Executive summary
The definition of quality management is to make sure that the organizations’ products or services can be implemented smoothly. There are four essential parts, which consist of quality planning, controlling, assurance and improvement (Rose, Kenneth H, 2005). This report is going to adopt Columbia Space Shuttle Disaster as an example to illustrate the fundamental quality problem of the spacecraft. It is going to analyze the quality management problems NASA had by stating 5 “why” questions on what if NASA had precaution the tragedy would not have happened and carry on by using Ishikawa’s methodology to analyze the effect of the problem as well as the causes. Lastly, the report will illustrate some suggestions on the manner of
…show more content…
The question can be answered in two manners. First, the engineers were not able to detect the place of the foam hit and they were not sure if that could have caused the issue of the accident as they had had such hitting in the history. Second, the past success history of NASA made them too confident that they thought the hit would not be a matter of …show more content…
But the reason of continuously using the foam was because NASA lacks the quality controlling. The quality control is part of quality management that ensures organizations to produce standard products. In this contemporary era, all of the products produced by the companies should meet the standard of production to meet the basic buyers’ needs. On one wants to purchase the defected products. Otherwise, it may cause serious problems after buying.
The other issue of the NASA is it lacks the quality assurance of Columbia Space Shuttle. As the shuttle has been operating for 28 missions the quality assurance should be implemented to assure it could have been to its 29th mission. The QS will make sure the products are in good condition for usage to prevent the accident happen. It is the process after QC. As NASA does not have a QC system implemented. There is no doubt that it lacks the QA system. In other words, Columbia Space Shuttle was not well maintained during the whole operating. And it was NASA’s fault that it did not maintain the QA system.
To conclude, the importance of QM should be emphasized in all of the organizations, whatever it provides products or services the companies provide. It is the fundamental basic rubric for all of the companies to follow ISO 9000 and ISO 9001, although it may seem difficult for NASA to operate ISO9000 and ISO9001, it should have a QM system.
3.0 Ishikawa
They’re where a lot of purposed recommendations from the commission to help ensure that any future shuttle missions would not experience the same catastrophic O-ring failure like the challenger shuttle. The first recommendation was to redesign the O-ring by improving “structural capability, seal redundancy, and thermal protection” (NASA, n/d). This change would also redesign the tang and clevis of the mating points of the rocket. The redesign not only used a third O-ring seal but also a newly redesigned “O-ring seals are designed to not leak under structural deflection of twice the expected values” (NASA, n/d)
Are you focused on what you're doing and thinking during an emergency? Do you just give up if you’re stuck in a problem? In the Scholastic Scope article, “Disaster in Space,” it teaches us that in an emergency, we should remain calm and focused on the problem and to never give up, as the astronauts and engineers involved in the Apollo 13 mission did during an emergency on the spacecraft. These processes are exemplified in the Scholastic Scope article, “Disaster in Space” when it talks about how three astronauts handle an emergency that would have costed their lives. In conclusion, in the Scholastic Scope article, “Disaster in Space,” it teaches us that in an emergency, we should remain calm and focused on the problem, use our ingenuity, and never give up, as the astronauts and engineers involved in the Apollo 13 mission did during an emergency on the spacecraft.
The cause for the American Airlines 191 crash was the stall with its roll to the left. The stall was created by the left wing outboard leading edge slat retraction. This caused the loss of stall warning alarms and the failure of the slat indication systems that were supposed to indicate changes between the left and right wings and inboard-outboard slats. The maintenance group caused damage to the left wing and engine number one separation. The improper maintenance procedures led to the separation of the engine and pylon assembly.
On an unusually cool Florida morning in January 1986, the space shuttle Challenger exploded 50,000 feet above ground just moments after liftoff killing seven crew members onboard (Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009). A presidential commission, dubbed “the Rogers Commission” (hereafter, the Commission) after former Secretary of State William Rogers, was appointed to investigate the cause of the disaster. Although mechanical failure of an O-ring seal in one of the rocket boosters was identified as the physical cause, the investigation revealed something much more disheartening; organizational deficiencies at NASA had allowed potential safety hazards to be disregarded. The disastrous consequences of NASA’s organizational failure prompted calls for the organization to restructure its management to provide for better control and appoint a team dedicated to identifying and tracking potential shuttle safety hazards as well as redesigning the faulty booster joint for NASA approval. Shortly before the two year anniversary of the disaster, NASA officials declared that the Commission’s recommendations for organizational change had been successfully implemented. Unfortunately, the explosion of the space shuttle Columbia nearly three decades later and a subsequent investigation revealed that the changes made in the wake of the Challenger disaster had not endured. Factors such leaders’ perception of the change process, the type of change being implemented, organizational vision, resistance to change and other challenges all play a role in how change initiatives unfold (Palmer, Dunford, and Akin, 2009). NASA’s narrative is a testament to the complexities and challenges of not only implementing, but also sustaining organizational change.
NASA has faced many tragedies during their time; but one can question if two of the tragedies were preventable by changing some critical decisions made by the organization. The investigation board looking at the decisions made for the space shuttle tragedies of the Columbia and Challenger noted that the “loss resulted as much from organizational as from technical failures” (Bolman & Deal, 2008, p. 191). The two space shuttle tragedies were about twenty years apart, they both had technical failures but politics also played a factor in to these two tragedies.
From personal experience, mindfulness meditation gives me a feeling of obtaining a healthy mind and body from the attention and peace I obtained. Such feelings resulting from proper practice of mindfulness meditation is not limited to my own testimony though. According to the Satipatthana Sutra, those who practice such in-and-out breathing become “ardent, aware, and mindful” (“Satipatthana Sutra,” Accessed on 2010). However, it is unclear whether such reported experience is genuine or has effect, or if such mindfulness meditation is similar to a placebo effect.
Before going any further with this paper, I would like to take a moment to thank the crew of the space shuttle challenger for their bravery, courage, determinations and and sacrifice for this great nation. Francis R. Scobee (2), Commander, Michael J. Smith (1), Pilot Judith A. Resnik (2), Mission Specialist 1, Ellison S. Onizuka (2), Mission Specialist 2, Ronald E. McNair (2), Mission Specialist 3, Gregory B. Jarvis (1), Payload Specialist 1, Sharon Christa McAuliffe (1), Payload Specialist 2 (science.ksc), were parents, friends, children, husbands and wives, heroes, smart human being that were killed on this tragic day. May God be with your soul and may your memories and courage and passion shall not be forgotten but instead drive future generation determination and passion. The crash of the space shuttle
...lenger inquiry” [online], World Socialist Web Site, May 6, 2003 [cited March 16, 2010], available from World Wide Web:
On the morning of January 28, 1986, the Space Shuttle Challenger disintegrated in midair as the nation watched in disbelief and sadness. The cause of the Challenger accident was determined to be a system design failure on one of the shuttle’s solid rocket boosters. Solid Rocket Boosters (SRBs) are a pair of large solid strap-on rockets that were utilized by NASA during the first two minutes of the Challenger’s Space Shuttle launch. The pair of SRBs was applied to provide an extra liftoff boost for the Space Shuttle during takeoff. Each SRB were located on each side of the external propellant tank of the spacecraft. Once they began to operate, “the boosters separate from the orbiter/external tank, descend on parachutes, and land in the Atlantic Ocean” (Wilson, 2006). NASA would then send ships into the Atlantic Ocean to retrieve the boosters. The boosters were refurbished so they can be used again. According to NASA officials, “the SRBs were the largest solid-fuel rocket motors ever flown, and the first to be used for primary propulsion on human spaceflight missions” (Wilson, 2006).
On January 28, 1968 the space shuttle Challenger was deployed from Kennedy Space Center in Florida. One minute and thirteen seconds after liftoff the spaceship ignited in mid air and all seven crew members were killed. The cause of the destruction of the challenger was a certain part of rubber that relieves pressure on the side of the actual rocket booster called an O-ring. When a space shuttle as used as the Challenger is about to be used for another mission there should be an even more careful with checking everything before liftoff. The Challenger could have been avoided and there was way too much evidence that shows NASA had some kind of knowledge about the consequences.
On January 28, 1986, the American shuttle Challenger was completely destroyed 73 seconds after liftoff, a catastrophic end to the shuttle's tenth mission. This disaster took the lives of all seven astronauts aboard. One of those astronauts was a teacher, Christa McAuliffe, who was selected to go on the mission and still teach but teach to students all over the United States from space. It was later determined that two rubber O-rings, which had been designed to separate the sections of the rocket booster, had failed because of cold temperatures on the morning of the launch. This tragedy and the aftermath received widespread media coverage and urged NASA to temporarily suspend all shuttle missions.
In 1986 when the space shuttle Challenger launched from Kennedy Space Center people watched in awe for a little more than a minute before the shuttle exploded in flight. This was the first of only two major accidents that occurred during over two decades of NASA’s shuttle program. Many would consider the Challenger disaster to be a fluke that could not have been prevented or predicted but, In truth, it was an accident waiting to happen and was a symptom of systemic problems that were occurring at NASA during that era. The 1986 space shuttle Challenger disaster was cause by a number of factors including structural failure of the shuttle, a change in NASA’s work environment from the days of the successful Apollo missions, and additional pressure on the space program, already lacking resources, to push the envelope farther, faster, and cheaper.
For this assignment we will discuss some theories on organizational change learned during this class and how they relate to the case study of NASA (The Challenger and Columbia Shuttle Disaster). First we will look the images of managing change used by NASA in the case study. Then we will discuss the types of change(s) NASA under took. Next we will look at some of the challenges of change that NASA faced. Next we will discuss some of the resistance to change that NASA dealt with. Then we look at how NASA implemented change. Next we will discuss vision and change and the impact in the case study. Finally we will discuss sustaining change as it relates to the changes implemented by NASA in the case study.
Quality is a very important thing in an organization; therefore it is not possible to improve the quality of a product or service substantially without major changes in all aspects of the organization. Because quality is so important if changes aren’t made throughout the organization the output of the product will no be very successful. Everyone in the organization plays a major role in the out come of its products.
Quality is a word which has been used for a very long time, lots of books have been written about it, and many of the world's scientists have defined it in many different ways. In this research paper, I will emphasise the Quality Management System, why is it important? What is it used for? What is the importance of having a Quality Management System? Many people think implementing QMS costs a lot and all the benefit is a piece of paper which says that your company is certified in having QMS.