I was struck recently by the similarity between investigative journalism and a forensic engineer investigating the standard of\u00a0practice existing when a structure was designed and constructed.\u00a0 Also the similarity in the relief felt by both the journalists and the forensic engineer when the investigations\u00a0are complete.<\/p>\n
This occurred to me last Saturday when I read the report in the Globe and Mail about the Globe’s\u00a0exhaustive, 18 month investigation of the Ford family. (Ref. 1)\u00a0 I was also checking and reviewing guidelines on the weekend\u00a0for researching the standard of care existing at the time a failed structure was originally designed and constructed.\u00a0 This is a forensic engineering method of investigation.<\/p>\n
The Globe\u00a0reported how carefully and thoroughly they carried out their investigations – as they must do,\u00a0and\u00a0the efforts to which they went to corroborate their findings.\u00a0\u00a0I can imagine the\u00a0reporters being sent\u00a0out “just one more time” to do one more interview, to follow up more lead, to get one more corroboration,\u00a0and how relieved they were when the results of their investigation were finally published.\u00a0 “Phew, let’s get onto something else now”<\/p>\n
It’s not too much different when a forensic engineer must identify the standard of practice guiding the design and construction engineers\u00a0for\u00a0the structure that failed some years after it was built.\u00a0 Or the structure where a person had an accident years later.<\/p>\n
We interview architects, professional engineers and specifiers practicing in the area at the time to determine the standards they follow.\u00a0 We\u00a0also\u00a0identify guidelines and codes existing\u00a0then and the sources of these, and assess how representative the sources are of the industry.<\/p>\n
If there is wide\u00a0variance in what we find, we speak with more<\/strong> architects, professional engineers and specifiers,\u00a0identify more<\/strong> guidelines and codes, and assess\u00a0more<\/strong> sources until we feel satisfied we know what the average is. (Ref. 2, 3, and 4)<\/p>\n Sometimes it takes a lot of e-mails and telephone calls before we get satisfactory corroboration and know the average practice.\u00a0 I had a Eureka..!! moment three days ago when a source of industry guidelines\u00a0in Canada in a matter I was investigating was confirmed considerably as widely followed.\u00a0 Until then I was getting a good understanding of practice in the industry at the time but the\u00a0‘average’ wasn’t clear.\u00a0 Needless to say,\u00a0I was relieved to see\u00a0a light at the end of the tunnel\u00a0like the journalists must have been relieved to see the results of their investigation finally published.<\/p>\n References<\/strong><\/p>\n I was struck recently by the similarity between investigative journalism and a forensic engineer investigating the standard of\u00a0practice existing when a structure was designed and constructed.\u00a0 Also the similarity in the relief felt by both the journalists and the forensic … Continue reading \n