One lesson to be learned from the fatal decision to launch Challenger is that effective technical and group communication requires more than the fidelious exchange of information. This article examines testimony gathered by the Presidential Commission on the Challenger Accident and reveals communication failures in four dimensions of group differentiation—clarity, interrelatedness, centrality, and openness. The article illustrates all four dimensions with excerpts from the Commission Hearings and identifies communication problems peculiar to highly technical groups.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
FoersterH., Epistemology of Communication, in The Myths of Information: Technology and Postindustrial Culture, WoodwardK. (ed.), Coda Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. 18–27, 1980.
2.
WoodwardK., Introduction, in The Myths of Information: Technology and Postindustrial Culture, WoodwardK. (ed.), Coda Press, Madison, Wisconsin, pp. xii–xxvi, 1980.
3.
WarrenT. L., Technical Communication, Littlefield and Adams, Totowa, New Jersey, 1978.
4.
FearingB. E., Oral Presentation and Presence in Business, in Research in Technical Communication, MoranM. G. and JournetD. (eds.), Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1985.
5.
BarnettG. and HughesC., Communication Theory and Technical Communication, in Research in Technical Communication, MoranM. G. and JournetD. (eds.), Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1985.
6.
FolgerJ. P. and PooleM. S., Working Through Conflict: A Communication Perspective, Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Illinois, 1984.
7.
WaltonR., Interpersonal Peacemaking: Confrontations and Third Party Consultations, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Reading, Massachusetts, 1969.
8.
MarienM., Non-Communication and The Future, in Communications and the Future: Prospects, Promises, and Problems, DidsburyH. F.Jr. (ed.), World Future Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 1982.
9.
DizardW. P.Jr., The Coming of the Information Age, Longman, New York, 1985.
10.
SelfeC. L., Decoding and Encoding: A Balanced Approach to Communication Skills, Engineering Education, 74, pp. 163–164, 1983.
11.
SchiffP. M., Speech: Another Facet of Technical Communication, Engineering Education, 71, pp. 180–181, 1980.
12.
AndersonP. V.BrockmannR. J., and MillerC. R., New Essays in Technical and Scientific Communication: Research, Theory, Practice, Baywood Publishing Company, Inc., Farmingdale, New York, 1970.
13.
MoranM. G. and JournetD., Research in Technical Communication, Greenwood Press, Westport, Connecticut, 1985.
14.
GriffithB. C. and MillerA. J., Networks of Informal Communication Among Scientifically Productive Scientists, in Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, NelsonC. E. and PollockD. K. (eds.), Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, pp. 124–140, 1970.
15.
RosenbloomR. S. and WolekF. W., Technology, Information and Organization: Information Transfer in Industrial R&D, Harvard Graduate School of Business Administration, Boston, Massachusetts, 1967.
16.
BakerN. R.SiegmanJ., and RubensteinA. H., The Effects of Perceived Needs and Means on the Generation of Ideas for Industrial Research and Development Projects IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-14, pp. 156–163, 1967.
17.
AllenT. J. and CohenS. I., Information Flow in Two R&D Laboratories, Administrative Science Quarterly, 14, pp. 12–19, 1969.
18.
AllenT. J., Roles in Technical Communication Networks, in Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, NelsonC. E. and PollockD. K. (eds.), Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, pp. 191–208, 1970.
19.
HollandW. E., The Special Communicator and His Behavior in Research Organization: A Key to the Management of Informal Technical Information Flow, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-17, pp. 48–53, 1974.
20.
AbelsonP. H., Relation of Group Activity to Creativity in Science, Daedalus, 94, pp. 603–614, 1965.
21.
AllenT. J., Studies of the Problem-solving Process in Engineering Design, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-13, pp. 72–83, 1966.
22.
TushmanM. L., Technical Communication in R&D Laboratories: The Impact of Project Work Characteristics, Academy of Management Journal, 21, pp. 625–645, 1978.
23.
WolekF. W., The Complexity of Messages in Science and Engineering: An Influence on Patterns of Communication, in Communication Among Scientists and Engineers, NelsonC. E. and PollockD. K. (eds.), Heath, Lexington, Massachusetts, pp. 235–265, 1970.
24.
DunneE. J.Jr. and KlementowskiL. J., An Investigation of the Use of Network Techniques in Research and Development Management, IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, EM-29, pp. 74–78, 1982.
25.
BrownJ. W. and UtterbackJ. M., Uncertainty and Technical Communication Patterns, Management Science, 31, pp. 301–311, 1985.
26.
JanisI. L., Groupthink: Psychological Studies of Policy Decisions and Fiascoes, Houghton-Mifflin, Boston, Massachusetts, 1967.
27.
HarveyJ. B., The Abilene Paradox: The Management of Agreement, Organizational Dynamics, 3, pp. 63–80, 1974.
28.
ScheffT. J., Toward a Sociological Model of Consensus, American Sociological Review, 32, pp. 32–46, 1968.
29.
HarveyO. J. and SchroderH. M., Cognitive Aspects of Self and Motivation, in Motivation and Social Interaction: Cognitive Determinants, HarveyO. J. (ed.), Ronald Press, New York, pp. 95–133, 1963.
30.
Presidential Commission on the Space Shuttle Challenger Accident, Report to the President, United States Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., 1986.
31.
PaceR. C., Communication Patterns in High and Low Consensus Discussions: A Descriptive Analysis, The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 53, pp. 184–202, 1988.
32.
PaceR. C., A Commentary on Computer-Assisted Instruction in Speech Communication, The Western Journal of Speech Communication, 51, pp. 136–141, 1987.
33.
PaceR. C., Patterns of Argumentation in High and Low Consensus Discussions, in Argument and Social Practice: Proceedings of the Fourth SCA/AFA Conference on Argumentation, CoxJ. R. (ed.), Speech Communication Association, Annandale, Virginia, pp. 770–781, 1985.
34.
HirokawaR. and PaceR. C., A Descriptive Investigation of the Possible Communication-based Reasons of Effective and Ineffective Group Decision-Making, Communication Monographs, 50, pp. 364–379, 1983.
