TORONTO, ONTARIO - The CBC continues its streak in my weekly radio pick. Most of us realize that human beings are irrational, but few of us have thought about how this might actually be beneficial from an evolutionary perspective. Author Dan Ariely of Duke University talked about our "stupid brains" in this 18-minute interview, with insights for laypeople and scientists alike.
Listen to MP3 of Quirks and Quarks "The Upside of Irrationality"
Saturday, June 5, 2010
Media: Watch it on HD
TORONTO, ONTARIO - As long as twenty-five years ago, there was an interesting phenomenon amongst unlimited hydroplane racing fans. Enthusiasts of the sport that would attend every race that they could over the course of the year would not attend race day in Seattle, Washington. Why? It wasn't the weather or ticket prices. The Seattle race was always televised, and the coverage on the local station was often so good, and the views from the television camera so much better than what could be seen from the shore, that the fans thought the experience was more engaging at home on television than along Lake Washington.
In twenty-five years, a lot has improved in television technology. Large-screen televisions are far more commonplace for average consumers. Analog television has been replaced with digital television that makes the picture even more clear and real to the viewer. Watching television feels even more like actually being somewhere than it ever has before, and now the same phenomenon that was occurring long ago with unlimited hydroplane racing is happening to other sports.
The Toronto Blue Jays, the only major-league baseball team in Canada, is now receiving record television ratings. Despite being on a cable channel, the games are often viewed by more than 500,000 people (as cited in the Toronto Star). Meanwhile, the in-person attendance at the Rogers Centre is about as low as it has ever been. According to TSN, opening night aside, the team has averaged just 14,853 fans in its first 25 home games. Attendance has exceeded 20,000 only twice, in a stadium that holds nearly 50,000.
Clearly, the team doesn't have a popularity problem. Besides the record television ratings, their on-the-field record has exceeded expectations, competitive in the American League East and the wild card race. It just seems that the fans prefer their in-home television experience to the experience in the Rogers Centre.
Perhaps this isn't so surprising. Traffic and parking are huge problems in Toronto and around the Rogers Centre in particular. The amenities of the Rogers Centre pale in comparison with more modern stadiums from the new Camden Yards in Baltimore to Safeco Field in Seattle. Ticket prices effectively went up this year with the end of some package deals and most promotions.
Yet, the Blue Jays might really be canaries on this issue. As home entertainment technology improves (think live baseball in 3D), this phenomenon isn't going to be limited to Toronto. For that matter, it will not be limited to baseball. It is not inconceivable that within a decade, for most fans, the experience at home will be better than the experience in person. The whole business model for sports may need to be re-evaluated--and the teams and sports that anticipate this and create a new sustainable model will be the ones that will still be around in a generation.
In twenty-five years, a lot has improved in television technology. Large-screen televisions are far more commonplace for average consumers. Analog television has been replaced with digital television that makes the picture even more clear and real to the viewer. Watching television feels even more like actually being somewhere than it ever has before, and now the same phenomenon that was occurring long ago with unlimited hydroplane racing is happening to other sports.
The Toronto Blue Jays, the only major-league baseball team in Canada, is now receiving record television ratings. Despite being on a cable channel, the games are often viewed by more than 500,000 people (as cited in the Toronto Star). Meanwhile, the in-person attendance at the Rogers Centre is about as low as it has ever been. According to TSN, opening night aside, the team has averaged just 14,853 fans in its first 25 home games. Attendance has exceeded 20,000 only twice, in a stadium that holds nearly 50,000.
Clearly, the team doesn't have a popularity problem. Besides the record television ratings, their on-the-field record has exceeded expectations, competitive in the American League East and the wild card race. It just seems that the fans prefer their in-home television experience to the experience in the Rogers Centre.
Perhaps this isn't so surprising. Traffic and parking are huge problems in Toronto and around the Rogers Centre in particular. The amenities of the Rogers Centre pale in comparison with more modern stadiums from the new Camden Yards in Baltimore to Safeco Field in Seattle. Ticket prices effectively went up this year with the end of some package deals and most promotions.
Yet, the Blue Jays might really be canaries on this issue. As home entertainment technology improves (think live baseball in 3D), this phenomenon isn't going to be limited to Toronto. For that matter, it will not be limited to baseball. It is not inconceivable that within a decade, for most fans, the experience at home will be better than the experience in person. The whole business model for sports may need to be re-evaluated--and the teams and sports that anticipate this and create a new sustainable model will be the ones that will still be around in a generation.
Friday, June 4, 2010
Politics: The Leader Matters
TORONTO, ONTARIO - A recent Angus-Reid survey on the Federal political parties in Canada has gotten relatively little attention. The headline result is hardly surprising--the Conservatives continue to hold a party-preference lead with 35%, with the Liberals trailing at 27%, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) at 19%. What's interesting, though, is that they also looked at what would happen if the latter two left-of-center parties merged (the New Liberals?)--and the results are not necessarily what one would expect, and very dependent on the leader of that new party.
On the surface, one might think that a Liberal-NDP merger would simply combine their support to create a solid 46% preference, well ahead of the Conservatives even if some modest defections from the combined party from purists took place. That isn't what would happen at all, according to the survey. If current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff were to head the party, it would only poll at 34%, with the Conservatives up to 40%. That might sound like centrists amongst the Liberals abandoning the new party because of its history with the NDP, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If current NDP leader Jack Layton led the new party, it would actually be ahead in the polls at 43%, leading the Conservatives at 37%, not that far from the simple combination prediction. Furthermore, the combined party is strong in much of the country in this scenario, including a 10-point lead over the Bloc in Quebec. One could make the case that this is the baseline for Liberal-leaning voters that could not stand the influence of the NDP--marking that group as only something like 2-3% of voters.
So what's going on with the Ignatieff-as-leader numbers? It's not having NDP defections because a Liberal would be leading the combined party. With Liberal Bob Rae as leader of the new party, there's a 38% tie between the new party and the Conservatives. Considering that Bob Rae has significant baggage in Ontario as a result of his time as premier and is hardly a "generic Liberal," this implies that the generic NDP defections would be less than 8% (and one would not expect them, for ideological reasons, to run to the Conservatives).
It pretty much has to come down to individual leadership. Whether because of Conservative advertising or his own actions, Ignatieff is not positively viewed by the electorate, and that clearly matters to voters more than the ideology of the party that he leads. On the other hand, Layton is apparently viewed quite positively (at least by those leaning left). I've long held that political leadership is important, and this poll seems to demonstrate that quite strongly.
While a Liberal-NDP merger or even formal coalition is far from likely at this stage, the Conservatives have to be taking note of this poll. I could imagine that we might start seeing some negative advertising directed at Jack Layton. This would be a dangerous game--Layton has publicly spoke about his ongoing battle with prostate cancer and any negative advertising would be seen as picking on a physically weakened man who is widely expected to only lead his party for one more election.
A far more interesting topic may not be who would lead a combined Liberal-NDP alliance if it formed tomorrow, but who would lead it in the future after Ignatieff, Layton, and the other current players move on. Could it be Liberal Ken Dryden? The NDP's Thomas Mulcair? There will be a search for leadership in Canada, whether for the Liberals and NDP individually or as one, as well as for a new Conservative leader someday. The country will only benefit if competent and effective leaders emerge.
On the surface, one might think that a Liberal-NDP merger would simply combine their support to create a solid 46% preference, well ahead of the Conservatives even if some modest defections from the combined party from purists took place. That isn't what would happen at all, according to the survey. If current Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff were to head the party, it would only poll at 34%, with the Conservatives up to 40%. That might sound like centrists amongst the Liberals abandoning the new party because of its history with the NDP, but that doesn't seem to be the case.
If current NDP leader Jack Layton led the new party, it would actually be ahead in the polls at 43%, leading the Conservatives at 37%, not that far from the simple combination prediction. Furthermore, the combined party is strong in much of the country in this scenario, including a 10-point lead over the Bloc in Quebec. One could make the case that this is the baseline for Liberal-leaning voters that could not stand the influence of the NDP--marking that group as only something like 2-3% of voters.
So what's going on with the Ignatieff-as-leader numbers? It's not having NDP defections because a Liberal would be leading the combined party. With Liberal Bob Rae as leader of the new party, there's a 38% tie between the new party and the Conservatives. Considering that Bob Rae has significant baggage in Ontario as a result of his time as premier and is hardly a "generic Liberal," this implies that the generic NDP defections would be less than 8% (and one would not expect them, for ideological reasons, to run to the Conservatives).
It pretty much has to come down to individual leadership. Whether because of Conservative advertising or his own actions, Ignatieff is not positively viewed by the electorate, and that clearly matters to voters more than the ideology of the party that he leads. On the other hand, Layton is apparently viewed quite positively (at least by those leaning left). I've long held that political leadership is important, and this poll seems to demonstrate that quite strongly.
While a Liberal-NDP merger or even formal coalition is far from likely at this stage, the Conservatives have to be taking note of this poll. I could imagine that we might start seeing some negative advertising directed at Jack Layton. This would be a dangerous game--Layton has publicly spoke about his ongoing battle with prostate cancer and any negative advertising would be seen as picking on a physically weakened man who is widely expected to only lead his party for one more election.
A far more interesting topic may not be who would lead a combined Liberal-NDP alliance if it formed tomorrow, but who would lead it in the future after Ignatieff, Layton, and the other current players move on. Could it be Liberal Ken Dryden? The NDP's Thomas Mulcair? There will be a search for leadership in Canada, whether for the Liberals and NDP individually or as one, as well as for a new Conservative leader someday. The country will only benefit if competent and effective leaders emerge.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Technology: Traveling Wave Reactors
TORONTO, ONTARIO - Earlier this year, this blog featured the thorium reactor as a potential alternative for improved nuclear power in the future. While no "expose"-type publication has come out, the quiet consensus from nuclear professionals expressed in letters to the editor is that the promise of the thorium reactor as a panacea for the recognized issues with nuclear technology is oversold. It might be modestly harder to get nuclear weapons fuel from a thorium reactor, but it's still possible, and the other purported savings in waste are not especially significant, and the higher abundance of thorium is not especially relevant when breeder reactors can make enough of their own fuel for any degree of anticipated demand yet forecast.
Instead, an older article in Technology Review magazine touts the traveling wave reactor as a much more likely way to move nuclear energy forward toward a less expensive and and safer future. Also boasting its own Wikipedia page, the traveling wave reactor differs from current nuclear plants in that it does not require enriched uranium, and the fission reaction occurs in a specific moving zone (hence the name "traveling wave") instead of through the entire core of the reactor.
The traveling wave reactor isn't a panacea, either. It probably requires about 10% enriched uranium (U-235) to start a fission reaction. However, once the chain reaction is started, it can be sustained with depleted uranium (U-238), and most theoreticians believe that a single fueling could quite possibly last 60 years or more, contrasted with 2-3 years using conventional technology. Right there, proliferation concerns would be diminished, as there would be no materials being removed from the reactor that could be diverted, and since the fuel is no longer (mostly) enriched, there is a lesser need for materials that could be diverted.
Another potential issue is that the reactor would have to be cooled by liquid sodium and operate at 550 C, instead of the 330 C typical of current reactors. However, that doesn't automatically mean lower safety; assuming proper reactor design and cooling systems the danger might not be significantly different.
To this point, most of the work on traveling wave reactors has been at the behest of venture capital firm Intellectual Ventures. Unlike the thorium advocates, they don't view it as a short-term technology, but one that may take hold if an expansion of nuclear power takes place in the United States, what it calls a "nuclear renaissance."
Somehow, I suspect nuclear critics would find a different word than "renaissance," and it will take a lot more than an oil spill to push the world toward traveling wave reactors.
Instead, an older article in Technology Review magazine touts the traveling wave reactor as a much more likely way to move nuclear energy forward toward a less expensive and and safer future. Also boasting its own Wikipedia page, the traveling wave reactor differs from current nuclear plants in that it does not require enriched uranium, and the fission reaction occurs in a specific moving zone (hence the name "traveling wave") instead of through the entire core of the reactor.
The traveling wave reactor isn't a panacea, either. It probably requires about 10% enriched uranium (U-235) to start a fission reaction. However, once the chain reaction is started, it can be sustained with depleted uranium (U-238), and most theoreticians believe that a single fueling could quite possibly last 60 years or more, contrasted with 2-3 years using conventional technology. Right there, proliferation concerns would be diminished, as there would be no materials being removed from the reactor that could be diverted, and since the fuel is no longer (mostly) enriched, there is a lesser need for materials that could be diverted.
Another potential issue is that the reactor would have to be cooled by liquid sodium and operate at 550 C, instead of the 330 C typical of current reactors. However, that doesn't automatically mean lower safety; assuming proper reactor design and cooling systems the danger might not be significantly different.
To this point, most of the work on traveling wave reactors has been at the behest of venture capital firm Intellectual Ventures. Unlike the thorium advocates, they don't view it as a short-term technology, but one that may take hold if an expansion of nuclear power takes place in the United States, what it calls a "nuclear renaissance."
Somehow, I suspect nuclear critics would find a different word than "renaissance," and it will take a lot more than an oil spill to push the world toward traveling wave reactors.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Heritage: Toronto's First Aviation Meet
Carl Mills spoke to the Weston Historical Society on 3-June-2010 about Toronto's first aviation meet in 1910
TORONTO, ONTARIO - It seems hard to believe in an era in which aviation is usually not only the fastest but also cheapest form of long-distance travel, attracting nearly all economic classes, that one hundred years ago there were no commercial flights to or from Toronto. In fact, as enthusiasts look forward to this year's Canadian International Air Show during the Canadian National Exhibition over Labour Day, it was one hundred years ago that the first aviation meet ever held in Toronto took place.
In a meeting of the Weston Historical Society tonight, guest speaker Carl Mills did a careful job of placing that first meet in context. While much was later made of the first Wright Brothers flight and that of the Silver Dart in New Brunswick, aviation did not capture the public imagination until Louis Blériot made the first flight over the English Channel on 25-July-1909. The first aircraft flight in Toronto took place in that time of growing interest on 2-September-1909, when a single aircraft, the Golden Flyer piloted by Charles Willard, performed at Scarborough Beaches Amusement Park.
That event, though, served only to whet the public appetite for a much larger event in 1910. I found it amusing that it was organized in part by the Ontario Automobile Club. Not taking place at a site which would survive to become a modern airport, it occurred walking distance from where I now live, near the current intersection of Jane and Lawrence on the Tretheway Farm. Bleaches for the event were located at what is now Hearst Circle. Following a similar event in Montreal (technically, the first aircraft meet in the British Empire from 27-June-1910 to 5-July-1910), five aircraft traveled to the Toronto area for an aviation meet that lasted from 9-July-1910 to 16-July-1910.
While the Wright Brothers were in attendance with two aircraft and Canada had its domestic presence with the Baddeck No. 1 biplane (a descendant of the Silver Dart) and Hubbard monoplane, the star of the event would prove to be Count Jacques de Lesseps of France and the Blériot XI monoplane. Blériots of three ownerships would be on-hand for the event and would fly the longest distances around the meet, rivaling the Wright Brothers craft. de Lesseps, though, would fly the very aircraft he had flown over the English Channel--named Le Scarabée.
In the most remarkable incident of the meet, de Lesseps flew Le Scarabée from the meet site to downtown Toronto and back on 13-July-1910, a flight of about 20 miles, covered in 28 minutes, an astounding feat for the time (though not as impressive as similar feats performed in Montreal). This marked the first extended flight over Toronto in history. Yet, de Lesseps would capture the public imagination for more than his flying--after the meet, he met and started courting the daughter of a railway magnate, Grace Mackenzie, who he would later marry.
Other interesting events during the meet foreshadowed the future of air shows, with two aircraft flying "nearly wing-to-wing" (though probably quite far apart by modern standards), and a contest in which the fliers dropped sandbags on a target, detonating dynamite if they hit the target.
de Lesseps would ultimately separate from Mackenzie and settle in Quebec, doing geographic surveys from the air, dying in a tragic accident in 1927. The airfield at the Tretheway Farm would last until 1940, when all operations remaining there moved to Downsview.
In a time when aviation seems so commonplace and flights approaching the Island Airport (er, Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport) rarely draw a second glance, it was interesting to hear from Carl Mills about the first time an aircraft ever appeared above downtown Toronto.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Media: News Balance Report
TORONTO, ONTARIO - As part of its own self-evaluation program, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation recently released an interim report on balance in its news programming. While most were paying attention to the political balance of its reporting (which proved statistically the same as its commercial competition), I found some of the items in its executive summary to be far more interesting.
Take the issue of the province balance in national news stories. Ontario will receive a strong bias as a result of Parliament being in Ottawa (and, in fact, I think the statistics would have been more useful had stories on the Federal government been separated from other stories from Ontario), but the extent of the bias is stunning. Fully 37% of stories on "The National" had a "primary location" in Ontario--which sounds ridiculous until one realizes that 39% of the population is in Ontario, and then it seems rather unremarkable. Only Quebec is grossly under-represented, in terms of population, being the origin of just 10% of stories while being 22% of the population, and that is largely explained by the anglo-franco linguistic divide. The most over-represented location was British Columbia, with 20% of coverage on 13% of the population, but that was biased by the Olympic games. The other networks show similar trends, with even more over-representation of British Columbia and, if anything, under-representation of Ontario.
I've commented before that the CBC has a large number of female hosts, and this study put numbers to it. Overall, the faces and voices that appear on the CBC are about 60% female and 40% male--compared with 40% female and 60% male on the commercial networks. That's a significant difference, and one that is hard to explain on the commercial side if the studies that show men actually prefer information presented to them by women and that women don't have a strong gender preference are actually true and applicable to news broadcasting.
What really floored me, though, was the balance of genders in the news stories themselves. Because of the dominance of men in politics, I wasn't surprised to see that males were the subject of stories more often than females, but the difference was enormous. On the CBC (and commercial television), 70% of stories had a male figure focused on, while 30% focused on a female. At the commercial radio, it was 84% males and just 16% females. It's hard not to view that as a bias against the importance of women in society.
If the opponents of the CBC were hoping for a smoking gun in this report, they didn't find it. Progressives, though, may have found statistical demonstration of gender bias in Canadian society.
Take the issue of the province balance in national news stories. Ontario will receive a strong bias as a result of Parliament being in Ottawa (and, in fact, I think the statistics would have been more useful had stories on the Federal government been separated from other stories from Ontario), but the extent of the bias is stunning. Fully 37% of stories on "The National" had a "primary location" in Ontario--which sounds ridiculous until one realizes that 39% of the population is in Ontario, and then it seems rather unremarkable. Only Quebec is grossly under-represented, in terms of population, being the origin of just 10% of stories while being 22% of the population, and that is largely explained by the anglo-franco linguistic divide. The most over-represented location was British Columbia, with 20% of coverage on 13% of the population, but that was biased by the Olympic games. The other networks show similar trends, with even more over-representation of British Columbia and, if anything, under-representation of Ontario.
I've commented before that the CBC has a large number of female hosts, and this study put numbers to it. Overall, the faces and voices that appear on the CBC are about 60% female and 40% male--compared with 40% female and 60% male on the commercial networks. That's a significant difference, and one that is hard to explain on the commercial side if the studies that show men actually prefer information presented to them by women and that women don't have a strong gender preference are actually true and applicable to news broadcasting.
What really floored me, though, was the balance of genders in the news stories themselves. Because of the dominance of men in politics, I wasn't surprised to see that males were the subject of stories more often than females, but the difference was enormous. On the CBC (and commercial television), 70% of stories had a male figure focused on, while 30% focused on a female. At the commercial radio, it was 84% males and just 16% females. It's hard not to view that as a bias against the importance of women in society.
If the opponents of the CBC were hoping for a smoking gun in this report, they didn't find it. Progressives, though, may have found statistical demonstration of gender bias in Canadian society.
Monday, May 31, 2010
Economics: Not Just Pay
TORONTO, ONTARIO - This evening on the PBS NewsHour, an interesting discussion was aired on the public reaction to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico. Science educator Bill Nye, energy expert Amy Jaffe and technology forecaster Paul Saffo weighed in on why the spill was being perceived in the way that it is by the average citizen.
A fair portion of the discussion focused on the lack of public confidence in engineers, and the idea that "poor engineering" has been a hallmark of the United States for a generation. Bill Nye took it back "all the way back to the Ford Pinto" and emphasized the two space shuttle disasters as destroying the pride in engineering that had once existed in the country following the NASA missions to the moon in the 1960's and 1970's. Jaffe pointed out that many mathematicians and engineers are going to Wall Street and financial firms instead of working in engineering, a phenomenon I have written about before on this blog.
Yet, I think there is a separate trend here being highlighted in talking about the quality of engineering. It's not just that higher salaries are luring qualified "quantitative people" away from engineering, it's also that the corporate environment in United States (and apparently in Great Britain, if BP is any indication) explicitly eschews good engineering in favor of cutting corners to achieve short-term financial results.
As I think about my personal experiences in engineering, both in the companies I have worked for and in partner companies that I came to know and companies that friends have worked for, there have been two kinds of companies that actually emphasized making a well-engineered product that would meet market demand (and hence make money in the medium to long-term). The first were privately-held companies, both large and small, in the United States whose executives did not have to worry about what happened to a stock price each quarter. The second were foreign companies, based in either continental Europe or Asia.
Venture-funded and publicly-traded companies in the United States often do wonderful research on advanced technologies, but once feasibility is demonstrated, the product development process is short-changed. Everything is about shipping a product, regardless of how well it works, and meeting quarterly forecasts for raw revenue. In an odd market distortion, customer satisfaction with the product is an afterthought, something that can be addressed down the road. The barrier to entry for competitors is often so high that only huge companies can realistically enter the market and compete, and companies figure that in the meantime, they can drive up their stock prices by shipping inferior product. (This probably also explains the exceptions to the generality I've made here--companies that buck this trend like Apple are in competitive consumer markets where the barrier to entry is not so high and ignoring customer satisfaction is fatal.) It's not that their engineers can't make a better product for their customers; they are not allowed to do so.
The same pressures apply to safety, as seen most dramatically in the Deep Water Horizon disaster. Engineers knew how to deal with a situation such as what has happened--but it required spending money on a remote-control shut-off valve that would have been effectively mandatory in Brazil and Norway. Call it a regulatory issue or a corporate issue, but don't call it an engineering issue--the problem was foreseeable and a solution was available that would have had only a very small impact on the overall cost of the operation.
There's also a self-perpetuating effect within these companies. As engineers observe that quality and ethical practices are regarded by their employers as unimportant or even downright undesirable, they respond by no longer even trying to follow such practices. The culture of the companies becomes one of emphasizing short-term financial returns over any other consideration.
The net effect is that the public sees a shoddy product or safety disaster, and they begin to regard engineers in society as incompetent and incapable of doing things correctly. The United States has gotten to this point, as the panel tonight on the NewsHour expressed. Until the corporate environment in the country somehow changes, I don't see the impression ever changing back.
A fair portion of the discussion focused on the lack of public confidence in engineers, and the idea that "poor engineering" has been a hallmark of the United States for a generation. Bill Nye took it back "all the way back to the Ford Pinto" and emphasized the two space shuttle disasters as destroying the pride in engineering that had once existed in the country following the NASA missions to the moon in the 1960's and 1970's. Jaffe pointed out that many mathematicians and engineers are going to Wall Street and financial firms instead of working in engineering, a phenomenon I have written about before on this blog.
Yet, I think there is a separate trend here being highlighted in talking about the quality of engineering. It's not just that higher salaries are luring qualified "quantitative people" away from engineering, it's also that the corporate environment in United States (and apparently in Great Britain, if BP is any indication) explicitly eschews good engineering in favor of cutting corners to achieve short-term financial results.
As I think about my personal experiences in engineering, both in the companies I have worked for and in partner companies that I came to know and companies that friends have worked for, there have been two kinds of companies that actually emphasized making a well-engineered product that would meet market demand (and hence make money in the medium to long-term). The first were privately-held companies, both large and small, in the United States whose executives did not have to worry about what happened to a stock price each quarter. The second were foreign companies, based in either continental Europe or Asia.
Venture-funded and publicly-traded companies in the United States often do wonderful research on advanced technologies, but once feasibility is demonstrated, the product development process is short-changed. Everything is about shipping a product, regardless of how well it works, and meeting quarterly forecasts for raw revenue. In an odd market distortion, customer satisfaction with the product is an afterthought, something that can be addressed down the road. The barrier to entry for competitors is often so high that only huge companies can realistically enter the market and compete, and companies figure that in the meantime, they can drive up their stock prices by shipping inferior product. (This probably also explains the exceptions to the generality I've made here--companies that buck this trend like Apple are in competitive consumer markets where the barrier to entry is not so high and ignoring customer satisfaction is fatal.) It's not that their engineers can't make a better product for their customers; they are not allowed to do so.
The same pressures apply to safety, as seen most dramatically in the Deep Water Horizon disaster. Engineers knew how to deal with a situation such as what has happened--but it required spending money on a remote-control shut-off valve that would have been effectively mandatory in Brazil and Norway. Call it a regulatory issue or a corporate issue, but don't call it an engineering issue--the problem was foreseeable and a solution was available that would have had only a very small impact on the overall cost of the operation.
There's also a self-perpetuating effect within these companies. As engineers observe that quality and ethical practices are regarded by their employers as unimportant or even downright undesirable, they respond by no longer even trying to follow such practices. The culture of the companies becomes one of emphasizing short-term financial returns over any other consideration.
The net effect is that the public sees a shoddy product or safety disaster, and they begin to regard engineers in society as incompetent and incapable of doing things correctly. The United States has gotten to this point, as the panel tonight on the NewsHour expressed. Until the corporate environment in the country somehow changes, I don't see the impression ever changing back.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)