Space Shuttle Challenger, Case Study Example

The larger the project, the more imperative it is to clearly define the scope of the project. If scope is not managed correctly, the requirements and deliverables may fluctuate so much that the original intention of the project may never be met and could result in a fail project attempt.  As any project progresses through the phases, the intricacies and details of the project gain clarity.  This is where the art of project management dances with the scientific project management methodology to build and execute a project.  The scope is initially established at a high and definitive level at the forefront of a project

Assignment A. 1. The purpose of launching the Challenger is in response to the post-Apollo plans for continued manned missions to spaces.  There were three focal points for launching the manned missions, each with unique and critical scopes.  The Space Shuttle would be used to create a reusable transportation system that would allow logistical movement of people and cargo to low earth orbit then back to Earth.  The shuttle would also resupply the orbiting space station.  The purpose of the Challenger changed due to economic and political reasons.  This redefinition of scope for the immensely intricate program created exponentially dramatic project management actions to redefine the scope, schedule and budget of all three legs of the space program.  The requirements were redefined and a partially reusable shuttle would be utilized.  The purpose of launching the Challenger was to ensure NASA was accomplishing their goals and objectives, even if they were redirected from the initial intent, which would continue support and project movement.

Assignment A. 2.  When determining safety, the question is how safe is safe enough.  This is when a risk management matrix should be utilized and each risk associated with the project should be weighed regarding risk probability and risk impact.  There are tools to qualitatively and quantitatively measure the risks associated with the project.  There are also tools to take those measurements and incorporate the information from the risk measurements and incorporate those into the project planning activities.  Mitigating the risk requires communication and risk assessments to be utilized in the project.  The level of safety is determined by the stakeholders and project team members.  The acceptance of the risk and who is accountable would be listed in the project’s charter in the RACI (Responsible, Accountable, Consulted, Informed) chart.

Assignment A. 3.  With each risk there needs to be a risk assessment completed.  Project management incorporates many tools and techniques to facilitate the opportunity for the success of a project implementation.  Projects have inherent risks associated to them and there are multiple methods and techniques to monitor and control those risks.  The goal of the risk management plan is to outline and provide clarity to what the risks associated with the project are and what their impacts potentially could be.  Each risk with a high risk matrix score should have specific and detailed test plans to ensure all possible failure points are identify and mitigated.  The larger the project, including scope and integrations, the increased potential for failure points to occur.

Assignment A. 4. The waiver process was put in place to facilitate the risk management decisions made based on probability, impact and potential reward for the risk.  The waivers were utilized to document what risks have been accepted and who was accountable for accepting those risks. The justification for utilizing the waivers is swayed by the already established outcome.  If the administrators did not sign the waivers the Challenger would not have launched.  This also means that if the administrators did not sign the waivers on the previously “successful” missions those would not have launched either.  The probability for failure, including specific data on the failure points, was extremely high and outside pressure to launch drove the decision instead of the facts regarding the risks.  The waivers should not have been signed for the Challenger based on the data presented and the risks associated with launch.

Assignment A. 5. Perception of the Space Shuttle as a fully functioning and reliable transportation vehicle was misconstrued based on the milestones NASA was achieving.  There were many successful launches, each with their own failure points that NASA kept from the public, but very few mission aborts.  The mission aborts made the news while the successes were merely expected by the public.  These expectations and perceptions became reality for the public due to the information they were receiving and not based on the arduous efforts made by NASA to ensure each launch was a success.

Assignment A. 6. The Challenger launch should have ultimately been stopped.  Hindsight allows for us to look at the circumstances and make a decision within a vacuum. The external forces that drove the Challenger launch was not based on project management, risk analysis, cost control, quality inspections or system performance but based on pressure to perform and launch.  The driving force was to launch the Challenger regardless of information provided regarding risk, probability and devastating impact to the astronauts, NASA program or administrators.  The feeling by administration that a failure to launch was not worth the lives of the astronauts did not impact the program schedule.  Ultimately, the changes to the program were driven by the tremendous loss NASA and the public experienced with the Challenger explosion.

Assignment A. 7.  Liability for the deaths of the astronauts falls in many areas.  The pressure to launch by NASA leadership, the administration that signed the waivers, the control center that pressed through the icy conditions and all members that did not follow protocol to launch would have some level of responsibility throughout the failure.  The determination on who would be held responsibility for the liability of the deaths would fall on the leadership within the organization. Each level that had the authority and ability to provide a no-go for launch would have the deaths of the astronauts on their conscience and should have administrative repercussions.  Those that signed the waivers and disregarded the data from the engineers would have the highest level of responsibility and liability.

Assignment A. 8.  The engineers at Morton-Thiokol had the highest level of responsibility to convince NASA and their own leadership that the launch would not be successful.  The major milestone in this effort would be to hold full responsibility for the single-point of failure for the mission abort. This would place blame on the organization and potentially lead to lost business in the future. The engineers would have to state the case that the requirements established by NASA dictated the operating conditions and if the parameters were exceeded the imminent failure would occur.

Assignment A. 9.  Integrity and fortitude are definitive attributes when facing a moral obstacle.  The engineers knew that there would be a failure based on the data presented at launch.  In this situation the pressure of knowing the data and information regarding the component failure, understanding the outside pressure to succeed, evaluating the risk to reward calculations and then presenting a potentially unpopular opinion could be a career killer.  In this situation, NASA was going to launch no matter the consequences.  The engineer would need to document his/her recommendations and in all the available effort focus on providing a compelling argument on the ramifications for the single-point of failure.  This would hopefully provide enough information for leadership to abort and wait for more conducive circumstances.  In reality, the engineer would document his/her information and leadership would press on with the program.  The documentation would only cover that individual regarding liability of the situation.

Assignment A. 10. Communication and assignment of responsibility must be documented and understood.  The communication between internal functions as well as internal to external entities needs to increase in quality of communication.  The risks associated with the Challenger launch were not widely understood by internal NASA functional teams and the single-point of failure noted by the engineers at Morton-Thiokol was not properly conveyed to the right levels within NASA.  Increased documentation of communication in a shared location would allow information to flow to the appropriate areas.  The risk analysis, including risk, probability, impact and reward would need to be documented and include the decision on how to handle the risks.  Responsibility would be documented in the RACI chart to assigned the individual to the task/action and how the individual impacts or is impacted by the activity.