↓ Skip to main content

Failure of Engineering Artifacts: A Life Cycle Approach

Overview of attention for article published in Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2012
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
58 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Failure of Engineering Artifacts: A Life Cycle Approach
Published in
Science and Engineering Ethics, March 2012
DOI 10.1007/s11948-012-9360-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Luca Del Frate

Abstract

Failure is a central notion both in ethics of engineering and in engineering practice. Engineers devote considerable resources to assure their products will not fail and considerable progress has been made in the development of tools and methods for understanding and avoiding failure. Engineering ethics, on the other hand, is concerned with the moral and social aspects related to the causes and consequences of technological failures. But what is meant by failure, and what does it mean that a failure has occurred? The subject of this paper is how engineers use and define this notion. Although a traditional definition of failure can be identified that is shared by a large part of the engineering community, the literature shows that engineers are willing to consider as failures also events and circumstance that are at odds with this traditional definition. These cases violate one or more of three assumptions made by the traditional approach to failure. An alternative approach, inspired by the notion of product life cycle, is proposed which dispenses with these assumptions. Besides being able to address the traditional cases of failure, it can deal successfully with the problematic cases. The adoption of a life cycle perspective allows the introduction of a clearer notion of failure and allows a classification of failure phenomena that takes into account the roles of stakeholders involved in the various stages of a product life cycle.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 58 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
India 1 2%
Unknown 57 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 16%
Student > Postgraduate 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Student > Bachelor 3 5%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 16 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Engineering 20 34%
Computer Science 3 5%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 2 3%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 3%
Other 12 21%
Unknown 16 28%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 August 2013.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Science and Engineering Ethics
#835
of 947 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#123,751
of 158,673 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Science and Engineering Ethics
#6
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 947 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.3. This one is in the 3rd percentile – i.e., 3% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 158,673 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.