challenger launch decision mmmmm
TRANSCRIPT
![Page 1: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Challenger Launch DecisionGroup process in the
2010156 Piyush Tyagi2010195 Sahil Malhotra2010197 Saket Rathi2010279 Vaibhav Garg2010297 Sarita Choudhary2010298 Debashish Bagg
![Page 2: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
Challenger Disaster
Day before launch, engineers warn about O-rings
Never tested below 53ºF
Launch would be around 40ºF
Engineers’ warnings suppressed
O-ring warning never mentioned to higher-ups
“A launch should be canceled if there is any doubts of its safety” -NASA policy
![Page 3: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
![Page 4: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
ANALYSIS
• Groupthink• Group decision making• Group polarization• Inter and intra group communication
![Page 5: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Groupthink
Probably most famous process loss Definition: people begin to value group
cohesiveness and solidarity more than the need to consider the facts in a realistic manner.
Can lead to disastrous decisions Challenger disaster (1986) Possibly, Columbia accident (2003)
![Page 6: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
The road to groupthinkAntecedents
Group is (already) cohesive Isolated Directive leader Stress Poor decision-making rules
Symptoms– Illusion of invulnerability – Moral certainty– Stereotyped view of out-group– Self-censorship– Direct pressure to conform– Illusion of unanimity– Mind guards
Defective decision making– Incomplete survey of alternatives– Failure to examine risks of favored alternative– Poor information search– Few contingency plans
![Page 7: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Specific steps to avoid groupthink
Leader—remain impartial (if possible) Seek outside opinions Create subgroups Seek anonymous opinions
![Page 8: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Intragroup communication
Executive Management
Employees
Learn
Start Here
New Paradigms
EndorseSelf-Discovery
EstablishCommunities ofPractice
![Page 9: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Avoiding communication gap
Providing same platform for communication Same document being shared in all respective
stakeholders Signoff from all parties effected if there is an
implication felt to be implemented
![Page 10: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Group polarization Original finding (Stone, 1962) seemed to
suggest “risky shift” (!!) Newer view: group polarization, not riskiness
perse Whatever way the group is leaning initially,
members tend to polarize further in that direction
![Page 11: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Example from experience
Testing in software industry Multidisciplinary testing in Airbus design
![Page 12: Challenger Launch Decision Mmmmm](https://reader030.vdocuments.us/reader030/viewer/2022020101/543ec05dafaf9f255e8b4b5d/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Thank you