Truss Construction Shop Analysis

Problem Identification

During a QA truss load test, the truss fragmented and injured the hoist operator. He
sustained head injuries and has been in an induced coma since the accident. According to a
report by the Safety Officer, the QA manager, and the engineer, it was evident that the test load
testing was pushed beyond the high threshold of acceptable weight bearing. However, the
manufacturing company asserts that the trusses can withstand commercial high capacity
requirements. The engineering shop employees have been skeptical that the engineering or
manufacturing process is flawed and the ability of the trusses to handle the load. At the Truss
Construction Shop, the company has been trying to get back to normal operations and has been
using lower thresholds to meet the customer demands. At the same time, the production worker
who leaked information about the accident to the press has been terminated on the grounds of
poor performance according to the management. In the context of the above events, it seems that
the company is not keen to get facts about what might have caused the accident and is too much
focused on the production and meeting the customer demands.
Introduction

The construction industry is often characterized by high levels of risks especially to the
people working in the production department. When an accident happens, knowledge about the
process plays a significant role in analyzing the safety at the production line and future
prevention of accidents (Hola & Szostak, 2014). While it is considered the common practice to
have a comprehensive investigation, this was not the case at the Truss Construction Shop raising
the obvious questions about why the people involved in the inquiry were quick to dismiss the
case and revert to normal business.

TRUSS CONSTRUCTION SHOP ANALYSIS 3

Problem Analysis

Essentially, from the beginning, although the company would like everyone to move on
from the incident, many questions have surfaced prompting the need for further analysis of the
issue. For instance, the hoist operator who sustained head injuries has been on induced coma in a
local hospital since the accident happened. The conditions are not clear about the extent of his
wounds warranting for an induced coma. The report by the safety officer, QA manager, and the
engineer asserts that the load testing was pushed beyond the acceptable threshold. The events
following this revelation leave a lot of questions. For example, the production worker who
leaked the information was terminated on the grounds of poor performance. Were the managers
aware of Faruch Habib’s poor performance before he leaked out the information to the press? Did
the production line worker know more that he was not supposed to know leading to his
termination? Another issue that raises questions is the employees in the engineering shop who
have been skeptical about the manufacturing or engineering process. By large, this can be
interpreted to mean that they do not trust the whole process, despite the assurances given out to
the Truss users.

Applying the Five Habits of the Master Thinker

Most of the times, analysts observe but do not have a chance to apply structured
analytical techniques to solve the challenges at hand. According to Randolph (2013), the five
habits of the master thinker help a good analytic thinker to instinctively know when to challenge
fundamental assumptions, consider alternative explanations, and look out for inconsistent data.
The fourth habit of a master thinker also expects the analytic thinker to focus on the key drivers
and anticipate the needs of the consumers and the overarching context within the analysis. In this
case, on the one hand, we cannot ignore the assurances from the public relations department

TRUSS CONSTRUCTION SHOP ANALYSIS 4
about precautionary measurements that the company has taken. However, on the other hand, we
cannot assume that they have taken the right safety measures seeing as Quality Assurance truss
load test went wrong. The issue of inconsistency is present in the employees of the engineering
shop on their doubts about the ability of the machine to withstand the load despite the earlier
assurances given to consumers. In consideration of the fourth and fifth habit of the master
thinker, the company realizes that the key drivers are the customers and the production line
workers and their needs have been met by resuming work with smaller loads and producing to
meet the needs of the clients.

Conclusion and Recommendations

From the above analysis, it is clear that the company is more focused on meeting the
customer demands as opposed to ensuring that the machines will not fail again. The relationship
between management and employees should be evaluated based on the termination of the
production worker because of poor performance. The organization should also assess the
opinion of the production line workers and weigh their comments on the affirmation of any
potential risk of machine use and the safety measures that the company claims to have put in
place. Faruch Habib should not have been terminated from his position at the firm questioned
about his reasons for leaking the information to the press. For a moment, may be Faruch felt that
the company was negligent and he hoped that by exposing them to the media then they would
address various issues inside the company. In another light, the hoist operator should be
evaluated if he is in a position to give his opinion about taking all the extra precautionary
measures that were necessary for the safe use of the machine. In addition to the above, the
engineering shop should be requested to give an assurance that they have tested the machine’s
ability to withhold the threshold and would not fail under a particular load.

TRUSS CONSTRUCTION SHOP ANALYSIS 5

References

Hola, B., & Szostak, M. (2014). Analysis of the Development of Accident Situations in the
Construction Industry. Procedia Engineering, 91(4), pp. 429-434.
Randolph H. Pherson. (2013). The Five Habits of the Master Thinker. Journal of Strategic
Security, 6(3), pp. 54-60.