Ethics in Engineering

Final Project Submission

• Kista Construction Incident

Submission Date:
June 1, 2020

Submitted By:
Fahad Akbar - 198907012515

1
 Kista Construction Incident

Firstly, I want to say something about my work life and how ethics were included in it. I have worked for 8
years in a sector mostly different from what I expected to or wished to work; that is Banking Sector. Like
ethics my work life has been messy and full of dilemma. I have done my Bachelor in Telecommunication but
for the need and pressure from my family I had to join a bank as an IT officer. In this point we can see the
Peer Pressure of ethics. Initially, I thought even if it is IT, maybe it will be not so different than my subject.
But after 6 months it started to be cleared that in Bank you must do the regular activities also. That was the
first blow for me. Here we find the point Obeying the authority. But I couldn’t do anything I have to continue
because I had to support my family. Another thing that I didn’t like that there was less work and more Buttering
the boss. It was seemed to be an unwritten rule. As I cannot follow it I was not use to get praised or salary
raise even though I was doing good job.

Then comes the real work. Every bank is control by the central bank and given all kind of law & regulation.
But the practice is totally different. If you are a regular, normal customer then you must face all kind of rules.
When for a rich, powerful and renowned customer all the rules should be broken to just make them happy.
Not all things were bad experience. I have some good too. I learned the real meaning of customer. How to
handle them, convince them, manage them etc. and what they mean to a company. I also learned to work
in an office environment. Its really a crazy world out there. There will be groups, politics, bad vs good etc.
And I had to cope in there. I met a lot of good people and colleagues. They supported me, helped me to learn
new things and to cope with the new world. That’s how I passed eventful 8 years with my previous employer.

An unfortunate accident occurred on July 15th, 2008, at the Kista Centrum construction site in Stockholm.
The steel structure meant to support a concrete floor in a new section of the mall in Kista collapsed. A steel
beam was deformed by the pressure and about 200 tonnes of concrete fell down onto hanstavagen, the road
beneath the construction. The collapse caused the death of a Ruukki subcontractor’s employee, and two
other people were injured. The engineer who was designing the blueprint was sentenced due to her fault. It
was both conditional and fines. The company she used to work; Cremona also was fined. Because how did
a faulty blueprint of a huge construction site got approved, is unimaginable for a big company. All the other
parties who were involved like Ruukki, Forsen project, Ramboll we also acquitted. [2]

The steel beam was described in one of 800 manufacturing drawings produced by a consulting company in
Sweden, Cremona. In order to construct the concrete elements, a blueprint for a beam was needed. Drawings
for the blueprint were produced in a software system (TEKLA). Because of the time pressure and work stress,
the designer changed the measure of the beam to 7 mm from 25 mm. 25 mm was set by their subconsultant
company, Ramboll. But the blueprint was preliminary as it was undated.

Then the blueprint was sent to the Finnish manufacturer, Ruukki to produce the beam. Ruukki was also
unable to see the blueprint was undated and improperly designed. Apart from being thin, the blueprint also
was missing reinforcing plate between the flanges of the beam. Also, for a blueprint to be valid therr should
be two control, primary by the designer and secondary by the company. In police investigation it was found
that, the self-control box was checked, but in the second one was unchecked. Still Ruukki was unable to
find the fault and produced the materials and shipped them to Sweden.

In Sweden Forsen project was the supervising company of the site. The project manager also didn’t suspect
anything and ordered the beam to be installed. Even though the widow of the deceased worker claimed that
her husband tried to warn the supervisor several times that the beams were too weak. But the supervisor
refused it and said he had nothing to believe there was anything wrong, because a beam has been checked
5 times before arriving at a site. Its clear that no body in the chain detected the error. After the trial everyone
in the chain was acquitted but the publicly appointed quality official was not even mentioned by the court.
Here I find that even government also tried to hide their fault.

Now I am going to describe the case according to my understanding along with ethics.

This case is related to 3 chapters in the book responsibility, avoiding responsibility and responsibility of
Engineer.

The designer should have freedom to design and work in her own time. She should have the freedom from
time pressure and stress from the project. And the impact we can all see. Without freedom to and from there
will be only negative result. Also, if the worker who died had the privilege to stop the project at the time of
inspection, the accident could have not happened. But he didn’t have the power. So if we can properly do
our responsibility the impact will surely be good. If we are not in any way free to make a reasoned choice,
we have to responsibility.

There are several ways in which we avoid taking responsibility. In this Kista incident there are some examples
also. There were determinations. When the designer sent the faulty design, she was determined to deliver
on time, whether it’s going to cost life or not. Ruukki also determined to deliver the product on due time, they
didn’t even ethically think of the size of the beam. Forsen also was determined to finish the project on time
that’s why even though they had huge experience, they were not concerned about the size of the beam.
There was rationalization also. How every actor was convincing themselves that their actions were good.
Designer thinking, she was finishing on time. Ruukki thinking they did well to deliver the beams perfectly as
the blueprint. Project manager thinking its been already checked 5 times, so there should be nothing wrong
with the design. Them comes obeying the authority, in all the chain we see obeying the authority sometimes
causes damage in the future. Everyone was obeying their higher ups. Even 1 person thought out of the box
and took a strong ethical step then the incident could have been stopped. As an example, we can say, if the
deceased worker refused the project manager and stopped putting the beams, then may be there could have
been a new checking and the design maybe changed then. But this all we learned after we lost a life. We
also can see another part of avoiding responsibilities. Peer pressure, which is being influenced by the
authority. One such mechanism in conformism, which is seen in this case. All the acquitted were influenced
by the others. Ruukki thought Cremona does right, Forsen thought Ruukki does right and in the end,
supervisor thought all the above were right, so there shouldn’t be any problem. That’s how they all avoid their
responsibilities.

This case shows us engineering profession comes with ethical values and why ethical values are needed.
The designer who is also an engineer, didn’t follow the ethical way, she tried to make her client and boss
happy and ultimately the design she made cost a life. She should have thought of the consequences of her
faulty design and she knows it. But still she did it.

Engineers work with technology and together with other people. We have a set of skills, which may concern
problem solving but which may also be about imaginatively creating a desirable future through technology.
With that knowledge comes power. And a great man, stan lee said through his famous creation spider man,
“with great power comes great responsibility”.

Ethics is a branch of moral philosophy that involves the principles of guiding and recommending behaviors
and conduct. Stemming from the Ancient Greek philosophers, ethics is based on the central questions of
‘what is the best way for people to live?’ and ‘what actions are right or wrong circumstances?’ Trying to
answer these questions involves considering issues such as good and evil, virtue and vice, and justice and
crime.
So, after all the reading and researching according to myself these are the following ethical principles
engineers should comply:

▪ Honesty: Acting honestly and avoiding conduct likely to result, directly or indirectly, in the deception of
others.
▪ Fairness: Not seeking to obtain a benefit which arises directly or indirectly from the unfair treatment of
others.
▪ Fair reward: Avoidance of acts likely to deprive another party of a fair reward for work.
▪ Reliability: Only provide services and skills within areas of competence.
▪ Integrity: Regard for the public interest.
▪ Objectivity: Identify potential conflicts of interest and disclose this to the party who would be adversely
affected by it.
▪ Accountability: Provide appropriate information so effective action can be taken where necessary. [1]

At the End of all discussion I want to present my verdict on the case, or we can say “who is the culprit”.
According to my understanding all the actors were equally offender, but the designer a.k.a. the structural
engineer was the most to blame. Because her decision was the root of all this wrongdoing. She must have
thought of the consequences ethically before sending the blueprint of the beam forward. She must be aware
of what she is doing and what her fault can cost. Yes, life is not fair to everyone but you need to be ethical
mostly of your life.

References
[1] https://www.designingbuildings.co.uk/wiki/Ethics_in_construction
[2] https://steelguru.com/steel/fatal-accident-at-the-kista-centrum-construction-site-in-stockholm/55097
[3] Why do Structural failures occures?, Sven Thelandersson, Lund University, Sweden.