Pre-assignment: Vasa case

1. Why did the Vasa face such a tragic fate? Lack of collaborative information exchange and
absence of a scientific framework in ship’s construction initially were the major contributors in
Vasa’s tragic fate. Comprehensive discussions about design modifications, stability concerns,
calculations for stability and displacement were lacking which contributed to the ship's
inherent design flaws. The decision to incorporate a second gun deck without accounting for
stability, coupled with inadequate ballasting, resulted in a top-heavy vessel. The ship's
inherently flawed design, characterized by a narrow base and insufficient depth, exacerbated
its instability. Rushed construction and a lack of comprehensive stability testing ultimately led
to its capsizing and sinking during its inaugural voyage.

2. Who played pivotal roles in the unfolding events?

 King Gustavus II Adolphus: The King's irrational modifications to the ship's design
contributed to design discrepancies and challenges that undermined the Vasa's
stability.

 Admiral Klas Fleming: The king's representative who failed in effectively

communicating the various issues in the construction and stability testing.

 Henrik Hybertsson and Hein Jacobsson: Master Shipwright and assistant

responsible for construction. Poor management during Jacobsson's tenure after
Hybertsson's death resulted in a lack of crucial information and communication
breakdowns.

 Jöran Mattson: Boatswain in charge of ballast loading.

 Arendt de Groot: Businessman involved in the shipbuilding contract. He contributed

to the failure by asserting that the Vasa was impeccably built according to
specifications, despite the ship's inherent design flaws and instability issues.

3. Could this outcome have been avoided, and if so, how? Certainly, the catastrophe could
have been averted through:

 Stability Testing: Conducting thorough stability tests before launch to identify and
address potential issues. Also testing and validation on every step of the way could
have helped identify the pain points during the production process which would lead
to less errors in final product

 Effective and transparent Communication: Effective communication at different

stages could have prevented the disaster. First, Design Changes: Clear
communication among the King, shipwrights, and stakeholders would have avoided
discrepancies in the executed plan by discussing design changes thoroughly.
Second, Stability Issues: Transparent communication between Admiral Fleming and
shipbuilders could have led to timely awareness of stability problems, prompting
corrective actions. Third, Ballasting Challenges: Improved communication channels
could have ensured that concerns from key personnel, like Mattson, reached
decision-makers promptly, allowing a reassessment of ballasting strategy and
preventing the ship's top-heavy condition.

 Adherence to Specifications: Strict adherence to specified dimensions and design

without last-minute alterations.

 Continued Experienced Leadership: Sustained leadership from the seasoned

shipwright Hybertsson to avoid management issues post his demise.
 - Documentation/success planning
- Expert advice, ask one to come onboard
- Having leadership and technical expertise together
- Prototypes
- Modular approach to construction

Have you witnessed Vasa ships inside companies you’ve worked for

- Communication and collaboration gaps in knowledge sharing:

- Lack of testing and validation phases:
- Lack of funding/resources:
- Lack of customer orientation: solve through feedback loops
- Organizational structure
- Leadership :