This thesis is an attempt to clarify a concept we are all familiar with, engineers and non-engineers alike. It shows that, behind the first impression of familiarity, there is a Concept Analysis of an Engineering Failure: wide range of intuitions about failure which are not easily reconciled. While the ensuing ambiguities and lack of clarity may be tolerated in ordinary circumstances, engineers strive for precision and efficiency. These qualities become even more relevant given that engineering activities are increasingly carried out by multidisciplinary and multicultural teams. The chapters included in this thesis illustrate that pursuing conceptual clarification may result in valuable contributions to the existing literature. The identification of tacit assumptions that, so far, have gone undetected can help bringing some degree of order and unity to discussions that have shown a tendency towards fragmentation along disciplinary boundaries. As a whole, these chapters constitute the preliminaries of a conceptual framework that, once supplemented with additional engineering and philosophical contributions, may embrace the multiple facets of failure; a rather complex tangle of phenomena which, despite engineersí efforts to rein it in, is not going to disappear from the engineering agenda anytime soon. Luca Del Frate Del Luca Failure: Analysis of an ‘Wonder en is Engineering Concept gheen wonder’ Luca Del Frate Simon Stevin Series in the Philosophy of in the Philosophy Series Technology Stevin Simon Simon Stevin Series in the Philosophy of Technology Failure Analysis of an Engineering Concept Failure Analysis of an Engineering Concept Proefschrift ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor aan de Technische Universiteit Delft, op gezag van de Rector Magnificus prof. ir. K.C.A.M. Luyben voorzitter van het College voor Promoties, in het openbaar te verdedigen op dinsdag 28 januari 2014 om 15.00 uur door Luca DEL FRATE Laurea in filosofia, Università degli Studi di Padova geboren te Palmanova, Italië Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor: Prof. dr. ir. P.A. Kroes Co-promotoren: Dr. P.E. Vermaas Dr. M.P.M. Franssen Samenstelling promotiecommissie Rector Magnificus, Technische Universiteit Delft, voorzitter Prof. dr. ir. P.A. Kroes, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor Dr. P.E. Vermaas, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Dr. M.P.M. Franssen, Technische Universiteit Delft, copromotor Prof. dr. ir. M. Boon, Universiteit Twente Prof. dr. S.O. Hansson, Kungliga Tekniska Högskolan Prof. dr. C.W. Johnson, University of Glasgow Prof. dr. ir. P.H.A.J.M. van Gelder, Technische Universiteit Delft Prof. dr. ir. I.R. van de Poel, Technische Universiteit Delft, reservelid © Luca Del Frate, 2014 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing of the publisher. editors: Peter Kroes and Anthonie Meijers ISBN: 978-90-386-3542-2 ISSN: 1574-941X Contents List of papers vii Acknowledgements ix 1 Introduction 1 1.1. Multiplicity of definitions 5 1.2. Life Cycle Engineering and the evolving concept of failure 8 1.3. A dual audience 11 1.4. Learning from failures and beyond 16 2 Towards a Trans-disciplinary Concept of Failure for Integrated Product Development 23 Abstract 23 2.1. Introduction 23 2.2. From the sequential model to Integrated Product Development 25 2.3. The cross-functional failure domain 31 2.4. Criteria 35 2.5. Definitions’ assessment 42 2.6. A tentative trans-disciplinary definition of failure 44 2.7. Conclusions 45 Appendix: Failure definitions 47 Appendix 2: Additional failure definitions 49 3 Failure of Engineering Artifacts: A Life Cycle approach 53 Abstract 53 3.1. Introduction 53 3.2. The traditional approach on failure 56 3.3. Four basic assumptions of the traditional approach 60 3.4. Beyond the traditional approach 64 3.5. From one customer to many stakeholders 69 3.6. A new definition of failure 74 3.7. The life cycle approach in action 81 3.8. Conclusion 88 v 4 Preliminaries to a Formal Ontology of Failure of Engineering Artifacts 91 Abstract 91 4.1. Introduction 91 4.2. The traditional definition: Function-based failure 94 4.3. Specification-based failure 99 4.4. Material-based failure 101 4.5. A case story: the mutual independence of the three notions 104 4.6. Discussion of main ontological commitments 106 4.7. Conclusion 108 5 Root Cause as a U-turn 109 Abstract 109 5.1. Introduction 109 5.2. Root cause 111 5.3. Backward-looking approach 116 5.4. Forward-looking approach 125 5.5. Root cause as a U-turn 127 5.6. Conclusion 132 6 Learning from Failure: Not so Paradoxical After All 135 Abstract 135 6.1. Introduction 135 6.2. Paradigms of learning: Roebling and Co. 139 6.3. Defining failures and successes in engineering 144 6.4. Ambiguities of learning in engineering 148 6.5. The learning hypothesis disambiguated 157 6.6. Conclusion 176 Bibliography 181 Summary 201 Samenvatting 205 About the author 211 Simon Stevin (1548-1620) 213 vi List of papers Chapter 2 Del Frate, L., Franssen, M., and Vermaas, P. E. (2011) 'Towards a trans- disciplinary concept of failure for Integrated Product Development', in: International Journal of Product Development 14 (1-4): 72–95. Chapter 3 Del Frate, L. (2013) 'Failure of Engineering Artifacts: A Life Cycle Approach', in: Science and Engineering Ethics 19 (3): 913–944. Chapter 4 Del Frate, L. (2012) 'Preliminaries to a formal ontology of failure of engineering artifacts', in: Donnelly, M. and Guizzardi, G. (eds.), Formal Ontology in Information Systems: Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference (FOIS 2012), IOS Press, Amsterdam: 117–130. Chapter 5 Del Frate, L., Zwart, S. D., and Kroes, P. A. (2011) 'Root cause as a U-turn', in: Engineering Failure Analysis 18 (2): 747–758. Chapter 6 A version of this chapter will be submitted to the journal Technology and Culture. Maarten Franssen, Peter Kroes, Pieter Vermaas, and Sjoerd Zwart are acknowl- edged for granting permission to publish the co-authored papers in this dissertation. vii Acknowledgements Doing a PhD-project is a journey, a long, sometimes bumpy journey full of surprises, funny episodes, and interesting people. Admittedly, the PhD-journey analogy has been made so many times that it has become a cliché. Nevertheless, I think it is a very appropriate analogy, especially if you consider the amount of travel that working in academia today implies. Moreover, I personally associate some of the most vivid memories of this PhD with travelling. Definitely the most memorable was my second journey to Japan, in February 2012. I was going there for a conference together with Peter Kroes, my promotor, who had been invited as a keynote speaker. Our destination was Sendai, the capital of Miyagi Prefec- ture. Less than a year before, the 11th of March 2011, the area was struck by the massive Tohoku earthquake and the following tsunami. Indeed, Sendai is located about 100 Km north of the infamous Fukushima nuclear power plant and some of the damage was still visible around the conference venue itself in the form of long and wide cracks running along walls and staircases (everybody reassured us the buildings were totally safe, though). On the second day of our trip we were invited to visit the coastal areas to the south and see with our own eyes what happened there. It was a cold and rainy day and before us stood a vast area of complete destruction. In that location the gigantic wave reached as high as 17 meters. Only houses built above that line survived, everything else had been swept away. Such was the amount of debris that after one year of work even the super-efficient Japanese were still busy with the clean-up. Although we had already seen plenty of images of that kind on TV, walking through that deserted place and witnessing the admirable dignity of our Japanese hosts made a great impression on us. But that was not the end of our journey and the following days we enjoyed the warmth of Japanese hospitality. We were shown around, visited beautiful temples, abundantly explored the local cuisine, and took a ride on the mighty Shinkansen, the bullet train. Even though it was a short trip, the combination of contrasting experiences and emotions made me realize that, besides being a talented philosopher (which I already knew him to be), Peter is also a wonderful travel companion. His enthusiasm is contagious and because of his genuine passion for learning there is never shortage of subjects for conversation. And he ix has a gift for finding the right words for almost every occasion, both for the good days and for the less good ones. Thanks Peter for being such a great promotor. Pieter Vermaas, co-promotor, has been my daily supervisor, but his contribu- tion has been much greater than this description might suggest. By virtue of example, and by challenging my ideas with provoking questions he has been a key figure in my PhD, and I wish to thank him for all the support and under- standing; not to mention the good laughs. Many thanks also to Maarten Franssen, co-promotor, for all the fascinating and wide-ranging conversations, which were always enlightened by his impressive philosophical acumen. During my research, I took part in the EuJoint project, an international exchange project on engineering ontologies, and I visited two of the participating institutions. Thus, I would like to thank everyone at the Laboratory for Applied Ontology (Trento, Italy) which I visited in April 2011, particularly Nicola Guarino and Stefano Borgo for the kind hospitality and the stimulating comments on my work.