EERI Distinguished lecture

1
(No Transcript)
2
Earthquake Mitigation Implementation A
Sociotechnical System Approach

• Understanding the context for implementation in a
  complex environment with competing worldviews
• Earthquake Engineering Research Institute
• 2003 Distinguished Lecture
• by
• William J. Petak
• Presented at
• Purdue University
• September 30, 2003

3
A distinguished engineer observed

• Unless engineers appreciate the social context
  of technology . and the role of human
  performance . they are unable to deal with
  demons that undermine the intended benefits of
  engineered structures..
• By both inclination and preparation, many
  engineers approach the real world as though it
  were uninhabited ... Engineering is more than
  manipulation of intricate signs and symbols the
  social and environmental context should also be
  integrated into the engineering curriculum.

Wenk, Edward, 1996, December, Teaching
Engineering as a Social Science, ASEE PRISM, pp.
24 28
4

• Edward Wenk, Professor Emeritus of Engineering,
  University of Washington
• First Science Advisor to the U.S. Congress
• Science Advisor to Presidents Kennedy, Johnson,
  and Nixon

5
Education for the Profession Formerly Known as
Engineering, January 24, 2003

• The basic engineering model is rapidly being
  displaced by much more complex interactions of
  technoscience a constant process of
  interaction in interdisciplinary projects where
  the projects, not the disciplines, define the
  terms of engagement.
• Students need to be educated in an environment
  where they get used to justifying and explaining
  their approach to solving problems and also to
  dealing with people who have other ways of
  defining and solving problems.

• Rosalind Williams, Director, MIT Program in
  Science, Technology and Society.- Chronicle of
  Higher Education

6
What do these statements have to do with
implementation of earthquake mitigation
technologies for lifelines?
7
I believe that..

• A limited worldview and partial perspective of
  disciplines involved generate actions that are
  unsustainable and
• as Professor Wenk has suggested
• In order for engineers to effectively engage the
  political process, they need to understand the
  interactions between technology and social
  processes

Gunderson, Lance H. and C. S. Holling, 2002,
PANARCHY Understanding Transformations in Human
and Natural Systems, Island press, Washington,
D.C.
8
The underlying problem

• Collectively and historically, we have been
  pretty good at reducing the earthquake risk for
  new structures and systems
• In the next few decades, the greatest opportunity
  for significantly improving seismic safety is by
  mitigating the risks associated with existing
  structures and systems
• However, implementing mitigation for existing
  structures and systems has proven to be
  problematic, even in shaky California

9
In the current approach . . .

• Earthquake risk problem is approached with a
  technical solution focus
• Mitigation advocates tend to promote narrow
  technological fixes as optimal best solutions
• System performance is complex - simplified by
  dividing into subsystems until a problem is
  arrived at that can be solved - using rational
  engineering methods
• Search for the one best way - optimal solution
  provides limited ability to address tradeoffs
  related to expenditures for seismic safety

10

• Advocates have been slow to learn how to devise
  policies and programs that are acceptable in a
  dynamic system with multiple worldviews -- a
  system in which both the problem and the decision
  context are continually morphing

11
Heres the problem . . .

• Engineering, technology, economics, and
  organizational disciplines each have tested
  insights, but they are all only partial
  perspectives
• Each generates actions that, by themselves, do
  not necessarily improve community resilience to
  earthquakes
• The need is to develop integrative approaches
  that combine disciplinary strengths while filling
  the gaps in knowledge and understanding between
  the disciplines

12
A sociotechnical systems approach provides a
framework for understanding the context for
mitigation implementation in a complex
environment with competing worldviews

13
Sociotechnical System View
ORGANIZATIONAL ASPECTS
PRIMARY ORGANIZATIONAL ACTORS Agencies,
Investors, Institutions, Industry
SECONDARY ORGANIZATIONS Communities, Policy
makers, Regulators, Lenders, Insurers, Unions
SOCIO-TECHNICAL SETTING
PHYSICAL SETTING New and Existing Structures
and Lifeline Systems
POLITICAL ACTIVITY
DECISION
TECHNOLOGY Performance Based Engineering
INDIVIDUAL ACTORS Advocates, Opponents
TECHNO-PERSONAL SETTING
TECHNICAL ASPECTS
PERSONAL ASPECTS
Adapted from Linstone, H., 1984, Multiple
Perspectives for Decision Making Bridging the
Gap Between Analysis and Action,
Elisevier-Science Publications, New York, pg 40
14
Why a sociotechnical system approach?

• It is a question of perspective -
• Focus on multiple perspectives - problems and
  issues that require application of engineering
  technology, but within a social, economic and
  political context
• versus
• Focus limited to determining the single optimized
  engineering best solution based solely on data,
  quantification of information and models bounded
  by a limited number of elements

15
A sociotechnical systems approach

• Requires distinguishing between how to address
  the earthquake problem and what the problem is
  understood to be from a -
• Technical perspective
• Organizational/Institutional perspective
• Personal/Individual perspective
• Aids in expanding the worldview of each
  discipline

16
Technical perspective

• System performance is complex - simplified by
  dividing into subsystems until a problem is
  arrived at that can be solved
• Simplification leads to working on a narrow
  problem e.g., beam /column connection
• Important but limited when addressing the greater
  system problem of implementation
• Engineers should be principle advocates how
  community should address earthquake problem

17
Organizational aspects

• Organizations include family, community, state,
  union, and corporation or company - all are
  examples that interact with technology
• Organizations may be formal or informal,
  hierarchical or egalitarian, permanent or
  temporary
• They are the beneficiaries, advocates, opponents,
  and regulators who become involved in
  implementation of mitigation technology

18
Individual aspects

• Individuals matter - decisions reflect
  personality, values and preferences - helps
  identify the characteristics and behavior of
  organizations
• May be viewed as visionaries, realists,
  promoters, obstructionists, and operators
• Activities may be as important as those of
  organizations
• Individuals are unique and judge earthquake
  problems and solutions based on personal
  experiences, beliefs, intuition, and self
  interest

19
Political culture

• Political action represents well organized
  interplay between organizations and individuals
• Mitigation is to protect a community and its
  citizens mitigation is in the public interest
• Mitigation of private sector economic loss -
  generally considered the private sectors
  responsibility
• Highly technical information is often discounted
  in favor of social interests and values

20
Free market context

• Philosophical orientation and basis for
  mitigation implementation decision making
• Organizations free to work to gain market share
  and maximize return on investment
• Property owners responsible for managing their
  risks
• Governmental intervention regulation should be
  only when absolutely necessary
• Regulations, rules, ordinances are for protection
  of the public interest

21
EARTHQUAKE HAZARD SUBSYSTEM ----------------------
- EVENT AND INTENSITY PROBABILITY AT LOCATION
BUILT ENVIRONMENT SUBSYSTEM
---------------------------------
COMMUNITY/ORGANIZATIONAL FUNCTIONAL
PRODUCTIVITY REQUIREMENTS
POLITICAL, ECONOMIC, SOCIETAL
SUBSYSTEM -------------------------------- RESOURC
E ALLOCATION STAKEHOLDER INTERESTS
DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION SUBSYSTEM --------------
--- ENGINEERING PERFORMANCE AND COST ANALYSIS

TRADE OFF
LEGAL AND REGULATORY SUBSYSTEM
----------------------------------- FEDERAL AND
STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES
MITIGATION IMPLEMENTATION DECISION MAKING
SUBSYSTEM
COMMUNITY - ORGANIZATION IMPLEMENTATION
DECISIONS ACCEPTABLE?
YES
NO
22
Sociotechnical approach

• Provides a context and perspective that
  facilitates addressing earthquake mitigation, not
  only as an engineering problem to be solved, but
  also as organizational and community problems and
  solutions associated with the implementation of
  mitigation technology.

23
Mitigation policy making context

• Community sustainability goals/objectives
• Community understanding - objective vs. perceived
  risk
• Political environment/capacity who pays and who
  benefits equitable distribution of benefits and
  costs
• Constituency knowledge and support
• Economic conditions

24
For organizations institutions

• The world is seen from the point of view of how
  mitigation implementation affects their
  individual business cost, disruption, liability
  (especially for deregulated entities)
• Implementation of mitigation measures must
  correspond to current priorities, standard
  operating procedures and practices
• Each will have a different perspective on
  problems and solutions and their impacts (public
  owned vs. private)

25

• Ambiguity and uncertainty cause high moments of
  inertia - tend not to act until confident of what
  to do next then often follow standard operating
  procedures reinforcing the status quo
• Decisions are often based on power
• Return on investment of scarce capital is key to
  survival for private organizations
• Knowing who pays and who benefits is key to
  political success
• Conflict in determining responsibility for cost -
  public versus private e.g., hospitals

26
Organizational decision factors

• Perception of Risk
• Technology
• How reliable the mitigation
• Rate of change of knowledge
• Regulations/standards
• Complexity of retrofit
• Service level requirements
• Construction requirements
• Other requirements
• Hazardous waste management
• Community disruption
• Service quantity and quality
• Union rules

• Financial Capacity / Economy
• Market Conditions
• Availability of Capital
• Debt Capacity
• Liquidity
• Cost of Mitigation
• Occupancy Factors
• Equity
• Distribution of costs and benefits
• Service demands
• Insurance
• Availability, Coverage, Cost

27
Mitigation implementation decision grid
a
Sociotechnical system approach Implementation
decision based on integration of sound technical
analysis and stakeholder/organizational values
and decision context Informed process increases
chance of successful mitigation implementation
Empirical approach High degree of technical
analysis / low stakeholder participation
"nerdy analysis without buy-in. Mitigation
implementation success limited when
organizational factors and decision context are
not considered
High
Technical / Engineering Analysis
Political approach Low degree of technical
analysis / high degree of stakeholder
participation "feel good" process without
assurance of technically adequate mitigation
No winners Low degree of technical analysis /
low level of stakeholder participation results
in mitigation deferred to some later time
Low
High
Organizational Participation
28
Given this understanding, the problem - solution
context becomes critically important

• Mitigation technology will be implemented when
  linked with a strategy that matches the needs of
  the sociotechnical environment
• A continuous process improvement approach to
  mitigation will help recognize and overcome
  barriers through collaboration with stakeholders
• Biggest challenge one that technology cannot
  solve, but must acknowledge the unique context
  in which cities decide what and how to regulate
  and the context in which organizations make
  decisions

29
We have learned that

• What appeared to be simple is not context is
  critical
• Effective approaches are integrative they bridge
  disciplines, interests, and scales of analysis
• Implementation does not necessarily follow policy
  making
• Implementation is politics continued by other
  means

• Each stakeholder approach is built upon a
  particular worldview scientific, technological,
  organizational or political
• Compromises and mediation among stakeholders is
  irrelevant if it is not based on an understanding
  of the multiple dimensions of the problem

30
Finally, we believe that . . .

• Successful policies and investments for seismic
  safety require a worldview that facilitates
  integration of the geophysical and technological
  with the economic and organizational
  -institutional theory and practice
• Methods need to be developed to help integrate
  across disciplines to better understand systems
  of linked geophysical, technological, economic
  and institutional processes necessary to increase
  the likelihood of successful mitigation
  implementation

31
What is needed, then, is

• For all participants to develop a respect and
  understanding of the perspectives and worldviews
  of each others discipline
• Recognition that reducing earthquake risk to
  lifelines is a complex problem that may require
  several alternative solutions, each of which can
  lead to new problems
• Creation of a process that supports collaboration
  among the disciplines and stakeholders involved
  -- engineers, scientists, politicians,
  organizational decision makers, and property
  owners

32
To accomplish this, we need design professionals
who will . . .

• Design bridges
• Bridges to help span the gap between disciplines
• Design connections
• Connections to ensure systems that are resilient
  when subjected to political and economic stress
• Design networks
• Networks that facilitate communication and
  understanding

33
And.

• Engineer advocates for earthquake mitigation who
  understand and acknowledge the interactions
  between technology and social processes necessary
  to effectively engage in a collaborative
  political process

34
Multiple Contexts
Political Context
Engineering Technology Context
Organizational Context
Sociotechnical system
Free Market Context
35
Thank you for your attention.