Worth Reading: "Success Through Failure"

"Petroski cleverly counters our world of constant change with certain maxims that will comfort or at least make you think: "There are two approaches to any engineering or design problem: success-based and failure-based. Paradoxically the latter is always far more likely to succeed."

What waffle! One designer's success is possibly someone elses failure waiting to happen.

Where's the paradox? A failure provides additional data (when it fails) that can be useful to future design efforts - but that doesn't make it ok.

Track failures back far enough, and usually cost-cutting is the source of the trouble.

You're probably right about the cost cutting! Thanks for your comments.

This supports my philosophy of 'Wrong as quick as possible' WAQAP , as opposed to 'right first time' RFT.

Anyone wanting a copy of my 'didn't sell at all' book 'WAQUAP how to fail quickly' should send me $30 in used notes asap.

Del

(Note this isn't entirely flippant as anyone who is an avid follower of my wit and wisdom will now I have espoused this philosophy for some time...)

Thanks for contributing this book review, Consultgene. We can only learn from failure if we are willing to take the time to absorb its lessons. That may sound trite, but it's a fast-paced world where passing the buck can be a standard operating procedure. If we do have 30 years until the next bridge failure, let's hope that attention spans are long enough to learn the lessons of the I-35 bridge collapse.

Thanks for your kind words. You said it right - it's all about learning the lesson, growing from mistakes, etc. If post mortems are done everyday on dead bodies, why does Corporate America have such a hard time doing them on projects that failed?

"If post mortems are done everyday on dead bodies, why does Corporate America have such a hard time doing them on projects that failed?"

Perhaps, while Corporate America is happy to shout from the rooftops about its "can do" approach, it has not yet learnt how to come to terms with, and manage properly, failure. Alternatively and more harshly, is it possible that Corporate America simply does not care?

I believe they do care...it has to do with discipline-making it a part of the performance management process (not to get too HRy...)The ultimate benefit, of course, is not "mea culpa," but what can we learn so we don't do it again or do it differently. Your earlier comment about cost rings especially true here; many failures are due to lack of funding--doing it right--because,of course funds are limited. That's where discipline comes in: "We will fund only the best ideas, programs, etc. that contribute to value, including shareholder value," instead of trying to please the squeaky wheels. The shame associated with failure also has to be exorcised:we emphasize looking good too much and banishing failed managers...risk then becomes something to avoid and when that happens, mediocrity is sure to set in....

If we accept that there is often a problem of insufficient funding, influencing the quality of design, construction and/or maintenance of structures and which may arise from, for example, competing projects or changing economic conditions, then surely it would be sensible to attach compulsory periodic review conditions to compare conditions of use over time with the original specifications. However, I do get the impression that some might argue that there are not even enough funds (or maybe the willingness) to enforce regular checks, let alone over-engineer designs in anticipation of future conditions.

Certainly there should be no shame attached where there is unexpected failure that reasonably could not have been predicted/prevented. Unfortunately, if there is no will to find additional funding for "flagship" projects then mediocrity of design to ensure safety would indeed be the rule.

Anything in the outside world is subject to the enviroment. Things need to be protected, inspected and preventive maintenance is a must. However: Who would have thought 75 years ago, when our bridge leading to my home over a resevoir, would have double 53 foot tandem tractor trailers fully loaded traveling over it. The original bridge was replaced and the old one turned into a park walk with benches, planters and old fashioned lighting.

engineers must look at the past and present, and design for the future.