When looking at the challenger disaster through a structural framework view we can see that NASA did in fact have a very structured setup, all of the divisions worked separately and together, albeit not as well as they should have been. Their organization existed for many different goals but the main one was to continue the running of the reusable space shuttle in order to further progress our nations space program. While this was the main goal of the organization they had many other goals, many of which they did not meet during this operation of launching the Challenger mission.
The goals that they did not meet were the goals of not letting a shuttle launch in unsafe conditions, including icy launch pad conditions and faulty blowback rings which work even worse in the cold than they do under normal temperatures, and last but not least they failed to meet the goal of not loosing any human life as a result of the launch. All of these failures stem from a faulty command structure, because even though there were several chances for people who were informed of the unsafe conditions to cancel the launch it still went on as planned. If you want to stretch it all the way to the top it reaches to the president who had expressed that he wanted the shuttle to be in space when he was giving the state of the union address and being the commander-in-chief he is at the top of the structure that NASA is part of. The way that the structural frame works best is when rationality prevails, but this disaster stemmed from people being irrational and not listening to people like Roger Boisjoly who was the number one expert on the rubber o-rings at Morton Thiokol, if his superiors at Thiokol and their counterparts at NASA were actually using rational thinking to make decisions then they would have listened to him and canceled the launch without a doubt. Another characteristic of the structural frame is that the organization can increase its efficiency and...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document