First of all to start analyze this case study we can consider a major factors that can influence our thoughts, such as, technical factors (engineering), human factors (unprofessional behavior), organizational factors (mis-communication between various organisms involved and careless managerial practices) and socio-cultural factors (Negligent Local/State).
After reading the text and searching more about this event, in our opinion the ultimately responsible for the fatal incident was the engineering design team (G.C.E. International Inc., Daniel M.Duncan, Jack D.Gillum). This engineering firm was found responsible for the change of a structure in the building (change from one-rod to a two-rod system).
Data also show us that even if Havens failed to review the shop drawings or to specifically note the box beam hanger rod connections, the engineers were still responsible for the final check. Evidence showed us that G.C.E. engineers did not "check" the connection or the atrium roof collapse, and that they placed too much reliance on Havens.
An engineer has always to put the safety of the public above all else and G.C.E. failed in this. The engineers neglected to check the safety and load capacity of the hanger connection to begin with. Thus, with the Havens change in the design (from a single to a double hanger rod box beam connection), the engineering team was unsuccessful because they did not look over the shop drawings one last time.
The engineers at GCE had a professional obligation and duty to take into consideration the possibility that Havens Steel may have at the end a disregarded problem with the design or design change.
For these reasons, we consider the G.C.E firm the main responsible for this fatal design flaw.
Does the disputed telephone call matter to the outcome of the case? Why or why not? Explain your answer.
The basic problem in this case was a lack of proper communication between Jack D. Gillum from G.C.E. and Havens Steel.
The process in which GCE revised and approved their drawings was deficien because if the design had gone through the required “process meetings,” the fatal flaw may have been detected and the disaster may have never occurred. And the main cause for this was the disputed telephone call. For this reason, we consider that the telephone call matter a lot to the outcome of the case.
After the change in the design, the Havens Steel Company claims that they informed G.C.E. International Inc. of the alteration, but the engineering firm denies ever receiving such a call for change approval.
However, G.C.E. seal of approval was attached to the revised design drawings and they denied ever receiving such a call from Havens.
The telephone call was the major responsible for the mis-communication between these two organizations: GCE claimed miscommunication because they argued that the drawings prepared and sent to Haven were only preliminary sketches but were interpreted by Havens as finalized drawings. Facilities Management
In terms of meeting building codes, please detail / explain the responsibilities of the following parties:
a) The Engineer
In terms of meeting building codes, the engineer is the main responsible for putting the public´s welfare above everything else. They have to consider the public/client the most important value of the hotel.
An engineer has also defends a design that adhere to the ASCE Engineering Code of Ethics.
In this specific case, the engineers of G.C.E. have also an obligation and duty to take into consideration the possibility that Havens Steel may have mistaken or overlooked a problem with the design.
A Hotel Engineer in this kind of situation has to consider all possible errors that can occurred, checking everything and verifying all details of design. In conclusion, the engineer must assume an ethic position when any change in design involving public...