Words: 2500 to 4000 | Pages: 6 to 10 pages (normal formatting)

Questions:

• How, in what ways, and to what extent might this example of engineering failure(s) relate to the concepts discussed in this course regarding High Reliability Organisation Theory?
• How, in what ways, and to what extent might this example of engineering failure(s) relate to the concepts discussed in this course regarding Normal Accident Theory?
• How, in what ways, and to what extent might this example of engineering failure(s) relate to the concepts discussed in this course regarding Regulation of Technology and/or Regulatory Capture?

Before you start

• Understand the task requires application and analysis, not description
• Take a clear position for each question
• Use independent research beyond lecture material

For each question (Q1, Q2, Q3)

• Define the theory briefly and precisely
• Apply the theory directly to the Boeing case
• Analyse how and why the theory explains the failure
• Assess the extent to which the theory is valid
• Challenge the theory by identifying limitations or contradictions
• Support all claims with evidence
• Identify missing or uncertain information

Content requirements

• Link theory and case study clearly in every paragraph
• Use specific factual examples from the case
• Show clear cause and consequence relationships
• Address all parts of the question: how, in what ways, and to what extent

Analysis expectations

• Go beyond stating relationships and explain mechanisms
• Weigh concepts against each other where relevant
• Show critical judgement rather than simple agreement
• Distinguish between evidence based conclusions and opinion

Evidence

• Use external sources to support arguments
• Base claims on verifiable facts
• Avoid unsupported or generic statements

Missing information

• Identify gaps in available data or transparency
• Explain how these gaps affect the strength of your analysis

Writing quality

• Ensure each sentence contributes to the argument
• Maintain clarity and precision
• Avoid repetition and unnecessary description
• Keep the writing direct and purposeful

What to avoid

• Retelling the Boeing case without analysis
• Rewriting lecture content without application
• Staying neutral or descriptive
• Making claims without evidence
• Using vague or generic statements

Final check

• Clear position stated in each answer
• Theory and case consistently linked
• Analysis completed, not just description
• Evidence used to support claims
• Limitations or missing information identified
• Full question addressed including extent

Key principle

• The task is to demonstrate reasoning and judgement, not to provide a correct answer

NOTE:

• One full PDF file with detailed instructions, lectures, course notes will be provided later

watch the one of the episodes for free online (with ads, courtesy of Pluto TV).

.

What were your expectations for each episode?

How did these expectations shape your criteria for evaluation?

What were your most important criteria in evaluation?

How did the episodes meet or fail to meet those criteria?

Did you enjoy these? Why/why not?

As you consider each of the criteria, it might be helpful to consider what overall score/grade you would give to these (this can be numeric, alphabetical, stars…whatever your preference). Using your notes as a foundation, compose a short (1-2 pages) evaluation of the episode or episodes. Be sure to clearly explain why you liked or disliked the episode(s), referring back to the criteria that you’ve chosen.