Page 1

Risk in Engineering by Keith McGrane

Executive Summary This research project was carried out in conjunction with Professional Engineering (N=120) and aimed to identify any systematic patterns in the disposition towards risk of survey participants using a taxonomy of Risk Types in a sample of engineers. It was anticipated that those working in the engineering profession would tend towards a specific risk profile due to the significant consequences involved in making careless or negligent decisions. The results found that the sample tended to fall into the most risk tolerant Risk Types, being the Composed, Adventurous and Deliberate Types (see below for a description of each).

Introduction: Risk in Engineering The engineering profession recognises that risk is inherent in the activities undertaken by its members. Engineers are tasked with solving real world problems as they arise and the solution to these problems must often satisfy conflicting requirements; efficiency and improved performance might come at a greater cost; safety might add to complexity and take up more time. The optimal engineering solution is the one that considers all such conflicting requirements and this will largely depend on the engineer’s analysis of the level of risk involved. The sheer scope and diversity of engineering makes generalisation about Risk Type difficult. It is a profession in which challenges range from the nuclear industry to ship building and from aerospace to road construction. Nevertheless, all of the engineering specialisms have to deal with risk and to make decisions about tolerances and safety margins. Failures do happen and, when engineers fail, the social and economic costs can be very high. “There will always be failures or disasters as engineers and designers push the boundaries by building taller buildings, longer bridges, or by reaching further into space. Each time there is a failure or disaster, changes are made and regulations introduced only to be outstripped by further developments.” (Nick Spurrier, 2009)

Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

www.psychological-consultancy.com


Risk Types SPONTANEOUS (Average Risk Tolerance) The Spontaneous Type is emotionally expressive and reacts strongly to events. The spontaneity of ‘on the fly’ decisions will always appeal to the excitable side of their nature, but they are also prone to anxiety if things go wrong. High hopes and expectations, combined with a tendency to act hastily risk a cycle of highs and lows in which disappointing outcomes lead to remorse and self-criticism. INTENSE (Low Risk Tolerance) The Intense Type wear their hearts on their sleeves; they are enthusiastic, sincere and involved with people and projects at a personal level. Self-doubt makes them their own most unforgiving critic but it often fuels their drive and determination to succeed. Neither particularly cautious nor impulsive, this type will be less resilient than most but generous in their passion and their commitment. WARY (Very Low Risk Tolerance) The Wary Type is cautious, vigilant and pessimistic and security is always high on their agenda. They will be alert to the risk element of any idea or innovation and dubious about the benefits. Such people have a need for certainty and like to know precisely what they can expect. Fearful of failure, they protect themselves by being conservative, prudent and organised. They should have a respect for convention and tradition and prefer change to be gradual. PRUDENT (Low Risk Tolerance) The Prudent Type will be conservative and conventional in their approach, people that prefer predictability and continuity to change or variety. They are most comfortable ‘doing things by the book’ and operating within established and familiar procedures. Such people prefer change to be gradual and evolutionary rather than radical. Comparatively resilient and unsentimental, this type is careful and provident. DELIBERATE (Average Risk Tolerance) This type will be self-assured and even-tempered. However, because they are highly organised, compliant and well informed about what is going on, they are unlikely to walk into anything unprepared. Any aversion to risk will be practical rather than emotional, a desire to do things in a balanced, sensible and systematic way. This type is not unnerved by radical or extreme proposals, but evaluates them precisely before giving their view. COMPOSED (High Risk Tolerance) This type will always be relatively untroubled, and more even-tempered than most. They seem to take whatever life throws at them and maintain a positive outlook. The Composed Type manages stress well, rides out any turbulence and stays on-task. Not reckless, but not averse to risk either, this type keeps its nerve and sees things through. ADVENTUROUS (Very High Risk Tolerance) This type is resilient and attracted by excitement. They will be open to new experiences and will deal unemotionally with disappointments and unexpected turns of event. Their positive, upbeat outlook, and desire for stimulating challenges allows them to pursue their adventures with equanimity. Not particularly well organised or prudent, their decision-making is likely to be influenced by both lack of anxiety and impulsiveness. CAREFREE (High Risk Tolerance) The Carefree type welcome variety and value their independence and personal autonomy. Not highly methodical but easily diverted to new interests they may not always seem very focused. They are at their best in fast moving situations or when on personal missions that provide a clear sense of direction. Although not naturally methodical or attentive to detail, this type will provide a challenge to dogma and relish opportunities to break new ground.

Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

www.psychological-consultancy.com


                Engineers Risk Type Distribution ,+ '/+*$,!.$0.&!+,*!-,!'&'!+#0(+!&, '/+*$,!.$0.&!+,*!-,!'&'!+#0(+!&, *+* +%($+$'/ +%($+$'/  ,+ *+* The data shows a relatively even distribution of Risk Types in the research sample (see below).

Figure 1. Percentage of each Risk Type in the sample. A further 7.5% of the sample fell into the Typical category; individuals #  "!'"! # " "!""'" "!""'" ' $#! #  "!'"! # " ' $#! whose profiles fall close to the mean on both axes of the Compass, showing no clear!!"%"'"!'! association with any of the Risk Types. %! (!!"""&!" !!!% %! (!!"""&!" !!!% !!"%"'"!'! Our study shows a clear preference towards the Composed, Adventurous and Deliberate Risk Types, combining to account -*+,-0+ '/+$*(**&,'/*+, '%('+.&,-*'-+&$!*,!+#0(+'%!&!&,''-&, -*+,-0+ '/+$*(**&,'/*+, '%('+.&,-*'-+&$!*,!+#0(+'%!&!&,''-&, for 46% of the engineering sample. These Risk Types are associated with+$++-*&*$,!.$0-&,*'-$((*' a self-assured and relatively untroubled approach '*

', &!&*!&+%($ +!+#0(+*++'!,/!, '*

', &!&*!&+%($ +!+#0(+*++'!,/!, +$++-*&*$,!.$0-&,*'-$((*'  to risk. The Composed Type made up the majority of the sample (16.7%) and is associated with high levels of risk tolerance, ,'*!+# '%('+0(%-(, %"'*!,0', +%($  &!+++'!,/!, ! $.$+'*!+#,'$*& $.$+'*!+#,'$*& ,'*!+# '%('+0(%-(, %"'*!,0', +%($  &!+++'!,/!,  ! whereby individuals tend to maintain a calm and positive outlook despite difficulties and setbacks. The Deliberate Type / *0!&!.!-$+,&,'%!&,!&$%&('+!,!.'-,$''#+(!,!5-$,!+&+,#+ $!*,0( / *0!&!.!-$+,&,'%!&,!&$%&('+!,!.'-,$''#+(!,!5-$,!+&+,#+ $!*,0( (13.3%) differentiates from the Composed Type particularly in their focus on being thorough, prepared and well organised   !*&,!,+*'%, '%('+0((*,!-$*$0!&, '%('+0((*,!-$*$0!&, !*'-+'&!&, !*'-+'&!&, '*'- '*'- (*(*&/$$'*&!+ (*(*&/$$'*&!+   !*&,!,+*'%, in their investigations and problem solving. The Adventurous Type (15.8%) is the most risk tolerant type, and tend to be !&, !*!&.+,!,!'&+&(*'$%+'$.!& .&,-*'-+0( !+, %'+,*!+#,'$*&,,0(&,&,' !&, !*!&.+,!,!'&+&(*'$%+'$.!& .&,-*'-+0( !+, %'+,*!+#,'$*&,,0(&,&,' particularly resilient when encountering difficult risks however approach,'*!+#%&%&,$#+, to risk management lacks the same degree (*,!-$*$0*+!$!&,/ &&'-&,*!&!5-$,*!+#+ '/.*,their !*((*' +%* (*,!-$*$0*+!$!&,/ &&'-&,*!&!5-$,*!+#+ '/.*, !*((*' ,'*!+#%&%&,$#+, +%* of carefulness and planning evident particularly amongst Deliberate Types. The least prevalent Risk Types found amongst '*-$&++&($&&!&.!&,(*,!-$*$0%'&+,$!*,0(+ $+,(*.$&,!+#0(+'-&%'&+, '*-$&++&($&&!&.!&,(*,!-$*$0%'&+,$!*,0(+ $+,(*.$&,!+#0(+'-&%'&+, the engineering sample was the Spontaneous Type, which may be more unpredictable, unconventional and inclined to &!&*!&+%($/+, ('&,&'-+0(/ ('&,&'-+0(/ ! ! %0%'*-&(*!,$-&'&.&,!'&$&!&$!&,' %0%'*-&(*!,$-&'&.&,!'&$&!&$!&,' ,, &!&*!&+%($/+, act on impulse. They may be considered either creative and ingenious or challenging and unconventional, depending ,'&!%(-$+ 0%0'&+!*!, **,!.&!&&!'-+'* $$&!&&-&'&.&,!'&$(&!& ,'&!%(-$+ 0%0'&+!*!, **,!.&!&&!'-+'* $$&!&&-&'&.&,!'&$(&!& on their suitability for their role though lack the same level-headedness is associated with$!*,'%('+ Deliberate, Composed '&, !*+-!,!$!,0'*, !**'$, '- , ,they 0$#, +%$.$ &++,that ,!+++'!,/!, '&, !*+-!,!$!,0'*, !**'$, '- 0$#, +%$.$ &++, ,!+++'!,/!, $!*,'%('+ and Adventurous types. &.&,-*'-+,0(+ &.&,-*'-+,0(+

  

Figure 2. Percentage of each Risk Type in a sample of Engineers! in comparison to the general population #  "!'!  !"" #" #  "!'!  ! !"" #" These results are generally in line with,the assumption that engineers need the ‘can do’ temperament to confront and +*+-$,+*&*$$0!&$!&/!, ++-%(,!'&, ,&!&*+&, 3&'4,%(*%&,,''&*'&,&  +*+-$,+*&*$$0!&$!&/!, , ++-%(,!'&, ,&!&*+&, 3&'4,%(*%&,,''&*'&,& take responsibility for the significant risks that do arise. From the personality point of view, these findings emphasise ,#*+('&+!!$!,0'*, +!&!5&,*!+#+, +!&!5&,*!+#+, ,'*!+*'%, ,'*!+*'%, (*+'&$!,0('!&,'.!/, (*+'&$!,0('!&,'.!/, +5&!&+%( +!+,the  ,#*+('&+!!$!,0'*, +5&!&+%( +!+,  value of engineers being calm, methodical and resilient decision makers. Upon further analysis, the interesting split in the .$-'&!&*+!&$%%, '!$&*+!$!&,!+!'&%#*+('&-*, '!$&*+!$!&,!+!'&%#*+('&-*, *&$0+!+, *&$0+!+, !&,*+,!&+($!,!&, !&,*+,!&+($!,!&,   .$-'&!&*+!&$%%, engineering profile is between the Deliberate Types and the Adventurous Types. While both are considered risk tolerant, the &!&*!&(*'5$!+,/&, $!*,0(+&, $!*,0(+&, .&,-*'-+0(+ .&,-*'-+0(+ !$', !$', *'&+!**!+#,'$*&,, *'&+!**!+#,'$*&,,   &!&*!&(*'5$!+,/&, Adventurous Types may be less inclined to consider the consequences of risks than the Deliberate types and are therefore .&,-*'-+0(+%0$++!&$!&,''&+!*, '&+)-&+'*!+#+, &, $!*,,0(+&*, *'* .&,-*'-+0(+%0$++!&$!&,''&+!*, '&+)-&+'*!+#+, &, $!*,,0(+&*, *'* more inclined to push,the boundaries and to dive into innovative projects than “play it safeâ€?. %'*!&$!&,'(-+ '-&*!+&,'!.!&,'!&&'.,!.(*'",+, &1($0!,+2 %'*!&$!&,'(-+ , '-&*!+&,'!.!&,'!&&'.,!.(*'",+, &1($0!,+2

                    Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd

                www.psychological-consultancy.com


Percentages of Risk Attitude        

      

 

Figure 3: Distribution of Risk Attitude for the Engineering sample

    "!&   !# %%"% !   ! ! $!  Risk Attitude  %! "   %"!  !'"   Whatever their Risk Type, an individual’s Risk Attitude will typically vary from situation to situation due to personal experience       %    and circumstance. The Risk-Type Compass uses ipsative assessment to identify individual differences in risk attitude across five important risk domains: Ethical, Financial, Health and Safety, Recreational and Social. ! !        #        %$      to%  !  These results suggest that this sample of % engineers tend be most comfortable taking risks within the Ethical, Recreational, %  '  Safety ' %! % #" #  and to a slightly lesser extent, Health and domains than they do Financial or Social risks. As such, the engineering  ! "!! % sample is less likely to take !# financial risks and  tend to prefer financial predictability and security. Likewise, an aversion   to! risk within the Social domain suggests an unwillingness to risk embarrassing oneself or others and risking disapproval, unpopularity or loss of reputation.

Conclusion In sum the research indicates that the engineering profession is one that requires an even-tempered and systematic approach when confronting occupational risk. Due to the nature of the risks involved and the responsibility an engineer undertakes, resilience and practicality are deemed more useful than emotional investment or unpredictability when making decisions and managing risk. The results show that the sample was largely made up of people within the Composed and Adventurous Risk Types with a much smaller proportion representing the Spontaneous Type.

Copyright © 2011 Psychological Consultancy Ltd           

www.psychological-consultancy.com        


Risk in Engineering  

Research aimed to identify any systematicpatterns in the disposition towards risk of survey participants using a taxonomy of Risk Types in a...

Advertisement
Read more
Read more
Similar to
Popular now
Just for you