What are the differences did you perceive in engineers’ vs managers?

1. Approach to problem solving

2. Communication
3. Decision making

Approach to problem solving-

The engineers took a structured approach to solving the problem. They wanted to ascertain the extent
of the damage visually to understand the magnitude of the problem. They warned that severe damage
posed hazards to the safety of the crew. They also used software simulations to analyse the extent of
damage. They came up with multiple impact scenario which predicted the threat to Columbia space
shuttle during its re-entry.

Rather than relying on sound engineering practices the Managers were driven by the history of success
of the Columbia space shuttle and the fact that in previous instances debris had not caused significant
damage. They stifled the professional opinion of the engineers and were unwilling to expend
resources to address this issue. They implicitly assumed that even if the problem was grave nothing
could be done about it and failed to explore the possibility of either repair or rescue mission.

Communication-

Engineers were constrained in communicating effectively because of the bureaucratic nature of NASA.
In fact, they were told not to message much higher than their own rung in the organization. They
explored informal channels outside their chain of command to get access to visual imagery. They
seemed diffident in their communication with the managers. This was made obvious when manager
Ham was unable to find out who placed the request for imagery. Engineer Rocha admitted that he
was not forceful in articulating his concerns and found it difficult to speak up and go against the norm.

Managers erected organizational barriers for communication. They did not provide useful feedback to
lower level engineers on issues concerning safety of the shuttle. The Mission Management Team
(MMT) engaged in little cross-organizational communication with other teams like Debris Assessment
Team and even these were through third parties and led to a series of fruitless email conversations.

Decision making-

Based on their previous experience, engineers bought to their decision making a large amount of tacit
knowledge on the behaviour of the tiles. Mr. Rocha recognized instinctively that the debris were much
larger and hence must have caused significant damage to the RCC panels. Engineers were aware of
the assumptions made while designing the system and were in a better position to analyse the
consequences of the damages due to debris.

The managers did not consider the problem of debris to be very serious. Linda Ham investigated the
flight rationale documents for another space shuttle STS 113 and determined that they were “lousy”.
She was aware that the foam issue and would cause delays in the upcoming mission STS 114. Despite
overwhelming evidence that the foam issue needs to fixed Ham opined that foam was “not really a
factor during the flight because there is not much we can do about it”. The managers overlooked and
undermined technical considerations while arriving at their decisions. They were more concerned
about achieving the organization goals given the constraints of time and budget. Their ineffectual and
insular management led to a culture of “normalization of deviance”. CAIB member Roger Tetrault
remarked that NASA had a culture of ‘prove to me that there’s something wrong’ as opposed to ‘prove
to me that its right’.
BHEL culture

The following story depicts the culture of the organization BHEL-

In December 2015 floods ravaged the city of Chennai. Employees of BHEL living in low lying areas were
trapped with water overflowing into their homes. The administration reached out to these employees
and arranged for temporary accommodation and food in the guest houses. This was done when the
resources of the administration department were stretched thin due to commitments made to engage
in flood relief work. Once the full extent of damage was known after the waters receded colleagues
of these employees pitched in by offering temporary shelter in their homes. Some even lent their
material property like vehicles, vessels and bedding so that their affected colleagues can quickly find
their feet and get back to the rigors of daily life.

This incident shows that employees view themselves as part of a larger family each of them
contributing positively not only to the success of the organization but also to each other’s lives.