the definition of this word is, “failure to communicate clearly.” Well I thought of this definition as, Lite, to use a beer analogy. So I went to dictionary.com and found a definition most satisfactory to my liking, “Lack of clear or adequate communication.” That is exactly what our group thought about the so called “NASA organization” and what happened.
Now I’m a friendly guy and don’t particularly like to think of anybody as not being able to perform in their jobs at least at par level especially at NASA. Let me tell you it’s not easy to get into NASA. When I was in high school the opportunity to go check out what NASA does and everything associated with Astronomical something or another was present. Well they only take to crème de la crème of the kids so that left me out. This was just to go look and play around and stupid kids couldn’t even do that because they only wanted to elite. Anyway my point is NASA doesn’t just take any Joe of the street and have him work for them. So even to minions at the bottom, I think, hold some credibility. Well Big guys at the top didn’t think so. The info was all there but due to the guys who wear the pants in the organization that most vital information never reached the ears of those willing to hear which could have in turn saved some people’s lives.
Now in defense of the tyrants on top they do have, I would believe, the most pressure from the people who are funding this. I was in intro to Journalism for 2 days and the one of three things I learned was you have to please people behind the advertisements because they are the ones who are paying you for what you do. So in NASA’s case they have to please the government or there would be no NASA. So you can’t just take every little bad feeling that anyone who works for NASA has and investigate it thoroughly. That takes too much time and time is money. So they were probably making some executive decisions in foregoing the warnings. The demand of, “go to space and tell me what you see,” from the government was greater then, “warning problems with the o-ring.” So before we jump to judgment on how bad the top people were we have to try and see it from their point of view. And that is what I have to say about that.
http://organizemymouth.blogspot.com/
Well, we have analyzed this case study so much and there have been so many insights already that I’m not sure I have anything profound left to say!
Anyway, Thursday’s class was fun and a challenge. I was in the Marketing group and we had to think pretty creatively to create our poster. In essence, we decided that the NASA organization has not been aware of or concerned with their market: the American people. We drew a graph/timeline of how NASA is viewed in the eyes of Americans beginning in the 1960’s and extending into the present. Basically, America was amazed in the beginning with the moonwalk and even a space station, however, for many contributing factors, NASA has done a poor job of staying connected with it’s public and convincing them of their importance. Few Americans now are aware or interested in our space program’s activities. If they marketed themselves more effectively they might increase their funding which, in turn, would allow them to conduct more productive missions.
Oh yes....my blog is found at www.mysillyscribbles.blogspot.com
In each organization, company, even life itself can go through up and downs, trials and problems. At this time there can be help. Through adequate communication, problems in these institutions can be resolved. Sometimes problems can be resolved by an adhocracy, a system of delegates from a variety of places, and past experience, if worked together those delegates can come up with solutions that can be implemented into the company where it can have a positive affect. This could happen if the right people are on board. Meaning, it is crucial to have the right people for any given job.
In the Harvard Case study, Columbia Last mission it shows that the many sub organization were unwillingly to communicate to the other organization. This caused a serious problem in fact it cost lives, not only the ones that died, but, those ones family that miss and long for them.
NASA wants more funds for many more space missions. If they market themselves to the public, congress, or to the other nations of the world, then NASA and there space missions might able to flourish in the next generation. For it is said, "the children are the future". If they the next generations are interested in the flight program it might cause the space missions and other space programs and discoveries to be rejuvenated into a world wonder.
http://communicationleague.blogspot.com/
Throughout the last two weeks I've been trying to narrow this case down to the biggest problem I feel they had. I think I've finally narrowed it down to two problems.
As part of the "People Group" we talked a lot about communication, job security, training...the entire Human Resource end of things. As a few people have already stated, many of the staff is wanting work individually instead of collectively. Again, this stems back to our cultural traditions. Communication, at this point, in NASA was very poor. Many people weren't respected or showing respect to others. Individually all the employees are very smart but they work on their own. "None of us is as smart as all of us" comes to mind; I think this is definitely a huge part of the problem.
Another major contributor to this, I feel is that funding was cut and NASA did their best to determine what was needed for a launch, but failed. They didn't have near as much technology as they should have to successfully launch and return a mission. I feel funding is a huge problem.
The questions we brainstormed for the other groups are as follows:
Marketing:
1. How will you change NASA's marketing to have greater success in the future?
2. What is your market recovery plan?
Technology:
1. What are the checks and standards that are in place and how will they be enforced?
2. How do you plan to get the equipment needed to successfully carry out a mission but stay in the parameters of your budget?
Capital:
1. How will NASA become less reliant on federal funds?
Organizational:
1. How could you restructure the organizational chart to make locations and reporting systems to become more efficient?
Please visit my awesome blog at:
http://kamillamillamarshmello.blogspot.com/
It was really interesting to look at things from the people perspective. We dealt with issues like communication and company culture (or should I say the lack thereof?). It was also an eye opener to see the others groups present things from their standpoint. It organized the information in a way that made things very easy to comprehend.
I also enjoyed coloring with pastels. First time experience, great fun, power to the people.
Our group didn't have one focused picture, but instead drew several smaller pictures symbolizing the big picture. We had several brainy people in boxes, showing their intelligence yet separation. There were also carrots in front of their boxes, showing that they weren't motivated by heart or soul, but by incentives that seemed to never arrive.
My favorite was Linda Ham, up in a corner, away from everything, in her own box. Very symbolic. :)
Check my blog out at www.benpingel.blogspot.com!
In the past few classes of Intro. to Organizational Comm. I have been on the Organizational Team that has been studying a Harvard Case Study about NASA and "Columbia's Final Mission". From the organizational perspective there were two main things (well maybe a lot but I can’t go into all of them) wrong that lead to the end of Columbia and its passengers. First of all, in the NASA organization was based on a hierarchy, in a sense that all the “lowly subjects” were too scared to speak out against any mistakes of their superiors and if the “lowly one” did speak up, then they were snapped back in line or disregarded by the authorities. So an example of this cas would be the foam that would strike the ship at lift off. When someone said it was a problem, their opinion, over time, slowly disregarded and nobody cared because nothing happened. So there was a huge portion of communication that could have stalled a lot of heartache. Nevertheless, the small opinion was thought worthless until it was too late. Second, there was the fact that people were too concerned with their reputation, that the life of others was not even a part of thought in their mind. An example of this is when, the head Ham wanted to have everything on time and when there was a reported problem she didn’t care because if the mission was stalled she would be looked down upon so she just brushed the inconvenience under the rug. Because of the lack of getting the info. to the right person and who would disregard it and the lack of worry about other people in the organization, these components added to the disaster of the Columbia.
Market Groups Questions
(Jeff Giles, Jessica Coombs, Brent Mackey, David Sheppard, Katrina Duka and Lara Killian)
People:
Members of your staff do not feel appreciated nor do they work together in a harmonious way. What do you intend to do to improve the situation?
Capital:
How do you plan to increase financial support from your investors, the American people, in the future?
Technology:
You have created technology that has helped to further not only space exploration but also everyday life. Why aren’t you allowing it to be promoted to America by letting them know that much of what we use everyday is a product of yours?
Organization:
You have a very complex organizational structure with many employees in various locations. How would you re-organize the structure so that communications are effective? How are “low-level” employees going to be able to communicate with the “high-level” employees?
My Three Insights
Today’s class was an enjoyable one. I am in the market group and it was a stretch to be able to discover how marketing played a part in the Columbia case study. After a group effort, it was decided that the way marketing played a role in the case study was that there was no marketing done by NASA. It is sad to think that so much money already goes through such a program and it is done without marketing to investors, politicians or the American public. Think of the potential of NASA’s finances if they were simply to begin spending some effort and money into marketing to the American public.
Secondly, we graphed out a popularity graph of NASA over the past few decades and it is interesting to visually see that NASA has really lost the eye and support of the American people. They were popular in the 60’s and 70’s for obvious reasons, such as discoveries, success moon landings, etc. Yet, after every disaster since, they have done little to bring back their image into a positive light. They seem to simply ignore America.
My last thought is that even though it seems to me that we are beating this case to death whenever we start to analyze it again from a different angle, it seems that once we have jumped in and discussed it a little bit more, I gain further appreciation for the things that I am learning. I am learning great ways to learn.
A little side note. Ballroom and Modern aren’t comparable. Only one is really a dance, the other is a weird art like thing. j/k!!
Visit my blog at: slackliner.blogspot.com
Insights from class Jan 25, 2007
1. Money is everything
As much as we would like to deny the importance of money, it is the backbone and the main engine that drives a company. Everything that a business does boils down to making revenue. In class I decided to join the group focused on the capitol engine. I realized that although all the other engines are very important to the function of a business, it is all based on and limited by capitol. Without capitol, none of the other engines can function. With excess capitol, those engines could function more freely, effectively and innovatively.
2. Any problem can usually be reduced to a money problem
I saw this as our capitol group worked on the NASA case-in-point. There were a lot of problems within each engine of the company. The communication was not very effective in the people engine. Technology was outdated or limited within the technology engine and confusion and ignorance ran rampant within the organizational engine. Although there were all these problems within the other engines that run a company, what is the problem underlying all these problems? Money. Insufficient capitol is in my opinion the root cause of the Columbia disaster. Had more funds been available we would’ve seen more efficient DAT risk analyses, less minimizing of the importance of safety-of-flight-issues, greater safety awareness, less concern for flight schedules and greater flexibility in correcting problem situations. Had financing not been a major concern and problem for NASA at the time of the Columbia disaster, I’m sure we would’ve seen an effective resolution of the safety problem that occurred during the final launch of the space shuttle Columbia.
3. We need to change our focus
We as a society and especially as businesses are focused too much on making money. Although it is a necessary part of business, there are more important things to focus on than money. Obviously the number one issue in any business should be the safety of the employees. Focusing on safety will save money in the long run when you consider the costs of worker’s compensation, health care and law suits. Beyond just saving money however, there is great benefit in focusing on employee satisfaction. When employees have their needs met they will produce revenue because they have a desire to give back instead of feeling forced to produce. Google is a good example of a business that focuses on its employees’ comfort. As a result, they are able to receive the most qualified employees and lead the market in innovation because the employees are happy to give back for what they receive. I think all businesses could learn a lot from the Google model.
My insight for today is mainly on the lesson that stood out to me the most. The diagram we had for the center of God and Christ and all the surrounding things in the world that are important to peoples lives. Such as: family, job, hobbies, money, and so on. People have a tendency to make one or more of those things the center and focus of their lives when God and Christ should always remain the center. If it is done that route, He will help us get through those things. Another classmate brought up and idea that I thought related to much of this diagram. The diagram of the husband and wife at the bottom corners of the triangle, and Christ at the top. That should be the focus, because if you work together and through Him you will get help and become closer to Him.
Today we also discussed in our groups that we, as a people, are to help out the groups in the entire organization. We are the ones who train and inform those that are in need for the specific route they are in entitled to. Furthermore, for groups market, technology, organization, and capital we as a people are to be a part of each one of these. When it all comes down to it, the people have a bit to do with each team. That in and of itself makes us entirely a team and there will be no hate and not sharing ideas. It would be great.
www.ablangdon.blogspot.com
Wednesday, January 31, 2007
Orginized the Whole
Claudiu Bora
The money could distract the course of an organization as well the priority of how things could go.
Do we see NASA an investment or a totally lost?
Do we see NASA money for pride to be in space?
Should NASA be a nonprofit organization? Will survived?
Who are the Stockholders in NASA?
Stockholders: employees, families of employees, government, private contractors, clients, media, suppliers, vendors, development, risk managers, costumers, stock holders.
Organized the Whole
The parts cannot all be optimized
Parts must be sub optimized
The things that can benefit as all
Well from a Technology point of view we need the rest of the organization involved so we can be successful.
Starting with the Capital we need enough found so we can expend our operation also to be able to stay in top of the technologies.
From the organization we need people to work together and make sure that all the channels of communication are working well. Also we want to be able to trust the organization at all levels.
From the people we need to most qualified people as well train and very flexible. We want to be able to have people that could adjust fast and love to work in a team. We want people with values so we can trust them. People that we can depend on.
From the market we want to be able to be independent financial. Also to be efficient and profitable organization because if the organization is profitable as a technology department we are successful.
All five parts of the operation need to work together because this will be the only way we are going to be successful. Is more like a team work you can have a star but if the team doesn’t work together you loose and in the end that is what matter in the business world. If you want to be effective you need to work effective, communicate, effective, plan effective. To change, to operate, to have a strategy you come to an operation the is a Win/Win as a structure.
Posted by Claudiu Bora at 12:27 PM 0 comments
Saturday, January 27, 2007
NASA and Technology
Claudiu Bora
We have five areas of debate:
People
Organization
Market
Technology
Capital
We where part of the technology where we had.
1) Change
2) Operation
3) Strategic
Well first NASA didn’t make to much updates in the program which could affected the Columbia mission. They where aware about the updates and having some equipment since the 60 and 70s doesn’t really help to accomplish a mission.
Second the operation of the program didn’t run as well as they thought it will in a very critical situation. Mistake where made but the problem wasn’t totally there because the entire operation stumble aver more than one problem at the time. Took to much time to see the problem to consider the problem to resolve the problem and to get feedback and analyzed the problem.
Third as a strategy I think NASA didn’t had one they expected that things will be ok and that lead to a lot of panic when things didn’t go well. Having a back up plan will help a lot because they will be able to have a team ready to be able to report, react and act faster by having totally access to all the Channels of communication in NASA.
As a technology team in the class we all agreed that technology was a big part of the failure of Columbia but also of some other missions.
In the survey that we did out of the 20 question we evaluate NASA and we came up with 1been as a very poor job eight times with 2 one time with 3 nine times with 4 two times and with 5 one time. I think NASA is doing something good too is not a totally a disaster but there are a lot of area of concerns when is coming to the technology.
So we came up with some question:
1) What is the strategy to change NASA?
2) How is NASA going to deal with the future missions?
3) How we get people to trust the NASA program?
4) How will you plan to make people in the NASA to be heard from each level in the organization?
5) What will be the other ways too justifies the funding?
6) How will you organize better communications channels?
7) How often should NASA do upgrades?
8) Who decided that the technology is too old?
9) How much level of responsibility should be given to the staff?
10) How you will make people to communicate?
As a group we conclude it that the program itself is not very efficient because some of the founds are not very well manage and they end up no be invested in the areas where they should like technology. Without the advance technology is hard to be successful and have safe missions. I think NASA is gambling each time when they live technology not been a priority in the program. So I think that NASA should look to the program and as themselves where is NASA going to be ten years from now fifty years from now one hundred years from now.
http://claudiubora.blogspot.com/
Optimizing the Whole
OK so this is my little two sense of what I got from this optimizing business. Let’s use a sports analogy shall we. Say I was trying to make a football team and I have 10 million dollars to buy players on to this team. So I have to first look at the team as parts of the whole. Ok so let’s see, a football team has an offence, defense, and special teams. All are vitally important to the success of the team. I can’t rationalize and say, “Well because the offence is the one who puts points on the board I will spend most of my money on them.” That would be called optimizing a part. When that happens you know in a game when the defense is on the field we will be demolished every time. So we have to look at all the parts as important and divvy the funds to the parts almost equally. If we don’t nearly equalize the funds then all is lost and so is the game. I say this as perhaps from the organizational group and we need to not only focus on our own parts but realize the importance of the other parts and collaborate to discuss to maximize the potential of each group. So let us all hold hands and think of the greater good.
Hi Class,
Sorry this is coming so late… Rules and notes from Class on Thursday 25th of January.
Brother Adams Blog is: www.bradaadams.blogspot.com
Rules:
1. Create post in word and spell check.
2. Post it to your blog (do this by cutting and pasting)
3. Find the most recent post for this class and Brother Adams blog.
4. Open the comment window.
5. Paste your Post in there.
6. Paste your post with your post to your blog.
a. Example of my blog is http://sagulledge.blogspot.com/
7. Find at least two other classmates blogs that do not have 2 comments on their post for the day. Leave good comments questions, observations there.
I'm not sure where to post optimizing the whole so I've posted it in another place too.
Optimizing the Whole
Okay here it goes. I'm not sure what to say about this. Optimizing the whole-this is like the church. We try to perfect one another so that we all return to the same Person-God. However there are some people who don't want to be optimized or saved in religious terms so we suboptimize them, serve them and love the heck out of them until they want to be optimized. So in the five engines that a business runs with, or organization-its probably impossible to optimize each area so you move it around and do things so that it is progressing for the better. This is what I understand about optimizing the whole!
Insights from class 1/25/07
While discussing within our "people" group, the first insight we had was that all the people within NASA were like peas that were not in a pod. They were on there own, not helping anyone else. They weren’t working together but instead taking their piece of the pie and that’s it. If they would have communicated a little better and helped each other out, a lot could have been done to help the problems they experienced.
We also discussed out a lot of the people working at NASA were definitely motivated by the carrot or incentive for doing something in their job instead of being motivated by their heart. One example was Ham. Throughout the case it talks about how if the Columbia didn’t leave on time then their other important missions would be delayed which would affect her job and other things. All she seemed to care about was staying on schedule so she would be benefited. One part in the case it talks about how if they worked together, there was possibly a chance that they could have sent another ship up there and saved the astronauts on the Columbia. But it would have taken time and money. That would have definitely put them off schedule. So instead, Ham and others insisted that even if there was a problem, nothing could be done about it and so nothing was.
As a group we also decided that the people working at NASA are smart. They went to school and they have an education. The problem comes when all these smart people stay within their own box instead of going outside the box to work together with all the other smart people working at NASA. This again goes along with the idea of only taking their piece of the pie. If they would instead share a piece of their pie with others and in turn get a piece of other people’s pie, they would learn and communicate so much better.
Insights from 1/30/07
I really liked the concept of optimizing the whole. All the parts of a organization or company have to sub-optimized to be able to optimize the whole of the company or organization. If one of the parts is being optimized more than the rest, then the rest of the company will fall. It is important that all of the parts are sub-optimized. Bro. Adams talked about how this is going to be important as we begin to work in different areas within our classroom. If one of our groups becomes more optimized then the rest and utilizes Bro. Adams time, then the rest of us will not be able to get the help we need from him which will adversely affect the rest of the class.
Post a Comment