|
In this capitalist/individualist society, how can engineers
reconcile the conflicts that exist between cost and safety?
It may be a misconception to say that making something safer
automatically increases its cost. In reality, failures resulting from
neglecting safety can often be much more expensive than the preventative
measures would have been. Here is where the free market and society live in
harmony; where the company's interests are directly in-line with the
customer's.
But in many cases, there are direct conflicts between the
financial interests of a company and the public interest. In this tug-of-war,
the company pulls towards potential profit while the public pulls towards the
best possible product (safe, reliable, and
affordable). Often engineers are caught in the middle of this struggle.
The Engineer - A Businessman
and a Scholar
Engineers themselves are often as much businessmen as they
are scientists. They bridge the gap between the lab and the real world. In
other words, effectiveness is as much dependent on cost as it is on technical
feasibility. David Noble, in America By
Design, says this:
"From the outset, therefore, the engineer was at the service
of capital and, not surprisingly, its laws were to him as natural as the laws
of science. If some political economists drew a distinction between technology
and capitalism, that distinction collapsed in the person of the engineer and in
his work, engineering."
(<--Credit:
Northridgesigmas)
Engineers thus have a truly unique perspective on important
technical decisions regarding cost. While an entrepreneur may only see dollar
signs and a scientist may only see product performance, an engineer should see
both.
Does this mean that the engineer's opinion on design
decisions should carry the most weight? Whether it should or not, in the
hierarchy of a company it often doesn't. Managers, accountants, and CEOs have
the final say regarding costs- sometimes to the detriment of a product's safety
or performance.
Company structure also often puts added pressure on the
engineer to make a decision where profit is placed above performance or safety.
Resisting this pressure is often not in the self-interest of the engineer,
since their own well-being (e.g. their job or their perceived loyalty to the
company) may be at stake.
The classic example: The Titanic (Image Credit: Titanicrecount). As mentioned in a
comment in last week's discussion, this ship was built in a way in which the "watertight"
compartments were only watertight horizontally. They were shortchanged
vertically because of a financial decision, apparently in which an accountant
overruled an engineer. Fixing this design flaw could have (at the least) added
hours to the ship's life and allowed other boats to arrive in time to save
countless lives.
People Are More than
Numbers
From a utilitarian standpoint, every problem can be broken
down into a cost-benefit analysis (CBA). But when it comes to decisions
regarding people's safety and respect, it is unfair and irresponsible to play a
numbers game. These decisions require assumptions and judgments outside of
"straight science" in order to make a responsible decision. And it is
impossible to put a price on the lives and rights of people.
A classic example of failed utilitarian decision-making is
the case of the Ford Pinto (Image Credit: psu.edu). The Ford Motor Company had
designed a car, the Pinto (seen right), with a faulty gas tank. Surprisingly,
the design flaw was known before full-scale production, but the fix was not
made. Apparently, a CBA told the company they would spend more money adding the
safety fix ($11/car, $137 million total) than paying off the lawsuits from the
estimated "casualties" (180 estimated deaths, $49.5 million in lawsuits).
This poor decision led to the death of hundreds of people.
The cost of just one lawsuit against the company for its gross negligence was
$128 million.
Coming to Resolution
In the end, engineers and managers must be willing to make
responsible decisions regarding safety issues and costs. It is wasteful and not
good business to unnecessarily over-engineer a product, but neither is it good
to skimp-out to save a dime.
Often the best way to make these decisions is to look at
past designs. Those that have been successful and safe are likely good examples
to follow. When new territory is encountered, engineers should use their best
judgment to make prudent decisions and be honest about what they do not know.
Both engineers and corporate/project leaders should promote open communication
and be looking to benefit the customer, not just the company.
Sources:
Causes
and Effects of the Rapid Sinking of the Titanic
Engineering
, Ethics and Sustainable Development
Engineering Ethics
| 
Re: Paying the Price: When Safety Costs Too Much
