Remembering Roger Boisjoly: He Tried To Stop Shuttle Challenger Launch

Part 1 of 3:

What might professional ethics look like in the world of the business of engineering?

“Jerry Mason, Thiokol’s general manager, told his fellow executives to take off their engineering hats and put on management hats. They told NASA it was a go.

The next morning Mr. Boisjoly watched the launching. If there was going to be a problem, he thought it would come at liftoff. As the shuttle cleared the tower, his prayers seemed answered.

“Thirteen seconds later,” Mr. Boisjoly said, “we saw it blow up.””

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/04/us/roger-boisjoly-73-dies-warned-of-shuttle-danger.html  accessed 07FEB2012

Part 2 of 3:

What does life look like for those who dared to come forward and out-loud proclaim their professional interpretation of data?

“Boisjoly testified before the Challenger Commission and filed unsuccessful lawsuits against Thiokol and NASA. He continued to suffer and was ostracized by some of his colleagues. One said he’d drop his kids on Boisjoly’s doorstep if they all lost their jobs, according to his wife Roberta.

“He took it very hard,” she recalls. “He had always been held in such high esteem and it hurt so bad when they wouldn’t listen to him.”

A therapist recommended speaking out even more and for close to three decades, Boisjoly traveled to engineering schools around the world, speaking about ethical decision-making and sticking with data. “This is what I was meant to do,” he told Roberta, “to have impact on young people’s lives.”

Boisjoly continued to respond to emails and letters from engineering students right up until his sudden death in his sleep last month in St. George, Utah. He was diagnosed with cancer two weeks before.

“He always stood by his work,” Roberta recalls, her voice breaking. “He lived an honorable and ethical life. And he was at peace when he died.”

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2012/02/06/146490064/remembering-roger-boisjoly-he-tried-to-stop-shuttle-challenger-launch  accessed 20FEB2012

Part 3 of 3:

Do professional engineers have a “Safe house” of sorts that promise them a life after what many call “A career death-wish?”

• A Timeline of Whistle-Blowers 
• (worth your time to cut & paste into your browser, and then patiently read)

 http://www.dipity.com/pov/A-Timeline-of-Whistleblowers/

In My Opinion. . . .

In our lives, we each have a limited amount of time within which to choose.

Credit: Google Images

Everyone gets 86, 400 per day, every day.

http://edmullen.net/flash/clock1.swf

Others watching us choose learn what is OK most of the time, what is OK sometimes, and critically, what is NEVER OK.

Once our choices become habits, we are faced with identifying which of our habits are worth being replicated, and which are not.

Changing habits is the single most difficult challenge facing each of us.

But only until we each realize, whatever you chose to continue doing or not, you are a “template” of professional behavior for the next in line.

Are your  professional habits worth emulating?

Of course, I could be wrong!

Posted on behalf of Dave Devine 

What does “pay-to-play” mean?

The phrase gets used often in regard to issues related to ethics as well as in regard to involvement with politics.

Is there a clear, commonly accepted definition?

Is “pay -to -play” always an issue of legality?

Is “pay -to -play” always something inappropriate, bad, or a negative connotation?

Would it benefit ASCE as an organization or the membership to develop a definition of the phrase “pay- to- play”?

1) Ethicana, view the film or ASCE News May 2010, pg. 11

2) ASCE News, June 2008, pg 12

3) New York Times, November 2011

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/01/us/illinois-prison-sought-for-rod-blagojevich.html

4)  ENR – Engineering News Record, http://enr.construction.com/opinions/viewpoint/2010/1018-PaytoPlayRules.asp

5) Access is for NSPE members only.

http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/EthicsResources/YouBeTheJudge/Archives/index.html

6) Searched, but did not find articles at the Online Ethics Center (National Academy of Engineering).

http://onlineethics.org/

 Endnote:  Although I have pondered the question for some time, the motivation to put this in a blog occured after reading today’s

Chicago Tribune, 15th February 2012,

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/clout/chi-chicago-area-has-most-corruption-convictions-in-nation-uic-study-says-20120215,0,1024358.story?track=rss

Questions.

a. What are your experiences with defining pay-to-play in the design & construction industry?

b. Might you have a suggestion as to ASCE developing a policy that supports clarifying and confirming what pay-to-play

is, along with guidleines that define its boundaries?

c. In what way might the “Zero Tolerance” part of the ASCE Code of Ethics apply?

http://www.asce.org/content.aspx?id=7231

At this time, the information above is intended to stimulate dialogue on the subject.

What are your thoughts?

“Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”

Code-2007-July

“The future International Standard ISO 26000, Guidance on social responsibility, will provide harmonized, globally relevant guidance for private and public sector organizations of all types based on interna- tional consensus among expert representatives of the main stakeholder groups and so encourage the implementation of best practice in social responsibility worldwide.”

Credit: Google Images

ISO26000.CorpSocialRespon.

“Creating principles across social, industry, public and private, profit and nonprofit, political and country boundaries is daunting. Additionally, laws, regulations, trade agreements, customs and practices pertinent to sustainability and social responsibility must be considered in the development and implementation of business strategies, policies and procedures.

These principles have been updated to reinforce the critical importance of sustainability and social responsibility in its many forms and applications. They may complement existing principles or they may be used as a starting point from which to develop a set of principles to meet the needs of the organization.”

Credit: Google Images

SSRwGuideBook08

Credit: Google Images

In My Opinion. . . .

Back around 1986, the major federal, state, and private organizations “Discovered” quality.

Under study, subsequent to some 50 years or more of Quality Control, the subject was “upgraded” to Quality Assurance.

Eventually realizing the need to engage all those within the organization. . . .to make the population of “The Quality Department” equal 100% of the employees/associates…. the label “Total Quality Management” emerged.

Now, movement from learning after-the-fact about the social impacts of engineered projects have raised general concerns about social impacts, sustainability of human and other resources, which have now begun to be codified. Enter the international standards on the economic global playing field.

These emerging developments and early promulgation of international standards to guide the transition towards “social responsibility engineering” appear to be a major plan/design/build/operate/maintain system change.

“It’s the system, not the people.”  

                 –W. Edwards Deming

Makes one wonder how the context for the expression “Lowest  Bidder” will be interpreted.

Of course, I could be wrong!

Neither do they fail because engineers do not understand principles of structural analysis, testing of materials nor how to use computer modeling for complex problems.

Sites worth checking out:

http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/subjects/b/bridges_and_tunnels/bridge_disasters/index.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/09/us/09bridge.html?adxnnl=1&ref=bridgedisasters&adxnnlx=1327093552-FUPs7qq4eyR/gQDDLcu2Ww

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/bridges

http://www.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1649646_1421688,00.html

“The National Science Foundation (NSF)[1] has remained the premier Federal agency supporting basic research at the frontiers of discovery across all fields, as well as science and engineering education at all levels.
….
  Fulfilling this responsibility requires not only knowledge in the appropriate disciplines, but also a commitment to high standards, a considerable breadth of interest and receptivity to new ideas, a strong sense of fairness, good judgment, and a high degree of personal integrity. The Social Psychology Program at NSF supports basic research on human social behavior, including cultural differences and development over the life span. Among the many research topics supported are:

1. attitude formation and change.
2. social cognition.
3. personality processes.
4. interpersonal relations and group processes.
5. the self.
6. Emotion.
7. social comparison and social influence, and
8. the psycho-physiological and neuro-physiological bases of social behavior.

The program supports research that is theoretically grounded, based on empirical observation and validation, and has the potential to significantly advance fundamental understanding of social behavior.”

In My Opinion. . .

The solutions to understand why engineered projects fail will not come uniquely from within the body of knowledge common in ABET-approved engineering programs at our universities.

Credit: Google Images

A Web Platform for Social Requirements Engineering[1]

Abstract: This paper presents a web platform that applies concepts from the domain of Social Software to requirements engineering. The platform implements several community-oriented features that support collaboration and knowledge sharing and aim to foster the engagement of larger groups of stakeholders in the collection, discussion, development, and structuring of software requirements.

N.B. This paper has, as its technical center, requirements engineering. What it expands to discuss applies to engineer’s challenges to engage and include the voices of major stakeholders to our projects.

It was common to label the courses that addressed the topics listed above (1. to 8.) as the “Soft Side” of engineer’s education. Perhaps it is time to revisit that characterization, and to revisit what our emerging engineers need to be the best within our “people serving people” profession.

Of course, I could be wrong.

. . . . and in the Senate!

Cr. http://historybuffz.wikispaces.com/Women+in+The+War+Pictures

Lest we forget:

Suffragists Lose Fight In The House[1]

[On Jan. 12, 1915, the United States House of Representatives rejected a proposal to give women the right to vote.]

A Constitutional Amendment Resolution Debated Ten Hours and Rejected, 174 to 204

LEADERS ARE UNDISMAYED

Will Press Senate Resolution Now — Antis’ Leader Sees Passing of “Hysteria” Wave.

“Mr. Mann of Illinois, the Republican leader. Two years ago, after the failure of the Washington police to protect the pageant of suffragists on March 3 just before Mr. Wilson’s inauguration, there was sharp criticism in the House of the brutality of the crowds along Pennsylvania Avenue, and the Chief of Police was threatened with an investigation. Mr. Mann in the course of debate at that time remarked: “They should have been at home where they belonged,” referring to the women in the pageant.”

“Dr. Anna Howard Shaw, President of the National Suffrage Association, said after the adjournment:

“I am not gratified, but the vote was better than I had expected. We now have an alignment from which we can move onward.” It is now a political and rational question, for Congress would not take up a local or sectional matter in this way. It never can be said again that it is a local or partisan question. The National House of Representatives has discussed suffrage and has voted upon it. It would not have done that if it were not a question of national importance.”

 In My Opinion. . . 

On the outside chance that you have been working towards resolution of an entrenched sociocultural habit that frustrates the achievement of inclusiveness, you need to make time to study what women had to overcome, just to be on “the playing field.”

And to be clear, to this writers amazement, still have to deliver 150% of their effort to be viewed as “part of the team.”

The workplace of the 21st Century can not afford to continue to discount the value of people. . . any people… based on unchallenged habits of the past.

Why do your best people leave?

Part I of II

 In My Opinion. . . .

They leave because one or more of the following workplace sociocultural behaviors is missing or randomly in evidence:

1. Lack of challenge.
2. Lack of recognition.
3. Lack of opportunity.

Now, many would argue “That’s just not true in our firm.”

Really?

Well, if there is challenge, recognition, and opportunity in your firm, and the individuals in question are not clear about what that actually means to them personally, e.g. it is not visible to them, then it does not exist.

And BTW, 2 out of 3 won’t work either!

Figure Cr.  www.business.unr.edu/faculty/simmonsb/badm720/orgsilence.ppt

Not infrequently, others have said that to assure their people feel appreciated, when senior managers meet casually with staff, they are prone to say things like ”Hey, nice work,” or “Keep up the good work,” or a favorite, “I’m hearing good things about you!

My advice?

The next time such passing remarks land in your lap, thank the manager, and then ask “Could you tell me what it is that I have done that merits this praise?” 

Then ask the question you really need answered:

“Would you tell me what I need to do better to be considered promotable within the next 18 months?

Part II of II

How do you  credibly engage your people such that, when they leave work on Friday, they come back to work that next Monday; not because they do not have a choice to go elsewhere, but in fact because they wouldn’t consider working elsewhere. . . . . . . . ..  .. . . . . . . . . . . . . More To Come.

In the latest issue of ASCE SmartBrief, I had to re-read the excerpt below 3 times to convince myself it was not a “test.”

ASCE SmartBrief, January 4, 2012

Where have all the heroes gone?[1]

“Workers in our future will not be looking for the man on the top floor; they will be looking for someone (a woman perhaps) just like them, who can point them in the right direction.”

So, just when it seemed that we had moved from the language of diversity to change that matters. . . .

Cr. Google Images 04JAN2012

In My Opinion. . .

There is nothing harder to change than our habits. By definition, that’s why we deliberately form certain habits.

e.g., the habit we form to verify and validate the basis of design prior to rushing into production.

But….there are habits we do not deliberately plan, they are adsorbed by how we were raised in the home, in the neighborhood, in classrooms, then eventually in the workplace. These habits are so very deeply ingrained they run on autopilot.

Your sisters, wives, daughters, granddaughters. . . all women in your life…need not suffer the neanderthals of the working world.

Speak up briefly, clearly, and compassionately.

Some habits are worth breaking once and forever.

“Consider just a handful of recent events: the financial crisis of 2008; the gulf oil spill of 2010; and the Japanese nuclear disaster, the debt-ceiling debacle and euro crisis this year. Constant turbulence seems to be the new normal, and effective leadership is crucial in containing it. Real leaders, wrote the novelist David Foster Wallace, are people who “help us overcome the limitations of our own individual laziness and selfishness and weakness and fear and get us to do better, harder things than we can get ourselves to do on our own.”

“As some talented research assistants and I worked on the study, I was struck by Shackleton’s ability to respond to constantly changing circumstances. When his expedition encountered serious trouble, he had to reinvent the team’s goals. He had begun the voyage with a mission of exploration, but it quickly became a mission of survival. This capacity is vital in our own time, when leaders must often change course midstream — jettisoning earlier standards of success and redefining their purposes and plans.

SHACKLETON can serve as a role model even though his expedition, judged by its initial objectives, was a colossal failure. His ship, the Endurance, never reached Antarctica.”

Entire article with photos:

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/25/business/leadership-lessons-from-the-shackleton-expedition.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=globaleua24   accessed 25DEC2011.

In My Opinion. . . . 

Leadership is not limited by a job title.

Whether we are considering matters that require committed followers for profession-wide, organizational, or program/project issues, the need for straight-talk is paramount. Sshackleton’s story offers encouragement and hope to those who have struggled with “Running the game down on the field” while those observers in the stands “cheer or jeer.”

It has been suggested that one profession-wide common barrier to change that matters is the “Culture of  Silence.”

Cr. Center for Conflict Dynamics at Eckerd College

Of course, I could be wrong.

A recent NSF call for proposals* had the following as one of their goals:

“* Determining how our built water systems and our governance systems can be made more reliable, resilient and sustainable to meet diverse and often conflicting needs, such as minimizing consumption of water for energy generation, industrial and agricultural/forest rangeland production and built environment requirements, reuse for both potable and non-potable needs, ecosystem protection, and flood control and storm water management.”

Please copy and then past the URL below to read the doc.

*Funding – Water Sustainability and Climate http://www.nsf.gov/funding/pgm_summ.jsp?pims_id=503452&WT.mc_id=USNSF_39&WT.mc_ev=click

Consider a visit to the site noted below.

While so very far from my own historical….actually, hysterical…past,

I’m interested to learn what you learned from the visit.

Photo Credit: http://www.psicopolis.com/senato/golemacchine.htm

cheers,

Bill

http://www.engineering.com/GamesPuzzles/PowerUp.aspx