A linear electron accelerator for therapeutic use was built as a dual-mode system that could either produce X-rays or electron beams. It had been in successful use for some time, but every now and then some patients received high overdoses, resulting in painful after-effects and several deaths. One patient on a repeat visit experienced great pain, but the remotely located operator was unaware of any problem because of lack of communication between them: The intercom was broken, and the video monitor had been unplugged. There also was no way for the patient to exit the examination chamber without help from the outside, and hence the hospital was partly at fault. On cursory examination of the machine, the manufacturer insisted that the computerized and automatic control system could not possibly have malfunctioned and that no one should spread unproven and potentially libelous information about the design. It was the painstaking, day-and-night effort of the hospital’s physicist that finally traced the problem to a software error introduced by the manufacturer’s efforts to make the machine more user-friendly. A team of engineers are redesigning an artificial lung marketed by their company. They are working in a highly competitive market, with long hours and high stress. The engineers have little or no contact with the firm’s customers, and they are focused on technical problems, not people. It occurs to the project engineer to invite recipients of artificial lungs and their families to the plant to talk about how their lives were affected by the artificial lung. The change is immediate and striking: “When families began to bring in their children who for the first time could breathe freely, relax, learn, and enjoy life because of the firm’s product, it came as a revelation. The workers were energized by concrete evidence that their efforts really did improve people’s lives, and the morale of the workplace was given a great lift. •Why you think simple human contact made such a large difference? •What does it say about what motivated the engineers, both before and after the encounter? •Is the case too unique to permit generalizations to other engineering products?