THE HUBBLE ERROR The Hubble error case is very interesting and instructive in many cases. Itinvolves complexities of organisational life for the making of Hubble telescope. There were many factors involved in failure of Hubble Telescope.Firstly, the project design of NASA was not proper with unrealistic schedule andfunding. They didn’t take into account the uncertainties of the project that itmight produce during the course of action. The safety measures were not takencare off as employee falls through the wooden slats. Scapegoating was going onas the Rigby and his crew were blamed for the fundamental error.Interorganisational pressures affects the working of the project. Congresstightens funds and eliminates the extra cost involved and puts the Perkin-Elmerin a cost limit. This affects the quality of the product as quality bows to cost. Thelong hours working of the workers affects the health and performance of theworkers. The values of the organisation culture shifts from the science to themanagement. The Hubble case is a tragedy. The central character is both organisation andpeople. All are flawed and flaws lead to disaster. The most obvious point focuseson the action of the technicians who inserted three 20 washers into the 1$million null corrector. In a rush, they moved lens 1.3mm closer to the mirror thanprescribed. As a result, all of the subsequent measurements using null correctorwere based on 13 inch ruler. If Rigby and his crew were to use faulty nullcorrector for eleven months, clearly someone would point out an abnormalreading some time. It turns out be that Perkin-Elmer had many chances to catchthe problem. Unfortunately, Company missed all of them.As a result, we can see the Self Sealing character of this organisation as anotherfundamental root cause of the problem. The company was not taking thenegative feedback as the inspiration to learn many new things instead they werehiding the errors or mistakes they used to make during the project.Fuller was told focus on safety issues rather than quality of the product whichultimately affected the final outcome. Rehnberg, The head of the division doesn’treact to the scientist recommendation to conduct an independent test near theend of the project. Finally, Meserve and Jones, the project manager and hisdeputy, denied the final review of the mirror that Rigby wanted.