Introduction
Petroski (1996) defines engineering as the avoidance of failure. The definition encapsulates the overall theme of Henry Petroski’s book “Invention by Design” (Petroski, 1996). To a large extent, the engineer’s job is to examine how products and systems can fail to develop solutions to bypass sources of failure. The success of any innovation largely depends on the capability of engineers to foresee collapses and design appropriate solutions. The henry Petroski book “Invention by Design” used multiple principles and examples such as “Paper Clips and Design,” “Pencil Points and Analysis,” “Aluminum Cans and Failure,” “Zippers and Development,” “Bridges and Politics” to explain why engineering focuses so heavily on failure.
Paper clip and analysis
Petroski suggests that paper clip is among the simplest forms of engineering. However, the simplest engineering devices can harbor significant mystery ad provide less, which can be used to solve engineering problems in society. In 1899, William Middlebrook of Waterbury developed the first paperclip dubbed the “gem clip.” The clip has significant engineering features that enable it to be an effective tool. Nevertheless, every engineering device or item faces various types of challenges if left unaddressed can affect the functionality and usability of the invention. To ensure the continuous applicability of various types of inventions, engineers are required to focus on the problem consistently. In so doing, engineers will be able to develop inventions that will be successful with a minimal margin of failure. This point is expressed by Henry Petroski’s book “Invention by Design.” The first paper clip, “gem clip,” had positive usage was originally intended primarily for attaching tickets to fabric, although the patent recognized that it could be used to attach papers. Nevertheless, the “gem clip” had designed flaws, which could have inhibited or hindered its usability in the proceeding decades or centuries.
To ensure its functionality, most of the engineers focused on the design flaws of the “gem clip” that could lead to its failure in the market. For example, the initial paper clip design could only be used one way; it did not “slip on,” slipped from documents, and did not hold a significant amount of files or paper. The heavy focus on the design failures of the “gem clip” served as an opportunity for improvement. Specifically, different paper clips were innovated to cater to varying needs and usability. For instance, Dr. Gary K. Michelson re-designed the gem clip by focusing on the design failures, thus resulting in the innovation of the “New Paper Clip.” Gary K. Michelson’s new design could “go in” on either side while holding steady to the items without slipping (Petroski, 1996).
Similarly, Suzy Chung Hirze focused on addressing the initial “gem clip” failure and proposed a new design dubbed the “Paper Clip with Vertical Panel.” This clip ensured that the “pinned” document was firm without tearing the papers when stuffed in large capacity. Hence, demonstrating that new technical innovation displaces “old” or existing technology provides significant benefits or advantages. Therefore, improvement for opportunity is the primary reason engineering focuses so heavily on failure, as demonstrated by the paper clip design.
Pencil Points and Analysis
Petroski’s book “Invention by Design” utilizes the evolution of the pencil to elaborate on engineering processes. A pencil is perceived as a simple object, enhanced through studies in material composition, geometry, and manufacturing methodology. Petroski’s primary point is to educate or create awareness among readers to demonstrate how common implements can reveal how engineers convert thoughts into practical inventions. In the book, Petroski shows that engineers cannot primarily depend on creative design or mathematics to solve most engineering problems (Petroski, 1996). He emphasized the need for engineers to examine their ideas by considering the design challenges, physical imperfections, among other failures of the material society. The pencil is a seemingly remarkable product, which is helpful for the day-to-day needs of the community. It possesses numerous weaknesses, which, when scrutinized, can be beneficial in providing solutions to contemporary issues. For example, the sharpening of pencil tends to weaken the critical area that provided support. Furthermore, if the pencil is badly warped or dropped on a hard surface, the lead inside the wooden case becomes broken, weakening it.
Moreover, engineers understand that every item or invention is prone to weaknesses, no matter how simple. Understanding such a miniature or common problem in implementation used in a day-to-day life requires proper examination of an item’s possible anticipated failures or malfunctions. The unanswered questions and “nagging” play an essential role in motivating engineers to assess a given problem(s) further. Coherently, engineers are required to be alert and reflective to examine all possible causes of anticipated failure. Such thorough analysis ensures that an engineer does not overlook the commonality of features among simple inventions. This is because there are innovations, which do not require fundamental changes to their design or use, but their usability can reduce over a given period. However, analyzing the key areas where failure is likely to occur can be critical in enabling engineers to solve the anticipated problem without making advanced or complex changes to the device, item, or invention. Therefore, the presence of nagging or unanswered questions of simplified engineering marvels explains why engineering focuses so heavily on failure.
Aluminum Cans and Failure
There are varying dimensions in engineering. However, failure as a concept is present in all engineering dimensions (Petroski, 1996). Nevertheless, the success of any engineering invention relies on the ability of the inventors to anticipate the possible rate of failure based on the intended purpose. For example, a pencil can break when used; a bridge can collapse under enormous pressure; cantilever beams can fail/ break, or computers malfunction due to malware or viruses. The concept of anticipating failure as a means of fostering engineering has been explained sufficiently by (Petroski 1996) using aluminum cans. The initial cans used to store food and beverages were made from iron. Their design made it difficult to open because of weight as a result of the iron. The introduction of aluminum encountered this challenge can in 1922. The engineers noted that aluminum can was more reliable and conducive compared to iron. Specifically, the aluminum can were stiffer and thinner, which reduced their weight. Additionally, the aluminum cans could resist pressure for a lengthy period while making them easy to be opened.
However, the new aluminum cans were noted to have issues that could lead to their ineffectiveness. The aluminum cans were distributed with a “church key” that allowed consumers to open and serve the food or beverage. The developer’s challenge was to combine the aluminum can work together with the “church key” to develop the “pull tab.” The “church key” solved much of the failure or problems of the initial aluminum cans through the new “pull tab” design (Petroski, 1996). Riveting the “church key” on top of the aluminum cans solved the initial problem. Still, the creators can anticipate problems with the “church key”; for instance, it cannot be opened if it is lost or misplaced. This means that the failures of an invention can occur in various forms, such as technologically, environmentally aesthetically, or ergonomically. The above argument demonstrated how each invention requires the creators or the innovator to consistently examine any possible problems affecting their invention in the current or future markets. Therefore, the failure of aluminum can depend upon numerous improvements and development on design and functionality explains why many of the engineers tend to focus so heavily on failure when innovating.
Zippers and Development
Initially, cloths used extensive forms of hooks and buttons, both formed part of the clothing fastener. The traditional buttons and hooks made wearing cloth a time-consuming process. Nonetheless, the introduction of the zipper in 1851 played a vital role in how people wore clothes. It is considered as perceived as the subtle innovation, which has transformed human society. Petroski’s book “Invention by Design” (Petroski, 1996) uses the zipper as a tool to elaborate on the development of innovation and its implication on engineering innovation. In the book, the latter outlines various critical developments, which have been instrumental in facilitating engineering innovativeness in creating the modern zipper. In 1889, Whitcomb L. Judson received a patent for his innovation in developing the first zipper. In 1902, Whitcomb L. Judson developed a new form of the zipper that was more reliable and economical; it intruded on the concept of the “chain-making machine.” This implies that the design incorporated the “c-curity” that enabled the zipper to be manually looped in several extensions. However, it was proven ineffective because of the tendency of the zipper spring to open.
Furthermore, it highlights how the Whitcomb L. Judson innovation was deemed inadequate after other designers such as Gideon Sundback and B.F. Goodrich improved on the design of the zipper. The latter undertook extensive research to develop zippers that did not have “loos teeth,” rusting, sticking, and snagging associated with the previous models/ designs. The “evolution of the zipper” highlights the importance of research development as a tool for overcoming future problems associated with innovation. The continuous improvement of any invented product or design requires the ability of an engineer to oversee the need for developing a new product that can cater to the emerging demands of the market. Therefore, the need for evolutionary and revolutionary innovation development explains why engineering focuses so heavily on failure as a need for the success of invented products/ items.
Bridges and Politics
Petroski’s book “Invention by Design” (Petroski, 1996) examines how politics mediates the relationship between engineering and bridge designing and construction. Ideally, constructing a larger built environment such as roads and bridges takes an extended period. Petroski (1996) cites politics as a significant component that impact how engineers start and finish the construction of any bridges. The book highlights some of the examples where politics has hindered or interfered with the constructs of the bridge in various parts of the United States. Practically, engineers tend to work with the proposed schedule from the start to the end of a given construction project. However, in large-scale projects such as bridge constructions, other variables tend to impact the timeline and quality of the construction in the long run. This means that politics can impact the success of bridge construction when all other engineering variables are constant.
Coherently, Petroski (1996) points out that in the event where there is a disaster such as the collapse of a bridge. The common conclusion is usually criticizing or judging the design of the bridge. However, it cites that there are agents “outside” engineering such as politics, which could be directly linked to the failure of a given built infrastructure such as a bridge. Much of the failures could emanate from poor planning and construction policies advocated and passed by the political class. Overall, the themes of “bridge and police” have been utilized by (Petroski 1996) to examine how events/”things” can “go wrong” engineers are required to think about how politics can catalyze the failure of a large scale project.
Conclusion
Petroski’s book “Invention by Design” discusses simplified and complex principles and examples that can explain why engineers tend to focus on failures to solve engineering challenges. Specifically, the Paper clip and analysis show how improvement for opportunity elaborate on why engineers focus on failure. Coherently, Pencil Points and Analysis demonstrate how the presence of nagging or unanswered questions explains why engineering focuses so heavily on failure. Additionally, the principles of Aluminum Cans and Failure, Zippers and Development, and Bridges and Politics have been used to show why failure is an important aspect of engineers able to solve problems.
Reference
Petroski, H. (1996). Invention by design: How engineers get from thought to thing. Harvard University Press.
Leave a Reply