Would the same quality management practices and principles apply in example 1 & 2? Do you agree with their approach?

example 1: In the Airbus Project, I believe management did not take into consideration the very important 10 primary characteristics that contribute to a positive organizational culture. (Shore, Barry). Member identity, Team emphasis, management focus, Unit integration, Control, Risk tolerance, Reward criteria, Conflict tolerance, means vs end orientation, and open system focus. Had these important factors be considered and escalated when negecated, the Airbus project would have had a different outcome. Team members were unwilling to set aside their political beliefs to focus on the project which led to failure on management and progress of the project. Additionally, the lack of cooperation and teamwork attributed to the failure of the harness to fit into the aircraft. Quality management was not made a priority and shows teams were not working in a coordinated manner. What I would have done differently would have been to ensure management and all teams were fully on board to ensure a successful outcome. make the necessary crew changes to ensure alignment and cooperation from all teams.

example 2:

the Manhattan Project for my final paper. The project, which was really a program consisting of a bunch of projects, used quality management in the development of the atomic bomb. The project teams practiced quality control throughout the whole development of the atomic bomb. The scientists especially practiced this management in their finding of uranium through gaseous diffusion. Similarly, they practiced this in their designing of water-cooled plutonium production reactors. Three production reactors and corresponding chemical separation plants were built (Manhattan Project: The Plutonium Path to The Bomb, 1942-1944, n.d.).

The project manager General Groves did a great job executing the quality management process. He was under a significant amount of pressure to develop this in a timely manner. Considering how dangerous these materials were in creating the bomb my suggestion would be to have implemented a safety audit. This is when the equipment operations and/or an examination of organizational procedures are reviewed to ensure routine safety (10 Types of Quality Audits, 2019). This could have helped in minimizing the number of injuries and accidents that happened throughout the development of the bomb.