Many things go into the exchange of information. How is it communicated? How is that information received and most importantly how is that information interpreted? Things such as the person’s tone or their body language or in the case of the written word, what words were chosen and how they were used. Is the wording formal or informal? All of these factors are part of the communication process. It is evident from reading the article that different people may interpret the information in many ways. Clearly and precisely stating you point is extremely important especially when human lives are at stake.

Let’s take a look at what we have learned.

In the case of the Columbia accident, the information that was passed around happened over a long period of time. NASA knew that foam from the external fuel tank breaks free during the launch and could cause damage to the shuttle. NASA failed to take timely measures to correct the problem.

In the case of the Challenger disaster, the engineers at Morton Thiokol had expressed to NASA their concerns for hat the cold could cause the o-rings to fail. The information that was being communicated happened over a very short period of time (less than 24 hours). The engineers didn’t have hard facts and NASA was under pressure to launch.

Now, let’s take a look at another NASA mishap, the Apollo 1 fire. On January 27, 1967, the Apollo 1 astronauts were performing a test and training exercise. During the course of the event a fire broke out in the spacecraft killing all three astronauts. A number of factors were to blame, the 100% oxygen environment, the flammable materials in the cockpit (Velcro) and an inward opening hatch. North American Aviation (the spacecraft’s builder) had argued with NASA officials that these factors could have catastrophic consequences.

It is interesting to note, the only times that we have lost astronauts in their spacecraft; NASA has been at odds with the spacecraft’s manufacturer. No one wants to be blame with death of another human being… so the blame game begins!

During the hearings of the shuttle tragedy, it came to light that two different people had two different opinions on what was being said. The article did not go into any length on who these individuals were and whether or not they worked for NASA or the spacecraft’s manufacturer. It’s important to know about which side of the fence these individuals sat? Without this information an objective third party could draw the wrong conclusions. Clear and precise wording is just as important as what is being said.

Changing corporate culture? Hmmm, now there’s an idea.