"NASA Chicken" comment in NY TIMES

NY TIMES Aug.4 (link on NASAWATCH.com)
Shuttle Inquiry Uncovers Flaws in Communication
By MATTHEW L. WALD and JOHN SCHWARTZ

"This unwillingness to be first to discuss a problem is well known
among contractors that work with NASA, says Joseph Grenny, an
organizational consultant who has worked with agency contractors. The
companies call that phenomenon "NASA Chicken."

The NASA engineer explained, "The NASA culture does not accept being
wrong." Instead of a culture in which "there's no such thing as a
stupid question," within the agency "the humiliation factor always
runs high," he said."

What do those of you with experience working at NASA or its
contractors think about this "NASA chicken" comment? Have you heard of
this phrase before?

In article ,
(ElleninLosAngeles) wrote:

NY TIMES Aug.4 (link on NASAWATCH.com)
Shuttle Inquiry Uncovers Flaws in Communication
By MATTHEW L. WALD and JOHN SCHWARTZ

"This unwillingness to be first to discuss a problem is well known
among contractors that work with NASA, says Joseph Grenny, an
organizational consultant who has worked with agency contractors. The
companies call that phenomenon "NASA Chicken."

The NASA engineer explained, "The NASA culture does not accept being
wrong." Instead of a culture in which "there's no such thing as a
stupid question," within the agency "the humiliation factor always
runs high," he said."

What do those of you with experience working at NASA or its
contractors think about this "NASA chicken" comment? Have you heard of
this phrase before?

I never ran into this phrase or the mindset it implies while I worked
for Boeing on SSF. I *did* run into arrogant NASA "researchers" and
"scientists" (basically, technical people at NASA whose sole
responsibility was to second-guess everything we did) who were convinced
that we (or our sub's or THEIR sub's) were going about something on the
wrong technical track; the NASA people were frequently using outdated
information from months or even years prior in making their criticisms
(usually material from prior design reviews from which current-reality
had diverged) so it was hard to take them too seriously.

That said, design ain't the same as operations. You can ignore and bowl
over quite a few instances of obstructionism in the design phase and get
away with it just fine; that's why you have Phase "A" and "B" trade
studies, PDRs and a CDR, qualification and acceptance testing. Once you
start to "routine-ize" things and actually operate, however, the
attitudes you take in design, ("It'll work, damnit,") can and obviously
do lead to trouble if reality isn't what you've designed for.

--
Herb Schaltegger, Esq.
Chief Counsel, Human O-Ring Society
"I was promised flying cars! Where are the flying cars?!"
~ Avery Brooks