Y2K 2000 Disaster

1
Y2K 2000 Disaster

• Name Year 2000 Problem
• Date On and After January 1, 2000
• What The belief that computer stored data would
  be deleted. The year 2000 was a problem for
  computer calculations because of its end digits
  00. Programs could not grasp that 00 come
  after the nineties. Expiration dates, jail
  release dates, and other important records could
  not be accurate because the latest known date was
  12/31/99.

2
Y2K 2000 Disaster

• Causes The inability of computers to recognize
  dates beyond the year 1999.
• Corrective Actions The preparation cost for Y2K
  was 300 billion dollars. When the date arrived,
  minor flaws with computer systems occurred. A
  program called COBOL PICTURE was installed in
  computers to create 4-digit characters for years.

3
Titanic Disaster

• Titanic ship which has the reputation of
  unsinkable was sank in April 15,1912 at 2 am.
• The ship was equip with all sort of facilities
  and built using the latest technology.
• The ship lurched sideways when it hit and then
  kept bouncing back against the berg leaving
  spaced ruptures in the steel plate below the
  water line.

4

• The steel that used to make the ship had amounts
  of phosphorous, oxygen and sulfur which caused
  the steel to become more brittle as it sailed
  through the cold Atlantic ocean.
• It was considered the best steel of the time,
  however it wouldnt be acceptable for
  constructing ships
• today.

5
Titanic Disaster

• It is possible that whatever steel was used, the
  ship would have suffered the same damage.
• The ship could have avoided the ice, but the
  captain picked a faster course and had the ships
  speed at maximum at the time it struck the
  iceberg.
• The responsibility fell upon the captain since he
  failed to identify or ignored the ice dangers in
  advance.

6
New Orleans Levee

• The Levee in New Orleans Failed on August 29,
  2005
• The levee broke from high water levels due to
  Hurricane Katrina.
• Many thousands of peoples lives were ruined in
  the New Orleans district.

7
New Orleans Levee

• Reasons The Levee Failed
• Massive amounts of water build up behind the
  levee.
• After the pressure reached the levees breaking
  point, all the water drained into the city of New
  Orleans.
• Poor designs, workmanship, and bad politics all
  seeming lead to the failure.

8
GENERAL CASE STUDY

• In a test/exam situation, you (Student A) noticed
  Student B cheating.
• Student B, justify your cheating.
• Student A, what would you do?
• What response are you likely to get from the
  class given your action in (2) above?
• If you were caught (Student B), what do you
  RECOMMEND to happen to you?

9
GENERAL CASE STUDY
Suppose a project was given to each one of you
last week. Each of you are expected to work on
the project and submit your reports individually.
This project is assumed to comprise about 30 of
your final course score.   Many of you have
noticed the unseriousness of a member of your
class (Student A) in coming to lectures,
submitting assignments and projects.
Unfortunately, this behavior is also seen in this
student in the work expected for the project.
Incidentally, in the computer lab, one day before
submission, you (Student C) saw this unserious
student copying the entire text, formulas and
graphs of another student B.
10
Questions

• What ethical principles have been violated in
  this situation?
• What response would you as Student C give to this
  situation?
• As the lecturer, what response will you give?
• What information do you think may prevent you
  from reacting as you have dictated in (2).

11
Why do we have codes of ethics?

• a convention between professionals
• a guide to what engineers may reasonably expect
  of one another
• a guide to what engineers may expect other
  members of profession to help each other do

12
Why obey ones code?

• Protects professionals from certain pressures
• Such as cutting corners
• By making it more likely that good conduct will
  not be punished
• Protects professionals from certain consequences
  of competition
• Legitimizes the profession

13
Code of Ethics for Engineers(Ref. National
Society of Professional Engineer)

• Fundamental Canons
• Engineers, in fulfilment of their professional
  duties, shall
• Hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of
  the public in the performance of their
  professional duties
• Perform services only in areas of their
  competence
• Issue public statements only in an objective and
  truthful manner
• Act in professional matters for each employer or
  client as faithful agents or trustees
• Avoid deceptive acts in the solicitation of
  professional employment

14
Code of Ethics for Engineers(Ref. National
Society of Professional Engineers)

• Professional Obligations
• Engineers shall be guided in all their
  professional relations by the highest standards
  of integrity
• Engineer shall at all times strive to serve the
  public interest
• Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice
  which is likely to discredit the profession or
  deceive the public
• Engineers shall not disclose confidential
  information concerning the business affairs or
  technical processes of any present or former
  client or employer without his consent
• Engineers shall not be influenced in their
  professional duties by conflicting interests

15
Code of Ethics for Engineers(Ref. National
Society of Professional Engineers)

• Engineers shall uphold the principle of
  appropriate and adequate compensation for those
  engaged in engineering work
• Engineer shall not attempt to obtain employment
  or advancement or professional engagements by
  untruthfully criticising other engineers, or by
  other improper or questionable methods
• Engineers shall not attempt to injure,
  maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly,
  the professional reputation, prospects, practice
  or employment of other engineers, nor
  untruthfully criticise other engineers' work.
  Engineers who believe others are guilty of
  unethical or illegal practice shall present such
  information to the proper authority for action

16
Code of Ethics for Engineers(Ref. National
Society of Professional Engineers)

• Engineers shall accept responsibility for their
  professional activities provided, however, that
  Engineers may seek indemnification for
  professional services arising out of their
  practice for other than gross negligence, where
  the Engineer's interests cannot otherwise be
  protected
• Engineer shall give credit for engineering work
  to those to whom credit is due and will recognise
  the proprietary interests of others
• Engineers shall co-operate in extending the
  effectiveness of the profession by interchanging
  information and experience with other engineers
  and students, and will endeavour to provide
  opportunity for the professional development and
  advancement of engineers under their supervision

17
Ethical Issues are Seldom Black and White

• Conflicting demands
• Loyalty to company and colleagues
• Concern for public welfare
• Personal gain, ambition
• Ethical standards are usually relative and
  personal, there is seldom an absolute standard

18

• Case Study

19
The Challenger disaster is the foundation of the
discussion.
20
Case Study The Challenger Disaster 28
January1986

• Engineers who had built the Challenger knew it
  had not been tested in freezing conditions and
  might not work correctly, thus endangering the
  lives of the astronauts.
• It had been tested down to 53 degrees (oF)
• The forecast for the morning of the launch was
  for 29 degrees
• The engineers recommended it not be launched
• They were overruled by their bosses, who gave
  approval to NASA for the Challenger to be
  launched

21
The Challenger disaster is the foundation of the
discussion.

• Robert Lund (VP for Engineering at Morton
  Thiokol)
• Recommends against the launch
• Because of faulty O-rings
• Jerald Mason (Lunds boss)
• Asks him to reconsider
• Asks him to think like a manager, not an engineer

22
Discussion

• Engineering team indicates launches below 53
  degrees may have O-ring failure.
• Prove it. Managers ask for offline discussion.
  Take off your engineering hat.
• Decide to launch anyway, temp predicted 29.
• NASA asks for further comments. Engineers stay
  silent

23
Lund changes his recommendation
24
Day of Launch

• Right O-ring at 29 degrees, ice on shuttle
• Puffs of smoke at launch pad
• Good luck Blow-by causes oxidation glaze to fill
  gaps in O-ring seal
• Bad luck Worst wind sheer hits shuttle. Flex
  breaks glaze apart
• Flames escape SRB and hit External Tank

25
The shuttle crashes seconds after take-off
26
(No Transcript)
27

• Ethical Implications

28
Why isnt conscience enough?

• It is important for the engineers to realize the
  engineers paramount responsibility is for the
  safety of the public.
• The all seven crew members in the crew
  compartment were not aware of the design flaw in
  the cold effects on the O-rings.
• The engineers had some knowledge of the flaw and
  the ability to foresee the potential dangers.
• They had informed their superiors of the possible
  dangers, but they failed to insist in cancelling
  the flight.
• They could have referred to the Code of Ethics
  before making a decision.

29
Whats the difference in thinking like a manager
and thinking like an engineer?

• Managers, it might be said, are trained to
  handle people engineers, to handle things. To
  think like a manager rather than an engineer is
  to focus on people rather than on things.

30
What is thinking like an engineer?

• to use ones technical knowledge of things
• Asking Lund to think like a manager was asking
  him to ignore his technical knowledge.

31
What were Lunds two ethical options?

• To either refuse to authorize the launch
• To insist that the astronauts be briefed in
  order to get their informed consent

32
What were Lunds last resort?

• If getting no satisfactory response from his
  immediate superiors, they should exhaust the
  channels available within the corporation.
• If they notified the directors about the
  captioned concerns but neither received any
  response, Whistle-Blowing is always the LAST
  RESORT for their action.
• Whistle-blowing - the act of a man or woman
  who, believing that the public interest overrides
  the interest of the organization heshe serves,
  publicly blows the whistle

33
Whistle-Blowing

• Always the LAST RESORT, it indicates serious
  corporate culture problems
• Can be internal as well as external
• Definition depends on ones point of view
• Whistle-blowing - the act of a man or woman
  who, believing that the public interest overrides
  the interest of the organization hesic serves,
  publicly blows the whistle if the organization
  is involved in corrupt, illegal, fraudulent, or
  harmful activity.

34
Examples of problems that might warrant
whistle-blowing

• Incompetence
• Criminal Behavior
• Unethical Policies
• Threat to Public Safety
• Injustices to Workers

35
Moral Guidelines to Whistle-Blowing

• It is morally permissible for engineers to engage
  in external whistle-blowing concerning safety
• 1. If the harm that will be done by the product
  to the public is serious and considerable
• 2. If they make their concerns known to their
  superiors
• 3. If getting no satisfaction from their
  immediate superiors, they exhaust the channels
  available within the corporation, including going
  to the board of directors.

36
Whistle-Blowing (cont)

• In order for whistle-blowing to be morally
  obligatory however, two further conditions are
  given
• 4. He or she must have documented evidence that
  would convince a reasonable, impartial observer
  that his or her view of the situation is
  correct and the company policy wrong.
• 5. There must be strong evidence that making the
  information public will in fact prevent the
  threatened serious harm.

37
Summary

• NASA knew about O-ring issue
• Management ignored the advice of professional
  engineers
• Space program set back several years
• Some good changes at NASA resulted

38
-- Critical Skills --- beyond technical skills
-that Engineering Students Need
To achieve skills to resolve ethical issues, here
are some traits we should develop
39
Students Need to Develop
Understanding
... A clear understanding of professional ethics
40
Students Need to Develop
Communication Skills
A capability and willingness to communicate
ethical issues.
41
Students Need to Develop
The Ability
to recognize ethical issues.
42
Students Need to Develop
An Appreciation
for the frequency at which ethical issues occur.
43
Students Need to Develop
An Awareness
that guidance on ethical dilemmas is available
from HKIEand elsewhere.
44
Students Need to Develop
Comprehension ...
Knowing Whats Right
45
Students Need to Develop
A Desire ...and the
Willingness
...to Do Whats Right
46
Students Need to Develop
The Ability
to resolve ethical issues by using traditional
engineering methods of inquiry, namely

• Listing our options

• Testing our options

• Making a decision, and

• Most importantly, Acting !

47
If the Ethics Rope Breaks,
Ethics
We all lose !
48
Sara's Story

• A Case Study in Engineering Ethics

49
We ask you to consider Saras situation from 3
viewpoints

• 1. A personal viewpoint -- consider that you
  are the engineer facing the ethical issue.
• 2. An impersonal viewpoint -- assume you are
  aware of the situation, but not directly
  involved.
• 3. A responsible viewpoint -- assume that you
  are directly responsible for future decisions.

50
Sara by the Lake

• Sara has been reported to her HKIE Engineers
  Board for a possible ethics violation.
• She reflects on how she got to this point.

51
Sara the early years

• Graduated from a HKIE-accredited program
• Worked under the supervision of a chartered
  engineer for almost 4 years
• Just before she took the Chartered Engineer
  Exam...

52
Sara and The Apartment Complex

• Saras firm was retained to investigate the
  structural integrity of an apartment complex.
• STRICT confidentiality required.
• Noticed no structural problems
• BUT, she did observe some apparent electrical
  deficiencies

53
To Report, or NOT to Report...

• Sara knew these electrical deficiencies might
  pose a hazard to the occupants
• She knew the client didnt want to hear bad news

54
To Report, or NOT to Report...

• She felt the strain of the strict confidentiality
  requirement
• She did not want to damage the client
  relationship...

55
The Decision...

• She verbally informed the client about the
  problem
• She made an oblique reference to the problem in
  her report

56
Those Nagging Doubts...

• Later Sara learned the client did not disclose
  any of her concerns about the electrical
  deficiencies
• She struggled with whether she should have been
  more persistent in making her concerns known.
• She eventually put it out of her mind.

57
Questions for Discussion

• As she felt the strain of the strict
  confidentiality and neither to damage the client
  relationship, she struggled with whether she
  should have been more persistent in making her
  concerns known.
• Based on the Code of Ethics for Engineers, how
  did Sara resolve the conflict in ethical
  standards with the client?

58
How can an Engineer resolve a conflict in ethical
standards with his client?

• For instance, engineers are expected to
  investigate products for safety even if the
  client does not explicitly demand it.
• The public expects that engineers will do what is
  necessary to protect them, than what is merrily
  required by the client, even if that may cause
  conflicts with their clients. (Rule 3 of the
  Code)
• However, when disagreements over ethical
  standards arise between engineers and their
  clients, it is the decision of the engineer to
  either quit or continue work on the project

59

• Time Passes..

Sara had became a chartered engineer
60
The Apartment Complex, Again...

• Saras investigation of the apartment complex so
  many years ago resurfaced.

61
The Apartment Complex, Again...

• Sara learned that the apartment complex caught on
  fire, and people had been seriously injured.
• During the investigation, Saras report was
  reviewed, and somehow the cause of the fire was
  traced to the electrical deficiencies.

62
Thinking it Over

• Sara pondered her situation.
• Legally, she felt she might claim some immunity
  since she was not a chartered engineer at the
  time of her work
• Professionally, she keenly felt she had let the
  public down.

63
Input from the Code of Ethics

• Having carefully studied the HKIE Code of Ethics,
  Sara now realized that occasionally some elements
  of the code may be in conflict with other
  elements.

64
Input from the Code of Ethics

• In her case, this was Canon 1 (her obligation to
  protect the health, safety and welfare of the
  public) versus Canon 4 (her obligation to her
  client).

65
Questions for Discussion

• List some options whereby Sara might have
  resolved this basic conflict.
• Should Sara be responsible for what happened?
  Justify your verdict.

66
The Verdict

• It is important for Sara, or any chartered
  engineer, to realize the engineers paramount
  responsibility is for the safety of the public.
• The occupants of the apartment complex were not
  aware of the electrical deficiencies.
• Sara had some knowledge of city building codes
  and the ability to foresee the potential dangers.
  
• Sara had informed her client of the possible
  electrical deficiencies, but she failed to
  mention possible consequences of ignoring her
  concerns.
• Sara could have referred to the HKIE Code of
  Ethics before making a decision.

67
Sara Before the BOARD

• The meeting with the Charter Board began early
  the following morning.

68
The BOARD Finds...

• It is important for Sara, or any chartered
  engineer, to realize the engineers paramount
  responsibility is for the safety of the public.
• The occupants of the apartment complex were not
  aware of the electrical deficiencies.
• Although not a chartered engineer, Sara had some
  knowledge of city building codes and the ability
  to foresee the potential dangers.

69
The BOARD Finds continued

• Sara had informed her client of the possible
  electrical deficiencies, but she failed to
  mention possible consequences of ignoring her
  concerns.
• Sara could have referred to the Code of Ethics
  before making a decision.

70
From the Code of Ethics

• Canon 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the
  safety, health and welfare of the public.

71
Questions for Discussion

• If in the first place, Sara had notified her
  supervisor and even the board of directors about
  the captioned concerns but received no response.
  What was the last resort she could take?

72

• A code of ethics does not make a person ethical
  nor is it the mechanism by which we solve ethical
  problems.

73

• Ethical decision-making involves a commitment to
  applying the ethics code to construct rather than
  simply to discover solutions to ethical
  quandaries.

74

• The decision-making process begins with the
  question,
• Am I facing an ethical dilemma?
• If the situation is one in which personal and
  professional integrity are being challenged, the
  answer will likely be
• Yes.

75
Ethical Decision Making Model
What are the relevant facts, values beliefs?
Am I facing an ethical dilemma here?
Who are the key people involved?
76
Ethical Decision Making Model
Analysis
State the dilemma clearly
77
Ethical Decision Making Model
What are the possible courses of action one could
take?
What are the conflicts that arise from each
action?
PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION
78
Ethical Decision Making Model
Does your proposed course of action lead
to CONSENSUS? If YES then proceed
Evaluate 1) Ethical Principles 2)
Code of Ethics 3) Social Roles 4)
Self-Interests
79
Ethical Decision Making Model
What are the relevant facts, values beliefs?
Am I facing an Ethical dilemma here?
State the dilemma clearly.
Who are the key people involved?
Analysis
Evaluate 1) Ethical Principles 2)
Code of Ethics 3) Social Roles 4)
Self-Interests
Does your proposed course of action lead
to CONSENSUS? If YES then proceed
If NO
What are the possible courses of action one could
take?
What are the conflicts that arise from each
action?
PROPOSED COURSE OF ACTION
80
Summary

• Where you draw the line is your choice
• Corporate ethics begins with each person
• You can be held personally and legally
  responsible for your professional actions
• It is important to understand your companys
  attitude toward ethics - it should be a factor in
  your choice of employer