What's New

After six months of its construction, Ms. Z, a doctoral student of mathematics, visits the building for her work on structural engineering calculations. She has immense respect for Mr. X’s work. However, she finds that her calculations do not satisfy the requirements of structural integrity for which the building has been widely hailed. She realizes that the building’s structure has a deficiency based on the bolted beams used for structural support; this was inadequate if the impact of vertical winds on the building is taken into account. It not only created a threat for the building and its occupants but also the buildings and people nearby. Mr. X is informed of these calculations by the student and her supervisor.

However, Mr. X, meticulous as he is, has confidence on his work and detailed design. He looks at the issue seriously and spends time on the design. He indeed finds no flaw in his design and also notes that his design entails the use of welded rather than bolted beams. At the time he is negotiating the construction of another building where the issue of welded versus bolted metal beams is a sticking point. Mr. X. prefers welded beams as they are twice as strong as the requirements are. However, the engineering firm responsible for actual construction job and procuring the steel beams points out that double bolted beams are strong enough to meet the requirement, are cost effective and also fulfill the building code requirements.

After the meeting Mr. X visits the Fictitious Corp building, and to his horror he realizes that bolted rather than welded beams have been used in the construction of the building. He asks for the design that his office has used after final approval. He notices that indeed the final designs show the use of bolted beams. These beams are classified as trusses which do meet the regulatory requirements but not the structural capacity as envisaged by Mr. X initially. He further enquires and is told that the engineering firm responsible for construction work had also given similar arguments about the sufficiency, cost effectiveness and regulatory compliance of the bolted beams, which were accepted, and final design was passed by the buildings department.

Mr. X goes into isolation and looks at the final building blueprint and compares it with the original. He quickly identifies the repercussions; the city faces a strong cyclone once in 16 years on an average. If such a cyclone was to hit, the building would sway and may collapse on the nearby buildings. He visits the building in the night again and realizes that a relatively small intervention on the 30th floor would resolve the issue. However, this would mean approaching the Fictitious Corp leadership and new construction approvals from the buildings department. It entails an almost certain risk of litigation and his license for practicing structural engineering being revoked.

(a) Identify the most pressing issues? Which ones would you address on priority?

(b) What would be your advice to Mr. X and Mr. Y.? Also, sufficiently clarify the reasons for such advice.

Stakeholders involved

The Architect Mr. X, Chairman Mr. Y and board of the Fictitious Corp company, research student Ms. Z, stakeholders of the company, employees and workers who would be using the building, people and establishments in surrounding buildings, City Planning department, those in charge of emergency response and disaster relief; these are prominent stakeholders in the various scenarios predicated upon the facts of the case.

The given case involves the questions of values like professional competence as well as integrity. Larger public good, advancement in technique, public safety and responsibility for work are key issues here. The lack of these values in companies executing critical projects can have a significant impact on human life and property.

(a) The most pressing issues in the case are

Ensuring security of the people The construction of the building in its final execution did not meet the vision of the designer. This was not illegal and it confirmed to the existing norms. Yet new calculations and the small change in construction material observed by Mr. X may lead to catastrophic consequences for human lives and property. The process of rectifying the error by making some changes on the 30th floor. All the related hassles in this process need to be tackled and dealt with caution and swiftly.

The ethical dilemma of Ms. Z Though she seems to be an independent researcher, she has been instrumental in pointing out at a particular flaw in a structure that is unique. The results of the study should be shared with the company involved and the people at large.

The communication gap between Mr. X and the engineering team executing the projects needs to be eliminated He must have the final say as the professionally accomplished and competent person. The issue is caused due to the mismatch between what was visualized in the plan and what is executed on the ground, each only slightly different and well within the regulations, as is evident by the clearances provided. A big difference between the two can cause severe damages. So, the professional values and processes need to be revisited. I would address the issue of saving lives by rectifying the errors first.

Considering that my reputation is at stake and the proposal of doing the changes can also lead to heavy financial costs for me. The litigation process will add extra cost of time and disrepute. But I need to assure that saving human lives is much more important and outweighs the personal cost on me.

Addressing this cause will not only save lives but will save me from the mental trauma that would have been caused if I valued my pride and intellectual arrogance more and I am not ready to accept my mistakes. Also, one would also suggest revisiting all the relevant projects for any anomaly and making timely intervention, if required.

(b) My advice to Mr. X would be to study the issue with utmost care with assistance for Ms. Z. Plan the structural changes that need to be done. This will ensure that a rigorous technical study is done and proper scientific changes are made.

After this initial preparation, Mr. X should meet Mr. Y and discuss all issues. He should accept his mistakes and not try to shift blame on the engineering company or any of his staff. I would also advise him to accept the financial costs and the legal cases (if there is any). Also, he needs to sort out the communication gaps and exercise due-diligence in the upcoming projects. The reason for such advice is that being the leader of his group, he has to take full responsibility and accept the consequences of his mistakes. Further, taking steps to improve the governance process of his company will ensure good corporate governance and minimize such mis-happenings.

My advice to Mr. Y would be to listen patiently to Mr. X. He should accept plans to make the changes required. Thereafter, the process of ascertaining the liability can begin. He should order a third party independent inquiry into the whole matter. He should be sharing the details of the inquiry with his company and decide how the cost and liability needs to be imposed.

The reason for giving such advice is that no matter how bad the situation, the head of the organization needs to listen with patience and then take the necessary steps to rectify them. The liability needs to be ascertained here so that there is accountability of the people involved. Sharing the details makes it more transparent.