David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Rafael De Clercq
Jack Alan Reynolds
Learn more about PhilPapers
Journal of Business Ethics 10 (8):605 - 616 (1991)
The Challenger incident was a result of at least four kinds of difficulties: differing perceptions and priorities of the engineers and management at Thiokol and at NASA, a preoccupation with roles and role responsibilities on the part of engineers and managers, contrasting corporate cultures at Thiokol and its parent, Morton, and a failure both by engineers and by managers to exercise individual moral responsibility. I shall argue that in the Challenger case organizational structure, corporate culture, engineering and managerial habits, and role responsibilites precipitated events contributing to the Challenger disaster. At the same time, a number of individuals at Morton Thiokol and NASA were responsible for the launch failure. Differing world views, conflicting priorities of the engineers and managers on this project, and the failure of either engineers or management to take personal moral responsibility for decision-making contributed significantly to the event.
|Keywords||No keywords specified (fix it)|
|Categories||categorize this paper)|
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
|Through your library|
References found in this work BETA
No references found.
Citations of this work BETA
Michael Davis, Andrew Kumiega & Ben Vliet (2013). Ethics, Finance, and Automation: A Preliminary Survey of Problems in High Frequency Trading. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):851-874.
Michael Pritchard, Taft H. Broome, Vivian Weil, Michael S. Pritchard, Joseph R. Herkert, Michael Davis & Taft Broome (1999). Introduction. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (4):541-567.
Michael Davis, Andrew Kumiega & Ben Van Vliet (2013). Ethics, Finance, and Automation: A Preliminary Survey of Problems in High Frequency Trading. [REVIEW] Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3):851-874.
Similar books and articles
Carl Mitcham (1998). The Importance of Philosophy to Engineering. Teorema 17 (3):27-47.
Rosa Lynn B. Pinkus (ed.) (1997). Engineering Ethics: Balancing Cost, Schedule, and Risk--Lessons Learned From the Space Shuttle. Cambridge University Press.
D. Holemans & H. Lodewyckx (1996). A Case Study of Conflicting Interests: Flemish Engineers Involved in Environmental Impact Assessment. Science and Engineering Ethics 2 (1):17-24.
Harry Hummels (1999). Ethical Challenges in a Technological Environment: The Perspective of Engineers Versus Managers. Science and Engineering Ethics 5 (1):55-72.
Michael Davis (1998). Thinking Like an Engineer: Studies in the Ethics of a Profession. Oxford University Press.
Joseph R. Herkert (1991). Management's Hat Trick: Misuse of “Engineering Judgment” in the Challenger Incident. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 10 (8):617 - 620.
Russell P. Boisjoly, Ellen Foster Curtis & Eugene Mellican (1989). Roger Boisjoly and the Challenger Disaster: The Ethical Dimensions. [REVIEW] Journal of Business Ethics 8 (4):217 - 230.
Wade Robison (2002). Representation and Misrepresentation: Tufte and the Morton Thiokol Engineers on the Challenger. Science and Engineering Ethics 8 (1):59-81.
Michael Davis (1997). Better Communication Between Engineers and Managers. Science and Engineering Ethics 3 (2):171-212.
Junichi Murata (2006). From Challenger to Columbia. Techné 10 (1):30-44.
Added to index2009-01-28
Total downloads54 ( #27,855 of 1,096,583 )
Recent downloads (6 months)5 ( #50,170 of 1,096,583 )
How can I increase my downloads?