MediaSpace Wiki

Organizational Spr2006 Sess17

Short Paper 1 due today

In an in class review we determined that 18 of 22 submitted papers had no citations or references. After discussing various ways in which papers could be improved I returned the papers for rewrite. They are due on Wednesday. Specific issues discussed include:

1. The need for citations and references. Eighteen papers had no references. You should reference any web pages you used and and pamphlets, brochures, or other information you used. These should be referenced and cited in APA format (see ApaStyleGuide). Any interviews or other conversations that you make use of should cited. There is an APA citation style for doing this as well.
2. The value of grounding your observation in the course materials. Group meetings, managerial supervision, and other ways of interacting with stakeholders have been covered in the course already. Public relations activities and stakeholders and other media may have been discussed in other courses.
3. Bottom line: Citation makes you look smart.

Announcement

I have updated the syllabus with a schedule change. The chapter that was due today (Tompkins, c. 7) is due on Wednesday. The Wednesday reading has been shifted back to after the break.

Making Things Go Wrong: Systemic Communication Failures

• Some lateral communication between a NASA employee and a vendor employee. Hot plasma
  • What iffing
• A changed culture
  • Van Allen: "They don't really know what's going on"
    • 10,000 less employees
    • Extreme reliance on contractors
    • Little hands on expertise
  • ?McCurdy: Reductions amounted to "letting their good people go."
• A technical face off with management
  • Request for imaging of underside of shuttle
  • Canceled by NASA management ... request hadn't followed proper channels
    • is he cancellation about the cost of the imaging?
  • An "intense" debate in the technical community about the possible hazards of a debris hit
    • and the need for imaging
  • Groupthink?
    • occurs when members of a cohesive in-group allow their strivings for unanimity to override their motivation to realistically appraise alternatives
    • Technical comments as what iffing or devil's advocacy
    • Overriding technical concerns based on a management consensus
  • A message not sent:
    • "this is wrong (and bordering on irresponsible"
    • "without action" ... "to clarify the damage visually" ... we will guarantee" <that we have > "no high confidence answers"
    • "if its not safe, say so." Yes, its that serious.
    • Concern about shooting the messenger?
• the dangers of "scapegoating"

Due Wednesday

Revised Short Paper 1.