After losing the spacecraft NASA had done their first level of root cause analysis. As we can see they have identified multiple reasons behind the mishap (Isbell, Savage, 1999). Here are the identified reasons –
o Computer models were wrong for small thruster firings in the spacecraft
o Operational navigation team were not informed of the details of the spacecraft
o Optional engine firing was skipped due to interdependent reasons
o Poor systems engineering function to track and double check all interconnected aspects of the mission
o Informal communication between project engineering groups
o No peer review for the work done by small mission navigation team
o Personnel was not trained on the operation of the mission and detailed navigational characteristics or anomaly report filing process.
o Inadequate quality check to verify and validate certain engineering requirements and technical interfaces
All the listed reasons show NASA did not work on quality control. Testing systems or they did not have a good plan to quality check systems.
I would prefer DMAIC, this can improve both process and product by using definition, measure, analyze, improve and control.
Bugs in computer models can be fixed only when the system is thoroughly tested. Communication between the team can be improved when there is a proper communication protocol established.
Definition – Each process should be properly defined. For example, how information should flow, between which team and when.
Measure – Identifying areas of improvement such as communication, training or software, all processes had to be identified and improved.
Analyze – collecting data and analyzing the data to find out areas of improvement.
Improve – After areas of improvements, teams should come together and brainstorm and figure out how to improve the process.
Control – After identifying areas of improvement and coming up with a plan to improve, we will need to implement those changes and there should be control of the quality of products.
While DMAIC can help NASA improve quality, I think checklists can come really handy too. Checklists help avoid mistakes and make it easier to outsource tasks (Collins, 2018). And for NASA projects, teams are interdependent to execute any project, so checklist can be really useful and help NASA follow every process diligently.
There are many things to consider, like what is the project, how many teams are involved. If team members already follow any process or not. In case they do, how can we leverage the existing process, so the team members do not get confused. If they do not then how to train them to use the new process. We need to make sure we accommodate the timeline too because following a new process should not eat up too much time and hamper original deliverables. Finally, we need oversight to make sure the process is being followed by everyone involved, in case it is not, then the person is being corrected and mentored.
References
Retrieved on 12/25/2018. Retrieved from https://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/msp98/news/mco991110.html
Collins, B (Aug 2018). Two Powerful Types Of Checklists You Must Use. Retrieved from https://www.forbes.com/sites/bryancollinseurope/2018/08/02/two-powerful-types-of-checklists-you-must-use/#5fdf05f17044
Comments
Post a Comment