Dear esteemed colleagues,
It is genuinely challenging for me to contribute today, not out of hesitation, but because the topic under discussion represents one of the most conceptually profound issues facing the risk management community.
I believe an engagement within ASCE forums carries a level of scientific rigor and professional responsibility that far exceeds typical external groups. I have always viewed the exchanges here not as comments, but as miniature research notes-gateways to larger intellectual frameworks.
My sincere appreciation goes to Dr. McAnally for continuously calibrating our professional compass, and to Dr. Winkler for steering the conversation with clarity and purpose.
...............
When connecting the threads across the contributions above, a clear methodological gap emerges-one that demands an urgent and structural rethinking of how we engage with engineering codes and standards. When discussing sea‑level rise as a dynamic and accelerating phenomenon, our instinct as engineers and resilience practitioners is to return to codes built fundamentally on anticipatory adaptation, grounded in historical reference datasets.
However, the pace of climatic acceleration forces us to question the adaptation principle itself. Over the past four years alone, we have recorded annual extremes surpassing 50‑year and 100‑year thresholds, and in some cases, values absent entirely from historical observation records. This illustrates the magnitude of the methodological challenge, where traditional forecasting tools-such as correlation regression / least square test (R) and (MRI) return interval analysis-are increasingly under scrutiny.
On the other hand, as Mitchell highlighted a critical point: "uncertainty". Indeed, we are now entering a domain of risk that tests the limits of our intellectual and methodological instruments.
This raises a fundamental question:
Should we continue stress‑testing our legacy tools, or should we innovate entirely new frameworks capable of engaging with this class of uncertainty?
In my previous work leading sectoral research and policy modeling, I operated within an environment characterized by two dominant features: deep uncertainty and absence of formalized methodology. Engineering sectors in less‑developed economies are rarely analyzed due to their complexity and the presence of numerous invisible interactions. I worked with 16 interacting factors, including lack of transparency and absence of regulatory structure.
For illustration, I am attaching one or two simplified snapshots from a dynamic modeling exercise I conducted previously.
These visuals demonstrate how multi‑layered interactions across 16 systemic factors can be structured, weighted, and simulated over time to reveal hidden dynamics and policy‑sensitive leverage points.
The approach I adopted was a multi‑layered methodological architecture, including:
- System Thinking
- Data collection and transformation of qualitative insights into quantitative variables through weighted influence mapping
- Construction of dynamic causal relationships (influencer/affected) with precise structural mapping
- Development of a dynamic model under equilibrium constraints using genetic algorithms, followed by sensitivity testing
- Scenario testing (which aligns closely with what Mitch referenced)
- Finally, strategy testing using a Game‑Changer approach to identify the most robust strategic pathway.
Only after establishing this strategic backbone could we return to traditional statistical This raises a fundamental question: -now in a dynamic form, where a 50‑year projection is recalibrated annually. This does not eliminate uncertainty, but it illuminates the path forward, even when the light is dim.
I have also heard of the significant work being led by Jennifer Goble and the sustainability and resilience committees on what they refer to as a System‑of‑Systems approach. I am genuinely eager to see the outcomes of their efforts.
My deepest thanks to all of you for this thoughtful and rigorous discussion.
If you would like further methodological details on dynamic scenario modeling, I would be more than happy to share.
------------------------------
Abubakr Gameil, R. ENG, M. ASCE®️,
MSc-Holder, [ SEI, EWRI, CI, ISSMGE ]Mermber
Past / Chairman & Director General
Almanassa Engineering International Co. Ltd,
Khartoum, Sudan
Currently / UAE- Humanitariam Residency
NXN- Central branch -Al Fujairah,
PO.Box : 1142 (Fujairah)
------------------------------