Wednesday, July 31, 2013

Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse

On July 17,1981 two of the overhead walkways at the Hyatt Regency Hotel collapsed on one another and landed on a party being held in the lobby below.  This disastrous failure would lead to the most fatal pre-9/11 structural collapse in United States’ history, with114 dead and 216 severely injured.  In the aftermath of the event, the investigation attributed the collapse to a late design change in the hanger rod connections that effectively doubled the load and poor communication between manufacturer and the designers. However, even with the original design the rods would have barley supported the expected load, violating the codes set by Kansas City.  Furthermore, the Hyatt Regency had previously shown signs of being structurally unstable.  On October 1979, the atrium roof had collapsed during construction.  Consequently, the hired engineering firm had requested to have an onsite supervisor present until completion, but owner Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation denied it due to additional costs.  Had they made the right ethical decision then, the structural weakness would have been detected far earlier and the collapse could have been prevented.

In the case of the Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse, the main ethical question was whether the Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation should have hired an onsite supervisor to oversee the entire project.  The main stakeholders were the owners, the engineering firm G.C.E International, the connection fabricator Havens Steel Company, the designer Jack D. Gillum and Associates, and as always the general public.

In opting to bypass the request to have a supervisor from the engineering firm, the consequence was the collapse of the two walkways and all the resulting casualties.  The intent of the decision was to cut what the owners saw as unnecessary cost.  Although the Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation did not purposely have a malicious intent, they clearly should have reassessed their decision when considering the character perspective.  A moral character would have insisted on having a supervisor at the project site at all times after the structure had proven to be unstable.


By correlating the three perspectives, it is obvious that opting to pass over the request for a supervisor was an unethical decision.  The intent perspective and the character perspective directly opposed each other.  The intent prioritized money at the direct expense of safety, and the character perspective suggested the opposite course.

The action that owners elected to take was an extremely unethical decision. Proper use of the process for ethical decision making would have directed them to sacrifice some profit to ensure the safety of the building.  Instead, their folly led to the one of the most catastrophic collapse in United States History.


"Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse." ENGINEERING.com. Texas A&M University, 24 Oct. 2006. Web. 31 July 2013.

Tuesday, July 30, 2013

The Sampoong Department Store Collapse

Aerial View of Sampoong Department Store Post-collapse
On June 29, 1995 the Sampoong Department Store in Seoul, South Korea suffered a catastrophic failure and completely collapse.  In its aftermath, 502 were discovered dead and 937 injured.  Investigation of the collapse revealed that the Sampoong group failed to use good ethical judgement during the building's planning and maintenance.  By examining the the decisions made by the Sampoong Group through the four step process for ethical decision making, we can truly see how it all went wrong.

During the initial planning of the Sampoong Department Store, its owners faced a major ethical question.  The mall was original planned to be an apartment complex, but it was then redesigned to be a department store.  This alteration required to changes such as install escalators and reworking the supports around them.  Because of these changes, the owners faced an ethical decision between profit and safety.

The ethical issue that the Sampoong Group faced was a question of prioritizing profit over ensuring the building's structural integrity.  The stakeholders include the Sampoong Group, the chairman of the building Lee Joon, the engineers and contractors, as well as the general public.

The consequence of prioritizing profit and sacrificing safety was the overall weakening of the building.  The intent of the Sampoong Group was to make the project as profitable as possible.  This intent itself was not unethical, but it was narrowminded.  The Sampoong Group ultimately failed the character perspective.  Though the intent was justified from a business standpoint, a person of "moral character" would have prioritized safety.

When correlating the three perspectives, we'll find that there is a discrepancy in the Sampoong case.  Although the consequence and the intent both point towards a greater profit, the character perspective test revealed that profit should not override safety.  This disagreement in the three perspective suggests that the the Sampoong Group should have reassessed their ethical decision.

Had the Sampoong Group used the proper process for ethical decision making, they would have realized that maximizing the profit was not the ultimate goal.  The proper action would have been sacrificing some profit to ensure that the building was structurally stable.

As mentioned before, the the Sampoong Group's failure to use ethical decision making caused a large of number of fatalities and injuries.  Because of the lax in judgment, several members such as Lee Joon were charged with crimes and faced years of imprisonment.  The rest were stripped of all their assets in order to pay the court settlement, causing the disbandment of the group.


"Sampoong Department Store Collapse." World History Project. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 July   2013. 
"The Sampoong Department Store Collapse." 9-11 Research:. N.p., 21 Mar. 2013. Web.   30 July 2013.