How Innovative Designs Bring about a Positive Change - Essay Example

Moral Innovation Innovation is the ability to do things better. It is the potential to see change as an opportunity, and not as a threat. Now that does not mean change for the sake of change. To qualify as an innovation the change must be lasting and must have a positive impact. Innovation could also be defined as finding something of value to society through research that ultimately solves a present or future problem and changes the way one might have previously perceived the problem. In today’s continuously and rapidly changing world, an engineer needs innovative designs to keep ahead of the competition. An engineering design could be either a product or a process, but for it to be something innovative it has to fulfil certain conditions. For instance sometimes an engineer is required to make a specific design where he does not have many constraints or obstacles. All he needs to do is basically follow certain fundamental guidelines and his work is done. If an engineer had to make a hut with just four walls and a roof, he probably will not think much and would just use the traditionally accepted way. This definitely would not count for design innovation. An innovative design is when an engineer has to overcome certain obstacles or problems or do things in a better way and using the conventional system just won’t do. The engineer will have to come up with something original and quite extraordinary. He probably will need to use new methods, or new techniques, or maybe altogether a whole new system. The four main differences between an innovative and a non innovative idea would be originality, simplicity, cost, effectiveness and solution. Originality need not be explained since it is pretty straight forward after mentioning the definition that only an idea which is new or has never been done before in the same way can be called innovative. Now simplicity and cost go hand in hand. A complicated design may seem more competent and able, but in any engineering field more complicated the device, more are the components and so there are more things that can go wrong or fail. Also the higher number of components adds to the cost. Thus a device that is simple is, uses less energy and costs less but would be much tougher to design and needs brilliance. Now by effectiveness I mean designing something that is equally or more effective using fewer resources. This basically means increasing efficiency. Lastly we have solution. Only if the problem at hand is solved by the revolutionary design can it be called innovative. Now I have gone on mentioning about how innovative designs bring about a positive change. But this change is bound to have its consequences, big or small and sometimes unforeseen. It’s up to the engineer to decide whether the change that he is about to bring is good for the welfare of mankind and not just for personal gain. For example the design of the Ford Pinto had been rushed to fight tough competition and was not done properly which made the car vulnerable to an explosion if hit from behind at more than 20 miles per hour. Ford knew this and the cost of installing the part would have been higher than damage due to fatalities but still it voluntarily recalled the Pinto and changed the part (Birsch 28). It is this additional ethical obligation that an engineer faces before he can design something. Engineers, in the fulfilment of their professional duties, shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public” (NSPE). One such an engineer who had faced these ehtical obligations was William LeMessurier. He was the structural engineer of the Citicorp tower and is responsible for the innovative designs for which it is famous for. The most noteable feature of the Citicorp Tower is that it is set on four massive 114-foot (35-m)-high columns which are not at the four corners but at the center of each side of the bui;ding.. This enabled the building to cantilever 72 feet over the church located at the northwest corner of the tower. This had to be done because the old church that was there before was only allowed to be demolished if LeMessurier built a new one in its place at the exact same spot. LeMessurier had devised an ingenious way of cross bracing to transfer the weight on the four columns(Petroski 208). Another innovative feature in the Citicorp tower was the tuned mass damper and it was the first buliding in New York to implement this system. The tower is fifty nine storeys high and so it is greatly affected by wind. Thus in order to counter act the swaying motions a tuned mass damper (weighing about 350 metric tons) was placed in the mechanical space at the top of the tower. The damper reduces the sway of the building by fifty percent (Greer). The Citicorp tower also has an unusual roof. The 45-degree angle at the top was originally meant for solar panels but the idea was later scraped because the panels would be in such an angle that they would not get direct sun. To help determine if the Tower was truly innovative:- Line Drawing Exercise Negative Paradigm Features of innovation Paradigm features of no Innovation Originality copied ideas from else where Simplicity Very complicated structure Effectiveness Changes make no difference Solution to Problems No problems were solved Positive Paradigm Features of innovation Paradigm features of Innovation Originality Never been done in the same way Simplicity Very simple structure Effectiveness The design was very effective Solution All problems were solved Test Paradigm of Citicorp Tower Features Negative Test Positive Originality Done Before ---------------O---- Not Done Simplicity Complication --O----------------- Simple Effectiveness Not Effective ----------------O-- Effective Solution Not Solved ----------------O-- Solved The above chart does prove that the design of the Citicorp tower is truly innovative and is an engineering marvel although it had a few major complications. This is because changes during construction led the building to be structurally unsound. The welded joints that were in the original design were later changed to bolted joints during construction since bolted joints were cheaper and required less labour. But these joints were not strong enough to withstand the 70 mile per hour winds that the building was designed for. It is said that LeMessurier agonised over how to deal with the problem, and he knew that if the media came to klnow of this his profesional reputation would be in jeoprady. With the hurricane season approaching fast he boldly decided to approach Citicorp himself and ask them to take quick action. Thus a crew was hired by Citicorp and a two inch thick plate was welded over the the bolts giving the fragile building the strength it required. Since nothing happened due to this engineering gaffe the incident was kept silent for the next twenty years. The right thing to have done would have been to immidiately tell the masses about the problem so that they could atleast make the decision for themselves if they had a problem with entering a building during hurricane season that was potentially collapsible. LeMessurier was criticized for insufficient oversight leading to bolted rather than welded joints, for misleading the public about the extent of the danger during the reinforcement process, and for keeping the engineering insights from his peers for two decades (Kremer 3). However in his act of alerting Citicorp, LeMussurier had put his social responsibility ahead of his personal gain and this is used as an example of good ethical behaviour to date. Works Cited Douglas Birsch and John H. Fielder, The Ford Pinto Case: A Study in Applied Ethics. Business and Technology. 1994. National Soceity Of Professional Engineers (2006). Code of Ethics, Fundamental Canon 1.. Retrieved: 2006-10-19.  Henry Petroski, Invention by Design: How Engineers Get from Thought to Thing Cambridge Massachusetts.: Harvard University Press, 1996 Greer, William R. (1982-10-24). "Rx for Swaying Skyscrapers". New York Times. http://www.nytimes.com/1982/10/24/realestate/rx-for-swaying-skyscrapers.html. Retrieved 2009-07-25. Eugene Kremer (2002). "(Re)Examining the Citicorp Case: Ethical Paragon or Chimera", Cross Currents, Fall 2002, Vol. 52, No 3.  Read More