Overcoming Individual and Structural Barriers to Change
Module 5 - Case RESISTANCE TO CHANGE: OVERCOMING INDIVIDUAL AND STRUCTURAL BARRIERS TO CHANGE Assignment Overview Background In 1986, the shuttle Challenger blew up shortly after takeoff with a loss of seven lives. Seventeen years later, the shuttle Columbia had an inflight explosion, again losing seven lives. As you have come to understand, this mishap could have been prevented. Required Reading For this module's case, return to the reading that you used to examine the Columbia accident in Modules 3-4. Columbia Accident Investigation Board ( 2003, August). Retrived from http://www(dot)nasa(dot)gov/columbia/caib/PDFS/VOL1/PART02.PDF • Chapter 5: FROM CHALLENGER TO COLUMBIA, sections 5.1-5.8 • Chapter 6: DECISION MAKING AT NASA, skim section 6.3 (beginning on p. 140) through p. 166, then read the full summary (pp. 166-172) • Chapter 7: THE ACCIDENT'S ORGANIZATIONAL CAUSES 7.1-7.6 Assignment Task Drawing on the material in the background readings, please prepare a 4-5 page paper (not including cover and reference pages) in which you: Analyze the Columbia mishap in terms of resistance to change, and how that contributed to the accident. Keys to the Assignment The key aspects of this assignment that should be covered in your paper include: • Identify individual sources of resistance to change and their causes • Identify structural sources of resistance to change and their causes • Evaluate the impact that you believe the Board's recommendations will have on individual and structural barriers to change at NASA. How well will those recommendations help overcome resistance to change? • What else would you recommend be done to help avoid and/or overcome resistance to change at NASA? Assignment Expectations Your paper will be evaluated on the following points: • Precision - Does the paper address the question(s) or task(s)? • Breadth - Is the full breadth of the subject, i.e., the Keys to the Assignment, addressed? • Depth - Does the paper address the topic in sufficient depth and include the background readings and other background resources as references? • Critical thinking - Is the subject thought about critically, i.e., accurately, logically, relevantly, and precisely? • Clarity - Is the writing clear and are the concepts articulated properly? Are paraphrasing and synthesis of concepts the primary means of responding to the questions or are points conveyed through excessive use of quotations? • Organization - Is the paper well written? Are the grammar, spelling, and vocabulary appropriate for graduate-level work? Are headings included in all papers longer than two pages? • Referencing (citations and references) - Does the paper include citations and quotation marks where appropriate? Are the references from the background readings and assignment present and properly cited? Are all the references listed in the bibliography present and referred to via citation? Tips and Suggestions Please note the following tips or suggestions: • You may use a simple diagram (such as a Fishbone diagram (Force Field Analysis) or a process visual) to highlight important factors. However, do not use the diagram in lieu of valuable analysis (or to take up valuable writing space) - it should be in addition to your paper of 4-5 pages of analysis. • Just because you have written the minimum four pages does not mean that you have adequately covered the topic. Err on the side of more writing rather than less. • Do not use every piece of data in the case. • Include a cover page and reference page, in addition to the 4-5 pages of analysis described above. • Include headings for all papers greater than 2 pages (basically all papers) • Cite AND reference all sources that you use in your work, including those that you do not quote but paraphrase. This means include citations and quotation marks for direct quotes of more than 5 words, and citations for that information which you have "borrowed" or paraphrased from other sources. • Follow TUI Guidelines for well-written papers at http://support(dot)trident(dot)edu/files/Well-Written-Paper.pdf Submit your analysis by the end of this module. Privacy Policy | Contact
Student:
Professor:
Course title:
Date
Introduction
History has proven that effecting change can be difficult. With change come some adjustments, some of which are not always welcome. Change brings with newness and the inability to predict is increased with change. The nature of human beings is to get close to what they feel and consider familiar as opposed to what is seemingly strange to them. This is the main reason why people are opposed to change and often resist changes. The Columbia accident of 2003 was one of the greatest tragedies witnessed in the country. An investigation to establish the actual cause of the fatal accident revealed a whole lot. However, as will be discussed herein below, what became apparent throughout the investigations was that resistance to change was one of the main causes of the accident. The accident could have been avoided with lessons taken from the past events and the losses would have been averted.
Cause of the accident
An investigation which lasted close to seven months prior to the release of information indicated a possibility of multiple causes of the accident. This could be interpreted to mean two things. One is that either the investigators are yet not certain of the possible cause of the accident or that there are indeed more than one cause that led to the occurrence of the accident (Hutter, 2007). However, narrowing down to some of the causes that were mentioned by the investigative board, one can easily point out both structural, organizational and individuals causes linked to the accident.
Individual Resistance
Prior to the takeoff on the fateful day, a month earlier during the launch, there are a couple of issues that were noted. These issues were raised as being abnormal but as it would emerge later, they were not conclusively addressed. During the launch of the space shuttle on January 16th, a few moments before take-off, something unusual happened. There was insulation made of foam which is said to have separated by breaking away from the tank of the shuttle. This is the tank whose main work is to propel fuel for the shuttle (Stillman, 2009). Having separated from the tank, the foam knocked the end tip of the wing at the left side of the shuttle.
Using the cameras that had been mounted on the space shuttle, engineers were able to view the collision that took place after the breakaway of the foam. However, it was not immediately possible for the experts to establish where the damage had been done and how badly it had affected the shuttle. During the initial investigations, there were some engineers who argued that the launch should be halted until the actual issue that caused the breakaway was established. On the other hand, there are those who argued that similar incidents had happened previously during launches and yet there was no significant danger that was posed. Those that were skeptical about the launch pushed for the halting for the space shuttle. Unfortunately, the concerns they raised were not taken with much seriousness. The launch hence went on. It is this resistance to ch...