I was impressed by this bit:
- [W]hen Feynman was mortally ill with cancer, he served on the NASA commission investigating the Challenger disaster of 1986. He undertook this job reluctantly, knowing that it would use up most of the time and strength that he had left. He undertook it because he felt an obligation to find the root causes of the disaster and to speak plainly to the public about his findings. He went to Washington and found what he had expected at the heart of the tragedy: a bureaucratic hierarchy with two groups of people, the engineers and the managers, who lived in separate worlds and did not communicate with each other. The engineers lived in the world of technical facts; the managers lived in the world of political dogmas.
He asked members of both groups to tell him their estimates of the risk of disastrous failure in each Space Shuttle mission. The engineers estimated the risk to be of the order of one disaster in a hundred missions. The managers estimated the risk to be of the order of one disaster in a hundred thousand missions. The difference, a factor of a thousand between the two estimates, was never reconciled and never openly discussed. The managers were in charge of the operations and made the decisions to fly or not to fly, based on their own estimates of the risk. But the technical facts that Feynman uncovered proved that the managers were wrong and the engineers were right.
Any thoughts on the article about Feynman?
For me, it was a kind of interesting stories about the behind tragedies of 'Challenger'. I'm impressed by what Feynman found out during his investment despite of his health. I guess the point of the whole article is that there has been a serious problem about managers and their indifferences, and it has been not settled until now, which is causing a major conflict between engineers and managers.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI mistyped one word: investment->investigation
ReplyDeleteWhy is there no editing button to fix my comment? ;(
There are similar problems in Korea. Managers think science or engineering are a kind of routine work that can be done through manuals. In fact, every project are very different from others and are challenges, even they are projects for every piece for others. Still, they think that they can hurry scientists. Managers should know what science is.
ReplyDeleteI'm impressive by what feynman said “For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.” I think it means that finally nature will win! Also, I could think the relationship between manager and engineer through this article. For reduce their gap, they have to much communicate and understand each other's positions on an issue or cultuer.
ReplyDeleteThere is a gap between managers and engineers or scientists. They have to communicate each other more often to be able to understand their own values or ideas. They have different purposes or thinking. So they have to try to consider their opinions each other.
ReplyDeleteIf the manager and the engineer work together, efficiency will increase sharply. However, it tends to that the engineer is underestimate than the manager yet, because the manager decides most things. Of course, I feel good when I read the story of Richard feynman, and i hope that it does not result deepening between the manager and the engineer, instead it functions in positive effect on relation between them.
ReplyDeleteWhen I read the article, I was confuged. Is it better to give the engineer to choose some decisions, not the engineer? Manager have the right to make a important decision. However, they are not always proficient in every espects. They don't know well science and just know what will be successful to their business. As many students posted comments, I also think manager and engineer have to communicate each other for sharing information that managers don't know well. Today, I can see a situation like this, especailly in the political world. Most politicians don't have a major in science. So they don't recognize how important Science and Engineering is. Because of their poor support, many goood scientists go abroad and study for another country giving better condition. If politicians know how important it is, Korea will be more rich and developed. Oh,, I think my comments go to a mountain;;
ReplyDeleteThis posting reminds me a keyword 'consilience', even i didn't read this. in this case, communication will be better. In korea, similarly, I heard about some conflict between the literary course and the science course. It is mystery why they don't communicate, so that make a decision with lack of information. Just my guess, it is not matter of each values, but limitation of bureaucracy, or prejudice to other groups.
ReplyDeleteNegotiation is always hard because everyone is insisting their opinion which benefits them.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it is the most crucial step before making decision. As comments from above said, open communication is needed. The managers should listen to the engineers’ opinion since they know much about science and reconsider their previous thinking. Moreover, the engineers also need to think on the side of the managers, living in the political world. When both group work together through negotiation, they will likely to make the best decision.
I think that communications between engineers and managers. Because managers have all rights of choice, they have to choose something without understanding the degree of problem. The fact that they don't think this lack of communications is bigger problem is important fault. I think that the government has to give some rights of choice at the technical area. Developing engineering management or management engineering can give positive effects of solving these problems.
ReplyDeleteI think that this story tells us engineer's difficlties and problems. Most of engineer don't have the right to manage their projects. In many society, altough managers don't know their projects well, they and engineers don't have enough communication. This problems generate many contradictories and illogicals. Therefore we must study widely not only engineering but also management or economy.
ReplyDeleteI also agree that our society is lacking in communication between engineers and managers. In my opinion, to solve this problem, power and duty in managing is needed for engineers. Even though they try to appeal their opinion by communication, if there is no power on engineers, their arguments are easily denied. Also by giving them a duty in managing, we can make them try to communicate with managers.
ReplyDelete