×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....
5

Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

(OP)

Engineering disasters are always the result of bad management and never the result of bad engineering—or almost always.
Norman F. Simenson of the Federal Aviation Administration

http://www.stsc.hill.af.mil/crosstalk/1998/04/disasters.asp

Engineering failure mechanism is defined by money, performance, physical, process, people

It can be argued that an engineering failure is:

  1. A design that does not work (no design solution with the right performance, cost, time, specs...):
    • fusion reactor,
    • interstellar flight,
    • electric car
  2. A design that works but is undesirable:
    • Beta VCR,  
    • Edsel,  
    • DEC PCs;  
    • Aswan Dam (effect on the ecology of the Nile Basin makes it a failure)
  3. Ooops:
    • Boston's Hancock Building (glass windows blowing out);  
    • Tacoma Narrows Bridge (collapsed due to wind-induced vibrations, 0 human deaths);  
    • Challenger (7 dead),  
    • Columbia (7 dead),  
    • Apollo 1 (3 dead);
    • Apollo 13 (no deaths, overheating of Oxygen Tank No. 2 in service module external bay)
    • Ford Pinto (number of deaths unknown, caused by an $11 gasket that Ford mgmt decided not to use because of costs),
    • GM Trucks (unknown number of deaths),
    • Firestone tires on Ford SUVs (unknown number of deaths),  
    • Hindenberg (35 deaths, mostly people jumping);   
    • Bhopal, India (~4000 dead);  
    • Walnut Street Bridge (Harrisburg PA, 2 spans washed out);  
    • Quebec Bridge (2 collapses during construction, number of deaths not found in search);  
    • Arroyo Pasajero bridge on I-5 (7 deaths);  
    • Texas A&M bonfire (12 deaths);
    • Kansas City Hyatt (114 dead);  
    • Denver Airport Baggage System (0 deaths, design issues that caused serious budget over-runs, not to mention bad press for design world);  
    • California Mud Slides (lost housing, unknown numbers dead);
    • Chernobyl (62 reported deaths, 18 mile radius evacuated)
    • 3 Mile Island (near meltdown, 0 deaths per NRC website);  
    • Estonia Feery (800+ deaths, shipbuilder  underestimated how strong the bow visor lock should be);
    • Hartford Civic Center Coliseum (no known deaths, collapse of space-frame roof during snow storm)
    • Banqiao and Shimantan Dams (official estimate of 26K deaths, chain-reaction failure of dams in typhoon)
    • Tay Bridge (75 deaths, caused by high winds);  
    • Hubble Space Telescope (0 deaths; spherical aberration error);
    • Mars Lander (0 deaths, unit lost in space due to a math error - danger Will Robinson, use a single measurement system)
    • Titanic ( 1,513 deaths; hull divided into 16 watertight compartments. Design allowed for four being flooded without endangering the liner's buoyancy - it was considered unsinkable. Compartments were not sealed off at the top, so water could fill each compartment, tilting the ship, and then continue spilling over into the next one)

From http://www.matscieng.sunysb.edu/disaster
Primary causes of engineering disasters are usually considered to be (I) human factors (including both 'ethical' failure and accidents), (ii) design flaws (many of which are also the result of unethical practices),
(iii) materials failures, (iv) extreme conditions or environments, and, most commonly and importantly, (v) combinations of these reasons


Comments? (other than: leanne, you obviously missed many engineering failures which my (polite) response would be, yes, but these are particularly well-recognized examples)

http://www.icivilengineer.com/Failure_Watch/
http://www.invitingdisaster.com/pages/540454/

Hopefully, we've learned from each disaster so the mistakes are not repeated. A boiler explosion in Brockton Shoe Factory in Massachusetts in 1905 leveled the factory and resulted in 58 deaths and 117 injuries - as a direct result, 10 years later ASME's Boiler and Pressure Vessel Code was published.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Actually, I'm convinced that it's in a tight race to get worse.  

While the tools and models are better, there are fewer engineers involved, because of "productivity gains" and less relative money to begin with.  

While I'm not one for NASA bashing, their recent flirtation with "faster,better" shows that while high quality work can still be accomplished, the opportunity to make mistakes also increases.

Many of the newer projects are substantially more complex than projects from 10 years ago, but with fewer cognizant engineers and a lowered amount of retained tribal knowledge.  The complexity alone would be challenging, but the decreased resources in money and bodies means that less analysis and oversight is performed.

TTFN

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

I'm afraid that I agree with IRStuff, complex systems (and their interactions) are a breeding ground for unrevealed commissioning faults and latent faults caused by poor operational control of plant.

A side point is that when (not if!) other disasters do happen the press tend to make a hash of reporting it. There is usually lots of coverage (i.e. hypothetical wonderings about how it happened, what the implications are etc.) but when the ACTUAL causes are revealed the press have moved onto more 'interesting' topics

HM

No more things should be presumed to exist than are absolutely necessary - William of Occam

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Don't leave it to the press to reveal the truth.

Deinition of journalist: a person who spent four years of college learning to write at an eighth grade level.

Good and evil: wrap them up and disguise it as people.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

leanne,

I would agree more with SUNY Stony Brooks definition of causes rather than Simenson's.

I do not think that engineering disasters can be eliminated but I think we are doing a much better job at minimizing their potential (at least if 3 gorges holds together ).  New technologies and scientific advances will also lay groundwork for new opportunities for failure (and success).  The true disasters are those we do not learn from and allow to repeat.

Regards,

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Engineers need to regain the lead in engineering design and management. There are monsters out there threatening the public good by employing unqualified individuals to perform engineering work "at economical cost." It is false economy to employ promoted draftsmen to fill engineering positions. This practice is prevalent in the automotive sector.

It is a threat to the company's future, the future of the industry in question, and a threat to the nation. The uninformed public trusts that products have been designed properly by people with the "right stuff." When they find out otherwise by means of legal action, then things will change.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Plasgear - I question some of your wording.  I have met some "promoted draftsmen" who quite honestly had more brains and skills than some degreed engineers that I know!  Having a degree doesn't grant you common sense (i.e., I can calculate this to the 25th decimal point, so I know it's good!)  Not having a degree but with lots of experience isn't necessarily great either - there are reasons to go learn all that theory.  I think the message that we need to hear is "don't get complacent; don't cut corners."

Leann - I disagree with Simenson's statement on general principles:  "always" is too broad.  I don't like absolutes.  For example, the Mars Lander was definitely an engineering mistake; while the Challenger was a management one.  Others, it's harder to draw the line.

As for learning from our mistakes?  Well, as George Santayana said, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."  

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

2
(OP)
Patricia, for most rules, there is an exception, and invariably, I get slapped with the exception after I've made a generalization. It took me a while, but I've learned to make it a point to avoid sweeping generalizations using the words ALWAYS, ALL, EVERY, or NEVER (notice I avoided saying "for ALL rules" above ) and phrases like ALL THE TIME.

Not only should we not get complacent or cut corners. We should continue to ask, is this the best way using today's currently available technology to do this in a cost-effective manner meeting our customer's requirements?

George Santayana's quote is a fitting follow-up to the  last paragraph in my opening post to this thread.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

I'll pipe in with the claim that both Mars Lander and Challenger were both failures of both engineering and management.

In the case of the Mars Lander, there were numerous opportunities for engineering to have discovered the interface error before and during the flight.  Management failed to push for full design verification, possibly due to the low-cost approach.

In the case of the Challenger, design requirements were clearly violated.  Engineering used tools that were never designed for task of simulating impacts by the insulation nor were the tools ever validated.  Management allowed themselves to get lulled into complacency based on nothing bad having happened prior to Challenger.

TTFN

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Is there really a difference between bad management and bad engineering?

Here in Manitoba our engineering act defines the practice of engineering as the skilled application of science to solving problems. It goes on to specifically include the management of engineering activities as an engineering activity on its own.

Therefore the decision to relax checking and verification is not specifically a management decision, it is a decision of engineering management and as such an engineering decision.

To discuss if it’s a management or engineering decision is simply a waste of time because it is all by definition, at least in Manitoba, the practice of engineering.

It may be easy and safe for the technical engineers to blame the pointy haired managers, but at some level the managerial types are practicing engineering as well. If the technical types have a problem with management decisions then they have an ethical obligation to become whistle blowers and bring adequate scrutiny to the issue.

 

Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion
www.kitsonengineering.com

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Since management is ultimately responsible (including, for the decisions as to which engineers to hire to do the work), one can take the position that engineering disastors are always the result of bad management.  Management establishes hiring practices, QC procedures, continuing training, etc. etc.  You know the phrase, the buck stops here.  I suppose if a sole engineering consultant practioner made the mistake, you could say it was engineering, but then again, he or she was also management. Or it could be management of the firm that hired him.  

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Risk is a necessary component of progress, and I believe in progress.

Risk being there means that sometimes we win, sometimes we lose and sometimes we squeak it out.

Our job as engineers and/or managers is to make decisions that accept risk but minimize the downside.

If we wait until all our ducks are in line then nothing will get done.  Look at NASA, the Wright brothers, Sikorsky, Galileo.  I'm proud of all of them.

I'm especially proud of NASA, for despite the failures there have been unequalled successes, astonishing experiences and boundless human growth both intellectually and spiritually.

Our jobs as engineers is to encourage forward thinking by management and other engineers, to step forward and make the future brighter.  Mistakes get made.  Learn from them and move on.

If we think that management are the problem, then let's become managers!!  Place blame where it belongs if you can but there are lots of grey areas and I don't think its worth the effort to draw lines in the sand.

Every engineer is a manger of sorts but few managers can claim an engineering background.

So much for my 2 cents...

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

I finally have to weigh in and agree.  Down my way in Tidewater Virginia area, a new section of Interstate 64 may have to be torn up and redone as it does not have (any) pitch to drain water off the driving surface.  Concensus is that the plans didn't provide for any pitch, the contractor dutifully brought it to the attention of the Virgina DOT (VDOT) field engineer, who forwarded to headquarters in Richmond VA (Management central), where it sat since last November.  Meantime, the contractor steadfastly poured all the concrete, having no guidance to the contrary and not wishing to ensure late penalties.  Well now the head of VDOT has resigned/been fired and we have an unusable roadand a few more months of congestion.  I can't help but feel that the field engineer and contractor couldn't have fixed this, were it not for management.  BTW the new section is high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes, another management fix foisted upon an unwilling populace. (I carpool with two other guys as much as our schedules allow, but 90% of the peopel in this area don't.)

Balcksmith

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

I was working on a refurbish/retrofit for a piece of equipment used in the assembly of toaster ovens.  The fixture plate on the top of the newly fitted CNC indexer was about 6 feet in diameter.  An OEM technician for the indexer was pacing the unit so as to apply his blessing to it when it suddenly just “ran away”, running up to the max continuous RPMS the drive could manage.  I happened to be under the unit when this happened (yes, I know it was stupid) and laid motionless waiting for the unit to coast down after the technician hit the E-stop.  Rivet anvils flying everywhere.  I asked the technician to explain what happened and how he would prevent the same thing from happening in service.  His later explanation to me was that the LED on the resolver had failed.  The drive was evidently set up to count light pulses as the method of determining speed/position.  LED burns out and the controller sees speed as zero.  Applies max V and I to get things moving again…

How is this a manager’s failure?  Is it because he/she hired someone who was so inept that they didn’t consider failure modes?  I would suggest that the manager failed only if this was a repeat scenario which had not been handled properly and/or if the bozo responsible for that control system was not fired or at least retrained.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Well the accident investigation board for the Columbia breakup is not favorable to mangagement.

Thread769-68850

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

A quote that comes to mind goes:

Engineering is the art of molding materials that we don't completely understand into shapes we can't precisely measure to withstand loads we can't directly assess, in such a way that it's perfectly safe for the general public.

Read enough aircraft accident accident investigations, and you quickly get the feeling that it takes many simultaneous problems or failures to bring transport aircraft down.  Now that you have that impression, keep reading more, and you then begin to notice that the investigators don't always know what brought the aircraft down, and start grasping at straws.
Sometimes, the failure is in the design, sometimes the manner of operation, sometimes maintenance, sometimes the pilot just did something stupid.  When an exact cause is unknown, pilot error is too often the fall-back position.

Design flaws do bring aircraft down, but I've never heard them linked to unethical practices, as the guy from Stony Brook suggests.  The problem is with the "incomplete" knowledge that designers must work with as they squeeze the margins of safety tighter and tighter to save weight.

Flying is and always will be about risk management.  Good points about risk were made by IFR's on this subject, unfortunately there do not seem to be any means to clearly communicate risk to the general public without causing a frenzy.  Things are treated as either perfectly safe or junk.

The CAIB seems to be burning everyone up and down at NASA.  Fault is found not just with management, but with weak kneed, myopic inspectors, and against congressmen (with roughly the same qualities).

STF

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

(OP)
Building on what sparweb wrote:

Like tolerance stack-ups: missed inspection points, management decisions, under-designed, over-designed, operator error, lowest bidder not understanding specs, material failure due to fatigue - any one of these alone may not be sufficient to cause a system failure, but when they are combined...the equation can & often does change....

Failure analysis is rarely easy.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

funnelguy writes:
"How is this a manager’s failure?  Is it because he/she hired someone who was so inept that they didn’t consider failure modes?  I would suggest that the manager failed only if this was a repeat scenario which had not been handled properly and/or if the bozo responsible for that control system was not fired or at least retrained."

I would also go along with you. The only problem is there are entirely too many Managers who do not have the technical knowledge to manage effectively.

My horror story, I was interviewing for a Design Engineering job with a local sewer sucker manufacturer. As things progressed, they began to show me some of their designs, one of which was a 3 foot Aluminum centrifugal fan,spinning at up to 4700 RPM, which had the fan blades riveted on. I immediately stepped back and asked who had run the calculations on this mess. The manager replied "Why, we have never had one blow up" I politely got the hell out of there and refused the offer.
The funny thing is, a buddy works there building the things, and not only did he tell me the Manager was full of it, ( a cursory examination of the design was all I needed ) they still build them the same way today.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Failure of management to percieve poor technical skills in their personnel means that the responsibility passes up yet another notch.  That's the chain of command.

As one goes up in authority, so too, does one take on greater responsibility.  If the technical work is shoddy, the tech's supervisor must be able to recognize that, because he's responsible for the tech's work.  If the manager is sloppy or oblivious, then HIS supervisor (department head or whatever) must take action because the manager will allow gross errors to slip by that could endanger the company - or lives.

By blaming only the tech that made the mistake is like picking a "fall guy".  The poor sod might not have had the experience or training to percieve a flaw, or was doing what he was told.  Someone a bit removed from the minutiae can be in a better position to find design flaws, therefore should be capable of doing so.  I have personally found myself engrossed in the process of selecting just the right rivet and just the right bend angle when the boss strolled up and pointed out a fundamental problem with the design.

STF

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

funnelguy,
(BTW, what's the story behind that nickname? Do you collect funnels? Do you look like one? )

The account of your mishap is chilling. Here's another similar story with a mos different outcome. Where's the management failure? It's there, it just has to be brought to the surface.

STORY:

The company manufactures paper. A contractor was carrying out repairs on a reel splitter on a paper machine. The reel splitter cuts discarded paper rolls and feeds the waste to a repulper. The reels are lifted by a bucket (like a front-end loader bucket) to a guillotine – both are hydraulically powered. The bucket was in a raised position to permit
testing of the guillotine.

The contractor discovered an electrical fault and called an electrician for assistance. The electrician apparently completed his task and was seen to move towards the end of a line of paper reels.

The contractor went to a control panel and lowered the bucket. Unbeknownst to him, the electrician had returned to the reel splitter and was crushed when he became entrapped between the bucket and a 1.5 metre diameter (3 tonne weight) reel of paper. He sustained fatal injuries.

Cheers,
John.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

JOM,
"Funnel" is the derisive nickname I have given to some products I manufacture.  They comprise the majority of my sales, hence the name.

How is it that anybody could activate machinery with personnel in harm's way?  Was there no guarding?  Had the contractor and electrician defeated interlocks and failed to reset them?  I must be missing something here.  Why were the controls in an area where the operator couldn't see the bucket and reels?

Some of the risks taken in the process of setting up or maintaining equipment are mind boggling.  Anyone who works around machinery for any length of time has their own collection of horror stories.  The object of the game is to retire with all your own appendages.  My PC always asks "Are you sure" every time I want to delete a batch of  emails, but the drives and controls on production equipment just try to do the wrong thing the very first time we ask them to...

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

JOM - standard lock-out tag-out proceedures would ahve prevented this accident.

Safety starts from the top and works its way down.

The best managers are unafraid to surround themselves with people smarter than themselves, directing traffic and depending on quality subordinates to do the job right.  Giving their subordinates the right tools and time to do the job right has to be ingrained into the corporate culture.  Managers MUST learn that they to not make the company any money - it is the people down the line who are their most important resources.  Treat them well, searchout better talent, train, encourage and reward.  That defines a good manager.  Under these circumstances, when mistakes are made they are caught by others up and down the line who are unafraid to bring the mistakes to the attention of a responsible party.

In the best companies, each does his/her job the best way he/she knows how.  Since that is the culture, slackers are weeded out, innovation is encouraged and building political power is discouraged.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

I must admit, when I read JDM's story, my first reaction was that proper lockout procedures are well known and cheap to implement.

But there again we've only had a proper procedure in place for 4 years.

If you have any influence on the operating procedures of your company, please get them in place. Nobody loses, everybody wins.

Cheers

Greg Locock

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

I don't know any more about this accident. The story has been published by the state safety authority - I guess as an urgent warning to all. There may be a prosecution and certainly a coronial inquest, so more will out.

The common ground with funnelguy's mishap is that someone is working on a machine and someone else has the power to operate the controls at the same time. Isn't it a management issue to prevent that?

Cheers,
John.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

JOM,
I was of the impression that it was quite common for manufacturers of equipment and maintenance workers to bypass safety interlocks and work on equipment in teams to troubleshoot.  Quite often there is additional risk involved.  Sometimes there really isn't a compelling reason.  The work I was performing that particular day could have waited until the machine was powered down.  That's what made my decision a poor one. On other occasions I think the added risk of working on live equipment was necessary for troubleshooting, IMO.

Why do utility workers work on hot circuits?  Fire stick or no, why not just inconvenience some customers for the safety of the linemen?  (Just stirring the pot )

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

funnelguy -
Manufacturers and maintenance workers should be the LAST ones to bypass safety protocols - they work with dangerous equipment everyday and KNOW what complacency can do to fingers, limbs and life!!  If working on live equipment is necessary, perform a JSA (Job Safety Analysis) to identify the risks and determine ways to minimize the dangers.  Utility workers work on hot circuts with proper PPE (Personal Protective Equipment) and proper non-conductive tools.  The dangers are minimal if proper procedures are followed.

Equipoment powered down is not safe.  It needs to be locked out from any and all potential energy sources.  The off switch is not enough.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

IFRs,
I have NEVER worked for an organization that stopped to perform a safety audit when equipment went down.

A site foreman for the construction company responsible for a GM truck assembly plant flatly refused to allow me to lock out bus runs I was to inspect for adequate insulation in expansion joints.  I was pretty young back then and so I called the home office rather than ruffle the customer's feathers.  I suppose my supervisor did the ruffling.  Both companies were fortune 500.  The compromise was that THEY would lock out the runs I was to work on, but would NOT allow me to add my lock to the tagout.

The ability to observe indicator lights on I/O boards or PLC's would require bypassing interlocks, wouldn't it?  What about checking a component with a DVM while it's hot?  Many diagnostics are best performed on live equipment.  Certainly there are risks involved, but ideally we minimize the risks whenever possible and utilize personnel who are adequately trained/skilled to asses these risks.

Back to the utility worker example.  Aren't workers killed doing this type of work?  Why not just shut down the substation?  Why risk anything at all?  Why should tagout procedures be used for industrial equipment and not utility workers dealing with thousands of volts instead of a couple of hundred?  (Still stirring... )

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

funnelguy -
I work in the petrochemical industry where safety is paramount.  Our customers are amoung the largest companies in the world.  Our company can not work for some customers unless our OSHA injury rate is below certain threshold numbers (which it is).  We have our own dedicated safety staff, our corporate goal statement starts with "Safety", we conduct shop and field safety checks, meetings and job assesments on every job.  I'd be amazed if other companies in hazardous lines of work do not respect the cost of unsafe acts.  One death can ruin a company.  

Check with GM today - I'll bet you find that Safety is closer to "job one".  

If you could not put your lock on the equipment, you should have walked away and if you though others were in danger from this procedure, contacted OSHA.

I'm sure that you can check a component with a DVM safely - without risking life or limb.

If line technicians are killed, it is probably from bypassing protocols.  An accident analysis probably changed safety protocols for future work.

I'm not saying that all equipment can be made safe from idiots or people intent on hurting themselves but really - if you want to work safely, there always is a way!!!

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Some really good comments coming out here. I worked on PLCs and DCSs some time ago, and I cannot recall a SINGLE instance of consideration given to personnel safety.

Funnelguy's mishap is a classic - two factors, each in their own of no great concern, but occurring at the same time produces danger. Funnelguy could work under the machine normally without a worry; the LED could fail at any other time without causing harm. But both together? Disaster.

To get back to the original question - "Engg disasters are always the result of management failure". Surely management must ensure the proper procedures are in place so that these two incidents do not occur?

Cheers,
John.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

IFRs,
GM wasn't responsible for that decision.  The hardcase jobsite foreman for the construction company was.  Memory fails me, might have been Comstock, maybe not.

Still, why should utility company workers work on hot lines?  Why should they be exempted from the tagout mandates you favor? (I do too, when possible )  Why not shut down the substation or some such?

I have a drive here in my shop that requires checking a transformer's secondary voltage under load as the means of verifying correct connections on the primary side.  I have had to do this three times.  The construction of the machine requires me to reach over hot control circuitry to perform the test.  Now what?

My point was (and is) that troubleshooting is sometimes necessarily done under power.  That involves risk.

Sometimes I think we accept risk if the compensation is acceptable.  I know very little about your industry, but I cannot imagine it is without risk.  A friend of mine spent some time doing service work on a North Sea rig.  He asked for and received hazard pay and a life insurance policy from his employer before he boarded the chopper.  That makes my misadventures seem tame...  maybe we figure those utility workers are paid enough for their work?

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

It is interesting to note that no one mentioned the effect of low bid ethos on engineering.  In the movie Armageddon there is a great line about being hurled into space by a machine propelled by a million pounds of explosives built by the lowest bidder.  

My gradnfather always said "You get what to you pay for"

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

"In the case of the Challenger, design requirements were clearly violated.  Engineering used tools that were never designed for task of simulating impacts by the insulation nor were the tools ever validated.  Management allowed themselves to get lulled into complacency based on nothing bad having happened prior to Challenger"


Wrong,
The Challenger had O ring problems.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Hi Leanne,

So what do you think yourself? Are all engineering disasters the result of bad management?

Myself, I would go so far as to say that accidents don't just happen, they need to be managed. You don't get a good disaster by chance. And you can't expect employees to produce one. They are so complex they have to be managed into existence.

Cheers,
John.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

Here is a question I am have been tossing back and forth in my head ....

If the Engineering Manager makes the mistake would we (as a group) classify that as an Engineering Mistake or a Management Mistake?  I would argue that until the error in judgement leaves the Engineering Department it is an Engineering mistake.  Even if the Engineering Manager does not happen to be an Engineer.

Also, as a side note, a disaster in Ontario can be classified as either a Management mistake (the Company) or an Engineering mistake (the Engineer).  We do it on a daily basis in our disciplinary reviews.  So in essence I would have to say that the PEO does not agree that all disasters are a result of bad management.  If that were the case we would not have a disciplinary review board and not be discplining Engineers for their mistakes.

Also is it a bad management decision when you relied on faulty engineering decisions from the Engineer who has been working for you for the past 10 years with no other mistakes?

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

In aviation disasters it has become clear that a string of errors of various kinds compound to make disaster inevitable.

In the Air Florida crash at Washington National, 1985, mismanagement of snow accretion, blind following of FAA noise abatement, not scanning all the instruments in addition to EPR, lack of experience, light banter, etc. added up to disaster. The result was closing down the airline.

Scan the tail numbers of DC-9's for the "AF" indicating a prior Air Florida plane. NWA has a few.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

CanEngJohn,

You said:

Here is a question I am have been tossing back and forth in my head ....

If the Engineering Manager makes the mistake would we (as a group) classify that as an Engineering Mistake or a Management Mistake?  I would argue that until the error in judgement leaves the Engineering Department it is an Engineering mistake.


I think that is sensible. While inside the Engg department, the mistake has no impact. When it leaves the department and enters the outside world, the mistake takes on real significance.

What it interesting is you have raised the notion of engineers making mistakes. Would it raise hackles to suggest that engineers are not too ready to admit they can and do make serious mistakes?

Given that we all make mistakes, it becomes essential to have management processes that detect mistakes and build systems that tolerate errors. So, if the mistake gets through and causes an accident, then management failed.

Is it reasonable to say that for every possible human mistake in industry, there is always a feasible administrive/management process that could prevent or rectify the mistake?

Cheers,
John.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

JOM

You raised an interesting question -- I think I'm going to start a new thread as this is getting rather long.

Patricia Lougheed

Please see FAQ731-376 for tips on how to make the best use of the Eng-Tips Forums.

RE: Engineering disasters are always the result of bad mgmt....

In my experience all man-made catastrophies or incidents are the product of at least two of the following:
  1. human error
  2. technological (mechanical) failure
  3. environmental conditions
It's rare that incidents occur as the result of human error alone.
Regards,

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources