I think that they were trying to manage the wrong sort of risk, that is treating it as a reliability issue (i.e. aleatory uncertainty) rather than a design fault (i.e. epistemic uncertainty). At the heart of it for me is an inability of the engineers to communicate this different sort of risk to the decision makers.
With a Bachelor’s in Mechanical Engineering and a Master’s in Systems Engineering, Matthew Squair is a principal consultant with Jacobs Australia. His professional practice is the assurance of safety, software and cyber-security, and he writes, teaches and consults on these subjects. He can be contacted at mattsquair@gmail.com
Just wondering what you think of this:
Viewpoint: Challenger and the misunderstanding of risk http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35432071
LikeLike
I think that they were trying to manage the wrong sort of risk, that is treating it as a reliability issue (i.e. aleatory uncertainty) rather than a design fault (i.e. epistemic uncertainty). At the heart of it for me is an inability of the engineers to communicate this different sort of risk to the decision makers.
LikeLike