|
Engineering Improvisation: Insights From the Cleanup at Ground Zero
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Professor David
Mendonça Studied Decision Making During the Unprecedented
Cleanup Effort at Ground Zero
Following the World Trade Center attacks on Sept. 11, 2001,
engineers and construction workers faced the daunting task of
dismantling the World Trade Center complex in order to make
room for new construction. Researchers at Rensselaer
Polytechnic Institute are applying mathematical methods to
describe how these decisions were made, and investigating how
the decisions could inform cleanup efforts at future
disasters.
The cleanup of Ground Zero required engineers and
contractors to remove 1.6 million tons of material from a
confined space and under dangerous conditions. They worked
around the clock for nine months to complete the project, the
scope and size of which were unmatched in modern history.
Remarkably, the task was accomplished ahead of schedule, below
budget, and without any serious accidents.
If we can pinpoint how and why these individuals performed
so well under immense pressure, according to Rensselaer
researcher David Mendonça, we can leverage that knowledge to
help prepare for future disaster recovery activities, both
through training and new technologies. An associate professor
in the Department of Industrial and
Systems Engineering, Mendonça studies the cognitive
processes that underlie human decision making, particularly in
post-disaster environments.
“There was no protocol in place, no report that had ever
been written, on how to clear the debris from such an unstable,
complex site in such a short amount of time. What they
accomplished is unprecedented,” Mendonça said. “From a research
perspective, we consider how and why these individuals made the
decisions they made, and how their decisions impacted the
success of the project. By better understanding their work, we
understand not only how organizations respond to risk, but also
how individuals should be trained to deal with novel,
technically challenging situations.”
For example, beyond the sheer quantity of debris at Ground
Zero, the depth and density of debris presented challenges for
engineers on site. Another risk they faced was the threat of
the slurry wall collapsing. This slurry wall was a part of the
building foundation that held back a potential flood of water
from deep underground. With each load of debris removed from
the site, the slurry wall became more exposed, requiring
extensive bracing to maintain its integrity. The wall had not
been designed to function in this way, and so it had to be
constantly monitored using an elaborate system of sensors. The
engineers paid frequent and careful attention to the slurry
wall, making decisions for which there was no historical
basis.
Mendonça’s work has been primarily focused on creating
mathematical models of the interaction between debris removal
activities, the behavior of the slurry wall, and decisions
about how to manage the site. To do so, he and his research
team collected field data and interviewed engineers and
managers who led the cleanup effort. This research offers
insights into the rate of learning within an organization, and
into the processes that underlie the development of new
engineering procedures to deal with emerging design
challenges.
Following his work on debris removal at Ground Zero,
Mendonça received funding from the National Science Foundation to
examine the role of information technology in the management of
debris removal operations in Mississippi after Hurricane
Katrina. The study helped identify some of the possibilities
and limitations for mobile phones and other technologies in
managing debris removal — particularly when situations on the
ground differed radically from the situation planned for by
disaster response officials. This summer, he has been looking
at data from the cleanup operations in the wake of the recent
burst of tornadoes in Alabama.
“The post-disaster environment offers a unique laboratory in
which to examine fundamental human processes of creativity,
improvisation, and dealing with the unexpected,” Mendonça said.
“At the frontier of human experience, we learn the limitations
of existing tools and technologies, and begin to see a way
forward for engineering in the future.”
Mendonça’s work on improvisation in emergency response has
led to new theories and models of how humans reason in
time-constrained, highly novel situations, both alone and in
groups. Mendonça and others are using these models in new
research to provide emergency response personnel with
computer-generated training environments.
“This work has shown that improvisation is an endemic
feature of emergency response operations,” he said. “But
perhaps more importantly, it brings this very human activity
squarely within the realm of engineering, as another skill that
can be measured, managed, and taught.”
For more information about Mendonça’s research at
Rensselaer, visit:
|
Published
September 8,
2011 |
Contact: Michael Mullaney
Phone: (518) 276-6161
E-mail: mullam@rpi.edu |
|
