Forensic Engineers Are RMDetectives

The potential connection and relationship between forensicengineers and risk managers is clear: Forensic engineeringinvestigations provide valuable data for the assessment and controlof risk.

Forensic engineering is defined as the application of acceptedengineering practices and principles for discussion, debate,argumentative or legal purposes.

A forensic engineer investigates losses to determine what causedthe loss, who is responsible, and what could or should have beendone to prevent the loss. Field investigations include examiningevidence, assessing circumstances and recording observations.

Applying accepted engineering and scientific principles as wellas applicable standards and codes, the forensic engineer joinsevidence with factual data. Out of this comes an opinion. Thefindings are presented in a written report.

In attempting to minimize loss resulting from fire, accidents,and other natural and man-made events, risk managers can enhancetheir analyses and risk reduction strategies by using datadeveloped through forensic engineering.

In forensic engineering investigations, an engineer followsevidence to a logical conclusion, often uncovering informationdirectly related to a risk manager's core responsibility: assessingrisks to reduce losses to acceptable minimums, or controlling riskby anticipating and preventing the occurrence of unplannedevents.

Investigations by forensic engineers include water leaks,electrocutions, fires of electrical and/or mechanical origin,explosions, furnace “puff-backs,” slips, trip-and-fall incidents,auto accidents, recreational accidents, workplace accidents, andmany other types of losses.

Forensic engineering investigations can provide risk managerswith loss data that can assist with risk assessments, includingidentifying loss characteristics and consequences.

For example, a single-unit facility poses different risks to arisk manager–in both types and potential magnitude of risk–than amultiple-unit commercial or industrial facility. A loss in asingle-unit facility might have a limited set of possible causesdictated by the relatively limited scope of the building andpotential loss scenarios. A large commercial or industrialfacility, however, presents a different set of risks and losspotential.

A simple example is an older facility constructed using previousversions of a building code. This presents a different risk than anew facility–current codes require more electrical receptacles thanprior codes.

It is conceivable, therefore, that an older facility could usemore extension cords than a newer one. This might increase the riskthat an extension cord could short-circuit and ignite nearbycombustibles. A forensic engineering probe might conclude a firewas caused by a short-circuit occurring in an extension cord.

Fixed wiring and mechanical systems might also havedeteriorated. Such deterioration, including furnaces for which nospare parts are available or with deferred maintenance, pose otherpotential risks.

Similarly, an older facility is more likely to have beenrenovated. Such renovations are likely to have been performed, notonly under different codes, but by different contractors.Renovations pose potential mechanical, electrical, structural andgeo-technical risks.

A loss in a large commercial office building presents adifferent, and likely much broader array of causal factors andinfluential circumstances. If, for instance, an engineer isinvestigating a fire in a 350-unit office building with an apparentelectrical cause, their analysis might reveal the fire was causedby a malfunction of a major piece of electrical equipment, such asa switchgear or transformer.

The forensic engineering report can provide data regarding thetypes of risks and the potential malfunctions associated with suchequipment.

A fire in an industrial facility presents another loss scenario.Industrial facilities are more closely regulated and monitored thanresidential or commercial facilities, but have greater potentialfor increased property damage and loss of life.

Unlike variable incident settings, forensic investigationmethodology must remain consistent. Each investigation should beconducted using a systematic analytical process to yieldindependent data and analysis. All possible causes should beidentified.

The methodology consists of defining the problem, thencollection and analysis of data. Until all data has been collectedand analyzed in an investigation, no specific cause can bepresumed.

Another important aspect of risk management concerns theconsequences of failures. Engineers, through scientific methodologyand investigation, collectively provide risk managers with a bankof information.

While the consequences of losses are often obvious–damage toresidences and properties, business interruption, and personalinjury and loss of life–the investigations into the cause of theconsequences can provide vital information to the risk manager.

For example, if conditions that cause a furnace to produce soot,or a pressure relief valve to discharge water in such a way thatground water accumulates against a foundation wall are notcorrected, the loss will continue to occur with more catastrophicconsequences.

To reduce risk and loss to acceptable minimums, risk managersmust be provided with the fundamental data and details of loss–thetypes of data and details forensic engineers can provide.

Professional understanding among risk managers and forensicengineers has practical benefits. The two fields, ultimately, havesimilar professional focuses, function, purposes and work-products.Recognizing this fact can only serve to help both professions.

Michael Plick is the founder of Michael Plick andAssociates, a consulting forensic engineering firm in Narberth, Pa.For more information, visit www.plickandassociates.com

Reproduced from National Underwriter Property &Casualty/Risk & Benefits Management Edition, May 13, 2002.Copyright 2002 by The National Underwriter Company in the serialpublication. All rights reserved.Copyright in this article as anindependent work may be held by the author.