Framing And Analysing Problem

Olusanya Oyeyemi

Walden University

MMSL 6140

Dr. Pattis Perry

26 January, 2016

Abstract

 This paper illustrates how to analyze both quantitative and qualitative research to recognize paradigm shift and how to encourage the team to share their ideas freely. It also shows how to frame and analyze problems using the Apollo program as a reference point.

Framing And Analyzing Problems

The element of analytical thinking features when the professor tells the mystery of a dead cat. Illustrating the context, that differentiates a dead cat on the road from a dead cat in a restaurant kitchen.  Different speculations show that dead cat on the road might be killed by car or heat exhaustion.  While the dead cat in a restaurant, might be killed by poison food or chef.  This mystery implies that the context of every matter is of good importance to its interpretation. Ability to analyze problems/challenges according to its context gives the same meaning to the observers.

What the NASA administrative was saying about the best pilot in the world not having scientific mind was that they were not on the same page. Though the pilots were good in their chosen profession as a pilot but that was different from their purpose on the moon. The reason for sending them to the moon was not limited to their pilot experience; they were to observe geographic data, able to describe and discover new an idea, and objects.

The team of astronauts created a new science by employing an expert outside their skills to teach and train them what they do not know. They exposed themselves to a new knowledge of geology, which was outside their jurisdiction.  The implication of scientific disagreement in terms of understanding knowledge is for more clarification on all individual’s opinion and helps all contributors to be on the same page to work together. It enhances collaboration and helps individual to have clarity of purpose.

The scientist demonstrates inductive, deductive, and deductive reasoning by organizing extra training for both the astronaut and the backup team. The geology training did not only train them to be an observer on the moon but to gather data with the entire instrument they have on board and with their mind. The training prepares them to endure unforeseen challenges like that of the hooked drilling tool. The scientist induction buttresses the saying that “preparation is the key to success” (Hanks, 1998).

Framing and analyzing problems: The Apollo Program, Part 2

The team of Apollo program frame the questions and problems they faced by first analyzing the obstacles they will face before they can land the first man on the moon. They come up with a list of challenges they have to proffer solutions; Orbit is the first place and they queue into Russian’s experience for the solution. EVA as a testing space walks to the targeted moonwalk, and a suit that is applicable to walk on the moon. It continues to rendezvous; docking and long duration space flight, a proven solution to all these obstacles assure their successful landing on the moon and maneuver back to earth. Considering Elder and Paul analytic thinking methodology, why manned space flight is a rational and important or not, Russian has challenged the whole world by first to put a man in space.  The ex-president John F. Kennedy has announces the paradigm shift of countering Russian’s achievements as the first to land a man on the moon. This purpose is enough reason to spend the money and time on because is a historic achievement for America until today. My own point of view is that historic achievement is enough reason to spend that much on a project where there are a lot at home to spend on.

Every project has its place in a country to install their flag on the moon. Therefore, in my own assumption sponsoring the project was not a waste, but an image builder. Considering the implication of my reasoning, if Russian could go to space only to show the world their technological capacity then, there is nothing wrong if any other country can show off an advanced challenge. Anybody who is not ready for competition is not an achiever because competition brings developments. For instance, the initiative of Bill Gate for personal computer brought the competition that we see today in the world of electronics; like Personal Computers, cell phones, and now Bluetooth wristwatches.  In the present world, whatever any organization can do better place them above others.  My inference is that not everybody could see a paradigm shift, it may take a lot of argument or deliberations, but in the end, it always raises our horn. Elder and Paul pointed out that “throughout life, we form goals or purposes and then figure out how to pursue them” (2007, p.7). When we reason, we are pregnant of a concept and theories that may be absurd to others, which could be the beginning of a revolution (Barker, 1992, p.57). The key questions we are answering at times are limited to a single scope that could be expanded in a later future. For instance, when Steve Jobs think of Macintosh, he has not thought of Apple watch, Pencil, TV, and Music as we have them today. Solving just one problem could bring about other thousands of innovations, meaning that answering the fundamental question is a step toward multiple solutions. “When we understand the structures of thought we ask important questions implied by these structures” (Elder and Paul, 2007, p.6).

Paradigm effect alters leader’s ability to see a solution most especially when the paradigm shifter has zero credibility like commander Roger Chaffee who has not been to space.  Even though Roger’s presentation convinced his audience, such scenario does not happen at all occasions.  Many ideas have been rubbished by leaders and experienced professionals because the person that introduces such idea is new to the system.  That is why is important for leaders to learn how to identify paradigm shift, because “knowing when a new paradigm shows up is useful because it makes you start watching sooner than you would otherwise” (Barker, 1992, p.48).

Framing and analyzing problems: The Apollo Program, Part 3

In spider episode of Apollo program, the paradigm breakthrough that occurred was how to figure out what will take the astronaut to the moon and bring them back.  The paradigm went through how to figure out the construction process with the team of engineers.  Going to the moon features nine things that have never been done before which makes the whole adventure looked unrealistic to those that are not schooled in the paradigm at different stages.  These new things are what President John F. Kennedy envisaged in his paradigm when he said ‘we are going to the moon, not because it is easy but because they are not’.

The first problem was what will take people to the moon and bring them back safely.  Two best options for going to the moon were presented to the national Adviser committee on aeronautics.  This brings the NASA to the next problem which was how the lunar landing vehicle will look like, reduce weight was suggested but ignored initially.  The idea that was first ignored was embraced after a few years when John Hobart studied the report severally and reproduce the report and presented it. Then the next question became who will build the Lunar, which eventually became Grumman Aircraft engineering Corporation’s project. At this Junction, the problem with the Grumman team was how to figure out the lunar, what and what should be inside and to incorporate in it like; window size, seats and shield around the module, meanwhile the gravity of the destination is major factors.

Initially, all these ideas was not so clear and that of the Lunar 2 to go for testing before Module 3 will go to space.  John Hobart of NASA showed paradigm in thinking when he took the time to look at the ignored lesser weight Lunar and represented the same idea.  Likewise, Tom Kelly of Grumman propelled his team to meet up with the schedule even though they were not sure whether the budget and the scheduled time could be accomplished.

The future of our business, of our industry, of our nation, exists just outside the boundaries of the prevailing paradigm, impossible to see” Barker, 1992, p. 92). If all leaders have these understanding, the collaborative effort will not be fund wanting in any leader. The leadership practices I observed in the Spider version of Apollo program success was a series of collaborative effort and listening ability of leaders to various contributors and tenacity to accommodate, analyze, and implement it. Starting from NASA decision, to who will build the Lunar and to the process of the lunar construction by Grumman, one will see team efforts in action. The ability of Tom Kelly to forgive a member of his team who made a miscalculation error that course a delay in the process is a great skill that will encourage paradigm shift advice in the future. Both qualitative and quantitative method was utilized. Quantitative analyzes help when the weight of the Lunar has to be reduced in considering the cost and gravity of the destination. While qualitative featured in fabrication testing and re-testing of all the components for reliability performance of the Lunar module. In all, Barker inferred that “by understanding the Paradigm effect, we can lift ourselves above its power to blind and begin to search for that which will be our future” (1992, p. 92).

Executive Summary

Discovering the futures in any business, nation or organization is the key to continuous development and the require innovation to remain in business.  Meanwhile, future of every business depends on their paradigm shift they introduce to the business, which will eventually place them above their competitors. For leaders to recognize paradigm shift, it requires the skill of analyzed by applying both methods of qualitative and quantitative research.  Ability to recognize a new idea when it is been introduced, and how a leader can relate and interact with their team to encourage them sharing their opinion freely without fear is the only mystery to expose paradigm shift.  Axelrod et al inferred that “ Meetings require conversations where people can voice their support and their doubts” (As cited in Marquardt, 2014, p. 187).

                                              

Reference

Barker, J. A. (1992). Paradigms: The business of discovering the future. New

            York: HarperCollins.

Bryman, A. (2004). Qualitative research on leadership: A critical but appreciative

            review. Leadership Quarterly, 15(6), 729–7 69.Retrieved from the Walden

            Library databases.

Elder, L., & Paul, R. (2007). The thinker's guide to analytic thinking: How to take

            thinking apart and what to look for when you do. Dillon Beach, CA:

            Foundation for Critical Thinking. pp. 4–9

Hanks, T. (Executive Producer), Bostick, M., Grazer, B., & Howard, R. (Producers).

                  (1998). From the Earth to the Moon. New York: HBO Home Video. "Galileo Was

            Right"

Lynham, S. A. (2002). Quantitative research and theory building: Dubin's

method. Advances in Developing Human Resources, 4(3), 242–276. Retrieved from the Walden Library databases.

Marquardt, M. J. (2014 ). Leading with questions: How leaders find the right solutions by

           

            knowing what to ask. (Rev.ed.)San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.