The examples below are based on real engineering matters encountered during previous employment. Technical, commercial and organizational details have been modified, generalized or omitted to preserve confidentiality.
When a Deviation is Mistaken for a Root Cause
Situation
A significant internal leakage developed within an industrial system. A documented maintenance deviation existed and was initially identified as the root cause of the problem. Corrective actions were proposed on that basis.
Challenge
Although the maintenance deviation was real, the causal relationship between the deviation and the observed failure mechanism remained insufficiently demonstrated. Subsequent repair and testing activities did not eliminate the leakage, raising questions as to whether the proposed explanation adequately accounted for the observed behaviour.
Contribution
While working in a project-management role, I reviewed the available evidence, assessed the consistency of the proposed explanation with subsequent testing results, challenged assumptions that appeared insufficiently supported, requested a technical basis for the proposed causal relationship, and contributed to the development of alternative technical explanations better aligned with the observed evidence.
Lesson
A condition associated with a failure is not necessarily its cause. Effective investigations require a demonstrated causal relationship, not merely the identification of a deviation from normal practice.
When Contradictory Evidence Remains Unexplained
Situation
A recurring technical problem affected multiple units over an extended period. Several investigations were conducted, and multiple revisions of the root-cause analysis were issued.
Challenge
A substantial body of evidence was available, yet important observations remained difficult to reconcile with the prevailing explanation. Successive revisions refined the existing theory but did not fully resolve key inconsistencies. Several observations appeared to point towards an additional or alternative failure mechanism that had not been fully incorporated into the analysis.
Contribution
While working in an engineering and project-management capacity, I reviewed the technical documentation, assessed the consistency of the proposed explanations with the available evidence, challenged assumptions that appeared insufficiently supported, identified observations that remained unexplained by the prevailing hypothesis, and developed alternative hypotheses and failure mechanisms that better reconciled the available evidence.
Lesson
Large quantities of data do not automatically lead to reliable conclusions. Where contradictory observations are repeatedly discounted rather than investigated, an analysis may become increasingly detailed without becoming more convincing.
Substantiating a Claim
Situation
A complex commercial dispute arose following substantial cost overruns, delays, and technical difficulties during the execution of an industrial project. The parties involved disagreed on the origin, extent, and justification of the claimed costs, requiring a structured technical substantiation of the claim.
Challenge
A large volume of information was available, including invoices, timesheets, daily reports, correspondence, project records, and photographic evidence. The challenge consisted not only in reviewing and organizing the available information, but also in establishing clear technical relationships between events, causes, consequences, and associated costs in a manner that could withstand scrutiny by commercial and legal stakeholders.
Contribution
Technical review and analysis of project documentation, supporting records, and evidence were performed to identify, organize, and substantiate the technical basis of the claim. The available information was systematically reviewed to establish chronology, demonstrate causal relationships, assess the technical validity of claimed impacts, and support the preparation of a coherent and traceable claim dossier. Collaboration with legal advisors facilitated the integration of technical findings into the broader commercial and legal strategy.
Lesson
Successful claims are rarely determined by the volume of available information alone. The ability to establish traceable links between technical events, evidence, consequences, and resulting costs is often critical. Clear documentation, systematic analysis, and coherent technical reasoning significantly improve the ability to communicate and substantiate complex claims.