Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-skm99 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T09:03:48.163Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Towards a Theory for Unintended Consequences in Engineering Design

Part of: Responsible Design

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 July 2019

Hannah Walsh ,
Andy Dong  and
Irem Tumer
Hannah Walsh*
Affiliation:
Oregon State University;
Andy Dong
Affiliation:
University of Sydney
Irem Tumer
Affiliation:
Oregon State University;
*
Contact: Walsh, Hannah Scharline, Oregon State University, School of Mechanical, Industrial, and Manufacturing Engineering, United States of America, walshh@oregonstate.edu

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

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.

Keywords

Unintended consequencesDesign theoryDecision makingSustainabilitySocial responsibility
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society: International Conference on Engineering Design , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , July 2019 , pp. 3411 - 3420
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/10.1007/978-3-319-08281-3Google 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/10.2514/6.2012-5571Google 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. 283–297. http://doi.org/10.1007/s11186-015-9247-6Google 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.08.2016Google 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. 245–256. https://doi.org/10.1002%2Fsdr.4260100211Google 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. 23–35. 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), 25–29 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/10.1115/1.2988479Google 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, 26–29 August, ASME. http://doi.org/10.1115/detc2018-85602Google 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. 242–243. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.278.5336.242Google 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/detc2017-67952Google Scholar
Klein, G. (2007), “Performing a project premortem”, Harvard Business Review, Vol. 85 No. 9, pp. 18–19. 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. 243–248. http://doi.org/10.2749/101686600780481356Google 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/detc2017-67467Google Scholar
Marais, K., Saleh, J. and Leveson, N. (2006), “Archetypes for organizational safety”, Safety Science, Vol. 44 No. 7, pp. 565–582. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssci.2005.12.004Google Scholar
McDonald, C. (2006), “Computerization Can Create Safety Hazards: A Bar-Coding Near Miss”, Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 144 No. 7, pp. 510–516. http://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-144-7-200604040-00010Google Scholar
Merton, R. (1936), “The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action”, American Sociological Review, Vol. 1 No. 6, pp. 894–904. http://doi.org/10.2307/2084615Google 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.2005.1571272Google 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. 243–263. 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. 423–436. http://doi.org/10.1080/08913810903441369Google Scholar
Whetton, D. (1989), “What constitutes a theoretical contribution?”, Academy of Management Review, Vol. 14 No. 2, pp. 490–495. http://doi.org/10.5465/amr.1989.4308371Google 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. 7–26. http://doi.org/10.1002/sdr.259Google Scholar