Running Head: DIAGNOSTICS 2
Diagnostics #2:
Individual Diagnostics on Apollo 13
Harrison Mak
Kwantlen Polytechnic University
HRMT 4125 S50, Summer 2014
Carlos Calao
Executive Summary
This purpose of this report is to simulate an organizational diagnosis through watching the film
Apollo 13 (Grazer & Howard, 1995). The primary objective within this report is to analyze how
and why the Apollo 13 crew was able to successfully return to Earth given the critical
malfunctions and damages of the command service module, Odyssey.
First, a background to the situation and the events were given through a recap of the story and
a SWOT analysis. These all examined the circumstance of the time period and allowed for a
comprehensive view into the mission control, and, flight crew’s discourses internally and
externally.
Second, the events were analyzed via the fishbone analysis and force field analysis. Both of
these models incorporated the McKinsey 7S model which examines the intricate factors which
keep an organization moving towards their goal(s).
From there, a final three (3) recommendations are provided. These three (3) recommendations
are: increasing training time for flight crew, changes in flight crew-swapping procedures, and,
mission control to implement better means of contingency planning.
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................... 1
2.0 Data Sources .................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Film..........................................................................................................................................2
2.2 Model ......................................................................................................................................2
3.0 Situational Overview ....................................................................................................... 4
4.0 Environmental Analysis .................................................................................................... 6
4.1 Mission Control - SWOT Analysis ..............................................................................................6
4.1.1 Internal Analysis – Strengths & Weaknesses ............................................................................. 6
4.1.2 External Analysis – Opportunities & Threats.............................................................................. 7
4.2 Flight Crew - SWOT Analysis .....................................................................................................8
4.2.1 Internal Analysis – Strengths & Weaknesses ............................................................................. 8
4.2.2 External Analysis – Opportunities & Threats.............................................................................. 8
5.0 Analysis ......................................................................................................................... 10
5.1 Fishbone Analysis ................................................................................................................... 10
5.2 Force Field Analysis ................................................................................................................ 14
6.0 Recommendations ......................................................................................................... 16
7.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................... 18
8.0 References:.................................................................................................................... 19
1
1.0 Introduction
In this current organization development class, an assignment, organizational diagnostics, is to
be provided based on a scenario. Here, the film Apollo 13 from 1995 produced by Brian Grazer
and Ron Howard is to be the basis upon which this diagnostic is to be conducted. The
assignment is to provide an in-depth analysis into the events of the Apollo 13 mission as
illustrated from the film adaptation. Further, recommendations are assumed to be provided to
NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration) to better implement future Apollo space
missions.
A comprehensive diagnostic is conducted in the aftermath of the events that occurred during
the Apollo 13 mission of NASA. As this mission was deemed by astronaut Jim Lovell as being a
“successful disaster” (Grazer & Howard, 1995), there is a need to conduct a full review into the
events and circumstances which allowed the astronauts to successfully return to Earth given
the explosion onboard the spacecraft. This report will examine why the astronauts were able to
return with two main perspectives. The first will be through the performance of mission control
and their staff. Second, analysis will be made into the performance of the spacecraft and the
crew. It should be noted here that this report concerns itself with the recovery of the mission
crew rather than why the crew did not successfully land on the moon. This report will shed light
to what can be done in the future should a similar were to occur again.
2
2.0 Data Sources
In this report, the two (2) main sources will be the film Apollo 13 (Grazer & Howard, 1995) and
the McKinsey 7s Model. The first source of the film is to reference the actual account of the
story. It must be mentioned here that the film is a representation of the actual events made by
Hollywood and there may be discrepancies with the actual event. Second, this analysis will
heavily rely on the McKinsey 7 S model which will provide a comprehensive insight into the
complexities of the relationships within this event.
2.1 Film
The film, Apollo 13(1995), produced by Grazer and directed by Howard, seeks to build on top
the accounts as written from Jim Lovell, the astronaut that was on board the real Apollo 13
mission from the earth bound to the moon and back. Grazer and Howard (1995) tried to
recreate the drama and emotions that were associated with the actual mission back in 1970.
Based on personal recollection, this film was praised for its rather realistic depiction of the
events that unfolded during the eventful mission.
The events in the film will be the primary and sole source for information pertaining to this
current diagnosis.
2.2 Model
The McKinsey 7s model is basically a framework developed by organization experts to aid in the
analysis of organizational strengths and weaknesses (Jurevicius, 2014). It is comprised of seven
(7) components and they are: stategy, structure, systems, shared values, style, staff, and, skills.
3
The first three (3) are the hard “s” which are tangible in nature and the latter three “s” are the
soft “s” which are intangible. Together, the three soft and three hard “s” supports the shared
values which upholds the integrity of the organization. It is important to note that Jurevicius
(2014) also mentions that all components must align with each other for the organization to
move forward. This model is chosen due to the easily-adaptive nature to various organizations
and its relative simplicity for readers to understand. Additionally, this model will work
extremely well in aiding the fishbone and force-field analysis later on in this report.
4
3.0 Situational Overview
Within this section, an overview will be given about the film’s, Apollo 13, events (Grazer &
Howard, 1995). This is to aid understanding for the analysis in section five (5). The Apollo 13
mission is part of the Apollo space program run by NASA. This is a subsequent mission to Apollo
11 where astronauts, Neil Armstrong, and, Buzz Aldrin, became the first two human beings to
ever set foot on the moon. During this time period, the cold war between the United States of
America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) is at a hot level. These two
superpowers are competing on every ground possible from athletics to technology. Obviously,
this was why the space race occurred. As a part of this ‘race’ the United States was determined
to excel in space exploration and show their capabilities to the world. The Apollo program was
born from this root.
The Apollo 13 mission’s aim was to explore the geology of the moon following the previous two
(2) landings from the Apollo 11 and Apollo 12 missions. The flight crew of this flight consists of
three (3) members and they are: commander Jim Lovell, command module pilot Jack Swigert,
and, lunar module pliot Fred Haise. Initally, the command module pilot was to be Ken
Mattingly, but he was exposed to a person infected with measles which meant that he, whom
never had measles, would have a possibility of being sick during the mission.
On April 11, 1970, the three flight crew successfully launched into space via the Saturn V rocket
and was en-route to the moon. Prior to arrival, during a routine oxygen tank stir procedure, the
command service module (CSM) suffered an explosion in the oxygen tank rendering the lunar
5
landing component of the trip obsolete. Thus, this exploration mission became a survival
mission for the three crew members to make their way back to Earth safely.
During the transit, various issues occurred which limited the survivability of the crew. These
included battery usage, re-entry angle, oxygen supply, temperature, fatigue, communication
etc. At the end, the crew, with the assistance of mission control, was able rely on the lunar
module (LM), Aquarius, to supply power and propulsion to the damaged command service
module (CSM) for transport back to Earth.
6
4.0 Environmental Analysis
Within this section, two SWOT (strength, weakness, opportunities & threats) analysis will be
made. The first analysis will be on the mission control and the second analysis will be made on
the flight crew. Each of the SWOT analysis will be split into internal and external components.
This is because the strengths and weaknesses are expressed internally within the
organization/team while the opportunities and threats are external factors in the environment.
Lastly, each of the SW (strength & weakness), and, OT (opportunities & threats) will be analyzed
with the PESTEL model which are the political, economic, socio-cultural, technological,
environmental, and, legal factors.
The purpose of this section is to gain a better understanding of the situation which will provide
a basic foundational understanding for the next analysis core section.
4.1 Mission Control - SWOT Analysis
4.1.1 Internal Analysis – Strengths & Weaknesses
Political- NASA is highly regulated by the government of the United States and the space
program is loosing popularity as a human being already landed on the moon.
Economic- NASA is threated by budget cuts from President Nixon due to the expensive costs
associated with sending astronauts into space and the moon.
Socio-Cultural- NASA is highly dominated by Caucasian men whom are scientists and military
personnell.
Technological- This is a high-tech organization with highly specialized workers which has the
capacity to innovate the world.
7
Environmental-This is the space race, thus, there is not much concern for the environment.
Further, the awareness of the environment is low during this time period.
Legal- NASA has strict conduct and selection for workers that are permitted to work here. This
is due to the classified nature of the experiments and it may contain information about national
defense capabilities.
4.1.2 External Analysis – Opportunities & Threats
Political- The mission control is faced with external control from the government and the
general public.
Economic- There is a high demand from the public and the Nixon administration to cut budget
to save on costs. Future Apollo missions are already at a threat.
Socio-Cultural- The American public is getting richer and the sense of cold war is present, but
due to the prevalence of entertainment and pleasure, citizens are more at ease.
Technological- The technological capabilities of the United States is high and there are constant
innovations in the country, but NASA is not threated as they are one of the leaders in
innovation for the USA.
Environmental- The environmental movement has yet to officially start, but the Apollo program
is a high waste emitter which would threaten the future environment of Earth.
Legal- As NASA is a federal bureau, they are subject to legislation passed by the house of
representatives and the senate of the United States. Therefore, any political change can have
ramifications for the legal bottom line for NASA.
8
4.2 Flight Crew - SWOT Analysis
4.2.1 Internal Analysis – Strengths & Weaknesses
Political- The flight crew are all military-related and are obedient to rules and regulations. Two
members are married with children while one is still a bachelor.
Economic- All members of the flight crew are well-off as they get good money for the work that
they do.
Socio-Cultural- All individuals are Caucasian men in a similar age range.
Technological- Each member of the flight crew are experts at operating mechanics during the
late 1960’s and early 1970’s. As the Apollo program is still exploration and new technology,
safety would be a factor in the crew’s mission.
Environmental- The natural environment is not much of a concern for the flight crew.
Legal- The flight crew are all complying with the criminal code. All have clean criminal records.
But command module pilot Jack Swigert is behind on taxes and may face persecution.
4.2.2 External Analysis – Opportunities & Threats
Political- the NASA management may at anytime change crews which was evident for the swap
from Ken Mattingly to Jack Swigert for the command module pilot position..
Economic- Budget cut threatens the prospect for astronauts going into space again in the
future.
Socio-Cultural- Individuals in the flight crew are all Caucasians and are all men, thus not much
differences here other than all members originating from different parts of the country..
9
Technological- The technology is rapidly changing and the crew needs time to get adjusted to
the new technology everytime a new model of spacecraft is introduced.
Environmental- No issues with the natural environment.
Legal- Jack Swigert may be threatened with moderate legal action as he is behind on his taxes..
10
5.0 Analysis
Within this section, two detailed analysis will be conducted. This is to gain insight into the
unfolding of the events of the Apollo 13 space mission. The first analysis is a fishbone analysis
which examines the core issue and the complex reasons behind the cause. The second analysis
is a force-field analysis which examines the powers at play.
Together, these two analysis will provide the groundwork for the final recommendations which
will be presented in section 6.0.
5.1 Fishbone Analysis
The fishbone analysis is a tool applied to this diagnostic report to examine why the Apollo 13
crew was able to successfully return to Earth. Here, the concepts from the McKinsey 7s model
are applied to the classical 4 P’s of analysis. The 4 P’s are policies, procedure, people, and, plan.
The goal of this fishbone analysis is to see common problems which will provide backing for the
recommendations in the next main section of recommendations. Here, point form descriptions
are made about each of the 4P’s. A diagram is provided after the descriptions to better visualize
the issue(s).
Policies
-Equipment
-Defective Heat Shield issue not fixed
-Equipment are new and not tested for reliability
-Sleep
-Legislated sleep amount not followed
-Not sleeping was due to need for survival
-Mission control did not enforce directives for astronauts to sleep
-Training
11
-Too short of a training period (6 months)
-only 1 training module was present in NASA for this model of CSM
-Cost
-A underlying concern to keep costs low
-Crew replacement
-Not entire team swap
-NASA plays favourites in crew selection
Procedures
-Communication
-Top-down in mission control and flight crew
-insubordination issues present in times of adversity
-mission control held back information from flight crew
-Creativity
-Not encouraged in organizational structure
-Mission Control and Flight crew became creative during adversity
-Mission Control was able to think outside of box
-Complexity
-procedures were very complex which has a high proneness to mistakes
-needs to simulate issues to understand the complexity
-mission control and flight crew was able to navigate through the complexity of systems
People
-Political
-costs were of concern
-public approval is at stake
-media not as interested in space program anymore
-Medical
-Crews were healthy
-No psychiatric exams were conducted (at least from the movie)
-Technicality
12
-Mission control had professionals which had no practical experience in space
-Flight crew had fighter pilots with previous flying experience in air and in space
-Ambition
-Mission control wanted to keep the Apollo program going and maintain safety record
-Flight crew about personal gain (glory)
-USA society wanted to lead the Soviet
Plan
-No Previous experience of same situation
-requires creative solutions
-relied on experts
-Preparation
-Not enough preparation time
-Not enough focus on safety
-Contingency
-No time
-Structure of separate departments benefitted and detracted from rescue mission
13
Diagram 1. Fishbone Analysis
14
5.2 Force Field Analysis
The force field analysis is utilized to examine various forces at work. Here, the McKinsey 7-S
model is applied with various factors promoting the driving forces or the restraining forces. The
7-S are strategy, structure, style, shared values, staff, skills, and, systems. Below, each factor of
the McKinsey 7S is listed in point form with a value (out of 5) to see how much the forces battle
each other.
Strategy
•
- Both flight crew and mission control strive for having the ship return to Earth (+4)
•
Flight crew and mission control had conflicting strategies at times (-4)
Structure
•
Flight crew reported to commander (small team) (+3)
•
Mission control reported to Director Gene Kranz (+2)
•
Vertical Structure (-5)
•
Everything has to be reported
•
Communication time delayed due to technical issues
Style
•
Everyone was concerned and tired (-2)
•
Style was directive and did not favour dissent (-1)
Shared Values
•
Common goal: rescue the flight crew and get home (+5)
Staff
•
Everyone is extremely professional (+3)
Skills
•
Everyone is a specialist in various fields (+5)
Systems
•
Tackled each problem as they came (same for both flight crew and mission control
(-4)
15
Diagram 2. Force Field Analysis
Score
4
5
Driving Forces
Strategy
Structure
Current State
3
5
Staff
Skills
4
Structure
5
Style
3
•Flight crew
reported to
commander (small
team)
•Mission control
reported to Director
Gene Kranz
•Vertical Structure
•Everything has to be
reported
•Communication time
delayed due to
technical issues
•Common goal: rescue
the flight crew and get
home
0
•Everyone is
extremely
professional
0
•Everyone is a
specialist in various
fields
0
•Tackled each problem
as they came (same
for both flight crew
and mission control)
0
Total
22
Strategy
•Flight crew and
mission control had
conflicting
strategies at times
0
5
Score
•Both flight crew and
mission control strive
for having the ship
return to Earth
•Everyone was
concerned and
tired
•Style was
directive and did
not favour dissent
Shared
Values
Restraining Forces
No
Change
Change
Systems
4
Total
16
16
6.0 Recommendations
From the previous section, two (2) analyses were conducted. They are the fishbone analysis and
the force field analysis. From these analysis, three (3) recommendations are provided. Each
recommendation will have a short explanation into why it is necessary for implementation.
1) Increase training time for crew members
As can be seen in the fishbone analysis, the crew was given a short period of time of
training. By increasing the graining time for the crew, it can allow for greater coordination.
Further, with the last-minute swap of the crew, the team was not able to fully cooperate
with each other.
2) Crew swapping policies should change to swapping entire crew
Instead of swapping one crew member with another, NASA should implement a policy
where if one member is deemed unfit for duty, the entire flight crew needs to be swapped.
Again, this relates to the first recommendation by having cooperation within the flight crew
members. This policy can also prevent NASA from being criticized as playing favourites and
ensures that organizational justice is served internally.
3) Mission Control to implement better contingency planning
As evident from the previous section, the mission control is not flexible but was able to
adapt to creativity when typical solutions do not work. Thus, NASA should revitalize the
mission control by having more creative conversations occur prior to missions which would
result in a better contingency plan. Such an idea could be to allow mission control members
17
to work their minds by putting them through simulations where they have to make a certain
situation work. At the same time, simulation situations should be creative to allow for
creative solutions to be formulated.
Together, these three (3) recommendations will better serve future Apollo missions. This will
greatly enhance the quality of the missions and prevent mishaps from happening. Moreover, if
a similar situation were to occur, the collateral effects can be greatly mitigated.
18
7.0 Conclusions
The Apollo 13 mission objectives were not met, but it was successful in the way that the crew
was able to return back to Earth safely. The learning experience for NASA as an organization
through this event is profound. The three (3) recommendations of increasing training time for
flight crew, changes in flight crew-swapping procedures, and, mission control to implement
better means of contingency planning would overall benefit future missions and mitigate future
events of the same sort.
19
8.0 References:
Jurevicius, O. (2014, May 13). McKinsey 7s Model. Strategic Management Insight. Retrieved
June 7, 2014, from http://www.strategicmanagementinsight.com/tools/mckinsey-7smodel-framework.html
Grazer, B (Producer), & Howard, R (Director). (1995). Apollo 13 [Motion picture]. USA: Universal
Pictures.
Mind Tools (2014). Cause and Effect Analysis: Identifying the likely causes of problems.
Retrieved June 7 2014, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTMC_03.htm
Mind Tools (2014). Force Field Analysis: Analyzing Pressures For and Against Change. Retrieved
June 8, 2014, from http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newTED_06.htm