Technology Failures
Technology has changed the world and has made work very easy. Unlike in the past where most of the work done depended on the human energy, technology has changed the scenario. The notable kind of technology is the rockets that have been used during space travels have made man to explore what lies beyond the horizons. The aircrafts and trains have made transport of the human and goods are easier than before. The challenges that come with technology are the failure of such technologies to work as program. Since most of the machines are programmed by human who is prone to flaws, technology at most cases have backfired leading to severe accidents leading to loss of lives. This article is aimed at looking on what should be done in case the technology fails. Apart from the solutions to the technological failures, the article will also look onto the most common causes of such failures and give a recommendation on whether ethical and social fixes are required in such cases.
Weather and technical problems have been the cause of failure of most technologies that have led devastating accidents. Back in 1983, NASA was destined to make the sixth voyage into the space. The known launch of the challenger by NASA into the space was a sign of a greater failure in technology. Diane (1996) asserts that prior to the launch of the challenger at Kennedy Space Centre in Florida; the mission was delayed for more than six days. The delay of the mission was due to the bad weather. According to Diane (1996), however, much most of the engineers tried to warn their seniors of the danger of the mission, the mission was not halted. According the engineers, the rubber O-ring that was supporting most of the joints of the rocket booster was vulnerable to failure under low temperatures. The launch of the ill-fated rocket went on as planned even with the poor weather. This can mean that another cause of failure of technology is the lack of seriousness and taking keen look into the vulnerable parts of the machines used. In the case where weather is posing a challenge, the parties involved should reconsider their stand and use the machine under the required temperature.
It is a debate on whether the past was better than the present. Technology has brought much harm and will proceed to bring more harm in our lives in cases of failure. The question is what should be people do in the cases of technology failures. Adopting the manual way of doing things can be the fastest way of coming with the solution. When your car breaks, you can opt to walk to a walk to your office rather than remaining at home and not go to work. This means a failure in technology is the end of everything.
Nuclear power is a cheaper and cleaner source of energy. Unlike in the past where man only relied on gasoline and coal to provide energy, the present have been transformed by the nuclear power. This kind of technology is very dangerous in case it fails and can cause both short term and long term effect. Chernobyl disaster is one of the worst ever disasters that have ever happened in the land of Russia. Sonja (2004) asserts that during the tragedy more than 31 people lost their lives on the spot. The long-term effects of the tragedy were devastating as many more people lost their lives through cancer. When the tragedy occurred, the Soviet Union spent much money in putting things back to shape. Even though lives that were lost couldn’t be recovered the government managed to put into action different tactics to curb and control the accident. What this means is that during the times when technology fails and in that case lives of people is at risk, the government should react to help control the situation. Sonja (2004) learnt that the Soviet Union spent to not less than $18 billion, and about 500,000 workers were deployed. Almost a quarter million of people were evacuated and moved to less contaminated areas of Russia, Belarus and Ukraine. This spirit showed that the government was caring and took the lives of its citizens to be imperative.
Because the nuclear plant was the project of the Soviet Union, the government was responsible for any repercussions that came with the project. The government was, therefore, prepared to curb any accident that could have occurred. Sonja asserts that it was for the fact that the government was ready that helped to curb the situation (2004). This means that in any case the technology that s under question is prone to accidents, and adequate cautions should be put into place I readiness for disaster. Accepting the mistake and moving on can also be the best way to help during problems. Soviet Union agreed to the mistakes they did and accepted to compensate for losses made during the accident. It is during the disaster that Belarus joined hand with Russia to come up with the solution. This means that when technology fails, there should no blame games but rather, the parties involved should work hand in hand and help curb the situation.
Oil drilling has taken to the next depth with the technology making it even easier to drill oil from deep into the sea. April 20, 2010 was the date the world witnessed the world’s worst ever oil spill accidents in the Mexican border with the U.S. during that period, the Deepwater Drilling Horizon explosion is one of the worst underwater fires that have ever occurred in the human history. During the accident, there was a greater environmental degradation as most of the aqua life was threatened, and many lives lost during a fire. Even after the Transocean put into action different measures to prevent any risk from occurring, the oil spill was beyond prevention. In other words, we may put many measures to prevent failures but still we will never prevent them. In two consecutive years, Transocean was ranked as the top oil driller in the country. Unlike other companies, Transocean put many safety measures that were supposed prevent the tragedy. This earned the company the people’s trust and was voted the best company in both 2009 and 2008.
A failed technology is that which has not met its requirements. All technologies are usually developed to bring a change in the human life (Apreda et al. 2004). If the technology does not bring change and in that case becomes disastrous then such technology will be termed as a flop. A failed technology does not only claim the lives of human, and the economic status of people is also put at risk. The government usually spends a lot on developing such technologies; their failure will mean that the tax payer’s money has been wasted. In this case the people who were up to the task to develop such technology will be blamed. An example is the challenge. The government of America spent much money building and made research on the rocket, when it failed to launch, a clearer picture that came out was that the tax payer’s money was wasted.
The age of the technology can be used to gauge the risk. The newer the technology, the higher the risk will be. Newer technologies are usually as hazardous as compared to the old technology. If the new technology fails, then it might be said that people who got never involved had enough experience. In such cases. People will not blame the technology that much since it will be said that it is still under construction. Diane (1996) asserts that the American government never had a lot of problem with the people during the challenger accident. This was because most of the Americans understood that the technology was new and that most of the engineers were still green in that field.
The activity type of a technology is another factor that should be considered while evaluating the risk of the project. The deepwater petroleum accident at the Gulf was spared of the technology. Experts realized that the accident was further ahead of technology as what happened at the moment could not have been avoided. In such projects that are risky such as oil drilling, it will be very unfair to blame technology when they fail. What was clear is that the management of Transocean was cautious and took into consideration the risks that were probable. The activities with which the technology is involved will, therefore, determine whether we will blame the technology or not.
According to Wasson (1997), the commitment in terms of resource such as money and space will determine the range of risk of technology failures. If a multi-million technology fails, then it will be genuine to blame such failures. There are, however, such conditions where lack of money to fund the project leads to the failure in technology. In the case where the project or the technology was never well developed due to lack of resources, any case of failure will not get much of the blame.
The organizational settings of the technology will determine whether the risk of the technology would be blamed or not. In case a disaster occurs and finds a country or a company in readiness for a disaster, the company can be spared for the blame. In the same case, there are those technologies that have equipped themselves with disaster protectors. How the risks towards such technologies will be blamed will be totally different from those that do not have such mechanisms.
The ethical factors of people should be considered so as to deal with technology-related failures. According to Apreda et al. (2014), there will be no use to develop a technology that has no benefit to the people. If in any case the technology is being developed, then the developer should consider the changes such technology will bring into the lives of the common man. People who do not benefit from a particular technology should not be exposed to the challenges that the technology will bring in their lives. Apart from ethical benefits, the social being of human should be considered in cases of developing a technology. Most of the Americans do not understand what it is meant by airships. The failure of the rocket should not affect the life of a common American who has no idea on rockets. What this means is that the life of a common taxpayer should never be put into dismay because of things that do not have a direct impact in their lives.
References
Altabbakh, H., Murray, S., Grantham, K., & Damle, S. (2013). Variations in Risk Management Models: A Comparative Study of the Space Shuttle Challenger Disaster. Engineering Management Journal, 25(2), 13-14.
Apreda, R., Bonaccorsi, A., Fantoni, G., & Gabelloni, D. (2014). Functions and failures: how to manage technological promises for societal challenges. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 26(4), 369-384. doi:10.1080/09537325.2013.850653
Diane Vaughan, “Conformity and Tragedy,” Ch. 9 in The Challenger Launch Decision: Risky Technology, Culture and Deviance at NASA (University of Chicago Press, 1996), p.334-386.
Sonja Schmid, “Transformation Discourse: Nuclear Risk as a Strategic Tool in Late Soviet Politics of Expertise,” Science, Technology and Human Values 29 (2004): 353- 376
British Petroleum Incident Investigation Team, “Overview of Deepwater Horizon Accident Analysis,” Section 4 in Deepwater Horizon Accident Analysis Report (September 8, 2010), p.31-48.
Failure Analysis, Condition Assessment Technologies, and Performance Prediction of Prestressed-Concrete Cylinder Pipe: State-of-the-Art Literature Review. (2014). Journal of Performance of Constructed Facilities, 28(3), 618-628. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)CF.1943-5509.0000424
Stein, M. (2008). When Technology Fails: A Manual for Self-Reliance, Sustainability, and Surviving the Long Emergency.
Wasson, W. D. (1997). Observed information technology failures and reported solutions.
When technology fails: Significant technological disasters, accidents, and failures of the twentieth century. (1993). U.S.?.
