Thread Content
I remember hearing from an old colleague that design accidents occur because review takes precedence over verification, which in turn takes precedence over design – this is because designers have the least experience, weaker capabilities, and less funding. However, as a result of the explosion incident in Inner Mongolia, the designers from Sichuan Chengda Engineering Co., Ltd. were handed over to the judicial authorities; some were dismissed from their positions while others were given disciplinary warnings. Is there any clear specification as to who is responsible for this? The design is simply terrible
The old colleague is right; but still, are there actual reviewers or validators these days?
Who is responsible for the design now, and who does the verification? . . . . . . . . . . . .
Verification and review are very important; if design is held accountable for everything in the future, then verification and review will become meaningless, turning the person in charge into nothing more than a signatory
The responsibility for design accidents should lie with legal entities, and it has nothing to do with natural persons. The Chengda accident was a result of an illegal judgment.
In terms of job responsibilities, design involves the most work, and it makes sense to say that it carries the greatest responsibility. However, at present, the competence of designers is generally lower than that of those responsible for verification and review; some are even newcomers who have just started working, and it is difficult for them to handle tasks comprehensively. Assigning such heavy responsibilities to designers puts them at risk of being held accountable for mistakes. That’s how reality is: for the sake of work, one signs contracts even if it means taking the blame. Creating diagrams is like laying mines – who knows when they might explode.
I wonder what that designer ended up doing with it; does anyone know what happened next? It’s really low pay with high responsibilities.