Analyzing Engineering Outcomes

Midterm Mini Project: Analyzing Engineering Outcomes Through Systems Thinking
Submission Format:
1.Engineering Brief (1 page) + Systems Diagram (Separate Page or Appendix)

2. Stakeholder Presentation (Slide Deck + Speaker Notes)
   Overview

Engineers regularly encounter complex challenges that require analyzing technical, ethical, and stakeholder perspectives. In this midterm mini-project, you will examine a real-world engineering failure through the lens of systems thinking, identifying missed feedback loops, stakeholder interactions, and decision-making trade-offs.

You Will Complete Two Deliverables:

1. A concise, one-page engineering brief that summarizes the failure and includes a required systems diagram as a separate page or appendix.
2. A 6-8 slide stakeholder presentation designed to communicate key findings to decision-makers.

This assignment is designed to simulate industry-relevant tasks in engineering, helping you develop skills in technical communication, problem analysis, and stakeholder engagement.

Project Guidelines:

Part 1: Select an Engineering Failure
Choose one of the following case studies where poor systems thinking or reflexivity contributed to unintended consequences:
• Volkswagen Dieselgate (~2009-2015) (Emissions cheating scandal)
• Flint Water Crisis (2014-2016) (Public health + infrastructure failure)
• Therac-25 Radiation Overdoses (1985-1987) (Software, testing, and communication failures)

Your goal is to:
• Identify systemic failures and missed feedback loops that contributed to the problem
• Explore how systems thinking could have prevented the failure or mitigated negative impacts
• Analyze stakeholder interactions and ethical dilemmas within the case
Part 2: Writing an Engineering Brief + Systems Diagram [75 Points]

Format: A one-page engineering brief that provides a high-level analysis of the failure. The systems diagram must be included as a separate page or appendix (not counted in the one-page limit).

Key Components:
• Failure Summary: Clearly define the problem and its impact
• Systems Thinking Analysis: Identify key interactions, feedback loops, and failures
• Decision-Making Trade-offs: Examine technical and ethical challenges
• Recommended Next Steps: Propose potential improvements or preventative measures
• Required Systems Diagram: Choose one of the following to visually represent the failure:
o Multiple Cause Diagram – to analyze causal relationships
o Causal Loop Diagram – to model feedback loops and system dynamics
Part 3: Creating a Stakeholder Presentation 75 Points]
Task: Create a 6-8 slide stakeholder presentation with speaker notes
• Format: A 6-8 slide PowerPoint deck with speaker notes
• Audience: Imagine presenting to executives, regulatory bodies, or engineering teams

Key Components (Recommended Format):
• Slide 1: Title, Student Name
• Slide 2: Project Overview
• Slide 3-4: Systems Thinking Diagram + Explanation
• Slide 5: Ethical & Stakeholder Considerations
• Slide 6-7: Trade-offs & Decision Implications
• Slide 8: Recommendations & Next Steps
Submission Instructions
• Upload both deliverables to eLC as two separate files. The Engineering Brief and Systems Diagram should be submitted as a PDF. The Presentation Slides with speaker notes should be submitted as a Powerpoint (.ppt or .pptx) file.
• Ensure speaker notes are visible in the presentation slides.

Evaluation Criteria
Total Possible Points: 150
Note – Score is weighted x1.5 so you will see the grade out of 225 points on eLC

Engineering Brief – 45 Total Points
• Failure Summary (10 pts): Clearly defines the problem, including technical, ethical, and stakeholder dimensions with strong supporting details.
• Systems Thinking Analysis (15 pts): Effectively identifies key system components, interactions, and feedback loops, using relevant systems thinking principles.
• Decision-Making Trade Offs (15 pts): Thoroughly examines technical and ethical trade-offs, explaining stakeholder conflicts and constraints.
• Recommended Next Steps (5 pts): Proposes feasible, innovative, and well-justified recommendations that align with systems thinking insights.
• Points deducted if brief is over or under the one-page length requirement.

Systems Diagram – 30 Total Points
• Clear, detailed, and well-labeled diagram (Multiple Cause or Causal Loop Diagram) that accurately represents system interactions.

Stakeholder Presentation – 75 Total Points
• Slide Organization & Design (5 pts): Professional, well-structured slides with clear visuals, minimal text, and a logical flow.
• Systems Diagram Explanation (15 pts): Effectively explains systems diagram, showing how system elements interact and impact failure.
• Ethical & Stakeholder Considerations (15 pts): Clearly identifies stakeholders’ perspectives, ethical challenges, and competing priorities.
• Decision-Making Trade Offs (15 pts): Engages with real-world decision constraints, discussing technical, financial, and ethical factors.
• Recommendations & Next Steps (10 pts): Provides clear, actionable, and well-supported recommendations.
• Speaker Notes & Clarity (10 pts): Engaging, well-paced presentation with effective speaker notes that complement slides.
• Professionalism & Presentation Quality (5 pts): Polished presentation (tone, grammar, clarity, and engagement).
• Points deducted if presentation is over or under the 6-8 slide length requirement.

Please note that I am not looking to critique what went “wrong” in each scenario but rather explore and understand the complexities of contemporary engineering projects through examining different stakeholder perspectives. The stakeholders should be identified as a group (vs. an individual). For example, in the case of the Flint Water Crisis, residential water consumers, Flint elected officials, water processing equipment manufacturers, water treatment technicians, water treatment engineers would be examples of possible stakeholders for the vignettes. Use third-person voice for your sketches. As noted in the rubric, your discussion should be supported with citations and reference list. Think of these vignettes as providing some of the factual basis for your magazine article. However, the article will add to this content with the additional perspectives of real-life stakeholder interviews.

Although an example of a stakeholder vignette is not available, here are example Op-Eds that advocate a sociotechnical position:
https://bi.gale.com/global/article/GALE%7CA404571798?u=uga&sid=ebsco
https://bi.gale.com/global/article/GALE%7CA636476122?u=uga&sid=ebsco

Example

Note that the example Op-Eds do not include the required citations, stakeholder groupings, nor do they have a desired level of empathy/affective imagination required of your vignettes. However, these examples coupled with the stakeholder rubric should provide you with sufficient guidance to complete your work.