Discussion: View Thread

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

Boy, I enjoyed the discussions. Kim your paper is very interesting and thoughtful, and I have just added it in my collection. Safety in numbers. Umm! Don't we hear it so often?

Numbers – measured, computed, modeled or assumed contain information. And information is very important – let us not doubt it. People talk about informed decision for a reason. But numbers are also associated with uncertainties (uncertainty is simply the lack of surety or absolute confidence in something) for all different reasons. But so does judgment. One person's judgment may not coincide with another! In the end, we say to our best knowledge and judgment – then we make an informed decision with certain risk – one has to take some risks, otherwise nothing progresses, nothing gets done.

We all know that decision making process talks about something known as due diligence. It is about looking at a problem through different lenses – information and numbers, analyses and enlightened interpretation of them, experience and judgment, different points of view, etc.

Garbage in (Donald's point) is not what it connotes – it is rather dealing with constraints. A modeler (I have extensive experience of numerical modeling in coastal waters) with the task to look into details through simulating Nature, often faces different constraints, like the inadequacy of information, etc. Here again comes his or her experience and judgment supported by assumptions – to fill-in the gap of available knowledge for model input.

Trust me, an experienced modeler many a time asks himself or herself, umm! This does not seem right – and goes back to refining things. But he or she should rise above the temptation of overselling the model results – and must clearly outline the quality of data used, constraints faced and assumptions applied. Compared to the past, modeling is now getting very refined and sophisticated – here again experience leads the way. Bravo experience! There is very little room to doubt the power of a modeling tool.

I refer to two of my publications – if interested please do write to me to get an author's copy:

• Longshore Sand Transport – An Examination of Methods and Associated Uncertainties. Proc: Coastal Sediments, May 11-15, 2015, San Diego, California. World Scientific. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789814689977_0061
• Littoral Shoreline Change in the Presence of Hardbottom – Approaches, Constraints and Integrated Modeling. 22^nd Annual National Conference on Beach Preservation Technology, February 18-20, 2009. St. Pete Beach, Florida.

The first discusses propagation of uncertainties in the context of longshore sand transport; the second is a power point presentation.

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

Enters Sheldon . . . My degree is in physics.  😊

I appreciate the discussion of the definition of engineering judgment. 

First let me point out the definition of engineering practice (in State statutes or guidelines) is "application of the physical and mathematical sciences."  The physical sciences are physics, chemistry and the earth sciences.   Kim's examples of engineering judgment come from the earth sciences.   For example, he brings up the measuring the responses of loads on soil and rock in order to support a dam.   Kim brings up the topics of uncertainties.   He says that engineering judgment is gained through experience with designing and building things given the presence of such uncertainties. This is a beautiful treatise.  I have application for your paper.

Your paper will help me confront the transportation engineering profession with its incorrect definition of engineering judgment.  On a specific subject.   The subject is the setting of the duration of a yellow traffic light.   The duration involves mainly high school physics.     As opposed to the earth sciences, which us snobby physicists call a "soft science", physics is a "hard science."   "Hard" meaning exact (not difficult).   Loads on a rock stratum one cannot see are indeed subject to engineering judgment. But in physics, there is no room for engineering judgement when it comes to rate x time = distance.   mass x acceleration = force.    The physics equations are cast in concrete.

To the point:   Traffic engineers use an equation to calculate the duration of the yellow light which begins with the wrong physics.   The Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), who offers this equation publicly, says to use "engineering judgment" when applying this equation.   No application of this equation, as ITE describes in detail, is correct.   Not one!    By using ITE's equation, engineers introduce a systematic failure into every yellow light.     The result has been and still is millions of crashes, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and hundreds of millions of red-light camera tickets.   ITE has been making these mistakes since 1965.

You can learn about the problem with the yellow light in a series of webinars sponsored by the National Society of Professional Engineers – North Carolina.   Part II is on Wednesday, May 22, 2019 from 12 PM to 1 PM.   It is worth 1 PDH.   You can register here:

https://register.gotowebinar.com/register/963377092844476171

To review Part I:

https://penc.org/ItemDetail?iProductCode=WB-03-13-2019&Category=WEBINAR&WebsiteKey=29ecbaf8-e44a-43d7-8bd3-42639faf64c4

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

The question of judgment, and the role of standards and codes in engineering came into the discussions again and again. This is a great topic that defines an engineer and we all want to have a clear understanding of it. Amid many thoughtful discussions, here is my further take on this. 

First, let me start with semantics of judgment. Webster: the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing . . . Oxford: a decision or opinion about someone or something that one forms after thinking carefully . . . Both the definitions rely on the word, opinion (an opinion is a viewpoint or statement that is not conclusive). In other words, opinion is different from fact, and is seen as subjective or biased because it could be colored by a person's perspective. The second part of the definitions, however clarifies and qualifies opinion by saying: . . . evaluation by discerning and comparing . . . or formed after thinking carefully. . . All these qualifiers are indicators of rationality that are enriched by an engineer's experience – in a way to minimize inconclusiveness or uncertainty. And senior professionals are the ideal candidates to pass that on to the juniors.

I have attached an academic paper that talks about engineering judgment in connection with foundation design. It highlights that engineering judgment is an evolving process – enriched with experience and precedents, to the statistics based reliability design (not a mainstream pursuit yet).

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

The question of judgment, and the role of standards and codes in engineering came into the discussions again and again. This is a great topic that defines an engineer and we all want to have a clear understanding of it. Amid many thoughtful discussions, here is my further take on this. 

First, let me start with semantics of judgment. Webster: the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing . . . Oxford: a decision or opinion about someone or something that one forms after thinking carefully . . . Both the definitions rely on the word, opinion (an opinion is a viewpoint or statement that is not conclusive). In other words, opinion is different from fact, and is seen as subjective or biased because it could be colored by a person's perspective. The second part of the definitions, however clarifies and qualifies opinion by saying: . . . evaluation by discerning and comparing . . . or formed after thinking carefully. . . All these qualifiers are indicators of rationality that are enriched by an engineer's experience – in a way to minimize inconclusiveness or uncertainty. And senior professionals are the ideal candidates to pass that on to the juniors.

I have attached an academic paper that talks about engineering judgment in connection with foundation design. It highlights that engineering judgment is an evolving process – enriched with experience and precedents, to the statistics based reliability design (not a mainstream pursuit yet).

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

The question of judgment, and the role of standards and codes in engineering came into the discussions again and again. This is a great topic that defines an engineer and we all want to have a clear understanding of it. Amid many thoughtful discussions, here is my further take on this. 

First, let me start with semantics of judgment. Webster: the process of forming an opinion or evaluation by discerning and comparing . . . Oxford: a decision or opinion about someone or something that one forms after thinking carefully . . . Both the definitions rely on the word, opinion (an opinion is a viewpoint or statement that is not conclusive). In other words, opinion is different from fact, and is seen as subjective or biased because it could be colored by a person's perspective. The second part of the definitions, however clarifies and qualifies opinion by saying: . . . evaluation by discerning and comparing . . . or formed after thinking carefully. . . All these qualifiers are indicators of rationality that are enriched by an engineer's experience – in a way to minimize inconclusiveness or uncertainty. And senior professionals are the ideal candidates to pass that on to the juniors.

I have attached an academic paper that talks about engineering judgment in connection with foundation design. It highlights that engineering judgment is an evolving process – enriched with experience and precedents, to the statistics based reliability design (not a mainstream pursuit yet).

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

Our point is to shift the discussion towards a bit of more accuracy and that with an isolation from the court by not use of the word judgment. I tend to use the word manipulate, meaning, positive influence or get control of a thing. It sounds, that would also connotate negatively. I would be even more agree with a technical engineering word, discernment.

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

Our point is to shift the discussion towards a bit of more accuracy and that with an isolation from the court by not use of the word judgment. I tend to use the word manipulate, meaning, positive influence or get control of a thing. It sounds, that would also connotate negatively. I would be even more agree with a technical engineering word, discernment.

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

Our point is to shift the discussion towards a bit of more accuracy and that with an isolation from the court by not use of the word judgment. I tend to use the word manipulate, meaning, positive influence or get control of a thing. It sounds, that would also connotate negatively. I would be even more agree with a technical engineering word, discernment.

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

Our point is to shift the discussion towards a bit of more accuracy and that with an isolation from the court by not use of the word judgment. I tend to use the word manipulate, meaning, positive influence or get control of a thing. It sounds, that would also connotate negatively. I would be even more agree with a technical engineering word, discernment.

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?

Engineering Judgment received roughly 40 posts that form the basis for this summary.  Following are summaries of the posts. 

• Explain the basis for your judgment as others cannot read your mind.
• Ask the right questions.
• Explain how your judgment fits into the whole of the work.
• Judgment flows from experience, often bad experience.
• Codes and standards may have been developed with the benefit of judgment.
• Judgment can be applied when working with codes and standards.
• Hard science does not promote judgment but soft science welcomes it.
• Facts and opinions are seen through different lenses.
• Avoid using the word "manipulate."
• Work to standards but look beyond them and apply judgment as needed.
• Draw the design first, then apply judgment to address the question: Will this work?
• Recognize what you don't know in the light of what you do know.
• Be aware of your own biases. 

Please do not hesitate to continue the discussion of engineering judgment as it is an important tool in how we work to keep safe the people we serve. 

Again, here again is my argument for the importance of judgment in what we do. 

            Engineering judgment is an acquired skill, a quality born of experience. It is a way of thinking anchored in common sense. It may or may not be informed by numbers.  It benefits from visual observation and is likely to use words instead of numbers to express probabilities.  It recognizes that predicting human behavior is not possible, seeking to avoid human error by training and practice.  Engineering judgment provides a platform from which the reasonableness of safety estimates may be assessed.

Our point is to shift the discussion towards a bit of more accuracy and that with an isolation from the court by not use of the word judgment. I tend to use the word manipulate, meaning, positive influence or get control of a thing. It sounds, that would also connotate negatively. I would be even more agree with a technical engineering word, discernment.

As engineers we find safety in numbers, but numbers alone are not sufficient in evaluating safety and conveying risk to the public. As engineers we make judgments about safety relying upon estimates of safety factors for loading and likely responses. Engineering judgment provides the check on the numbers we use to quantify safety.  I explain this concept in more detail in the attached document.

How do we go beyond the numbers and use engineering judgement to protect the public we serve?