I really thought about the differant styles of listening and how they can apply to how effecive we are at listening. I really liked how in class we have learned that we should not probe when we ask questions. It makes sense. when people ask me questions I dont like them probing into my life. It will help me in my everyday life in my marriage and in other relationships.
Tyson Harris
8 comments:
Claudiu Bora
We have five areas of debate:
People
Organization
Market
Technology
Capital
We where part of the technology where we had.
1) Change
2) Operation
3) Strategic
Well first NASA didn’t make to much updates in the program which could affected the Columbia mission. They where aware about the updates and having some equipment since the 60 and 70s doesn’t really help to accomplish a mission.
Second the operation of the program didn’t run as well as they thought it will in a very critical situation. Mistake where made but the problem wasn’t totally there because the entire operation stumble aver more than one problem at the time. Took to much time to see the problem to consider the problem to resolve the problem and to get feedback and analyzed the problem.
Third as a strategy I think NASA didn’t had one they expected that things will be ok and that lead to a lot of panic when things didn’t go well. Having a back up plan will help a lot because they will be able to have a team ready to be able to report, react and act faster by having totally access to all the Channels of communication in NASA.
As a technology team in the class we all agreed that technology was a big part of the failure of Columbia but also of some other missions.
In the survey that we did out of the 20 question we evaluate NASA and we came up with 1been as a very poor job eight times with 2 one time with 3 nine times with 4 two times and with 5 one time. I think NASA is doing something good too is not a totally a disaster but there are a lot of area of concerns when is coming to the technology.
So we came up with some question:
1) What is the strategy to change NASA?
2) How is NASA going to deal with the future missions?
3) How we get people to trust the NASA program?
4) How will you plan to make people in the NASA to be heard from each level in the organization?
5) What will be the other ways too justifies the funding?
6) How will you organize better communications channels?
7) How often should NASA do upgrades?
8) Who decided that the technology is too old?
9) How much level of responsibility should be given to the staff?
10) How you will make people to communicate?
As a group we conclude it that the program itself is not very efficient because some of the founds are not very well manage and they end up no be invested in the areas where they should like technology. Without the advance technology is hard to be successful and have safe missions. I think NASA is gambling each time when they live technology not been a priority in the program. So I think that NASA should look to the program and as themselves where is NASA going to be ten years from now fifty years from now one hundred years from now.
http://claudiubora.blogspot.com/
I think the class has a good flow and that the comments are as well very interesting. It feel like we are NASA and that the problem is in our shoulders so is kind of intense. Real people and almost a real life situation where we have the chance to be part of a decision but also to be responsible is going to be very interesting how is all this exercise is going to work and what direction is going to take.
Scott Gulledge
Hi Class,
Sorry this is coming so late… Rules and notes from Class on Thursday 25th of January.
Brother Adams Blog is: www.bradadams.blogspot.com
Rules:
1. Create post in word and spell check.
2. Post it to your blog (do this by cutting and pasting)
3. Find the most recent post for this class and Brother Adams blog.
4. Open the comment window.
5. Paste your Post in there.
6. Paste your post with your post to your blog.
a. Example of my blog is http://photoman-comm250.blogspot.com/
7. Find at least two other classmates blogs that do not have 2 comments on their post for the day. Leave good comments questions, observations there.
http://jgiles81.blogspot.com/
The primary reason for NASA's mistakes were that they felt pressure to produce results in order to maintain their funding. This pressure comes from the Department of Defense, the President, the congress and finally from the American tax payer.
The average American is not very interested in space travel. Most Americans feel like we're spending too much money in Iraq. They think we ought to be rebuilding New Orleans, paying off the national debt, fixing public schools the list goes on and on. So when it comes time to spend money on space travel most people think why are we doing this again?
That's where a solid ad campaign comes in. NASA needs to take some of the a few million out of it's multi billion dollar budget and put it into a national ad campaign. This may seem like a waste to them but the truth is a successful campaign will pay them back 10 fold.
The focus of the campaign should be looking at what great inventions have come about because of the space program. A couple of simple examples would be Tang, and the space pen. More important inventions would include modern airplanes. Equally as important as what has been done in the past is what will come about in the future. For example airplanes are being developed that will enter the earth's orbit and a flight of 17 hours from Los Angeles to Australia will now take less than two hours. None of this would be possible without without the space program. NASA needs a tagline to remind people what they've done and what they will do. Some like NASA part of our past and shaping our future.
Another part of the campaign should be aimed at children. After all children are the future astronaughts and tax payers. They should be producing or sponsering cartoons about space.
The main idea is to show that money spent on the space exploration is money well spent. Once this happens and NASA has regained the publics interest and support they won't be so concerned about losing their funding. Which means employees won't be so worried about losing their jobs and that will result in greater productivity and less accidents.
Insights from class 1/25/07
While discussing within our "people" group, the first insight we had was that all the people within NASA were like peas that were not in a pod. They were on there own, not helping anyone else. They weren’t working together but instead taking their piece of the pie and that’s it. If they would have communicated a little better and helped each other out, a lot could have been done to help the problems they experienced.
We also discussed out a lot of the people working at NASA were definitely motivated by the carrot or incentive for doing something in their job instead of being motivated by their heart. One example was Ham. Throughout the case it talks about how if they didn’t leave on time then there other important missions would be delayed which would affect her job and other things. All she seemed to care about was staying on schedule so she would be benefited. One part in the case it talks about how if they worked together, there was possibly a chance that they could have sent another ship up there and saved the astronauts on the Columbia. But it would have taken time and money. That would have definitely put them off schedule. So instead, Ham and others insisted that even if there was a problem, nothing could be done about it and so nothing was.
As a group we also decided that the people working at NASA are smart. They went to school and they have an education. The problem comes when all these smart people stay within their own box instead of going outside the box to work together with all the other smart people working at NASA. This again goes along with the idea of only taking their piece of the pie. If they would instead share a piece of their pie with others and in turn get a piece of other people’s pie, they would learn and communicate so much better.
You asked the question: How do we get people to trust the NASA program?
This is my answer:
An aggressive, national advertising/PR campaign. The campaign should highlight NASA's successes. We hear a lot about the failures. For young Americans like myself our most significant memories of NASA are the Challenger and the Columbia. The successes like the moon landing happened long before we were born. In addition to highlighting past successful missions the campaign should draw attention to the great inventions that have come about because of the space program.
This campaign would help restore public trust and increase funding of future missions.
Insights from class Jan 25, 2007
1. Money is everything
As much as we would like to deny the importance of money, it is the backbone and the main engine that drives a company. Everything that a business does boils down to making revenue. In class I decided to join the group focused on the capitol engine. I realized that although all the other engines are very important to the function of a business, it is all based on and limited by capitol. Without capitol, none of the other engines can function. With excess capitol, those engines could function more freely, effectively and innovatively.
2. Any problem can usually be reduced to a money problem
I saw this as our capitol group worked on the NASA case-in-point. There were a lot of problems within each engine of the company. The communication was not very effective in the people engine. Technology was outdated or limited within the technology engine and confusion and ignorance ran rampant within the organizational engine. Although there were all these problems within the other engines that run a company, what is the problem underlying all these problems? Money. Insufficient capitol is in my opinion the root cause of the Columbia disaster. Had more funds been available we would’ve seen more efficient DAT risk analyses, less minimizing of the importance of safety-of-flight-issues, greater safety awareness, less concern for flight schedules and greater flexibility in correcting problem situations. Had financing not been a major concern and problem for NASA at the time of the Columbia disaster, I’m sure we would’ve seen an effective resolution of the safety problem that occurred during the final launch of the space shuttle Columbia.
3. We need to change our focus
We as a society and especially as businesses are focused too much on making money. Although it is a necessary part of business, there are more important things to focus on than money. Obviously the number one issue in any business should be the safety of the employees. Focusing on safety will save money in the long run when you consider the costs of worker’s compensation, health care and law suits. Beyond just saving money however, there is great benefit in focusing on employee satisfaction. When employees have their needs met they will produce revenue because they have a desire to give back instead of feeling forced to produce. Google is a good example of a business that focuses on its employees’ comfort. As a result, they are able to receive the most qualified employees and lead the market in innovation because the employees are happy to give back for what they receive. I think all businesses could learn a lot from the Google model.
I'm not completely sure I know what I'm doing, Here's the questions we came up with in class for each of the other four areas, other than Organization.
Marketing: Focusing on the idea for higher quality photos: What inhibited the team from showing "mandatory requirement" to obtain higher quality imagery?
Technology: Is technology a fundamental issue that contributed to the problem? What percent would you say?
People: How did the organizational culture inhibit the flow of information? What contributed to that culture?
Capital: Is NASA using the funds they have efficiently? Would they need more funds to produce the desired results?
These are the questions we came up with-
Eric Jones, Audrey Izatt, Nathan Reagan, Travis Wilson, S. Jenelle Wadsworth
Post a Comment