[Search for users] [Overall Top Noters] [List of all Conferences] [Download this site]

Conference 7.286::space

Title:Space Exploration
Notice:Shuttle launch schedules, see Note 6
Moderator:PRAGMA::GRIFFIN
Created:Mon Feb 17 1986
Last Modified:Thu Jun 05 1997
Last Successful Update:Fri Jun 06 1997
Number of topics:974
Total number of notes:18843

178.0. "Morton Thiokol 'Whistle Blowers'" by CAD::RICHARDSON () Fri May 23 1986 11:03

    Thiokol executives admit to error
    
    (AP)
    WASHINGTON -- Rocket company officials were quoted as conceding
    on Tuesday that they made a public relations mistake in assigning
    new job responsibilities to two engineers who opposed the launch
    of the ill-fated Challenger.
    
    But senior executives of Morton Thiokol Inc. reportedly insisted
    in private meetings with members of Congress that their actions
    did not amount to retribution against the two, and said they have
    no present plans to rescind the reassignments.
    
    The explanations did not satisfy a congressman, Rep. Edward J. Markey,
    D-Mass., who also met with the executives.  He sent a letter to
    NASA administrator James C. Fletcher asking that NASA cancel a recently
    awarded $200 million contract to the firm.
    
    ``If the company is unwilling to take the steps necessary to
    demonstrate to the country that Mr. (Allan) McDonald and Mr. (Roger)
    Boisjoly are corporate heroes, not corporate pariahs, then I will
    continue to move forward with legislative initiatives,'' Markey
    said after the meeting.
    
    An aide said that the congressman will send a follow-up letter to
    Morton Thiokol asking detailed information about what has happened
    to the engineers' jobs.
    
    Two senators who met with the executives, Sens. Slade Gorton, R-Wash.,
    and Donald Riegle, D-Mich., said they were ``reseving judgment''
    on the compnay's assertion that it had not disciplined engineers
    McDonald and Boisjoly.  ``It is essential that people who come forward
    to tell the truth not be intimidated,'' said Riegle.
    
    Added Gorton, ``We would be extremely disturbed if that were to
    be the case.''
    
    Gorton said that the company executives said they ``did not intend
    and do not intend to demote'' either of the two engineers.  But
    asked whether the two would be given their old jobs back, Gorton
    said Morton Thiokol officials said they did ``not want to make further
    personnel moves'' until a presidential commission investigating
    the Challenger accident issues a report next month.
    
    The Challenger blew up 73 seconds into its flight on Jan. 28, and
    investigators say the accident was caused by a leak in the seam
    of the right hand rocket booster.  The rocket was manufactured by
    Morton Thiokol.
    
    Both McDonald and Boisjoly later testified publicly that they opposed
    the decision to launch the Challenger, and the two subsequently
    were given new job responsibilities.
    
    Officials from the company held a series of private sessions with
    key House and Senate members in a bid to counter criticism they
    have received for their actions involving the two engineers.
T.RTitleUserPersonal
Name		DateLines
178.1More on M-T.ALIEN::MCCARTHYWed Jun 04 1986 20:018
    Independent Network News yesterday reported that the 2 Thiokol V.P.s
    who OK'd the launch have moved on. One has retired, one has been
    "reassigned".
    
    One of the two engineers (unnamed) has been reassigned to a high
    level position in the effort to redesign the SRBs.
    
    						-Brian
178.2Let the punishment fit the crimeNSSG::SULLIVANSteven E. SullivanThu Jun 05 1986 00:0811
>   One of the two engineers (unnamed) has been reassigned to a high
>   level position in the effort to redesign the SRBs.

The "high level" position, as I heard it, is "in charge" of the SRB
redsign. It sounds like a case of "let he who complains take
responsibility for fixing the problem!" This, of course, has BOTH
positive and negative implications in resolving the problem at hand
and discouraging whistle-blowing.

	-SES
178.3Only Positive...DSSDEV::SAUTERJohn SauterThu Jun 05 1986 09:203
    I can see only positive implications.  *I* never complain about a
    problem unless I am willing to help put it right.
        John Sauter
178.4Good will, haNSSG::SULLIVANSteven E. SullivanThu Jun 05 1986 16:0421
>   I can see only positive implications.  *I* never complain about a
>   problem unless I am willing to help put it right.

I  can  agree with that philosophy. However, does being a complaining
ENGINEER mean this person should RUN the project? I think this person
could be set up to fail. Management of M-T has said:  "OK,  guy,  you
found  this  specific  technical  problem.  Now you get the hassle of
running the WHOLE project!" If this person is an  engineer  who  does
not know a budget from EEO they may be doomed.

That  is  the  negative  aspect  I  was referring to. By keeping this
person very visible internally the apparent hero who blew the whistle
can be made  to  appear  quite  incompetent.  The  message  to  other
engineers  would  be "blow the whistle and get the responsibility for
the WHOLE project dumped on you!"

As  I  pointed out, it COULD be positive too. I sincerely hope it is,
but I feel simply assuming the good will of  M-T  management  is  not
realistic here.

	-SES
178.5no tricks at MTENGGSG::FLISFri Jun 06 1986 09:4619
re:.4
    
    You have to understand that NASA and the investigating commission
    are watching all parties very closely.  These engineers were 
    involved in the original design team and are qualified for that
    job.  That job includes managment.  Also, if THEY, themselves, felt
    they were not capable of handeling the job they would've spoken
    up and would've been listened to.  The commission and NASA would also
    have a hand in the desision and know quite a bit about the capabilities
    of the two engineers before allowing them to head the redesign team.
    
    If Digital encounteres a major problem from a vendor that costs
    a lot of money, Digital makes itself very aware of what steps are
    taken at the vendors to solve the problem.  MT's contract, involving
    the Federal Government and the loss of life, is going to be watched
    much closer and MT will not be able to hide anything.  Of that I
    am confident.
    jim
178.6$$$$ALIEN::MCCARTHYFri Jun 06 1986 14:1012
    Another point is that M-T is a business. Shuttle SRBs are a very
    important product line, and that product line can't sell at the
    moment. Putting someone in charge of fixing a revenue problem of
    that size simply because they pointed it out and not because the
    company thinks they can fix it would be the most incredibly stupid
    move on earth. If the SRB problem doesn't get fixed pronto, M-T
    stands to possibly fail as a company. If they fail due to management
    stupidity, then evolution is served.
    
    "The stupid shall be punished"
    
    						-Brian
178.7It is McDonaldSKYLAB::FISHERBurns Fisher 381-1466, ZKO1-1/D42Fri Jun 06 1986 16:286
    BTW, the engineer in question is McDonald.  And wouldn't you do
    some quick promoting if you had the U.S. Congress roaring down the
    freeway at you, hell-bent-for-leather?
    
    Burns