Q1: Chiles talks about the Birmingham, Alabama stadium and the Citicorp Center, and how their

engineers responded when they found out that their designs were flawed. In fact, virtually every disaster that Chiles describes in his book is either because of lack of properly evaluating and checking the design, or humans misunderstanding the relationship between the real environment and the design. Like the doctor, the engineer can hold many hands in his/her hands. Considering the number of fatalities each year due to flawed or inadequate designs, should a new code of conduct, perhaps a legislated one, be implemented in order to better protect society from potential disaster? Perhaps the existing laws needs to be better enforced instead. However, in the event that the solution to eradication of potential danger to society is the implementation of new codes of conduct, the questions which comes to my mind is, which entity will be tasked with duty of policing these new codes of conduct, the government or a certification body? I am asking this because currently some existing laws are ineffective due to the politics of who has the final say or who police it.

Q2: for the young engineer: Chiles related the story of the school which was destroyed by a gas leak-pg 157- quoting the final report: "It was the collective faults of average individuals, ignorant of or indifferent to the need of precautionary measures, where they cannot, in their lack of knowledge, visualize a danger or hazard." For whatever reason, this quote resonated with me, and made me reflect upon earlier quotes describing human limitations [attributed to psychologists Dunning and Kruger - pg 131 and Darwin - pg 132]: "Ignorance breeds overconfidence, they say, particularly in fields in which people know just enough to be dangerous... Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge." Are we doomed to exist in a world where average individuals, lacking vision and foresight yet confident in their decisions, are given authority to manage complex systems beyond their ability? This is a recipe for disaster, but appears to be inevitable. That idea is reinforced on page 285 when Chiles quotes Charles Perrow: "...as systems get more complex and tightly coupled, there are more combinations that can lead to failure." Are we to simply roll over and accept our fate? Chiles encourages people who can make a difference to sincerely approach their boss and threaten to quit if they don't get in line. Really? Is that the take-away? Seems sort of anti-climactic advice in the end. This is an interesting question. Ideally, competent individuals should be handed the responsibility of managing complex systems. However, the reality is often the opposite in most situations particularly in developing countries. I will narrate a story to support my assertion. A
1

supposedly competent individual was appointed as the head of engineering by the board of directors of a public Transport Company in conjunction with the government. His first task after his appointment was to order new coaches to augment the companys depleting fleet. Based on his research, coaches from China were better suited to the companys needs. He was given the green light by the board to order these coaches. The first few coaches arrived after months of waiting. The new coaches worked fine until they started developing problems such as overheating and axle fracture. The engineering team deliberated on these issues and based on the final recommendations from the head of engineering, the thermostats were to be removed from the engines as a measure to solve the problem of overheating. With regards to the issue of axle fracture, it was decided that the coaches will not be overloaded anymore-they will be operated in the specified weight range. The decision to remove the thermostats did not sit well with the other members of the engineering team. In their opinion, removing the thermostat will only worsen the situation. The head of engineering went ahead with his removing of thermostat idea even though he had opposition from the others. A memo was sent across the country to remove thermostats on the new coaches whenever they made a stop at the workshop. The technicians followed these instructions faithfully even though they also did not agree with the head of engineering. After a couple of months of implementation of this new idea, there were reports of significant wear/crack around the engine blocks. According to an independent investigation, these wears/cracks were due to cavitation as a result of the continuously rushing water around the engine block. The problem of overheating also worsened and most of the coaches were grounded eventually. After this initial fiasco, the head of engineering went back to the board with another suggestion. Firstly, he wanted to replace the engines of the grounded coaches with used DAF engines and later replace all the engines of the fleet with new imported Euro 3 DAF
2

engines. In his expert opinion, the new imported engines will last longer as well as solve the problem of overheating completely. The company once again bought into his idea and they were implemented. The flaw in this idea of replacing old engines with Euro 3 DAF engines was the fact that the company did not have the personnel to work on such engines. The available personnel were not equipped to handle electronic engines. The new Euro 3 DAF engines arrived and there was not a single person in the company who could mount on the coaches. At this point, the company could not afford to train their workers or bring in experts to work on the new engines because the company was financially crippled due to wrong decisions. Eventually, company assets had to be auctioned to offset incurred debts. This narration is a clear case of an individual without the skills to manage a complex system. Should the other members of the engineering team have stood up against these disastrous decisions as Chiles recommends? Ideally, yes, they should have, however, in a third world country; the politics at the work place can be very dirty. Positions such as head of engineering in public companies are typically political appointments and he/she is untouchable at times. Reporting such a figure to the board is a sure ticket to being fired! Moreover, they can make it difficult for the individual to get hired at another company. Generally, a person with family cannot go for long without a job so a choice has to be made, whether to turn a blind eye on issues or complain and get fired. Are we supposed to roll over and accept our fate in such situations, well at times, one need to be selfless and resign graciously rather go down with their leaders.

Hello Malcolm:

Please, find below my response to questions from Petroski's book.

Thank you.

Kwadwo

Hello Dr. Britton:

Please, find below my response to questions from Chiles book.

Thank you.

Kwadwo