Tragic Indifference 19

[TChronos]

I just read this book, on the Ford/Firestone rollover issue:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0060090588/104-0610785-9739901?v=glance

Rather than discuss specifics (especially since some of the engineers involved may be on this board), here's a hypothetical. Management asks engineering to do the impossible (what else is new). But in this case, it's really impossible. Releasing the product would result in inordinate risk for consumers involved. The engineers are industry exempt.

If the engineer passes on the design, knowing that it's defective, what non-judicial sanctions should apply? In such a case, should some sort of decertification or peer review apply to the ENGINEERS involved? How much power does a big three engineer have to stop a really dangerous design?

 

[buzzp]

I would say an engineer at a large company such as that has a slim to none chance of stopping the design. The only thing he can be sure of is getting fired. If an engineer knows about a potential problem with a product, he/she must report the concern to the appropriate individual. If that does not work you go up the ladder. If that dont work then you just keep going.
There are whistle blowers laws that will protect them. Idont imagine it is an easy matter to deal with on a personal level, loss of a paycheck, potential industry back lash, going to work where they will likely hate you, etc. I don't know a whole lot about Ford/Firestones issues but I know that someone passed the buck. Should that person be personally responsible? Yes. However, when is it only one person? If it is only one person, it should be a manager if the engineer did all he could do, short of taking the whistleblower route. The manager is responsible if he did nothing with the info. But the 'way things are done' in a company determines a lot how employees do their job. If it is somewhat common to overlook design defects because they usually get lucky and it does not turn into a big deal, then this creates an atmosphere where many people might be involved. Ultimately, the company should be liable. If I were a consulting company, I could refuse the job and move on to other clients. Not that losing a client with as much revenue as one of the big three wouldn't be noticed.
Personally, depending on how serious I thought it was, I would go all the way, including going to the press before I let something out the door that I had serious conerns with. This is also part of engineering ethics that teach you in college. But how do these ethics compare with all the corporate scandal that occurs? They don't because the engineers mean well and only want the best the business executives only want the dollar at any cost. Sounds like this one stung them in the butt. The company should have to pay a premium if their is reason to believe their was any negligence. If the engineer kept something to himself (I doubt if it was only one engineer)or themselves and went ahead and released the product then their punishment will be getting fired after the truth is known (or before) and having a big black mark on their resume. Those engineers will have to live with the facts.

 

[haggis]

It's my nature to have great faith in mankind without being naive but I don't think there is an Engineer out there who would knowingly let something go out the door which would be a danger to the consumer. He isn't going to do it for the greater good of the company because he should know that a company with morals like that would turn on him just as quick as a wink. And he certainly wouldn't be silenced by the salary!!

As far as Managers go, I might agree that some of them would put the almighty dollar first but anything that has to be hidden usually doesn't just involve one person or even one specific group.

What's the old saying? If two people know about something that has to be kept quiet, there is one too many. that's why I don't believe there are any conspiracies or coverups surrounding the Engineering or Management sectors of the Auto industry. I mention the Auto industry because the previous posts made mention of the big three and I see that TChronos is Automotive.

I too am in the Auto industry working for one of the big three but in a Facilities Engineering capacity designing coveying systems for vehicle assembly so I can't speak as an expert on product design.

I do know however, that the Product Engineers have the luxury of destructive testing of their designs and don't solely rely on theory and past experience. Not only on fully assembled vehicles in crash tests but on virtually every component part and as I said before, there are too many people involved in the process for defective product to be knowingly allowed to reach the consumer.

Unfortunately, every accident scenario can't be taken into account, hence we have had gas tanks expoding in Pintos, side tanks exploding in Chevy trucks if hit broadside etc. The belief that these cases involved bad product engineering is simply not true.

The book about the Ford/Firestone affair I haven't read and I may be wrong but I had heard that some of the tires on this particular vehicle, being built in a particular assembly plant, were suffering undetecable damage to the inside wall from a wheel guide while being driven off the final line. If this is true, unfortunately it was discovered after too many tire failures.

The question is, who do we punish, is the conveyor designer at fault since his conveyor was a contributing factor to ensuing tire failures and tragedies? A resounding yes! if he knew what was happening and kept quiet to save company embarassment or his own hide. A genuine oversight with unforeseen consequences probably should not carry a punishment at all. Having to live with it is punishment enough. However, we are in a business that our every move could make us liable for another's welfare according to the law.

I was told a long time ago "The Engineer or Designer that never made a mistake, never made anything."

 

[patdaly]

Let me preface this by saying I have not read the book, so if I say something incorrect, please correct me.

TChronos writes:" Management asks engineering to do the impossible (what else is new). But in this case, it's really impossible. Releasing the product would result in inordinate risk for consumers involved. The engineers are industry exempt."

So, the book places the blame for the Explorer accidents on a dangerous design? Correct me please, but did not almost all of the accidents result as a combination of low tire pressure, and high speed/high temperatures? Could it be reasonably asked to have a dual purpose vehicle that performs its task well made as safe as say, an Impala? At what point does a design pose an inordinate risk, and just who determines this? Just why would being designed by an industry exempt engineer be any different than say a PE who designs a Deck, which then collapses and kills several, all because it was loaded beyond its design capacity? Would we prosecute the PE simply because he did not forsee the scenario that unfolded, all outside of his control?

Haggis then writes: "Unfortunately, every accident scenario can't be taken into account, hence we have had gas tanks expoding in Pintos, side tanks exploding in Chevy trucks if hit broadside etc. The belief that these cases involved bad product engineering is simply not true."

I am too young to have studied the Pinto fiasco. but I have watched with interest Chevy being speared for its 73-87 C/K truck design. The unfortunate thing is, deaths resulting from fire are lower for the Chevy design than for comparable years of the Dodge and Ford design. To understand this, we need to think about where the majority of accidents happen, I.E. front/rear collisions. With that in mind, does the Chevy design appear to be unsafe?

You are exactly correct, if something moves, sooner or later, someone will die as a result.

 

[TChronos]

These arguments aren't reassuring. Let me give you a five sentence synopsis of the book: Management insisted on an SUV based on an existing truck platform, to reduce tooling costs and start up time. Ford engineers realized from the outset that the static stability factor for these vehicles was below their previous minimums, management would not allow time for serious reengineering. After extensive testing, they were able to improve stability by lowering tire pressure to just 26 lbs. To reduce consequent heating effects, the tire was lightened. As a result, you had an unstable vehicle, poor tires, and an unusual sensitivity to tire pressure.

Let's get away from Ford/Firestone, since much of this will be in the courts for years to come. Let's also agree that management should certainly take a slap. But that's not the question. What methodologies are in place, or can be put in place, to ensure ethical engineering in industry exempt shops?

As for the Pinto thing, I'm old enough to remember, and I think the design was abominable. During testing, the Pinto tank ruptured in something like 40 out of 40 tests. Management went with the design because the cost of retooling wasn't justified by their actuarial analysis. (The firm design parameter was the rule of 2000: 2000lbs and 2000 dollars. Fixing the problem involved a two pound piece of plastic, costing $11, which was enough to tip the car over it's targets.) Ford was indicted for homocide, they slipped away on a legal technicality. It's a good example of engineering knuckling under to management, and releasing a faulty product.

 

[GregLocock]

I think the real reason that the Pinto case got so much attention is that the car was released without the fix, /because/ they figured that the fix was more expensive than the cost of the law suits they'd have to pay out. In other words, they did a cost benefit analysis (and got it wrong). This was rather unnerving to the public.

Which is interesting, since those same people are quite happy to buy a less safe product for less money, eg retread tyres.





Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[RDK]

The hypothetical question posed is one more good argument for the abolishment of the industry exemption.

If EVERY engineer who was a party to the production of defective products was in danger of loosing his or her personal professional license and hence their ability to earn a living in the profession, do you really think that these defective products would be released on an unsuspecting public?

If Bull Gates was in danger of loosing his personal license for releasing software with major security holes in it would we have weekly security patches?

If the engineering staff at Ford were in danger of loosing their personal licenses would we have had exploding Pinto’s?

If the engineering staff at Firestone were in danger of loosing their personal licenses would this book have been written?

Yes I know the arguments in support of the exemption. I just feel that they have no logical support.

There is additional product testing in manufacturing than in construction. That does not mean that the testing is conducted fully and completely or that there is a significant flaw in the product that will cause a gas tank to explode and is being knowingly passed on to an unsuspecting consumer.

There are additional safeguards in industry in the form of deep pockets to pay damages and purchase insurance coverage. The purpose of professionalism is to PREVENT harm, not to pay for the death and destruction caused by faulty products.

The licensing process does not apply to industry. Then change the process such that it does apply to the industrial area.

There have been a lot of threads here decrying the low status and respect that engineers enjoy. If all engineers were professionals and did not allow faulty designs to hurt the public, be it faulty construction designs or faulty industrial designs, then I cannot but feel that the status of the profession would rise in tandem with its rise in commitment to the protection of the public.



Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[IRstuff]

I think that all that means is

> lots of ruined careers for normal and inevitable mistakes

> that no engineer will risk his career on any new design, so we'll simply get the same crap every year with no innovation or progress

> we would still be using DOS 6.0, because no one will be willing to risk losing their career due to undiscovered software flaws.

> mediocrity will be the norm, since that's the safest approach.

TTFN

 

[GregLocock]

RDK, am I to assume there were no PEs at Ford aware of the Pinto analysis, and no PEs at Firestone who were aware of the unusual design of the tire?



Cheers

Greg Locock

 

[RDK]

IR Stuff

Your premise is that there would be no innovation by professional engineers in manufacturing if the industrial exemption were deleted. The extension to this logic is that there would also be no innovation in construction because there is no construction exemption.

We know that this is not the case; because we are not still all living in mud huts. Professional status in industry cannot be expected to completely halt all innovation and progress. What it would do is contribute to safer products being on the market place and that would protect the public.

There are not a lot of construction careers ruined for the inevitable errors. If there were then there would be no construction engineers. It’s the complete lack of personal professional accountability that allows industry to get away with the Pinto and Firestone fiascos. This does not happen a lot in construction because the individual engineers know that they will be held personally professionally accountable if their errors resulted in the incompetent or unethical practice of engineering.

I do not know if there were any PE’s involved in these examples. I do know that if there were then they were not acting in a professional manner and would deserve to be disciplined. The threat of professional discipline might make them act in a more responsible manner.

Remember the only person who never makes any errors is the person who never does anything. I judge a person not so much on their errors but to their response to these errors. If they learn from these errors and take responsibility for their actions and take the steps to rectify their errors then that’s all anyone can really ask of anyone.


Rick Kitson MBA P.Eng

Construction Project Management
From conception to completion

http://www.kitsonengineering.com

 

[dik]

I’m amazed that many things get swept under the ‘corporate rug’, in particular in the US. The failure of the first Challenger was caused by seals, I understand. This was something that was engineered, and the potential for failure was noted before the crash. The last space shuttle that crashed, failed for something that was also preventable and highlighted by those in the ‘know’, ie., engineers. These are well known ‘failures’. There are similar issues with some classic automobile failures.

From an earlier posting on one of the forums, a Scotsman (not to hold that against him, but in recognition of his work and to identify him to himself) stated that, “negligence arises when one person owes, to another, a duty of care and breaches that duty, and reasonably foreseeable harm arises as a result of that breach.” It’s a great line for the succinct manner of phrasing it and the reason that it is a self evident truth.

The problem seems to arise when the matters are taken from engineering and decisions on ‘how the engineering work’ and how this ‘fits into the bottom line’ can be best portrayed. The industry exempt provision protects those making inappropriate decisions and does little for engineering. I doubt that an engineer would intentionally ship something that was downright dangerous to the public.

If there are concerns about the safety of a produce, then the proper manner of approaching this is in a rational fashion is in order.

One approach would be to advise the person that’s next on the corporate ladder, of the concerns; if a problem exists that it is not possible to do this without incurring the wrath of the corporate dogs (dyslexic mode), then a procedure should be put in place that this can be done anonymously with the outcome that the information can be presented in the event of a problem. The person (engineer?) raising the issue is not likely to do so for little or no reason. The reason that a method of accountability isn’t more common is likely that the dogs don’t want to be liable (personal financial and/or criminal) for their decisions. Engineers should be clever enough to establish a method that concerns can be voiced without meeting the guillotine. This is particularly true if public safety is at stake.

As far as the argument that it will stifle innovation, I suspect that this argument is by the dogs and their marketing department. One really has to question is something should be changed and what the consequences of this decision are. This is also an engineering matter. One has to seriously question if change is appropriate.

Innovation will happen, if warranted. It’s the stuff that brought us forth from the caves. Although Canada doesn’t recognize engineers without P. Eng. status, they existed long before this country did… Engineering may have started with the first caveman that chipped a piece of flint into a spear point!

I tend to take a simplistic approach to governments. Their function, arguably, is three fold: providing defense from direct attack, interfacing with other foreign governments, and protection of the citizen that is not able protect him/herself (as you can see, things have gotten ‘way out of whack’). By exempting industry, they are failing the third test.

The professional associations are grievously re-miss for not protecting the public from engineering ‘mistakes’. This action brings disrepute to the profession and a lack of public confidence in professionals.

The industry exemptions should disappear and an effort should be made by the professional associations to see that this is done.

 

[patdaly]

TChronos writes: "But that's not the question. What methodologies are in place, or can be put in place, to ensure ethical engineering in industry exempt shops?"

I cannot speak for others, but I simply REFUSE. If I lose my job, so be it, even though I am "Industry Exempt", I have the same obligation ( self imposed ) to exercise all due diligence to protect those that use my products. Now, has anyone ever been hurt using one of my designs? Yep, I hate to say it, but as I said above, when something moves, it will sooner or later take its toll.
You know the funny thing? When I throw a temper tantrum and refuse to something because I feel it is unsafe, management usually respects my decision because I back it up.
Now that you have explained the situation, I certainly would have refused to be a part of the Explorer project, not because I believe the design was unsafe, but for the reason it did not meet the established static stability factor.

You further wrote:"Management went with the design because the cost of retooling wasn't justified by their actuarial analysis. "

I hate to sound cynical, but just what is wrong with this? Our very own Federal Government uses the same process with OSHA. There must be something to define relative risk/reward, or we would never move forward. Now, with that being said, did Ford use the proper factor? I personally think not, but I did not run the calcs. It is interesting, we have very much the same scenario right now, with the exploding Crown Vics, yet not much has been publicized.

RDK then writes: "We know that this is not the case; because we are not still all living in mud huts. Professional status in industry cannot be expected to completely halt all innovation and progress. What it would do is contribute to safer products being on the market place and that would protect the public."

That is a fallacy,we also do not still drive 1903 curved dash Oldsmobiles either. The cars of today are far, far safer than at any point in the past, all with the Industrial Exemption in place. Something else to think about, how many cars would be sold if they cost say, 75,000 for a basic model? If we were to require the same standards as say a Building, that is certainly what they would cost. At that point, how many people might die simply because they could not afford Transportation?

Rick, I totally agree with you on the need for a PE ( or a QUALIFIED,CONSCIENTIOUS ME ) doing the structural work on a Public Building, but I cannot agree that we would be any safer if our cars, planes, heck, even our Toasters were designed by a PE, after all, no matter how safe you make the Toaster, there will always be some idiot who decides he wants Toast as he takes a bath, and the thing will fall in and electrocute him, just as there will always be an idiotic Apartment dweller who sends 150 people out on his deck designed to support 50.

 

[haggis]

The argument about industry exempt engineers keeps on arising.

Let's suppose that there were some unscrupulous engineers out there that would let something slip past to the possible detrement of public safety. Is mandating that they be licensed professionals going to make them any better? Is the fear of accountablity, loss of license or even jail the only thing that would deter them from from practicing in a unnacceptable manner? If so, we don't want these kind of people around anyway. Professional ethics and responsibility aren't given out with registration; one either has them or they don't.

The idea that having industry exempt engineers being a dangerous thing is ridiculous. I'm sorry to say that in a lot of cases, the public safety net provided by a licensed professional taking responsibilty only means that the public has someone to sue. In the case of an industry excemp engineer, his company foots the bill from any law suits. I have 41 years experience behind me (not 1 years experience 41 times over), do you think that the public including the assembly line worker rests easier because a 30 year old P.E or P.Eng. approved and sealed my designs.

That by the way, isn't having a jab at a "young'un" approving the "old timer's" work. If I wasn't 100% comfortable with it, I wouldn't hand it to an engineer of any status for approval.

As I said in a previous post, I work in the Auto industry in the Facilities Engineering side of it where the responsibilities of my job are twofold. To enable this plant to put 2600 cars a day out the back door and ensure the safety of the 1200 assembly workers who accomplish that. I might add that the two don't neccessarily come in that order with safety being of paramount importance.

If I went to my Plant Manager with an idea that would save lots of money, let him achieve his goal in production but in doing so, at a million to one odds we might mame or kill an employee, I would be uncerimoniously escorted to the gate.

Also, the argument that it is cheaper for the industry to fork out a few big settlements than add to the cost of the vehicle for safety's sake doesn't really go either. Even if one of our models needed a $10 part to rectify a safety hazard and the model ran for say 5 years, this would cost approx. $20,000,000. Isn't it a big risk to have 2,000,000 units running around over 5 years and not have one of them in a devastating accident which might expose the defect?

 

[dik]

Haggis...

I would disagree... if a decision is made by managers using actuarial data on the effect of an error based on probable outcome of lawsuits, something is drastically wrong with the mentality! None of the engineers I know would even consider this as part of a criteria.

Responsibility makes good things happen; lack of accountability doesn't!

 

[haggis]

I touched on this subject in my previous post but I missed the following quote in one of RDK's posts.

If the engineering staff at Ford were in danger of loosing their personal licenses would we have had exploding Pinto’s?

Doesn't this suggest that if the same engineers were licensed, all we would have had is licensed engineers who were capable of letting this loose on the public but were thinking only of their licenses and not the devastating results that could have and unfortunately did ensue.

As patdaly said in his post, his obligations are self imposed, as are mine. Some don't need a governing body or a threat to disuade them from unethical or unsafe practices.

 

[buzzp]

Any engineer that would willingly release a product knowing it is unsafe would certainly still release the product if he/she had their PE license.

Requiring PE's for exempt positions would be a huge mistake.

As engineers, we naturally want to make the safest product, no matter how much time it takes. Can you imagine the development time if the only person driving that time is the engineer? We all gripe and complain about managements drive to get the product to market but they do serve their purpose. Now take this scenario and imagine where we would be on the producable technology scale if only engineers were responsible for time to market? Our technological progress would be stifled.

Costs would skyrocket as well. I imagine the lead times would increase drastically, hampering new technology. Engineering wages would go way up forcing more engineering jobs over seas. How would the foreign companies that are selling products to the US be handled? How does Canada handle this now? Do they require the product be shipped with a PE signature somewhere? Certainly would not want the drawings shipped with the product. I would bet that Canada lets products into the country without a PE signature on a regular basis. This is why they have CSA.

What about project teams? Generally, you might have 2-3 hardware engineers working on the electronics, a few software engineers, maybe a mechanical engineer. How would you determine who is responsible for the unsafe condition? Simple example: say the hardware engineer is asked to design a power board for a controller. He is given the loads he needs to switch by a mechanical engineer. Now the EE reviews the loads of the design and figures out the ME was correct. Later on, it is determined by the ME, that the solenoid is not big enough so he changes it. Unknowingly, the switch is now to small and a fire hazard is present. Who is responsible? Probably not the ME because he is licensed as an ME not an EE. Probably not the EE because he designed the electronics for the spec he was given. This is a simple case but you can be sure this would be a huge problem on projects with multiple engineers and multiple disciplines.

I can think of more potential problems with mandated PE licensing. I will save that for another reply.

 

[haggis]

dik

All I ask is that licensed engineers give the industry exempt guys a little bit of credit.

As I said, I am not in product design but know enough of the industry that the most the execs are guilty of in cost saving is sometimes releasing a slightly shoddy product but not releasing anything that is dangerous or life threatening. Many of the execs are engineers, albeit industry exempt.

Your quote:

The industry exempt provision protects those making inappropriate decisions and does little for engineering. I doubt that an engineer would intentionally ship something that was downright dangerous to the public.

We, as industry exempt, don't make inappropriate decisions and I feel we have done a lot for engineering. I agree with the last part however, licensed or otherwise.

Your Other quote:

Responsibility makes good things happen; lack of accountability doesn't!

Responsibility we have and accountability to ones self I suspect may be much more harrowing than of that to the law.

 

[buzzp]

I have one more important argument against mandating all engineers have a PE license.

If this is done, the company that makes the product has no liability. Imagine the pressure on the engineers shoulders then. This will encourage even more bad decisions because there would be no legal recourse if a company releases an unsafe product. They would have no reason not to release a product immediately. The executives/management will be breathing down our neck even more. If an engineer is not ready to release the product then they can find one that will.

Now with the added cost of hiring engineers with a PE license on top of the cost to 'test' a product (for electronics this might include UL and CSA tests, if it ships to Europe, then tests required for CE will be required, some FCC testing will need to be done as well for products in the US with frequencies above 9kHz). These tests include potential tests, fire tests, failure analysis, radiated emissions, immunity, etc. There are already many tests a product needs to pass to be a SAFE product and successful on the market. Requiring a PE engineer to design the product will only add overall cost to the product, create a nightmare to assign responsibility in case of legal action, stifle technological advances, and create a huge government agency to enforce (imagine all the products out there, even just electronic products that will require some means to identify all the engineers that worked on the project and distribute blame). I for one, would go into the consulting business if this ever came to pass since the possibility of getting sued for something out of my control would be less.

If this were to happen, then McDonalds would not have been sued for the hot cup of coffee (not that this should of been allowed) but the engineer would of been liable since he designed the coffee maker.

 

[IRstuff]

One thing to bear in mind is that most safety assessment ground rules is "intended use", which means that you perform analysis based on what you intended the product to do.

As we all know and occasionally do ourselves, tools and other products are often used in unintended applications, e.g., wrenches used for hammers, etc.

Given the legal state of affairs, a PE would still get sued for such unintended applications, so even if the PE eventually prevails in court, the legal and time costs are still incurred. Since the PE is directly liable, there would be an increase in these types of suits, since the plaintiffs have a better chance of winning when suing an individual. Whereas, most current product liability suits have to be filed against the company, which has a higher stake in winning the case.

TTFN

 

[haggis]

This has been a very interesting topic. However,engineers,licenesed or not,are on very shaky ground when someone gets hurt.

The sad part is, that even with good products, we could all be held liable when someone misuses them.

In the last post,IRstuff raised a good point in this area...."intended use".

Using a wrench as a hammer. In all probability, someone could win a lawsuit if they lost an eye.

Another hypotheses:

Some fool buys a new Corvette, takes the Interstate home and wrings it out at 200mph + and kills themselves.

Is GM liable for selling such a product knowing that the highways aren't engineered for such performance or is the DOT at fault because a slight dip in the asphalt caused the car to become airborne. What about the DMV? They allowed the car to be registered. The list could go on and on. Everybody gets gets dragged through the courts as being a menace to society and reality gets checked at the door. All the driver was guilty of was breaking the speed limit and excersising poor judgement.