Posted by Nathan Kahl
at
3:09 PM on August 4, 2010
To comment on this column, go here.
From time to time this column will highlight ethics issues and activities involving NAE members. To suggest a topic, email Nathan Kahl @ nkahl@nae.edu.
Go to topic:
Harry E. Bovay, Jr.: The Bridge Builder
Learning From Failures
Harry E. Bovay, Jr.: The Bridge Builder
Originally published on July 8, 2010.
This entry in the CEES Ethics Column features NAE member Harry E. Bovay, Jr., founder of Bovay Engineers and president of Mid-South Telecommunications. Bovay has been deeply involved in the funding of philanthropic endeavors around the country, including engineering ethics initiatives. Mr. Bovay’s support underwrites CEES and the OEC at the NAE.
Few people have the good fortune to live into their 90’s; even fewer have the accomplishments and lasting legacy of Harry E. Bovay, Jr. There is undoubtedly a twinge of bittersweet satisfaction becoming a nonagenarian, a sense of being alone at the top, most of those with whom you’ve formed bonds having moved on from this world. For some people this quietness can allow time to reflect on an influential and well lived life.
Bovay is an engineer through and through, with the common sensibilities of a man who built things for a living; he was elected to the NAE for contributions to the expansion of knowledge in the energy field, including power generation and utilization, and for leadership in petrochemical plant development. But long before that he cut his teeth at the feet of his father, himself a builder and entrepreneur, a man who believed first and foremost in ethical behavior. Bovay, Sr. worked on the Panama Canal for the duration of its construction and given that he contracted malaria while doing so, it is part literal and part cliché to say that engineering is in the Bovay blood.
Michael Patrick, the Executive Vice President of Mid-South Telecommunications and an associate of Bovay’s for 36 years, tells that Bovay, Sr. often took Harry on his business travels as he negotiated contracts and presented design plans. Bovay, Sr. owned and operated businesses across the south and Midwest and worked in an era before contracts, teaching Harry early on that a handshake was a man’s word and that word must be unbending. He built the first toll bridges across the Mississippi (and Harry Jr.’s first job was as a ticket taker at one of these bridges, in Vicksburg) and Harry would often observe his father working out the details with customers.
One story regarding his father’s ethical instruction that Bovay likes to recount involves a meeting with an infamous Louisiana politician. Twelve-year-old Harry looked on as the two men discussed potential bridges in Louisiana. When Bovay, Sr. presented the total estimated cost for the project, the politician asked, “Well, how much do we need to add to that for you and me?” Harry watched his father stand up and retort, “Sir, you’re going to jail one day and I’m not going with you,” before whisking his son out of the room, the business deal over before it started.
After that job on the toll bridge, Bovay Jr. began work as a contractor and then worked for the Army Corps of Engineers in Mississippi. He spent the next ten years with the Humble Oil and Refining Company in Baytown, Texas, advancing from Junior Metal Inspector to Project Engineer. In 1946 he started his own company, H. E. Bovay, Jr., Consulting Engineers, later Bovay Engineers, Inc. (And as if having enormous success in one field wasn’t enough, Bovay proved he could do it twice, in the telecomm industry later in his working life.) Upon his election to the NAE in 1978, his colleagues in support of his nomination wrote of his contributions to the profession, including the design of energy-conserving utility systems as early as 1948; the development of a novel computer program for air duct analysis to operate air conditioning systems at optimal levels; and his oversight of the first chemical plant to make alkylate and the first plant to make toluene synthetically from petroleum.
When Bovay retired in 1984, Bovay Engineers was one of the largest consulting engineering and planning firms throughout the south and southwest. In capitalist society, highly successful business people are often aggressive, leaving some bodies in their wake, and pushing ethics aside a time or two. Not so with Bovay. Ed Harris, the Bovay Endowed Chair for the History & Ethics of Professional Engineering at Texas A&M, commented on Bovay’s reputation: “I’ve heard other people say that he was seen in business as competent and a formidable competitor in that he always had this drive and this push, but he always did things in an ethical way.” Some ruthless businessmen, after achieving a level of comfort in job security and finances, try to rehabilitate their image, perhaps the most famous example being John Rockefeller going from “robber baron” and the Ludlow Massacre to grandfatherly Santa Claus, bestowing concrete gifts across America in the form of libraries and hospitals. For Bovay, no penance was needed. As Harris notes, “The reason for being ethical should not ultimately be one of self-interest, because ethics is then a means to an end. I don't get any sense at all that that's how it was for Harry. It was not because good ethics was good business, but because good ethics is what you ought to do.”
That’s not to say that Bovay was always soft and cuddly. Harris continues: “He pushes himself and the people who work for him. He’s very polite and considerate, but he’s always pushing them. It’s amazing how much work that man can put out.” Patrick says “intensity” is perhaps the best definition. “He took no shortcuts and he didn’t expect people working for him to either. He was intense and he was demanding, but he also was loyal to the people who worked for him and did a good job and he would very rarely ever terminate an employee. He was a very loyal employer and because of that he got a lot of loyalty back in return from the people who worked for him.”
And he is a light-hearted and happy man, also traits at times at odds with successful businessmen. Executive Assistant Janice Prentice says, “He is the most polite person I’ve every worked for. For nine years, he has never failed to say ‘thank you’ for a cup of coffee or the morning mail.” He has a wonderful sense of humor and is legendary for his jokes…just as legendary are his thank you cards and letters. “He notices little things and always takes time to acknowledge gifts, flowers and even correspondence,” says Prentice. Ron Kline, Acting Director of Graduate Studies (and faculty member), Science and Technology Studies Department; faculty member, School of Electrical and Computer Engineering; and Sue G. and Harry E. Bovay Jr. Professor in the History and Ethics of Professional Engineering at Cornell concurs: “When I send Harry an annual report I always get a reply back that he’s read it.”
People who know Bovay well speak with a heartfelt sincerity about this integrity, honesty, and downright…goodness. One even admitted to no longer asking for funding from Bovay, because “I’d rather be considered his friend than his beneficiary.” If you’ve raised funds to support your own work, you understand the delicate dynamics of the donor relationship and know that this attitude is unique…and high praise. He is the kind of man who is called “Mr. Bovay” out of respect by even some of those closest to him. When he speaks with you, says one associate, “He talks to you like you’re on the same level…even though he has so many more honors than anyone I know.”
If his drive, ethics, and business sense most impressed people during his working years, his generosity is now contributing to his legacy. In 1991 he formed the Harry E. Bovay, Jr. Foundation, which focuses on education and community development in rural areas; college scholarships in rural communities to help high school seniors who have taken a leadership role in community service; educators’ grants available to teachers from these same areas to pursue advanced education degrees; improvements in parks and community centers; and reading initiatives.
In 1997 he and his wife, Sue, now deceased, funded The Bovay Endowed Chair for the History and Ethics of Professional Engineering at both Texas A&M and Cornell Universities to support the teaching of engineering ethics. In 2002 Bovay made a gift to the Murdough Center for Engineering Professionalism at Texas Tech University in its effort to produce a case study film. The school used these funds to produce “Incident at Morales,” a professional-quality video depicting a young engineer struggling with critical ethical issues regarding a life-threatening condition on a project design. This excellent film case study is a great resource for high school and college-level students, as well as for professional engineers. (The video is available through the National Institute for Engineering Ethics here http://www.niee.org/ProductsServices-IncidentatMorales. htm).
Bill Wulf, former president of the NAE, visited Bovay a number of times in Houston to discuss contributions shortly after the National Academies launched a capital campaign, but it was after Wulf created the Center for Engineering, Ethics, and Society that Bovay saw something at the Academies that truly fell in line with his funding goals. He ultimately gave the money that brought the Center to life and funding from Bovay today helps to keep the NAE’s Online Ethics Center in operation. Those close to him say that there was no one event that brought his philanthropic efforts to ethics-related causes, but simply a lifelong focus on the importance of ethics, and of course the influence of his father.
As an engineer would, Bovay understands the importance to the profession of collaborating. Kline says that Bovay wants his funding to support collaboration and that he “always talks about cooperation between the universities. He wants people to share information. He thinks the connections between people are extremely important since we are all coming in from different perspectives; he thought it was his strength (of his funding efforts).” Rachelle Hollander, Director of the NAE CEES, stresses this emphasis. Bovay attended the panel on “Directions in Engineering Ethics: A Tribute to Harry E. Bovay, Jr.” at the February 2008 meeting of the Association for Practical and Professional Ethics (APPE) and hosted the participants – the Bovay chairs, Hollander, and Jimmy Smith, founder of the National Institute for Engineering Ethics – in a meeting afterwards at his ranch to discuss how they might cooperate in the future.
Beyond engineering ethics efforts, his generosity extends to the Boy Scouts. He has been a supporter for decades and has been involved continuously for an astounding 83 years, having volunteered at every level from troop leader to national committees. His financial contributions include providing the lead gift for the 1,100-acre Bovay Scout Ranch and laying plans for his foundation to be a significant benefactor to the Houston-area Scouts for years to come. Bovay identifies strongly with the organization: like Bovay, the Scouts have held firm to core beliefs, despite changing times and external pressures. He feels strongly about the need to cultivate the talent in today’s youth for tomorrow’s benefit, and loves the opportunities that the organization gives particularly to at-risk and disadvantaged young people; further, the Scouts promote the honesty and integrity that he finds so essential. Smith, a professor of civil engineering at Texas Tech, says, “I know of no one in all of my life that has fulfilled the Scouts’ pledge more than Harry Bovay.” Smith counts himself lucky to have received from Bovay a large, Texas-style belt buckle with Bovay’s face on it, created by the Houston Boy Scouts in his honor.
Associates note that he truly enjoys the presence of young people. Harris says that when Bovay attends the annual Bovay Lecture at Texas A&M, he likes nothing more than the pre-lecture lunch, when he can sit with the teaching assistants and share stories. In addition, he still gets energized when engaging people on the topic of engineering ethics. At the APPE meeting, he seemed most to enjoy the question and answer period at the panel, Hollander remarked, when he could listen and chime into the conversation.
Besides membership in the NAE and American Society for Civil Engineers, his list of other honoraria and service positions includes president of NSPE and Executive Secretary of the Petroleum Administration’s Facilities Review Committee during WWII. His impressive resume goes on for pages and provides a humbling experience for any reader. But even on paper, Bovay can inspire us to do more and to be better, to give back, just as he has done through his actions and through his generosity.
A poem that hung on the wall of Bovay’s father’s office has for decades been a favorite of his. The Bridge Builder, (reprinted in entirety, below) by Will Allen Dromgoole, published near the turn of the 20th century, tells the story of an old man, who, though it will be of no use to him, takes the time to build a bridge over a stream he has just traversed so that those coming after him will not face the same struggles. This lesson, of the importance of duty, kindness, and selfless responsibility, often is realized too late, the years needed to build the foundations to support such culminating work frittered away chasing other ends.
Fortunately for so many, Harry E. Bovay, Jr. has been building bridges—spanning forward and back—his entire life.
An old man, going a lone highway,
Came, at the evening, cold and gray,
To a chasm, vast, and deep, and wide,
Through which was flowing a sullen tide.
The old man crossed in the twilight dim;
The sullen stream had no fear for him;
But he turned, when safe on the other side,
And built a bridge to span the tide.
"Old man," said a fellow pilgrim, near,
"You are wasting strength with building here;
Your journey will end with the ending day;
You never again will pass this way;
You've crossed the chasm, deep and wide-
Why build you this bridge at the evening tide?"
The builder lifted his old gray head:
"Good friend, in the path I have come," he said,
"There followeth after me today,
A youth, whose feet must pass this way.
This chasm, that has been naught to me,
To that fair-haired youth may a pitfall be.
He, too, must cross in the twilight dim;
Good friend, I am building this bridge for him."
Learning From Failures
Originally published November 2009.
Engineers learn from past mistakes and failures. It might even be postulated that engineers and the engineering profession have a duty or responsibility to do so, although this duty is not always spelled out in engineering codes of ethics. Professional ethics develops from discussions and deliberations among members of a profession. Changes in codes of ethics reflect those continuing exchanges. Sometimes deciding where to “draw the line” needs legislative action – or action on the part of the profession; this can help engineers know where to stand on a particular issue.
Palau, one of the smallest nations in the world, is situated 500 miles east of the Philippines and 2,000 miles south of Japan. The Koror-Babelthaup Bridge (pictured; hereafter “the Palau Bridge”) was built in 1977 to link the country’s two major islands, Koror and Babelthaup. The main span, 240 meters long, was the longest concrete girder bridge in the world at the time of its construction. By 1990, a sag, or “deflection,” had developed in the middle of the bridge, and although two engineering firms declared the bridge safe, a decision was made to attempt to correct the deflection, which had become both visually obvious and discomfiting to drivers.
The reinforcement design consisted of four elements:
- The non-weight-bearing central hinge joint was replaced with concrete, making the bridge a continuous structure from statically determinate cantilevers.
- Eight external pre-stressing cables were added.
- Eight flat-jacks between the top slabs were added to increase pre-stress.
- The bridge was resurfaced to create the appearance that there was no deflection.
Three months after completion of the refurbishment, on September 26, 1996, under virtually no traffic load and in pleasant weather conditions, the bridge collapsed, killing two people.
The cause of the collapse was not immediately apparent to public inspection and investigation; it was not until 2008 – 12 years after the collapse – that data from the collapse investigation was made available. To reach a no-fault settlement, without holding a trial, the agreement may well have required that all of the records be sealed.
Learning from failure
NAE member Zdenek Bazant, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Northwestern University, had become interested in writing a report on the collapse of the Palau Bridge not long after it occurred, but he found that no technical data would be released by the parties involved in the collapse investigation. Dr. Bazant believed that it was essential to write a report on the collapse, urging that “a thorough analysis and discussion of the collapse would most likely advance the understanding of the roles of creep and shrinkage, diffusion and hygrothermal effects, fracture mechanics and size effect in very large concrete structures.”
The engineering community often considers the study of such a major collapse as an opportunity to correct and improve on future design, as Theodore Galambos, NAE member and Emeritus Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of Minnesota, noted in an item he wrote for The Bridge in 2008. For instance, after the collapse of the Point Pleasant Bridge in Ohio in 1967, Galambos wrote, “The design, construction, inspection, and maintenance of bridges changed radically. Biannual inspections and material fracture toughness requirements were mandated. The change of most interest was the requirement that a bridge be robust.”
As a point of comparison, Bazant argued that engineering advancement would have been significantly retarded had the information from the Tacoma Narrows Bridge collapse of 1940 not been made available. When an investigation reveals a major technical or scientific problem that was not understood at the time, the concealment of records is problematic. The vast majority of disasters, he noted, are attributable to human error, and revealing information about these errors should be of less concern to the engineering community than the technical advances they engender.
From the little information he had gathered about the Palau Bridge, Bazant was convinced that an investigation would reveal issues of significant technical importance. However, in his efforts to obtain the records of the bridge collapse, Bazant says he found that the records were sealed in perpetuity, a situation that he found disconcerting. During litigation, many accident investigations are conducted through the courts, with the final agreement often including a clause stating that extensive investigations conducted by either, or both sides, may not be released publicly.
This is in stark contrast with accident investigations in the aeronautics industry, for example, where neither airplane builders nor airlines can be shielded by confidentiality clauses. Open, public investigations are undertaken by the National Transportation Safety Board, which was created with enabling legislation that included appropriated funds for that purpose. In addition, international laws require investigations into air accidents, and the voluntary sharing of near-accident information is part of the culture. The same is not true for structural collapses.
The situation that Bazant confronted accentuates a tension between legal procedures and ethical responsibilities as engineers perceive them. Engineers may ask themselves: To what extent does the inability of the profession to examine and learn from the details surrounding a structural collapse create an ethical responsibility for engineers not to simply protest such sealing of documents but also to refuse to consent to be party to such secrecy? Should engineering societies advocate for public release of technical information relevant to structural failures? Can there be reconciliation between the rights of private entities to maintain control of their records with the need for disclosure for the benefit of avoiding accidents in the future?
On November 6, 2007 Bazant introduced a resolution to the Structural Engineers World Congress (SEWC) – subsequently passed – stating:
- The structural engineers (at the congress) deplore the fact the technical data on the collapse of various large structures, including the Koror-Babelthaup Bridge in Palau have been sealed as a result of legal litigation.
- They believe the release of these data would likely lead to progress in structural engineering and possibly prevent further collapse of large concrete structures.
- In the name of engineering ethics, they call for the immediate release of all such data.
Shortly after the resolution passed – in 2008, as noted above – Bazant was granted access to the Palau Bridge records. Some have claimed that they were released at this time because the parties involved considered the legal issues settled and so had no problem with releasing technical data. Whether the data release was a direct result of the SEWC resolution cannot be said for sure, but Bazant strongly feels the timing was no coincidence.
Bazant not only made assiduous efforts to get the resolution passed, but he also encouraged NAE to take an official position on the issue of non-disclosure of technical data after major disasters. He believes that such non-disclosure is against engineering ethics and has raised the subject in the NAE civil engineering section of the NAE. In response, this section has established a study group, headed by Ross Corotis, professor in the Department of Civil, Environmental, and Architectural Engineering at the University of Colorado-Boulder, to investigate the need for accessibility to the results of failure investigations in the United States
As this column is being published, a draft statement written by a subgroup of the study group is being circulated for comment among study group members. In terms of the final content of the statement, Corotis said, “It is not clear what the final recommendation of the group will be, but unless there are concomitant changes to the U.S. legal situation, such a blanket statement (that an engineer not disclosing data is acting unethically) is likely to be considered too overarching.” The argument has been made, in fact, that the implications of such a statement would be harmful to NAE members – and to engineers in general - who carry out investigations.
Reconciling conflicting values
Gary Klein, a senior principal at Wiss, Janney, Elstner Associates – a firm specializing in investigations of structural collapses – noted that engineers have an obligation to protect the interests of their clients, who may object to the release of collapse investigation files due to concerns over ongoing or future litigation, adverse publicity, and the privacy rights of involved parties. Bazant suggests that engineers should seek to avoid investigative endeavors that would bind them to non-disclosure agreements when the sharing of the data would result in significant new learning for the profession. He even suggests that forensic engineering firms have a bias to favor non-disclosure of information, as “the legal resolution is based on their judgment and if this judgment is shown in subsequent public scrutiny to be technically incorrect, they lose reputation and a revision of the court settlement may be provoked.”
But in many instances, according to numerous engineers and NAE members consulted for this piece, parties to such lawsuits do not object to experts publishing papers or giving presentations on the case if the purpose is to help others learn from mistakes made and if the lawsuits have been settled. Indeed, in September of 2008 Bazant and colleagues presented a paper at the International Conference on Creep and Shrinkage of Concrete on the Palau Bridge collapse, a paper which was only written after the attorney general of Palau granted permission for the investigation records to be examined, as noted above. Bazant says that the paper will result in major changes in the field…but that it should have been written ten years sooner.
Can there be a compromise between the two positions, one insisting on the strictest ethical standards and another recognizing the legal realities and investigative duties of an engineer to his employer? The conflicting and seemingly near-irreconcilable positions over an issue that some would argue is potentially a matter of life and death is indicative of the ethical challenges facing engineers in their day-to-day lives. As in the medical profession, perhaps, these questions should not to be put on the shoulders of practitioners in the field but should be addressed by committees of experts in professional societies who can provide guideposts. As former NAE president Bill Wulf has said, “As we engineer more things with ever greater consequences, we ought to be engaged in just such macro ethical discussions – discussions that cannot put the onus on the individual.”
A fundamental precept of most engineering codes of ethics is that engineers should hold paramount the health and safety and welfare of the public. In accordance with this, engineers and their societies need to promote public accessibility of important technical information on engineering failures.
John Hanson, NAE member and Distinguished Professor Emeritus, Department of Civil Engineering, North Carolina State University, indicated this might be the most reasonable avenue for the study group to take. He suggested, “Perhaps NAE could encourage ways and means to support investigators in carrying out their work with the thoroughness that would support its eventual release for professional use, as well as to support them in seeking approval from their clients to release the information. I believe the best way to release information on failures is through the preparation of technical papers that are peer reviewed and discussed.”
Regardless of the action NAE may take on the issue, the efforts of Zdenek Bazant, through SEWC and now with his colleagues at NAE, have started a discussion of the issue by the right people. His passion for this topic, and the paper he wrote on the collapse of the Palau Bridge, testify not only to his energy and commitment, but also to the difficult challenges ethical decisions present every day for practicing engineers.
Update - June, 2010
A working group of the NAE's Section 4 (civil engineering) membership wrote a draft statement regarding the release of accident data which recommended, among other things, the NAE consider an in-depth study to determine if legislation should be recommended. The statement was sent to all members of Section 4 for a vote of approval or disapproval. Eighty-five percent of respondents supported the statement as written or with changes (all of which supported the spirit of the statement). Given this support, the statement was passed on to the NAE for further consideration.
Further reading
This list, while not fully inclusive of materials written regarding the bridge collapse, provides further details regarding the bridge collapse.
The paper that Bazant and colleagues wrote after examining the released records.
A paper by Richard Scantlebury and Chris Burgoyne of Cambridge, written prior to the release of records and from publicly available materials, "Why did the Palau Bridge Collapse" argues that the repair to the bridge was not the the cause of the failure, as was widely assumed, but that a lack of robustness in the original design meant that the structure had always been vulnerable to accidental damage, which eventually occurred as part of the resurfacing works.
Burgoyne and Scantlebury followed this paper with Lessons Learned from the Bridge Collapse in Palau, which argues, "the construction industry should not shelter behind confidentiality clauses but, like the aircraft industry, publish its mistakes so lessons can be learned."
(NOTE - in the comments section below, if you press "Submit Comment" and your comment remains in the field after the page refreshes, it did not go through, most likely due to an error while entering the verification code. If after the page refreshes your comment is gone, it has been passed on to the moderator and will be posted shortly.)
Required field