Henry Petroski’s Design Paradigms situates engineering failure not as an aberration but as an epistemic necessity, embedding technical collapse within a wider hermeneutics of design. Each case study demonstrates the recursive dialectic between success and failure: the very conditions that consolidate design confidence also generate latent blind spots. As Petroski argues, it is precisely in structural failure — whether of bridges, aircraft, or civil works — that the underlying paradigm of design is revealed, interrogated, and reconfigured.
The text functions simultaneously as a historical catalogue and a pedagogical instrument. By presenting failures as paradigmatic, Petroski frames engineering practice as an open-ended system, wherein each failure operates as a “data point” in the cumulative refinement of design heuristics. The methodological resonance with contemporary risk management frameworks (FMEA, CAPA, hazard analysis) is striking: both embed failure into the design lifecycle as a generative rather than terminal phenomenon.
Petroski’s prose is energetic, though structurally diffuse; digressions dilute the argumentative core, and the corpus of examples feels underpopulated relative to the ambition of the thesis. Yet the central claim retains force: engineering judgment must be grounded not in uncritical repetition of precedent but in an iterative engagement with breakdowns, near-misses, and systemic weaknesses.
For those working in machinery, automation, or tooling design, the analogues are immediate. Prototype instability, tolerance stack-up, control logic misalignment, and unanticipated fatigue represent not anomalies but predictable epistemic stages in the prototyping–validation–refinement cycle. Petroski’s histories of civil and aeronautical collapse mirror, in principle, the failures encountered in equipment engineering: each failure uncovers tacit assumptions in load modelling, materials behaviour, or process capability.
In sum, Design Paradigms remains a significant contribution to the literature on engineering epistemology. It affirms that reliability is not achieved by erasing failure but by integrating its lessons into design methodology — an insight aligned with the iterative logic of prototyping and the systemic discipline of risk mitigation. Chi non cade, non impara a camminare: only by falling do we learn the mechanics of balance.