August 10, 2009
Blog Posting
E-mails and Collaboration -Gender Orientation
After reading all the e-mails and editing them, there seems to be a gender issue in that group. As a member of a group of two women and me, it could have been threatening if one perceived the situation in that frame of mind. Once one begins working in a group, the grounds rules laid down, and each one’s responsibilities noted then the group has a chance to be successful in their task.
I made the mistake of prejudging a team mate and it made for a slow start to our project. Not being able to communicate in a timely manner was another complication that we eventually overcame. The project was completed and it was successful.
I believe that groups that do not work together on an ongoing basis tend to have gender problems, as well as communication problems, and the drive to attain the purpose of the group’s conception. Being able to communicate through e-mails in a meaningful fashion is a necessary requirement for success.
The student e-mails were not well thought out or written on the level were they should have been. No matter how frustrated one is, the written text should be edited for mistakes in spelling and grammar. Apparently, there was no leader in that group and it seems that there was a communication breakdown in formatting the project. The purpose of the group was not defined by the group as a whole.
The gender differences did play an important role in the collaboration difficulties of the group. According to Mary Lay’s article most groups are set up in a patriarchal hierarchy. Men have the lead roles in such groups. In this group the dominance was control by the women in the group which was a reversal of normal roles or how collaboration groups are set up. This was a contributing factor to the failure of the group.
I think the groups that I have been involved in this class actually defied traditional group formations. Everyone in the group had the same purpose to complete the project in a timely manner, by working together to reach that goal, and each member contributed to the success of the project. Sometimes there may have been a slowdown in communication but that was quickly overcome. Each member was allowed to make suggestions; some were accepted, others were not.
We are androgynous collaborators. Androgynous is defined as male/female tendencies dictate how we react to the opposite gender. We are predictable by our gender in most cases and that defines the collaborative group.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Friday, July 31, 2009
Selfe's article was informative
Selfe’s article was a contrast in face to face discourse versus computer e-mail sent between group members. In face to face there is a chance that one or two members will dominate the group because of being more assertive than the rest of the group. In the computer e-mail form of collaboration, each person has equal standing. It is less intimidating and is easier to express themselves in writing rather than verbally.
Looking at the students e-mails, there is a great deal of room for improvement, in their grammar and spelling. What I try to do in my e-mails is to be concise and to the point. Their e-mails seem to go on forever. I looked at the e-mails that I have sent over the term and I try to be correct in grammar and spelling before sending them.
Working in my present group the email traffic has flowed very smoothly and we are getting a great deal of work accomplished via e-mail. I think the secret of using e-mail as a collaborative tool is just that using it effectively. That means everyone replies to their e-mails, check their e-mails frequently, and if there are no e-mails contact their group members by other means to complete the task.
Face to face is also a good tool if ground rules are set before hand and followed. These meetings then should be followed up with e-mails confirming the results of the meeting. I never thought that I would be conversing in cyberspace by machine, in real time. Face to face discourse at times could be a disadvantage to one or more of the collaborative group because of the dominance of one or two members of the group.
Computers and e-mail collaboration is less confrontational and each member can feel secure in their opinions and ideas. Yes there are disagreements but these are easier to solve without the face to face confrontation. The intimidating factor is not present and everyone works towards the goal of the group.
E-mails allows for a varying avenues for engagement. Everything under the sun can be sent via e-mail; pictures, video, charts, and text. Through the different sources of media today, we have allowed our imaginations to run wild. Things we never dreamed of ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago have come to pass. As a baby boomer, this computer driven world never stops amazing me.
Looking at the students e-mails, there is a great deal of room for improvement, in their grammar and spelling. What I try to do in my e-mails is to be concise and to the point. Their e-mails seem to go on forever. I looked at the e-mails that I have sent over the term and I try to be correct in grammar and spelling before sending them.
Working in my present group the email traffic has flowed very smoothly and we are getting a great deal of work accomplished via e-mail. I think the secret of using e-mail as a collaborative tool is just that using it effectively. That means everyone replies to their e-mails, check their e-mails frequently, and if there are no e-mails contact their group members by other means to complete the task.
Face to face is also a good tool if ground rules are set before hand and followed. These meetings then should be followed up with e-mails confirming the results of the meeting. I never thought that I would be conversing in cyberspace by machine, in real time. Face to face discourse at times could be a disadvantage to one or more of the collaborative group because of the dominance of one or two members of the group.
Computers and e-mail collaboration is less confrontational and each member can feel secure in their opinions and ideas. Yes there are disagreements but these are easier to solve without the face to face confrontation. The intimidating factor is not present and everyone works towards the goal of the group.
E-mails allows for a varying avenues for engagement. Everything under the sun can be sent via e-mail; pictures, video, charts, and text. Through the different sources of media today, we have allowed our imaginations to run wild. Things we never dreamed of ten, twenty, or even thirty years ago have come to pass. As a baby boomer, this computer driven world never stops amazing me.
Burnett, Anderson, and Selfe
Collaborative Rules of the Road
July 30, 2009
Blog entry
In Burnett’s article it was setting the ground rules for collaborative work. It expressed ways o the correct ways of doing collaborative groups and what one might expect. Three types of conflict were listed and how to use them constructively. He wrote about the problems of premature consensus and its pitfalls. He also writes about competition versus cooperation. Too much competition is detrimental to productive collaboration. This gives people the wrong idea. They feel that they can win if the others fail in reaching their goal of a successful collaborative effort.
Burnett writes, “Substantive conflicts in a cooperative setting could lead collaborators to reexamine opinions, share diverse ideas, and discover creative solutions typically regarded as essential to effective decisions.” This is all part of workplace collaborative improvement.
Planning collaborative work is essential for successful end product. From my experiences in the working world, just about anything you do need a plan to be successful. I work over twenty years in sales and if you didn’t have a plan you would not be very successful.
Disagreement is good if you understand the dynamics of proper disagreement. Letting others know that you disagree, it allows for discussion and new ideas to surface. It gives an opportunity for others to think, to develop new ways of solving the problem at hand, and opens the door for others to voice their idea or opinions.
What I got from Anderson’s article was the importance of scheduling and assigning the different jobs to certain people, due at a certain time, and having progress meetings to understand where the project is at any particular time. I was working in a group designing a web page for new students, actually to make the current web page easier to use for everyone. Each person was assigned work related to their personal skills. All five of us in the group met several times outside of the classroom to work on the project and interacted with each other away from our project. It was the most successful project that I have done in college.
Selfe’s article was a contrast in face to face discourse versus computer e-mail sent between group members. In face to face there is a chance that one or two members will dominate the group because of being more assertive than the rest of the group. In the computer e-mail form of collaboration, each person has equal standing. It is less intimidating and is easier to express themselves in writing rather than verbally.
The three articles are a guide to doing good collaborative work in groups. I learned a great deal about what are good practices for working in groups. Having done several group tasks, there were no basic guide lines for most of them. The three authors articles fall in place starting with Burnett, Anderson, and Selfe.
They did not like how collaboration was taught in school because it leads to preconceived ideas and the wrong conclusions by the students. These ideas lead to poor communication and collaborative work.
July 30, 2009
Blog entry
In Burnett’s article it was setting the ground rules for collaborative work. It expressed ways o the correct ways of doing collaborative groups and what one might expect. Three types of conflict were listed and how to use them constructively. He wrote about the problems of premature consensus and its pitfalls. He also writes about competition versus cooperation. Too much competition is detrimental to productive collaboration. This gives people the wrong idea. They feel that they can win if the others fail in reaching their goal of a successful collaborative effort.
Burnett writes, “Substantive conflicts in a cooperative setting could lead collaborators to reexamine opinions, share diverse ideas, and discover creative solutions typically regarded as essential to effective decisions.” This is all part of workplace collaborative improvement.
Planning collaborative work is essential for successful end product. From my experiences in the working world, just about anything you do need a plan to be successful. I work over twenty years in sales and if you didn’t have a plan you would not be very successful.
Disagreement is good if you understand the dynamics of proper disagreement. Letting others know that you disagree, it allows for discussion and new ideas to surface. It gives an opportunity for others to think, to develop new ways of solving the problem at hand, and opens the door for others to voice their idea or opinions.
What I got from Anderson’s article was the importance of scheduling and assigning the different jobs to certain people, due at a certain time, and having progress meetings to understand where the project is at any particular time. I was working in a group designing a web page for new students, actually to make the current web page easier to use for everyone. Each person was assigned work related to their personal skills. All five of us in the group met several times outside of the classroom to work on the project and interacted with each other away from our project. It was the most successful project that I have done in college.
Selfe’s article was a contrast in face to face discourse versus computer e-mail sent between group members. In face to face there is a chance that one or two members will dominate the group because of being more assertive than the rest of the group. In the computer e-mail form of collaboration, each person has equal standing. It is less intimidating and is easier to express themselves in writing rather than verbally.
The three articles are a guide to doing good collaborative work in groups. I learned a great deal about what are good practices for working in groups. Having done several group tasks, there were no basic guide lines for most of them. The three authors articles fall in place starting with Burnett, Anderson, and Selfe.
They did not like how collaboration was taught in school because it leads to preconceived ideas and the wrong conclusions by the students. These ideas lead to poor communication and collaborative work.
Monday, July 20, 2009
Revised memo Challenger Disaster
Revision of First Memo:
July 18, 2009
To: Design groups from Marshall Space Flight Center, Morton Thiokol, Inc., Precision
Rubber Products Incorporated, and Parker Seal Company
From: Marshall Space Flight Center; Engineering and Design Group, Jennifer Furgerson,
Melanie Russell and Gordon Palmer
Subject: O-ring failure and possible explosion of the shuttle during take off
Dear Mr. Robert Boisjoly, Applied Mechanics Division
We understand that you and your group have the same concerns over the o-rings on the Solid rocket Boosters (SRB’s) as we do. The test data demonstrates the possibility of joint failure of the o-rings of the SRB’s. There have been problems since the inception of the program in 1977.
This is established in the November 30th 1977, memorandum. Apparently, the engineering groups could not come to a consensus in ways to solve the problem.
The MTL group had been testing the o-rings since late 1977 with unsatisfactory results. Even at this point in time they did not suggest a hold to the shuttle flights. At this time, Marshall Space flight Center design group wanted to change the specifications of the o-ring material as a possible solution to the problem.
On February 6, 1979, NASA engineers Eudy and Ray took the test results to the suppliers of the o-rings and material used in the manufacture of the o-rings, Precision Rubber Products Incorporated and Parker Seal Company. Both companies had the same reaction about the o-rings. There should be more testing completed in order to solve the problem. Temperature has a great deal to do with the o-ring not reseating at low temperatures. Anything below 50 degrees and the o-ring will not reseat allowing blow-by in the form of hot gases.
NASA, Precision Rubber Products, and Parker Seal want to see more testing completed so the data can be actually more in line with real conditions of lift off. The o-rings and the SRB joints should be mated to reseat at any temperature. The process for doing this is most likely changing the specifications for the material used in the manufacturing process. In the field test the gap between the o-ring and the SRB joint is greater than the allowable tolerances.
NASA engineers also feel that the primary o-ring failure could lead to the failure of the secondary o-ring seal. The MTL group disagrees with that theory and they feel that there is nothing to be concerned about with the secondary o-ring seals. This is a major conflict between the two groups.
Until this matter has been resolved the possibility of a major catastrophe is likely to occur. Not only the lost of the space shuttle but all those on board. This is unacceptable and we recommend that the shuttle flights be put on hold until this serious problem can be solved to the satisfaction of NASA and the o-ring suppliers
Respectfully,
Marshall Space Flight Center, Engineering, and Design Group,
Jennifer Furgerson, Melanie Russell, and Gordon
This is our group’s revised memo for the Challenger Disaster. We each wrote our own memo from our own perspective. As group leader, I took each memo and blended them together and used every ones ideas to revise the memo. Jenn, Melanie, and myself all had good ideas and hopefully I was able to convey those thoughts. We had communicated by e-mail and we eventually got everything in perspective.
July 18, 2009
To: Design groups from Marshall Space Flight Center, Morton Thiokol, Inc., Precision
Rubber Products Incorporated, and Parker Seal Company
From: Marshall Space Flight Center; Engineering and Design Group, Jennifer Furgerson,
Melanie Russell and Gordon Palmer
Subject: O-ring failure and possible explosion of the shuttle during take off
Dear Mr. Robert Boisjoly, Applied Mechanics Division
We understand that you and your group have the same concerns over the o-rings on the Solid rocket Boosters (SRB’s) as we do. The test data demonstrates the possibility of joint failure of the o-rings of the SRB’s. There have been problems since the inception of the program in 1977.
This is established in the November 30th 1977, memorandum. Apparently, the engineering groups could not come to a consensus in ways to solve the problem.
The MTL group had been testing the o-rings since late 1977 with unsatisfactory results. Even at this point in time they did not suggest a hold to the shuttle flights. At this time, Marshall Space flight Center design group wanted to change the specifications of the o-ring material as a possible solution to the problem.
On February 6, 1979, NASA engineers Eudy and Ray took the test results to the suppliers of the o-rings and material used in the manufacture of the o-rings, Precision Rubber Products Incorporated and Parker Seal Company. Both companies had the same reaction about the o-rings. There should be more testing completed in order to solve the problem. Temperature has a great deal to do with the o-ring not reseating at low temperatures. Anything below 50 degrees and the o-ring will not reseat allowing blow-by in the form of hot gases.
NASA, Precision Rubber Products, and Parker Seal want to see more testing completed so the data can be actually more in line with real conditions of lift off. The o-rings and the SRB joints should be mated to reseat at any temperature. The process for doing this is most likely changing the specifications for the material used in the manufacturing process. In the field test the gap between the o-ring and the SRB joint is greater than the allowable tolerances.
NASA engineers also feel that the primary o-ring failure could lead to the failure of the secondary o-ring seal. The MTL group disagrees with that theory and they feel that there is nothing to be concerned about with the secondary o-ring seals. This is a major conflict between the two groups.
Until this matter has been resolved the possibility of a major catastrophe is likely to occur. Not only the lost of the space shuttle but all those on board. This is unacceptable and we recommend that the shuttle flights be put on hold until this serious problem can be solved to the satisfaction of NASA and the o-ring suppliers
Respectfully,
Marshall Space Flight Center, Engineering, and Design Group,
Jennifer Furgerson, Melanie Russell, and Gordon
This is our group’s revised memo for the Challenger Disaster. We each wrote our own memo from our own perspective. As group leader, I took each memo and blended them together and used every ones ideas to revise the memo. Jenn, Melanie, and myself all had good ideas and hopefully I was able to convey those thoughts. We had communicated by e-mail and we eventually got everything in perspective.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
The Challenger Disaster
July 15, 2009
To: The Design Groups working on O-ring Failure Problem on the SRB’s
NASA, Morton Thiokol, Inc., and The Marshall Space Flight Center
From: Marshall Space Flight Center Engineering and Design Group
Subject: The failure of the O-rings on the SRB’s Joints
Dear Robert M. Boisjoly:
We at Marshall Space Flight Center have some serious concerns over the recent test results on the rubber o-ring seal on the SRB’s. We had demonstrated these concerns since 1979 and earlier at the inception of the program.
The test data and other pertinent information have been communicated to your group in memos starting in 1977. As we all know, those o-rings are a major factor in the safe completion of any shuttle mission. The tolerances are more than the manufacturer recommends. Therefore, a serious possibility of an explosion during liftoff could occur.
The MTI group had started testing these o-rings as early as 1977 with the test results being unsatisfactory. Your group wanted to relax the standards for these tests. While the Marshall group wanted to change the design of the o-ring and materials used in its manufacture. All managers received a copy of the memo and Mr. Eudy did not attach the significance of the memo to this problem.
In February 6, 1979, Mr. Eudy and Mr. Ray took the test data and visited Precision Rubber Corporation and Parker Seal Company. The test data indicated that there was a possibility of the primary seal failure and along with that the secondary seal failure. The information gathered from the visits to these two manufacturers caused MTI to become more concern about the o-ring problem.
The problem has taken so long in becoming solved, that NASA has gone to other venders seeking new products that will solve the o-ring problem. This is stated in a memo from Roger M. Boisjoly dated July 22, 1985. He was so concerned over the problem that he recommended that the flights be put on hold.
The main failure factor in the o-ring was the temperature and reseating after the expansion. On cooler temperatures the o-ring could not reseat itself properly in the SRB’s and clevis joint. The test data can be found on a memo from MTI dated August 9, 1985 Brian G. Russell, SRM ignition System Manager. This memo breaks down the test results. Still at this late date MTI does not accept the fact that a failure could be fatal to a shuttle mission.
We at Marshall conclude that immediate steps should be put in place to make sure that the flights are put on hold to more data could be retested. This has been an ongoing problem of both our groups not accepting the other’s evidence or lack of as a problem. Gentlemen we have to do something now before it’s too late. The other memos that we have sent has fallen on deaf ears and we really believe that this is a major safety concern. If you do not have copies of these memos and reports, contact me and I will sent the complete file over to your group.
Sincerely,
Gordon Palmer
To: The Design Groups working on O-ring Failure Problem on the SRB’s
NASA, Morton Thiokol, Inc., and The Marshall Space Flight Center
From: Marshall Space Flight Center Engineering and Design Group
Subject: The failure of the O-rings on the SRB’s Joints
Dear Robert M. Boisjoly:
We at Marshall Space Flight Center have some serious concerns over the recent test results on the rubber o-ring seal on the SRB’s. We had demonstrated these concerns since 1979 and earlier at the inception of the program.
The test data and other pertinent information have been communicated to your group in memos starting in 1977. As we all know, those o-rings are a major factor in the safe completion of any shuttle mission. The tolerances are more than the manufacturer recommends. Therefore, a serious possibility of an explosion during liftoff could occur.
The MTI group had started testing these o-rings as early as 1977 with the test results being unsatisfactory. Your group wanted to relax the standards for these tests. While the Marshall group wanted to change the design of the o-ring and materials used in its manufacture. All managers received a copy of the memo and Mr. Eudy did not attach the significance of the memo to this problem.
In February 6, 1979, Mr. Eudy and Mr. Ray took the test data and visited Precision Rubber Corporation and Parker Seal Company. The test data indicated that there was a possibility of the primary seal failure and along with that the secondary seal failure. The information gathered from the visits to these two manufacturers caused MTI to become more concern about the o-ring problem.
The problem has taken so long in becoming solved, that NASA has gone to other venders seeking new products that will solve the o-ring problem. This is stated in a memo from Roger M. Boisjoly dated July 22, 1985. He was so concerned over the problem that he recommended that the flights be put on hold.
The main failure factor in the o-ring was the temperature and reseating after the expansion. On cooler temperatures the o-ring could not reseat itself properly in the SRB’s and clevis joint. The test data can be found on a memo from MTI dated August 9, 1985 Brian G. Russell, SRM ignition System Manager. This memo breaks down the test results. Still at this late date MTI does not accept the fact that a failure could be fatal to a shuttle mission.
We at Marshall conclude that immediate steps should be put in place to make sure that the flights are put on hold to more data could be retested. This has been an ongoing problem of both our groups not accepting the other’s evidence or lack of as a problem. Gentlemen we have to do something now before it’s too late. The other memos that we have sent has fallen on deaf ears and we really believe that this is a major safety concern. If you do not have copies of these memos and reports, contact me and I will sent the complete file over to your group.
Sincerely,
Gordon Palmer
Monday, July 13, 2009
Ten Tips to Help Employees Collaborate
Thanks Beth that was an interesting article. It reinforces what we have been told in the past classes. It reaffirms what the people have been saying in the articles that we have been reading this summer. I think that we as writers need to understand the importance of those ten points. Not only will it help us to become better collaborators but better writers overall.
All the things that we have been taught, knowing the audience,knowing the purpose, and knowing the point you want to make. They are made in this article. I really like the information.
All the things that we have been taught, knowing the audience,knowing the purpose, and knowing the point you want to make. They are made in this article. I really like the information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)