Nasa Change Challenges

Challenges for Change

The challenges of change implementation are employee resistance, communication gaps, lack of proper planning, no contingency plan alternatives and not getting all the relevant people and stakeholders involved. Within this case study the main challenges were around the lack of proper planning by NASA. In addition, other challenges face was the fact that there was a lack of consensus and communication which is an in house problem of NASA. NASA tried its best to implement changes in order to make safety, reliability, and management stronger, but it did not work out due to the resistance to change. Although NASA had deputed people to quality assurance functions, safety changes were not properly implemented. The safety breach

that killed 7 astronauts was due to O rings that failed to open. The Marshal Center is to be blamed, in spite of the warning to not launch unless the temperature rises above 53° degrees Fahrenheit, they launched it at subzero temperatures, and as the result, the O rings failed to open, the shuttle crashed, and all 7 astronauts on board were killed.
Resistance to Change
With the Challenger disaster, management did not want to make change when they were made aware of concerns on several occasions, the last being the night before the launch. Management ignored the concerns and pushed forward with the launch as they did not want to veer away from the plan and or delay the launch again. With the Columbia disaster, management was made aware numerous times the foam had fallen off (Palmer et al., 2009). In this incident, it was believed that the concerns were not fully communicated to the right audience due to a communication hierarchy. NASA had a firm hierarchy and this brought about a lot of resistance to change from people. Engineers did not want to break that hierarchy, therefore sticking to with what they knew. In addition a schedule was put in place and management operated on let’s do things faster versus slowing things down and putting safety as the number one priority as previously discussed after the Challenger disaster.
I find that by getting people involved and having some key people or champions to support the change, there is less resistance. People want to feel involved and a part of decisions, especially if it impacts them directly. When it comes to successful change management, get people involved earlier, which will contribute to greater buy in and acceptance. Keep in mind that this should not be the sole solution for employee resistance; successful change management is about understanding the true nature of the resistance.
Often times change management can be so focused on the technical change that the social change is a secondary thought. By holding focus groups and asking what challenges does this change bring, concerns, what else may be impacted due to this change? It goes back to communication and understandings how change impacts people differently. A tool that can be used for this is the change style indicator, which is a tool designed to help identify how different people perceive and adapt to change at all levels. The tool is designed to help identify preferred approaches when dealing with change. While each approach to change is important for organizational effectiveness, the change style indicator helps guide a more holistic approach to implementing change. Resistance is natural however, planning will help. Identify root cause, communicate openly and often at all levels. People will be wondering why we are doing this (rational) and how this affects me (emotional). Focus on the why and the how and the change will be easier to accept and a smoother transition.
Implementing Change
After the disaster of the Challenger, the commission, which was set up to identify the faults found that there were lots of issues in the way NASA and its management are functioning and recommended changes in the structure. The main change that was to be implemented was changed in the management structure as well as changes in the flight plans, as they were previously unrealistic. Change implementation entails identifying the structure as-is, present problems, current process and its resources as well as how resources are coupled to the system. Deep thought process needs to be undertaken to see the impact of replacing systems, process, and resources with another one. Furthermore, before that an analysis needs to be performed identifying the possible alternative and how that will address the issue and improve the overall mechanism (Creasey, 2014). However, these analyses were not performed in this NASA episode. The recommendation was just laid over. As mentioned in the case study, there was a lot of pressure on the contractors and staff by keeping current schedules instead of revising and reducing some of the pressure. This statement clearly states that the primary issue of (as-is issue) unrealistic flight schedules were retained, resulting in less focus on quality and heavy pressure on employees to perform. The managers still were the same and added outsourcing process, which became disastrous as they were not monitored and controlled enough. The Primary reason behind Columbia disaster, that is again unrealistic schedule planning, leading to low focus on quality and high pressure. Management did not encourage people to communicate about any flaws or issues. Communication is important and is the integral part of implementing a change.
A change implementation has a process, whereas described above, it has to be analyzed what are the as-is process, what are the issues to be addressed, current resources, process, and system coupling factor and then identify a suitable resolution.. During the implementation, go part by part and have communication channel open to hear about the output and feedback to tweak the changes. These changes were never implemented, leading to a second disaster. Producing added value encompasses initiatives around environmental pressures and demands, as well as a configuration plan based on the implementation of these procedures. Thus, the organization has to concentrate on these processes, if not change will not be successful and then resistance can become present. Your communication approach must fit the change and the audiences you wish to reach. Find the channels that your audiences have already gone to, including their leadership, and influence and incorporate them into your plans. This makes a big difference, especially when it comes to sustaining change.
Another aspect that is important when it comes to implementing change is the ability to influence others.

Influence is one of the most powerful and important capacities an individual possesses. You do not need to be in a management role to influence others, the art of influence in change is learning to influence with or without formal authority which can be done through understanding the different sources of influence which is outlined in the Six Source of Influence model which break down change by structural, social, and personal with the focus of change geared around the level of motivation and ability (Palmer et al.,

2009).
NSA Vision and Change
NASA had a clear vision to have a shuttle in place in space to gain all the objectives and knowledge, be it in weather, research, natural resources, galaxy, etc., however, what it did not do is the mission critical changes and implementation.

Though it had flight schedules planned, but never thought about the quality and its practicality in achieving its mission. It was clearly stated by the commission, that the changes needed to be carried out after the first disaster happened. However, the changes were ill perceived and were not implemented in an efficient and operational way, as the un-realistic schedules were kept and thorough quality checks were not being performed (Palmer et al., 2009). The change occurred in performance and targets only. Individuals were pushed hard to work under pressure in order to complete tasks in a rush without considering the quality, which ultimately led to these two disasters (Palmer et al., 2009). Furthermore, NASA did not comprehend how to implement change, as they did not analyze the as-is process, and identify a suitable solution. The assessment and brainstorming stage is a crucial part of successful change management. A key factor for NASA would have been throughout the implementation, have communication channel open in order to listen to feedback in order to make changes along the way. Whether a change is simple or complex, following a change management model will help you and your change management team to prepare for and implement

change in a way that will help people successfully transition from current to future state.
For my organization, change management is a journey, not just a flip of the switch. Individuals on a journey from current to future state will have different needs and will go at different speeds; however, all will go through a transition. OppenheimerFunds, Inc. uses different models of change management depending on the type of change. This can range from Lewin’s Change model that consist of unfreeze, change, and refreeze or the William Bridge Transition that entails ending, neutral zones, and new beginning and last model, which is the most common change model used in my organization is the Prosci’s ADKAR model, which focuses on current, transition, and future states that follows the model of awareness and desire, knowledge and ability, and lastly reinforcement (Spencer, 2005). ADKAR’s 5 building blocks represent what an individual needs and in what order to transition from a current to future state (Spencer, 2005). These change management models provide the tools (see Figure 1) which include steps that will help organizations prepare people for change, support them during the change and help to sustain the change.