1842
Proceedings of the 18
th
International Conference on Soil Mechanics and Geotechnical Engineering, Paris 2013
correct understanding of the specific results communicated
across the design team therefore becomes necessary.
5 CONCLUSIONS
In the process of civil engineering design there is an intrinsic
tension between cost control, on one side, and quality - intended
as confidence on the performance - on the other side. An
excessive and uncontrolled effort to reduce costs would result in
an unacceptably large uncertainty in the performance of
engineering systems. Larger-than-expected uncertainty may
produce an excessively safe and wasteful design or an unsafe
design. Instances of unsafe design are relatively rare in civil
engineering but the severity of the consequences of failure is
often dramatic. In a world where we should be increasingly
concerned with the human impact on the environment and with
the rapid and irreversible depletion of finite resources a wasteful
design is becoming increasingly unacceptable from the ethical
point of view. A strategy to encourage an ethically balanced
design is the avoidance of “narrow framing” and short term
thinking, in favour of a long term view.
Fragmentation and discontinuity in civil engineering projects
is detrimental to ethical choices and, in many cases, even to the
basic success of the project in strict engineering terms (Muir
Wood 2004). Procurement strategies and forms of contract
should be discussed by the civil engineering community and
rebalanced for a better harmony between commercial and
technical needs.
The uncertainty affecting decision making in geotechnics is
much higher than in other civil engineering disciplines. For this
reason many ethical issues in geotechnics can be seen as ethical
problems of uncertainty and risk communication. In the parts of
codes of conduct concerned with communication the main focus
and current interpretation is on restraining inappropriate
communication. It is here argued that, still maintaining the
integrity, objectivity, accuracy and sobriety requested by the
codes of conduct, a new, urgent need to encourage the positive
side of communication is emerging. This need for increased and
improved communication acts at several levels:
- between geotechnical specialist and colleagues from other
disciplines; to avoid misunderstandings (e.g. in the application
of complex design codes)
- between design team and project management, to convey a
realistic perception of uncertainty in the prediction of
performance and programme;
- between Designer (or Engineer, depending on contract
terminology), Contractor and Client (or Employer), in the
various types of contractual arrangements (possibly including
other parties, like checker, regulator, etc.), to maximise the
probability of project success;
- between geotechnical as well as – more generally – civil
engineers and multiple stakeholders and decision makers in the
larger society; to ensure technical issues are understood by the
public and rational decisions are made on the basis of credible
and serious arguments.
The recognition of the key role that uncertainty plays in
geotechnical engineering should result in practical steps being
made to improve the capability of technical professionals in
assessing and communicating risk. This paper suggests that the
creation of databases recording the geotechnical performance of
structures and infrastructures would offer valuable information,
providing “base rates” to the professionals to support decision
making during design.
Since a considerable amount of engineering judgement is
integral to the activity of the geotechnical engineer it is here
argued that the basic cognitive psychology principles associated
with the quantification of expert opinion (Kahneman
et al.
1982) should be taught to students enrolled in geotechnical
engineering courses and offered to experienced engineers in
continuous professional development training events.
Finally, the promotion of a culture of trust (Muir Wood
2004) is a fundamental ingredient for the success of civil
engineering projects both in terms of commercial reward of the
parties which are involved directly and in terms of benefit to
society and the environment.
6 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author is grateful to his employer for allowing this paper to
be written. The content of this work is, in any case, an
expression of the author’s thoughts; it is not meant to represent
the position of the author’s employer. The author wishes to
thank his colleague Dr Iain Tromans for the constructive
discussion and the factual help which facilitated the preparation
of this paper.
7 REFERENCES
American Society of Civil Engineers, 2006.
Code of Ethics
. ASCE,
Reston.
Armstrong J., Dixon R. & Robinson S, 1999.
The decision makers:
ethics for engineers
. Thomas Telford, London.
Association of Geotechnical Specialists, 2007.
Code of Conduct for Site
Investigation
. AGS, London.
Bond A. & Harris A., 2008.
Decoding Eurocode 7
. Taylor & Francis,
London.
Howland J., 1982.
Little Yellow Book
. CH2M Hill, Englewood.
Institution of Civil Engineers, 2008.
ICE Code of Professional Conduct.
ICE, London.
Inui T., Chau C.Y.K, Soga K., Nicholson D. & O’Riordan N., 2011.
Embodied energy and gas emissions of retaining wall structures.
Journal of Geotechnical and Geoenvironmental Engineering ASCE
137(10):958-967.
Kahneman D., Slovic P. & Tversky A., 1982.
Judgment Under
Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases
. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, UK.
Muir Wood A. & Duffy F., 1991. Society’s needs. In
Education for the
Built Environment
, Seminar, Madingley Hall, Cambridge, Arup.
Muir Wood A., 2004.
Civil Engineering in Context
. Thomas Telford,
London.
