Are other safety systems operating?
Figure 4.6 Application of a simple fl ow chart to the Bhopal case, emphasizing potential decisions made during consideration of locating a plant in India.
Maintenance needed on flare tower
Is MIC tank
filled?
Go ahead
No
Are other safety systems operating?
Yes Yes Yes Will these
other systems adequately prevent
accidents?
Perform maintenance
Defer maintenance
No NoDefer maintenance
until other systems are available
Figure 4.7 An alternative fl ow chart for the Bhopal case, emphasizing decisions made when considering deactivating the fl are tower for maintenance.
64 4.5 Confl ict Problems
Confl ict problems can be solved in three ways [ Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins, 2000 ]. Often, there are confl icting moral choices, but one is obviously more signifi – cant than the other. For example, protecting the health and safety of the public is more important than your duty to your employer. In this type of case, the resolution of the confl ict involves an easy choice.
A second solution is sometimes called the “creative middle way” [ Harris, Pritchard, and Rabins, 2000 ]. This solution is an attempt at some kind of a compro- mise that will work for everyone. The emphasis here should be on the word “crea- tive,” because it takes a great deal of creativity to fi nd a middle ground that is acceptable to everyone and a great deal of diplomacy to sell it to everyone. The sales job is especially diffi cult because of the nature of compromise, which is often jokingly defi ned as “the solution where nobody gets what they want.” An example of a creative middle ground would be that rather than dumping a toxic waste into a local lake, one fi nds ways to redesign the production process to minimize the amount of waste products produced, fi nds ways to pretreat the waste to minimize the toxicity, or offers to pay for and install the equipment at the municipal water system necessary to treat the water to remove this chemical before it is sent to homes. Obviously, no one will be completely satisfi ed with these alternatives, since redesigns and pretreatment cost money and take time. Some people will not be satisfi ed with even a minimized dumping of toxics.
Finally, when there is no easy choice and attempts to fi nd a middle ground are not successful, all that is left is to make the hard choice. Sometimes, you have to bite the bullet and make the best choice possible with the information available at the time. Frequently, you must rely on “gut feelings” for which path is the cor- rect one.
Let’s illustrate the resolution-of-confl ict problems by examining the Challenger explosion, focusing on the dilemma faced by the engineering manager, Bob Lund. The confl ict was clear: There was an unknown probability that the shuttle would explode, perhaps killing all aboard. On the other hand, Lund had a responsibility to his company and the people who worked for him. There were consequences of postponing the launch, potentially leading to the loss of future contracts from NASA, the loss of jobs to many Thiokol workers, and perhaps even bankruptcy of the company. For many, the easy choice here is simply to not launch. The risk to the lives of the astronauts is too great and far outweighs any other considerations. It is impossible to balance jobs against lives. After all, most people who lose their jobs will be able to fi nd other employment. However, not everyone will fi nd this to be such an easy choice; clearly, Lund didn’t fi nd it to be so.
The creative middle ground might involve delaying the launch until later in the day, when the temperature will have warmed up. Of course, this option might not be possible for many reasons associated with the timing of rocket launches and the successful completion of the planned missions. Instead, perhaps, the astro- nauts could be informed of the engineer’s concerns and be allowed to make the choice whether to launch or not. If a risk is informed and a choice is made by those taking the risk, it somewhat relieves the company of the responsibility if an accident occurs.