Engineering Management ENG 310 Chapter 9 PDF

 Title Page 9.1 Introduction 3 9.2 The Problem of Many Hands 6 9.2.1: Citicorp Building 8 9.2.1: Causes of the Problem o...

 Title Page 9.1 Introduction 3 9.2 The Problem of Many Hands 6 9.2.1: Citicorp Building 8 9.2.1: Causes of the Problem of Many Hands 15 9.2.3: Distributing Responsibility 17 9.3 Responsibility and the Law 19 9.3.1: Liability versus Regulation 22 9.3.2: Negligence versus Strict Liability 23 9.3.3: Corporate Liability 26 9.4 Responsibility in Organizations 28 9.5 Responsibility Distributions and Technological Designs 32 9.6 Chapter Summary 36 oHerald of Free Enterprise was a roll-on roll-off (RORO) ferry which capsized moments after leaving the Belgian port of Zeebrugge on the night of 6 March 1987, killing 193 passengers and crew. oThe modern 8-deck car and passenger ferry, owned by Townsend Thoresen, had been designed for rapid loading and unloading on the competitive cross-channel route, and there were no watertight compartments. When the ship left harbor with her bow-door open, the sea immediately flooded the decks, and within minutes she was lying on her side in shallow water. oThe immediate cause of the sinking was found to be negligence by the assistant boatswain, asleep in his cabin when he should have been closing the bow-door. But the official inquiry placed more blame on his supervisors (first navigating officer captain and shore captain)and a general culture of poor communication in the ferry company. The outcome of the investigation was that the ship’s captain, Lewry, was suspended for a year and the first navigating officer, Sabel, for two years. The assistant boatswain, Stanley, got off free and the ship-owner was officially reprimanded. The Admiralty High Court’s written assessment of the ship-owner was devastating. It identified a “disease of sloppiness” and negligence at every level of the corporation’s hierarchy. The Herald of Free Enterprise illustrates a number of issues with respect to responsibility in engineering. 1. First, it shows how difficult it may be to pinpoint responsibility and blame in cases in which many people are involved in an activity and in which many causes contributed to a disaster. This is known as the problem of many hands. 2. Second, it shows that even if we may have good reasons to hold someone morally responsible (blameworthy) for his/her actions that person might not be legally guilty or liable. So there is a difference between moral responsibility and legal liability. 3. Third, the case raises the question how we can best organize active responsibility in complex organizations in order to avoid disasters as with the Herald of Free Enterprise. oOne might assume that if all of the actors would behave individually responsibly, the overall result would be beneficial for society. This assumption does not always hold water: the fragmentation of decision-making led to different parts of the organization focusing purely on their areas of responsibility, and thus not feeling responsible for safety as a whole. We see a similar pattern in the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise. o The problem of many hands typically describes the problem where a lot of people are involved in an activity, like a complex engineering project, therefore making it difficult to identify where the responsibility for a particular outcome lies. In part this is a practical problem. It is often difficult in complex organizations or engineering projects to identify and prove who was responsible for what. The problem of many hands is also a moral problem. This is morally problematic for at least two independent reasons. 1. Many people, including victims, members of the public, and also the engineering community, may find it morally unsatisfactory that if an engineering disaster occurs nobody can be held responsible. Some philosophers have introduced the notion of collective responsibility to deal with the intuition that there is more to responsibility in complex cases than just the sum of the responsibilities of the individuals considered in isolation. 2. The second reason for attributing responsibility is the desire to learn from mistakes, and to do better in the future. If nobody is held morally responsible for a disaster, this may not happen. oCollective Responsibility: The responsibility of a collective of people. oProblem of many hands: The occurrence of the situation in which the collective can reasonably be held morally responsible for an outcome, while none of the individuals can be reasonably held responsible for that outcome. The building was structurally deficient at that time, although nobody knew that. Who is to be held responsible for this structural deficiency? To answer this question, we start by briefly sketching the main causes of the structural deficiency of the building. We then focus on the three main actors that causally contributed to this structural deficiency: 1) LeMessurier who designed the building. 2) The contractor who during construction decided to replace the welded joints by bolted joints. 3) The employee at LeMessurier’s firm who approved this change but did not inform LeMessurier about it (the “approver”). The structural deficiency of the Citicorp building was mainly caused by a combination of two facts. i. The peculiar design of the building ii. The change from welded to bolded joints. It was the combination of these two facts that made the building structurally deficient. Each of these facts considered in isolation did not jeopardize the structural strength of the building. oThe reason for this construction was that there had been a church on the building site and it had been agreed that this church would be reconstructed beneath the building after its completion. oHowever, as LeMessurier found out in 1978 the combination of the peculiar design and the bolded connections made the structure vulnerable to high winds that strike the building diagonally at a 45 degree angle. We know focus on whether each of the three mentioned actors can reasonably be held responsible: LeMessurier, the contractor, and the approver. In doing so, we will apply the conditions for individual moral responsibility. Four Conditions to for an individual to be held morally responsible: 1. Wrong doing. 2. Causal Contribution. 3. Foresee ability (he could have known that the building was structurally deficient). 4. Freedom of action. The fourth condition is fulfilled for all three persons: they were not forced to act in a certain way. The second condition is also met. 1. LeMessurier cannot reasonably be held responsible in 1977, because he then did not know of the change from welded to bolted joints, which was crucial to foresee the structural deficiency of the building. 2. The contractor, of course, knew about the change and probably also about the peculiar design but it seems reasonable to say that the contractor could not have known that the combination of these two factors would lead to structural deficiency. 3. The approver also cannot be help responsible because the choice of bolted joints was technically sound and professionally correct.  It then turns out that none of the actors can reasonably be held responsible. To show that this is a problem of many hands, we also need to show that the collective can reasonably be held responsible in this case: oIn the Citicorp case, we can define the collective as LeMessurier, the contractor, and the approver together. We assume that these three people can cooperate and share information. oThe same 4 conditions apply here also. oIt seems obvious that the collective acted freely, as each of the individuals acted freely. oThe collective also made a causal contribution to the structural deficiency. It is less clear whether the collective also meets the knowledge and wrong-doing conditions. oFrom a consequentialist point of view, it obviously is: structural failure once in 16 years is unacceptably high; no engineer would contest that. This failure is due to the 45- dergree wind that was not taken into consideration. oIn this case, given the innovative design of the structure, it seems to require taking into account 45-degree winds (cf. Kremer, 2002). It thus seems reasonable to hold the collective in 1977 responsible for the structural deficiency of the Citicorp building. 1. The problem of many hands is primarily due to the distribution of information over the various actors.( Due to the way information was distributed, neither LeMessurier nor the contractor nor the approver could reasonably have known that the actual built construction was structurally deficient). 2. the distribution of information. (The crucial point is that applying the knowledge condition to each of the individuals in isolation might yield a different result than applying it to the entire group of actors at once. This is why we might sometimes judge that none of the individuals could reasonably foresee a certain harm, while at the collective level that same harm is foreseeable). 3. The problem of many hands can also arise due to a combination of conditions for responsibility. For example, an employee of a company who knows of a defect in a product may – due to the hierarchical nature of the organization and the specific procedures within the organization – lack the freedom to repair the defect or to warn customers about it. His superior may have the freedom to act but maybe could not have known about the defect. The above suggests that the Citicorp example is not an exception but that the problem of many hands is likely to occur regularly in engineering (and elsewhere). oDistribution of responsibility: The ascription or apportioning of (individual) responsibilities to various actors. oMoral fairness requirement: The requirement that a distribution of responsibility should be fair (just). In case of passive responsibility, this can be interpreted as that a person should only be held responsible if that person can be reasonably held responsible according the following conditions: wrong- doing; causal contribution; foresee ability; and freedom of action. In terms of active responsibility it can be interpreted as implying that persons should only be allocated responsibilities that they can live by. There are at least two reasons for ascribing responsibility. 1. One is that we consider it morally important to hold people responsible for their actions and the consequences of these actions if certain conditions are met. 2. The other reason why we ascribe responsibility is that we want to avoid harm and stimulate desirable outcomes. The distribution of responsibility that has the best consequences, that is, is effective in preventing harm, is the morally required distribution of responsibility. We will call this the effectiveness requirement. Effectiveness requirement: The moral requirement that states that responsibility should be so distributed that the distribution has the best consequences, that is, is effective in preventing harm (and in achieving positive consequences). Liability: Legal responsibility: backward-looking responsibility according to the law. Usually related to the obligation to pay a fine or repair or repay damages. 1- First, the conditions or basis by which someone is held liable are often different from the conditions by which someone is held morally responsible. The conditions for liability are laid down in the law and may differ for different types of actions, for different types of consequences and in different countries. For moral responsibility, usually the conditions are : ✓ Wrong doing ✓ Causal Contribution ✓ Forseeability ✓ Freedom of action 2- Secondly, liability is established in an official and well- regulated procedure in court. It requires a verdict by a judge or a jury and the liability conditions must be proven to apply in a formal juridical sense. Moral responsibility can be established more informally. 3- Third, liability usually implies the obligation to pay a fine or to repay damages, while this is not necessarily an implication of moral responsibility. 4- Fourth, liability always applies after something undesirable has occurred, while responsibility is relevant both after the fact as well as before something undesirable has occurred.  Moral responsibility Legal liability Moral blameworthiness based on Based on conditions formulated in the conditions of wrong-doing, causality, law. freedom and foresee ability. Can be established more informally; Established in well-regulated you can also consider whether you are procedure in court; juridical proof of yourself responsible. conditions required. Not necessarily connected to Usually implies the obligation to pay a punishment or compensation. fine or to repay damages. Backward-looking and forward- Backward-looking. looking. oLiability is one of the legal tools that can be used to deal with the social consequences of technology. oThe other main legal tool is regulation. Regulation: A legal tool that can forbid the development, production, or use of certain technological products, but more often it formulates a set of the boundary conditions for the design, production, and use of technologies. oGiven the large economic and social benefits of innovation, most of today’s governments refrain from regulation that forbids certain innovations outright. The consequence is that regulation tends to lag behind technological development and its consequences. oRegulation is therefore often not able to deal with innovation. oLiability does not require the government to foresee the consequences of new technology but rather makes the ones developing those technologies, usually companies and the engineers employed by them, legally liable for those consequences under certain conditions The main condition for liability is negligence. In order to claim negligence, proof must be given of: 1. A duty owed. This is usually a duty of care, which is the legal obligation that individuals adhere to a reasonable standard of care while performing any acts that could foresee ably harm others. For engineers, the standard of care both depends on what the public can reasonably expect from engineers and what is common practice in engineering. 2. A breach of that duty 3. An injury or damage 4. A causal connection between the breach and the injury or damage. Negligence: Not living by certain duties. Negligence is often a main condition for legal liability. In order to show negligence for the law, usually proof must be given of a duty owed, a breach of that duty, an injury or damage, and a causal connection between the breach and the injury or damage. Duty of care: The legal obligation to adhere to a reasonable standard of care when performing any acts that could foreseeably harm others. Negligence does not require that the defendant actually foresaw the damage but that a reasonable person in the position of the defendant could have foreseen the damage. Strict liability: A form of liability that does not require the defendant to be negligent. Product liability: Liability of manufacturers for defects in a product, without the need to proof that those manufacturers acted negligently. Innovation is a possible candidate for strict liability. In fact, the US and the countries of the European Union recognize product liability, which makes a manufacturer liable for defects in a product, without the need to proof that that manufacturer acted negligently. oOne reason for applying strict liability to technological products is that it motivates engineers and the other people involved in innovation to be very careful. oStrict liability will therefore probably result in a higher level of safety. Strict liability, however, also has disadvantages. 1. Strict liability may well slow down the pace of innovation. (This is often considered undesirable because innovation is an important source of social and technological progress in today’s society). 2. It seems morally unfair to hold people liable when they are not at fault or could not have foreseen the damage. Nevertheless, the EU directive for product liability makes an exception for defects that could not have been foreseen given the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was put into circulation. Such unforeseeable risks are called developments risks and most schemes of product liability make an exception for development risks. Development risks: In the context of product liability: Risks that could not have been foreseen given the state of scientific and technical knowledge at the time the product was put into circulation. Corporate liability: Liability of a company (corporation) when it is treated as a legal person. Limited liability: The principle that the liability of shareholders for the corporation’s debts and obligations is limited to the value of their shares. Not only individual persons, but also corporations can be held liable for the law. (called corporate liability). An example is found in the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise in which the shipping company was prosecuted for manslaughter. A main advantage of corporate liability is that victims or the government do not need to find out which individuals in a company were responsible for.  Despite this advantage, corporate liability also has a number of disadvantages and limitations. 1. First, corporations, unlike natural persons, do not possess a conscience. They have “no soul to damn and no body to kick.” They cannot be put in prison for example. Therefore, legal instruments that are reasonably effective when applied to natural persons are not necessarily effective when it comes to corporations. 2. Second, most modern corporations are characterized by limited liability. This means that the shareholders are liable for the corporation’s debts and obligations up to the value of their shares. Corporations may, however, well inflict more damage than the total value of their shares. 3. Third, both the moral fairness and the effectiveness of corporate liability to a large extent depend on how the liability of the corporation is translated to individuals within the organization. A liability claim on a company may, for example, result in the dismissal of employees who did not partake in the damage for which compensation is claimed.  In this section, we will discuss three different models for distributing responsibility in organizations: 1. The hierarchical model where those highest in the organization’s hierarchy are held responsible; 2. The collective model in which each member of the organization is held to be jointly and severally responsible for the acts of the organization as a whole; and 3. The individual model in which each member of the organization is held responsible in relation to his or her contribution. The models are in the first place intended to establish who is passively responsible for undesirable consequences. Which model is actually applicable depends to an important degree on the formal and actual organizational form of an organization. In the case of the Herald of Free Enterprise, some individuals – like the assistant boatswain who had fallen asleep – were prosecuted due to their (alleged) contribution to the disaster (individual model), others – like directors Develin, Ayres and Alcindor – were primarily prosecuted because they were highest in hierarchy (hierarchical model). Two considerations are 1- Hierarchical responsibility model: The model in which only the organization’s top level of personnel is held responsible for the actions of (people in) the organization. The hierarchical responsibility model also seems somewhat morally unfair. If managers are not well informed about what is going on within their organization and are only able to steer to a limited degree, how can they then fairly be held responsible for undesirable activities? Therefore, the allocation of responsibility along strict hierarchical lines may lead to moral objections. 2- Collective responsibility model: The model in which every member of a collective body is held responsible for the actions of the other members of that same collective body (and for the responsibility of the collective). The collective responsibility model is not very attractive to large organizations, because it is not possible to allocate responsibility in differing degrees to individual members of the collective. Another disadvantage of the collective responsibility model is that no one in particular tends to feel morally responsible for the consequences of the activities of the organization as a whole. 3- Individual responsibility model: The model in which each individual is held responsible insofar as he or she meets the conditions for individual responsibility. A main advantage is: It is morally fair. The model also might seem effective because it encourages individuals to behave responsibly. A main disadvantage is: Individual moral responsibility may lead to the problems of many hands: the organization may collectively bring about undesirable consequences for which no individual can be held responsible. oCONCLUSION: Obviously, none of the models discussed is ideal in terms of moral fairness and effectiveness. There is no single answer to the question how responsibility can best be distributed in organizations. It should be noted that which model can be best applied in a particular case partly depends on how the organization in question is actually organized. Suppose that you are working as an engineer for a company producing cars. The head of the R&D department asks you to set up a design team for the design of a new type of truck. One could think, for example, of the following desiderata: 1. All individuals (or groups) to which a certain responsibility is allocated should be able to live up to those responsibilities. 2. For outsiders, that is, people who are not members of the design team, it should be clear whom to address if there is a concern or question about the safety of the truck. 3. The distribution of responsibilities should be effective in the sense of resulting in a safe truck. Different models or combinations of models for allocating responsibility could be considered for achieving this. For example: 1. The hierarchical model, in which the leader of the design team is responsible for safety; 2. The collective model, in which all design team members are equally responsible for the safety of the truck; 3. The individual model in which each member of the design team is responsible relative to his or her individual contribution; 4. The responsibility for safety can also be allocated to a special safety official. Many organizations, for example, have special HSE (Health, Safety, and Environmental) officers for this type of concern. oEngineering design, the law, and organizations influence the distribution of responsibility. oAn example illustrating this aspect is the automatic pilot in an airplane that takes over some responsibilities of the pilots. oTherefore the pilots no longer have the freedom to repair the plane in disaster. oThe designers of the automatic pilot are held responsible, if they meet the responsibility conditions. Otherwise, nobody can be held responsible which is an unwanted effect. oIt should be noted that the conditions under which the user can carry out those tasks must be ascertained. Human pilots need information to steer a plane. The knowledge condition is one of the conditions for responsibility. However, this doesn’t neglect the fact that pilots are dependent on the system and its designers to obtain information. oTechnological design leads to more complex division of labor and responsibility. For instance, some technologies need a social structure to function appropriately. As the philosopher of technology, Langdon Winner , stated that the atomic bomb requires an rigid social structure. Hence, technologies need an allocating of tasks and responsibilities along hierarchical lines , and this is illustrated I the V-chip case below. oThe V-chip is an electronic device that is built into televisions to block inappropriate programs from children. The television stations broadcast a rating as part of the program. The parents program the v-ship by setting threshold rating, where programs exceeding the rating are blocked. oThe uniform rating system is done by the organizations, which can be the TV station, the program makers, the government or an independent review board. In the USA , various organizations released the ratings system known as “TV Parental Guidelines” which monitors the application of the rating system. oComparing the V-chip with the traditional situation (outside the USA), the parents decide directly what their children can watch by switching on and off the television, where no legal restrictions existed for TV programs. oThe second situation, which operates in many European countries, is the one where the programs contain a rating which acts as an aid for parents to decide what programs their children may watch. oThe role of the parents is reduced with the use of the V-chip where they only have to set the desired rating for their children. By doing this, they assume the rating system agrees their own values; for instance some programs may be rated as acceptable but certain parents consider these programs unacceptable. oThe V-chip assigns a number of responsibilities towards various actors. We judge this resulting responsibility distribution in terms of effectiveness and moral fairness. Regarding effectiveness, a major question arises which is what the consequences of the responsibility distribution are? Regarding the moral fairness, one question arises which is whether the actors can reasonably live up to the responsibilities assigned to them. Moreover , some argue that rating programs should not be done by TV stations , rather it should be left to parents. oIn this chapter , we chatted three mechanisms for responsibility distribution : 1) The law 2) Organizational models for responsibility assignment 3) Technological Development oThe resulting responsibility distribution can be assessed in terms of moral fairness and effectiveness. oThe law makes certain people liable for certain actions and consequences. Liability is the legal complement of moral responsibility. oWe discussed three models for distributing responsibility in organizations: the hierarchical; the collective; and the individual. Each model has its pros and cons; however none of the models provide a general solution to the problem of many hands. oTechnologies may provide users with various degrees of freedom and knowledge and can influence their responsibility since freedom of action and foreseeability are preconditions for responsibility. oThe responsibility of distribution is a responsibility itself which has to be taken by individuals but it can be easily disregarded if one emphases only on individual responsibility.