I don’t think so..!!  

Certainly not in the forensic engineering field where ‘small-data’ is the rule and where there will always be a need for the subject-area expert – a well experienced, knowledgeable person in a particular field of study.

Someone who can gather engineering data and facts, for example, then bridge the gap between these facts and the formulation of an opinion on cause.  Finally, someone who can help civil litigation lawyers and the judge understand the technical cause of a failure or accident in the built environment (Ref. 1).

But, exciting things are happening in the Big-Data world

But, there does appear to be exciting things happening in the ‘big-data’ world as suggested in a recent item in the Globe and Mail. (Ref. 2)  The item – headed up ‘Experts on the wane?’, quotes the authors of a recent book (Ref. 3) who predict “Data-driven decisions are poised to augment or overrule human judgement”.  The new big-data way will “…let the data speak.”

(The book is a very good read – a study to some extent, with much insight on what can be learned from large amounts of data, and also how we are being monitored with today’s technology.  There is an extensive bibliography)

No excitement in the Small-Data world

That may be the case as far as big-data is concerned but there’s nothing new there in the ‘old’, small-data world.  Practitioners of forensic engineering investigation have been “letting the data speak” all along and following the evidence where it leads.

Definition of big-data with a good example

Big-data refers to the ability of society to harness huge amounts of data in novel ways with today’s computers, and analyse the data to produce useful insights on people, or goods and services of significant value. (Ref. 3)

For example, Amazon now regularly analyses tens of thousands of customers’ book purchases to predict what related topics any one us will be inclined to purchase next, and then offer it to us.  The experts who did this in the past were all laid off.

Engineers go outdoors and get dirty – fortunately for the justice system

In spite of this ability of today’s technology, it will still be necessary for an engineer to go on site and get his hands dirty and mud on his boots examining a foundation failure or measuring skid marks at the scene of a traffic, or slip and fall accident.  And crawling over the debris of a collapsed structure.

We engineers in North America are known overseas for our interest and willingness to go on site and get data firsthand.  And the justice system appreciates that hands-on approach.  The big-data way won’t cut it in the investigation of a failure in the built environment.

The justice system still wants to know the cause of a problem

As well, gathering large amounts of data and analysing the data with computers focuses on establishing correlations rather than causes.  Identifying the what of a problem rather than the why – the cause of a problem. (Ref. 3)  That would never do in forensic engineering where the cause of a problem must be determined before you can fix it, and before the justice system can determine damages.

The old, small-data way solves problems in the built environment

All the problems that I experience in my forensic engineering practice – requiring the gathering and analysis of small-data by an expert, or that I hear about from my colleagues in their practices, and see in the literature, are from the built environment.

Problems and failures in the built environment to do with the planning, design, construction, performance, and maintenance of structures like industrial, commercial, institutional, and residential low- and high-rise buildings.  Also civil engineering structures like bridges, roads, airport runways and taxiways, dams, drainage systems, earthworks, harbour works, and hydraulic works.

And included is the plant and equipment in these structures and the infra-structure.  Also the traffic, industrial, and slip and fall accidents that occur in and around these structures.

The big-data way can’t solve these problems because these problems in the built environment are not characterized by a gazillion amount of data.  There are a lot of data sometimes but not that much.  These problems are characterized by small amounts of data appropriate to the small-data way of an expert – who then applies his judgement to formulate an opinion as to cause.

Experts on the wane?  No, they’re not.  There will always be a need for experts as long as there are failures and accidents in the built environment.

References

1. The Globe and Mail, Thursday April 11, 2013, page S8.  A relevant item, an obituary of a man, Martin B. Wilk, scientist, statistician, sage, who thought of statistics as a beautiful blend of science and art, bridging the gap between mathematical facts and human understanding.
2. The Globe and Mail, March 6, 2013, page L10.  See ‘Experts on the wane?’
3. Mayer-Schonberger, Victor and Cukier, Kenneth, Big Data: A Revolution That Will Transform How We Live, Work and Think, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, New York, 2013.

(The following is one in a series of cases I have investigated that illustrate the different forensic engineering methods I use to investigate the cause of failures and accidents that result in civil litigation. 

This is a good case for illustrating how simple an engineering investigation can sometimes be, and how knowledge of the geology of an area can form the basis of informed comment.

The investigation of the fatal aviation accident is reported under the following main headings with several sub-headings:

• The case (a description of the fatal aviation accident, the legal/technical issues, and my client)
• Forensic engineering investigation of the failure and the methods used
• Findings of the investigation (conclusions with respect to the technical issues)
• Post mortem (resolution and lessons learned)

The case

Description of fatal aviation accident 

Ms. Jane Doe was killed when her plane crashed on take-off from an international airport on one of the family islands in the Bahamas.  The accident occurred near a runway where I had completed a geotechnical/foundation investigation prior to construction of the runway several years previously.

Legal/Technical Issues

The main issue was whether or not the propeller on the starboard side of the aircraft – the right side for landlubbers, could penetrate several inches into the ground at the crash scene, and this not occur on the port side – the left side.

Client

I was retained by a U.S. aviation accident reconstruction expert on the advice of the Public Works Department in Nassau, Bahamas and a law firm practicing in Nassau.  Both were involved in the case.  The Department was my client for the earlier geotechnical investigation.  The law firm knew of my work as a professional engineer in the Bahamas.

Forensic engineering investigation

My forensic engineering investigation and advisory services involved the following methods:

1. Taking a telephone briefing on the aviation accident by the U.S. reconstruction expert
2. Studying photographs of the crash scene e-mailed as attachments
3. Reviewing my geotechnical/foundation investigation report for the runway design and construction
4. Briefing the U.S. expert on the geological processes on the Bahamian island and the degree of probability that the propeller on the starboard side penetrated the ground where the port propeller did not

You will note that this forensic engineering investigation was a simple document review and my knowledge of the published geology of this particular Bahamian island.  An extremely simple investigation.  There would have been no advantage to me flying to the island and examining conditions at the crash site because these would have changed since the accident.

Conclusion

I was able to advise the U.S. aviation expert with considerable certainty the degree of probability that the propeller penetrated the ground several inches on the starboard side.  I’m not at liberty to state that degree of probability.

Resolution

The case may still be in litigation.

Lessons learned

1. Do the most thorough and reliable engineering work possible every time because you never know how the data you collect will want to be used for a different purpose in the future.
2. Worthwhile forensic engineering investigations of serious incidents, e.g., fatal aviation accidents, can be carried out at a distance based on a simple document review.  And sometimes that’s all that is possible, as in this case, because site conditions had changed since the accident.