1 / 36

IE496 Industrial Engineering Internship

Review of ethical theories, codes of ethics, and analyzing ethical problems using line drawing and flow charting techniques. Explore case studies and ways to approach and solve ethical dilemmas in engineering.

ccarlin
Download Presentation

IE496 Industrial Engineering Internship

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. IE496Industrial Engineering Internship Dr. Barnes March 17, 2008 Lecture # 8

  2. Ethics – Part 2

  3. Review of Ethics Last time we looked briefly at – • The origins of ethics • Theories of ethics (Utilitarianism, Duty Ethics, Rights Ethics, Virtue Ethics) • Engineering as a profession • Codes of ethics (IIE, NSPE, Order of an Engineer) • Ethics cases (e.g., space shuttle)

  4. This week How to analyze problems from an ethical viewpoint.

  5. Analyzing Ethical Problems • 1st Step – completely understand all issues involved and enumerate them. • Three categories of issues – • Factual – what is actually known about a case. • Conceptual – the meaning or applicability of an idea. • Moral – which moral principle is applicable to the situation.

  6. Two analysis techniques • Line Drawing • Flow Charting (lines must have directional arrowheads) Supporting narrative and

  7. 1. Line Drawing • Useful for situations in which the applicable moral principles are clear, but there seems to be a great deal of “gray area” about which ethical principle applies. • Polar opposites are established. • Positive paradigm. • Negative paradigm. • Moral problems are placed along line in accordance with where it is perceived that each fall on a continuum. • “P” is placed where you believe problem fits relative to entries.

  8. Elementary line-drawing technique Negative paradigm Positive paradigm (NP) (PP)

  9. Example - Problem 1 Dispose of slightly hazardous waste into lake. • Water source for nearby town. • EPA limit 10 ppm. • Average concentration of disposal – 5 ppm – • Expect no health problems. • Person not able to detect (taste) compound.

  10. Problem 1 continued – Hypothetical Considerations • Dump 5 ppm waste in lake; harmless, but unusual taste. • Town’s water-treatment system can effectively remove waste. • Town can remove waste with company-purchased equipment. • Town can remove waste with taxpayer-purchased equipment. • Occasional (rare) illness, lasts for an hour. • At 5 ppm people get fairly sick, lasts one week, no long term effect. • Special equipment can reduce ppm to “1.”

  11. Hypotheticals on line and “problem” estimate Negative paradigm Positive paradigm (NP) (PP) 6 5 4 1 P 7 2,3

  12. Flow Charting • Helpful when there is a sequence of events or a series of consequences that flows from each decision. • Gives a visual picture and readily allows one to see results of each decision.

  13. Elementary flow chart Operation Decision

  14. Example - Problem 2 Should Union Carbide build a plant at Bhophal? Investigate – • Laws. • Safety standards. • Cost considerations.

  15. Union Carbide -Flow Chart

  16. Please read –

  17. Info Source Engineering Ethics, 2nd Edition, Charles B. Fleddermann, Chapter 4, Pearson Prentice Hall, 2004. Read - • Section 4.5: Conflict Problems • 1st - Conflicting moral choices, but one is obviously more significant than the other. • 2nd – “Creative Middle Way,” an attempt at a compromise that will work for everyone. • 3rd – When 1 and 2 don’t work, bite the bullet, use your “gut feelings” and make best possible choice from information available. • Section 4.6: Bribery/Acceptance of Gifts • Bribery never acceptable.

  18. Ethical Problem Solving Techniques:Addressing Airbus 330-300 Case Study By: Joe Mathew IE 491 University at Buffalo April 22, 2005

  19. Incident Summary • Airbus A330-300 departed Vancouver • Substantial amount of smoke and vapor seen emitting from Engine 2 • Emergency landing in Vancouver • Engine 2 shut down • Inspection showed fuel was leaking

  20. Causal Factors 1. Incorrect entry on maintenance office duty board • Did not follow trouble shooting manual (TSM) • Unnecessarily removed LP fuel line from fuel/oil heat exchanger 2. Unfamiliarity with Equipment • Retainer hidden from view • Did not use Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 3. Engine vibration caused detachment of fuel/oil heat exchanger LP fuel line • Substantial leak from Engine 2

  21. Line Drawing – Causal Factor 1, 2 Negative Paradigm Positive Paradigm Compliance with TSM and AMM was not achieved. P Compliance with TSM and AMM was achieved. Negative Paradigm: The workers do not follow the Trouble Shooting Manual and the Aircraft Maintenance Manual resulting in troubleshooting and performing maintenance without reference Positive Paradigm: The workers followed the Trouble Shooting Manual and Aircraft Maintenance Manual so that all troubleshooting and maintenance is performed with proper reference and guidance.

  22. Flow Charting – Causal Factor 3 Preventive fuel leak inspection needed on aircraft Yes Yes Yes Proper inspection with use of elevated platform? High-Power Engine Run Performed? Fuel Leak Detection Implemented? No No No Perform High-Power Engine Run Implement Fuel Leak Detection Perform inspection with use of elevated platform Preventive Fuel Leak Inspection Performed

  23. Dharmy BhattIE 491: Ethics PresentationApril 22, 2005 Bell’s Amusement Park Tulsa, Oklahoma

  24. Accident Summary • April 20, 1997 – Two roller coaster cars collided on the Wildcat roller coaster • The two cars were going up a hill and an anti-rollback device failed to keep the first car on the track and it slipped back and crashed into the car behind it. • The roller coaster was inspected two weeks before this accident. • One person was killed and five others were injured.

  25. Causal Factors 1. The “chain dog” was riding up on the edge of the chain trough. • If the chain rides up the side of the car and onto the left leg of the chain near the top of the hill, the chain can disengage and the car could slip. 2. Maintenance records/maintenance of the roller coaster. • There was no documentation for scheduled or nonscheduled maintenance of The Wildcat, or for operating procedures.

  26. The Wildcat can operate. No Has the chain dog been changed? Yes A maintenance worker must inspect the changes. No Has someone inspected the changes? Yes Fix the height of the “chain dog” and inspect again. Is the “chain log” at the proper height? No Yes The Wildcat can operate properly. Flowchart – The “chain dog” Factor

  27. 1 2 3 5 4 Line Drawing-- Maintenance Negative Paradigm • Every time The Wildcat breaks down, it is documented. • Operating procedure are followed for the most part. • Operators haven’t been trained at all. • Changes made to the car don’t need to be written down. • Proper part replacements should be followed. Positive Paradigm P Proper documentation exists and the roller coaster is acceptable. Documentation hinders the performance of each car.

  28. Ethics Problem Solving: Whiteshell Air Service Ltd. Airplane Engine Failure Theresa J Moehle IE 491 April 22, 2005

  29. Accident Summary: • Airplane departed Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba without incident • After plane was leveled in air, large backfire heard and loss of engine power • Pilot landed plane in swampy area with minor and severe injuries to passengers

  30. Casual Factors • Incorrect installation of airplane parts • Cylinder push rod tube • Valve adjustment screw protrusion beyond limits • Caused damage to valve train – exhaust valve would not open overtime • Failure to properly inspect airplane • Field Barometric Power Reference Check • Valve clearance checks on 400-hr schedule

  31. Line Drawing:Incorrect Installation of Parts NP PP P 2 3 1 Airplane parts are installed incorrectly causing immediate, fatal damage Airplane parts are installed correctly • Parts are installed incorrectly, but corrected immediately • Parts are installed incorrectly, and cause minor damage overtime • Parts are installed incorrectly, but cause no damage overtime

  32. Flow Chart:Failure to Properly Inspect Plane Should plane be inspected? Have parts been replaced? Had last Check within 400 hrs? Has pilot noticed Irregular Sounds? No Yes Yes Inspect plane before flying Yes No No Inspect plane before flying Inspect plane before flying Inspection is not needed

  33. Assignment Work in groups to – • Choose one problem/accident and e-mail it to me to get my permission before you start – sources of info on original class “Schedule and Syllabus” document. Earliest date and time will decide who get problem if more that one group asks for it. • Analyze problem/accident using both techniques shown today. • Present your analysis in class using PPT. • Send me one copy of your electronic file via e-mail.

  34. Assignment - continued • Dates: April 14th, 21st, 28th in class • All reports due April 14th: one written report and accompanying PowerPoint slides per group – paper and electronic copies to me; supporting material such as diagrams or photos are useful • Presentation order announced April 14th • 12 minutes per group, 4 minutes per person

  35. Groups Group 1: Anipindi, Awad, Bednowitz Group 2: Brown, Chandra, Chang Group 3: Cheng, Chung, Davis Group 4: Devendorf, Dooling, Frank Group 5: Henchey, Hyde, Indraputra Group 6: Jackson, Luo, Lyke Group 7: Markin, Mohd Yusof, Myers Group 8: Pedicone, Piecuch, Prok Group 9: Snyder, Stange, Stovers Group 10: Szalkowski, Willis, Worthy

  36. The End Questions??

More Related