Scribd
Upload
18 views4 pages

Case Study 2 EEE 422

ethics a

Uploaded by

Ahmed Refath
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
18 views4 pages

Case Study 2 EEE 422

ethics a

Uploaded by

Ahmed Refath
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 4

EEE 422

Ethics, Engineering Economics and Management


Case study (2)
Submitted by : Sojib Ahmed Refath
ID : 2030936
Course Instructor : Md. Munir Hasan
Submission Date : 19th April, 2024.
1)All the persons involved in the launch decision making were qualified persons but even then,
the disaster was not possible to avert. Who do you think took the real ownership of the safety of
the flight and explain why you think so?

ANSWER:

In the Challenger disaster, while all individuals involved in the decision-making process were
qualified professionals, the ultimate responsibility for ensuring the safety of the flight lies with
the management team overseeing the safety of the the launch. Specifically, the management
team at both NASA and Morton Thiokol, who had the authority to make the final decision
regarding the launch, held the real ownership of the safety of the flight. First of all Management
personnel, such as Larry Mulloy from NASA and Bob Lund from Morton Thiokol, held
positions of authority where they had the final say in the decision-making process. Larry Mulloy
challenged the engineers decision not to launch.With authority comes accountability, and they
were ultimately responsible for ensuring that all safety protocols and concerns were adequately
addressed before proceeding with the launch. Despite concerns raised by engineers, including
Roger Boisjoly and Alan McDonald, management team decided to proceed with the launch. This
decision disregarded the expert recommendations based on technical data and analysis,
indicating a failure on the part of management to prioritize safety over other considerations.so
that’s why I think that the management personnel Larry Mulloy from NASA and Bob Lund from
Morton Thiokol, took the real ownership of the safety of the flight .

Question no 2)

Morton Thiokol engineers were convinced that there will be disaster if Challenger was launched
at the low temperature. They also recommended not to launch. Why then they could not prevent
the launch, what is your opinion?

Answer:

The reason the engineers could not prevent the launch are as follows :

1) The final decision-making authority rested with higher-level management within Morton
Thiokol and NASA .They overruled the decision of the engineers not to launch .so there
were mothing the engineers could do .
2) The authority that took the final decision to launch they had pressure to launch
Challenger so it could be in space when President Reagan gave his State of the Union
address so that his image does not damage in front of his state .so I think to show the
world the power of USA conquering the space ,to diminish the soviet union
dominance over the space somehow gave pressure the management that force them to
make decision to launch.
3) There may have been a lack in communication between the engineers and management,
leading to a failure to adequately convey the severity of the risks associated with
launching in low temperatures.
4) While the engineers provided technical expertise and raised concerns, they may not have
had the direct authority to stop the launch themselves. Because the decision of the
technical team did not have that much impact on not to launch or control of the whole
situation one of the major reason for the disaster .

5) In some cases, organizational cultures can foster an environment where dissenting


opinions are discouraged, and there is a tendency to downplay or ignore potential risks.
This phenomenon, known as groupthink or normalization of deviance, can lead decision-
makers to dismiss valid concerns and proceed with risky actions.

I think these are the major reasons why the engineers could not prevent the launch.

3)Space operations are governed by bureaucratic processes, rigorous checks, and stringent
procedures. Could this be failure of the processes and procedures or, it was the ethical blindness
of the persons involved in the decision making, explain?

Answer:

I think the processes and procedures on how the space operations work is much more
responsible than ethical blindness of the persons that were involved in that space project.But
both of the reason are held responsible for the disaster that happened. Here are some points on
my statement:

1) First of all if NASA was able to make independent decision that was not influenced by
the political culture it would have been a different scenario.
2) In the case of the Challenger launch, there were established procedures for assessing
risks, conducting engineering analyses, and making launch decisions. However, these
processes failed to adequately address the concerns raised by engineers regarding the
effects of low temperatures on the O-rings.
3) Ethical blindness refers to the failure of individuals or organizations to recognize ethical
issues or prioritize ethical considerations in decision-making. decision-makers within
NASA and Morton Thiokol may have been ethically blind to the potential consequences
of launching in cold weather despite warnings from engineers. If they listened the
decision the disaster would not happen.
4) Pressures to meet schedule deadlines, political expectations, and budget constraints may
have overshadowed ethical considerations related to safety and risk mitigation.
5) Additionally, there may have been a lack of moral courage among decision-makers to
challenge prevailing norms or authority figures and advocate for safety over other
concerns.

In conclusion, the failure of the Challenger launch was not solely attributable to bureaucratic
processes or ethical blindness but rather a complex combination of these factors .

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy