NASA's Dysfunctional Teams

So this article is about NASA's teams and how they are dysfunctional. More specifically though it focus on a specific team called the MMT (Mission Management Team). This was the team responsible for making decisions about missions that the space shuttle would take. This article highlights a specific mission. The last mission that the space shuttle Challenger would ever take. The article explains that the MMT came together and had group meetings about the severity and the possible solutions to the problem. The problem being that a piece of foam had managed to penetrate the thermal protection of one of the space shuttle wings. The way the MMT responded was inadequate at best. They acted in a dysfunctional way that probably could have otherwise prevented this disaster from happening. The team didn't take into account the whole picture, and they most certainly did not leave an open mind. They ended up coming to the conclusion that the foam could not seriously damage the shuttle and this prevented any further discussion that could have otherwise prevented this. This type of team behavior is a reckless and harmful. As stated in the article confirmation bias also played a role in this incident as well. Assumptions and preconceived notations on what a team knows or does not know can have inherent consequences to what the team is trying to achieve. The outcomes may not be negative all of the time but it is safe to assume that human error in group situations such as this can lead to bad decision making. Not having or evaluating all of the data plays into the decision making process as well, and that  is why it is important to get the  necessary information in order to make an informed decision. This disaster could have been avoided if the team would have just exhausted all possible options instead of dismissing certain alternatives without basis, and made assumptions about camera resolution. In short gathering and analyzing data for decision making can make or break what you are trying to achieve.

Engine Trouble?!

In the case concerning carter racing, I believed that they should have raced initially. I say initially because after further analysis several other factors become significant that may have an influence upon the situation. At first analysis it seems that they have something to lose in every situation or at least that's what I drew from a first read. It seemed to me that it would be wise to take the situation which had the least amount of losses, and in this case would be not to race. My views were persuaded to see the other way when we entered our groups. Within my group we discussed the pros and cons and came to a reasonable consensus that racing would be the most profitable decision. This view was even more influenced by the in class assessment of the statistical data within the case. Having numbers to put with the data made the decision even clearer to me. Facts and data make the decision easier to evaluate and are always useful in determining what choice you should make in a situation. Statistical application of data within a decision making problem is an invaluable resource that should almost always be used. I say almost because some situations can't or won't be able to use pure statistical analysis to determine the correct course of action. At the end of the analysis it was revealed that this situation was actually real data collected from the events leading up to the shuttle Challenger explosion. Now we don't have all the information here. We especially don't have the perspective of the scientists and engineers that control shuttle operations at NASA, but every piece of data we are given after evaluation, points toward aborting the race/shuttle launch. Why did they still decide to launch? I do not know, but this situation highlights very much why data needs to be statistically analyzed in decision making process. The correct decision needs to be made with ALL the facts present. Nothing can be ignored no matter how small and it is important to take everything into account.

Groupthink!

Group think is a phenomana that is a detremental to a working team or group. It happens when teams seem to have a certain level of conformity for ideas and generated by the group or in this case one individual. Groups that are plagued by this issue generally turn out to be groups that may have not formed correctly or may even be under performing groups. I believe that this is a major issue that needs to be confronted within a group setting. If it is not addressed it can have adverse consequences for the group. Performance is definitely affected by not allowing new ideas in the group to flourish and it often leads to a  mediocre result in group work. It can also have affects on the individual members as well by alienating them. Sometimes members of the group may try to present a new direction or idea. This idea may in turn get denied attention due to group think and the team dynamics may suffer in the process. Combating this problem is important and needs to be taken seriously. If it is not disastrous consequences may occur which may derail the entire group and the goal everyone is trying to work towards. I believe that one of the best ways to combat this problem is communication. Having a better communicating group will slow if not stop the group think all together. Simple introspective discussions about the groups progress and direction maybe enough to stave off the horrible group think mentality. Among other solutions which may be found in the article I believe that straight communication on a progressive level can help stop group think before it starts.

Teams That Curve

The team performance curve is a interesting model. It starts off by showing how teams or groups develop or start out on the curve. It then shows the evolution of the possible categories of team development and the different levels at which teams can operate with efficiency.

In the article the team performance is compared to the Cosmo make up company and how a specific product line is not picking up sales. They use this team performance curve to evaluate why some parts of Cosmo maybe under performing. This type of performance curve is invaluable when looking at team dynamics and seeing if some teams are effective at working together. Time can be saved and more efficiently distributed by using this sort of evaluation in an applicable way. Teams can know where they stand on the chart and gain feedback on if they need to improve, or may even disband. In the end there are several factors which can improve a team. They are addressed at the end of the article and explain how teams improve if they utilize these resources and come together properly. The five signs are: themes and identity, enthusiasm and energy level, event drive histories, personal commitment, and performance results. These five factors may serve as a wind sock of sorts for testing and monitoring team performance in an organizational work environment. This model is very applicable and seems to be effective for real world evaluation.

Wal-Mart, Hates Girls!

This article rubbed off on me in a really bad way, it highlighted for me the blatant biases that Wal-Mart has against women in its corporation. I'm aware that some people may not believe that there is a bias or that Wal-Mart is being outright discriminatory but please allow me to convince you otherwise. I'd like to start by saying that there could be more detailed information from the investigation to go on except the material we read in class, I am aware that there could always be more facts but we were handed this information and by the way the facts are point it is point to discriminatory practices. The majority of women who worked at Wal-Mart stores in management positions in 2001 were customer service managers. About 90% of women, and only about 15% were involved with the position of store management. Now here is a big discrepancy already, I see a large majority of women in a lower level management position and a disproportionate number of men above them. Now any number of factors could be at work here such as maternity leave, willingness to get promoted, etc but just from these numbers alone I find it hard to believe that they are the sole cause of the gender polarization on Wal-Marts management. Another fact I'd like to highlight is the salary difference for men and women. Wait there is a difference? Yes there is and its consistent. All through the companies employee ladder, women make less than men. At some levels it is blatant and obvious, at others it is small. However, no matter how big or small, it is still there. Now as I will reiterate to you, we don't have nearly enough info on any legal level to determine if there is in fact true discriminatory practice going on here, but from the information we do have, it certainly looks like there is discrimination going on. I will end this by putting icing on the proverbial cake. The Supreme Court of the United States of America, did NOT throw out the case because they could not prove discrimination, they threw out the case because they could not prove that the company had a comapny wide policy of discriminating against women, and thus could not try it as a class action lawsuit.

Theories, about theories!

I would like to start off by saying that while reading the short excerpt from Stephen Hawking's book, "A Brief History of Time" I have realized that science is an ever evolving fact finding expedition. Nothing in science or in this case Astronomy is ever really set in stone. It is all malleable and shaped through endless observations, studies, and experiments that are meant to find the truth behind why something works. This intrigues me because knowing what we know now, we can say that certain postulations about how processes worked in the past were wrong, because we know how they work now. This statement is false because in another few hundred years we may have been postulating faulty theories about processes we thought we knew about. Stephen Hawking writes about this in particular by stating that scientific theories can never be fully absolute or fully realized. This now gets a little into the realm of philosophy because it shines on the possibility that we can never truly understand or even experience anything in the universe because of the limitations of our consciousness. The void this leaves on me, of never truly knowing or understandins disturbing to me, and I hope to understand as much as I can for as long as I'm alive.