Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-78dcdb465f-2ktwh Total loading time: 0.345 Render date: 2021-04-17T21:57:59.745Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": false, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Towards a Theory for Unintended Consequences in Engineering Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Hannah Walsh
Affiliation:
Oregon State University;
Andy Dong
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Irem Tumer
Affiliation:
Oregon State University;
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Conventional failure analysis ignores a growing challenge in the responsible implementation of novel technologies into engineered systems - unintended consequences, which impact the engineered system itself and other systems including social and environmental systems. In this paper, a theory for unintended consequences is developed. The paper proposes a new definition of unintended consequences as behaviors that are not intentionally designed-into an engineered system yet occur even when a system is operating nominally, that is, not in a failure state as conventionally understood. It is argued that the primary cause for this difference is the bounded rationality of human designers. The formation of unintended consequences is modeled with system dynamics, using a specific real-world example, and bifurcation analysis. The paper develops propositions to guide research in the development of new design methods that could mitigate or control the occurrence and impact of unintended consequences. The end goal of the research is to create a new class of failure analysis tools to manage unintended consequences responsibly to facilitate engineering design for a more sustainable future.

Type
Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
© The Author(s) 2019

References

Abbass, H. (2015), Computational Red Teaming, Springer International Publishing. http://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-08281-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bloebaum, C. and McGowan, A. (2012), “The design of large-scale complex engineered systems: present challenges and future promise”, in Proceedings of the 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 17-19 September, AIAA. http://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-5571CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clearfield, C. and Tilcsik, A. (2018), Meltdown: Why our systems fail and what we can do about it, Penguin Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Davenport, C. (2018), “Washington Rolls Back Safety Rules Inspired by Deepwater Horizon Disaster”, The New York Times, 27 September.Google Scholar
de Zwart, F. (2015), “Unintended but not unanticipated consequences”, Theory and Society, Vol. 44 No. 3, pp. 283297. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-015-9247-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickie, M., Gozdecka, D. and Reich, S. eds. (2016), Unintended Consequences: The impact of migration law and policy, ANU Press. https://doi.org/10.22459%2Fuc.08.2016CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faye, G. (2011), An introduction to bifurcation theory, NeuroMathComp Laboratory, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Fisher, D. (2018), “Reflections on teaching system dynamics modeling to secondary school students for over 20 years”, Systems, Vol. 6 No. 12. https://doi.org/10.3390%2Fsystems6020012Google Scholar
Forrester, J. (1994), “System dynamics, systems thinking, and soft OR”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 10 No. 2-3, pp. 245256. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fsdr.4260100211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frenkel, S. (2018), “Facebook to Remove Misinformation That Leads to Violence”, The New York Times, 18 July.Google Scholar
Frenkel, S., Confessore, N., Kang, C., Rosenberg, M. and Nicas, J. (2018), “Delay, Deny and Deflect: How Facebook's Leaders Fought Through Crisis”, The New York Times, 14 November.Google Scholar
Goel, A., Rugaber, S. and Vattam, S. (2009), “Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: The structure, behavior, and function modeling language”, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, Vol. 23 No. 1, pp. 2335. http://doi.org/10.1017/s0890060409000080Google Scholar
Gomez, S., Platonov, V., Medina, E., Borisenko, A. and Bogachev, A. (2017), “Unexpected Control Structure Interaction on International Space Station”, in International Astronautical Congress 2017 (IAC 2017), 2529 September, Adelaide, Australia.Google Scholar
Gurnani, A. and Lewis, K. (2008), “Collaborative, Decentralized Engineering Design at the Edge of Rationality”, Journal of Mechanical Design, Vol. 130 No. 12, p. 121101. http://doi.org/10.1115/1.2988479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gyory, J., Cagan, J. and Kotovsky, K. (2018), “Should teams collaborate during conceptual engineering design?: an experimental study”, in Proceedings of the ASME 2018 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Quebec City, Canada, 2629 August, ASME. http://doi.org/10.1115/detc2018-85602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. and Egan, P. (2011), Thinking, fast and slow, Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York, NY, USAGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. (1997), “Preserving Biodiversity in Korea's Demilitarized Zone”, Science, Vol. 278 No. 5336, pp. 242243. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5336.242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, S. (2012), “Characterizing unknown unknowns”, in PMI Global Congress 2012–North America, Vancouver, BC, Canada, PMI, Newton Square, PA, USA.Google Scholar
Keshavarzi, E., McIntire, M., Goebel, K., Tumer, I. and Hoyle, C. (2017), “Resilient System Design Using Cost-Risk Analysis With Functional Models”, in Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Cleveland, OH, USA, 6-9 August, ASME. http://doi.org/10.1115/detc2017-67952CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klein, G. (2007), “Performing a project premortem”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 9, pp. 1819. http://doi.org/10.1109/emr.2008.4534313Google Scholar
Larsen, A. (2000), “Aerodynamics of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge – 60 years later”, Structural Engineering International, Vol. 10 No. 4, pp. 243248. http://doi.org/10.2749/101686600780481356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, B., Fillingim, K., Binder, W., Fu, K. and Paredis, C. (2017), “Design Heuristics: A Conceptual Framework and Preliminary Method for Extraction”, in Proceedings of the ASME 2017 International Design Engineering Technical Conferences and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, Cleveland, Ohio, 6-9 August, ASME. http://doi.org/10.1115/detc2017-67467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marais, K., Saleh, J. and Leveson, N. (2006), “Archetypes for organizational safety”, Safety Science, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 565582. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.12.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, C. (2006), “Computerization Can Create Safety Hazards: A Bar-Coding Near Miss”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 144 No. 7, pp. 510516. http://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00010Google ScholarPubMed
Merton, R. (1936), “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 894904. http://doi.org/10.2307/2084615CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mullins, J. (2010), “The eight failures that caused the Gulf oil spill”, New Scientist, 8 September.Google Scholar
Aeronautics, National and Administration, Space (2013), Systems Development, Integration & Test [online]. Available at https://www.nasa.gov/sites/default/files/atoms/files/g_28367u_sdit_es60.pdf (Accessed: 1 November 2018)Google Scholar
Pyper, J. (2014), “Car, Truck and Airplane Pollution Set to Drive Climate Change”, Scientific American, 10 April.Google Scholar
Ring, J. and Madni, A. (2005), “Key challenges and opportunities in ‘system of systems’ engineering”, in 2005 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics, Waikoloa, HI, USA, 12 October, IEEE. http://doi.org/10.1109/icsmc.2005.1571272CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rocha, V., Ries, B. and Wills, A. (2018), “Mark Zuckerberg testifies before Congress”, CNN Politics, 11 April.Google Scholar
Sarasvathy, S. (2001), “Causation and Effectuation: Toward a Theoretical Shift from Economic Inevitability to Contingency Entrepreneurial”, Academy of Management Review, Vol 26 No. 2, pp. 243263. http://doi.org/10.2307/259121Google Scholar
Schweber, B. (2011), “The law of unintended consequences strikes, again”, EE Times, 22 September.Google Scholar
Stranahan, S. (2014), The Eastland Disaster Killed More Passengers Than the Titanic and the Lusitania. Why Has It Been Forgotten? [online]. Available at: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/eastland-disaster-killed-more-passengers-titanic-and-lusitania-why-has-it-been-forgotten-180953146/ (Accessed: 26 October 2018)Google Scholar
Tasic, S. (2009), “The illusion of regulatory competence”, Critical Review, Vol. 21 No. 4. 423436. http://doi.org/10.1080/08913810903441369CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whetton, D. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 490495. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, J. (2000), “Systems thinking and unintended consequences”, ADTMag, 21 August.Google Scholar
Wolstenholme, E. (2003), “Towards the definition and use of a core set of archetypal structures in system dynamics”, System Dynamics Review, Vol. 19 No. 1, pp. 726. http://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.259CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 288 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 26th July 2019 - 17th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

You have Access
Open access

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Towards a Theory for Unintended Consequences in Engineering Design
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Towards a Theory for Unintended Consequences in Engineering Design
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Towards a Theory for Unintended Consequences in Engineering Design
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *