Professional engineering institutions, acting within their respective disciplines and specializations, are better suited to lead engineering failure analysis than a centralized engineering regulatory body whose statutory role is primarily regulatory rather than disciplinary or technical-specialist in nature.
Memorandum: Engineering Failure Analysis Certification Royalty Engr. Otis Anyaeji KSG FAEng FNSE FAutoEl FNIMechE
1.0 Introduction
Professional engineering institutions, acting within their respective disciplines and specializations, are better suited to lead engineering failure analysis than a centralized engineering regulatory body whose statutory role is primarily regulatory rather than disciplinary or technical-specialist in nature.
2.0 Failure Analysis is Fundamentally Discipline-Specific
Engineering failure analysis is not a generic activity. It requires deep technical understanding of the scientific principles, design methodologies, materials, operational environments, codes, standards, and industry practices applicable to the particular engineering discipline involved.
For example:
Structural failures require expertise in structural engineering, geotechnics, concrete technology, and construction practices.
Electrical failures require competence in power systems, protection systems, insulation technology, and electrical safety.
Mechanical failures require knowledge of materials engineering, fatigue, fracture mechanics, tribology, and machine design.
- Advertisement -Petroleum and gas failures require expertise in reservoir engineering, drilling systems, corrosion science, process engineering, and pipeline integrity.
Chemical process failures require specialist knowledge of reaction engineering, process safety, instrumentation, and hazard analysis.
No single regulatory institution can reasonably possess, within its structure, the breadth and depth of expertise required to investigate failures across all engineering disciplines with equal competence. Professional engineering institutions are specifically constituted around these specialist bodies of knowledge and therefore possess the technical competence required for credible investigations.
3.0 Technical Authority Resides Within Professional Institutions
Worldwide, the technical advancement of engineering disciplines is driven by professional engineering institutions. Examples include:
- Chartered Institute of Power Engineers of Nigeria
- Chartered Institute of Electrical & Electronic Engineers of Nigeria
- Institution of Civil Engineers (UK)
- Institution of Mechanical Engineers (UK)
- Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (US)
- Society of Petroleum Engineers (US)
- American Society of Civil Engineers
- Nigerian Institute of Petroleum and Gas Engineers
- Nigerian Institution of Agricultural Engineers
- Nigerian Society of Chemical Engineers
- Nigerian Institution of Structural Engineers
These organizations develop technical standards, publish journals, advance professional knowledge, and provide expert panels for investigating engineering failures. Failure analysis is therefore more appropriately anchored within institutions that are repositories of disciplinary knowledge rather than bodies established primarily for registration and regulation.
4.0 Regulatory Bodies Have Different Core Functions
Engineering regulatory bodies are generally established to:
- Register practitioners.
- Regulate professional conduct.
- Enforce ethical standards.
- Accredit educational programmes.
- Protect public interest.
Their role is analogous to that of a referee rather than a technical specialist. When a regulator becomes investigator, trainer, certifier, and adjudicator simultaneously, concerns may arise regarding:
- Conflict of interest.
- Concentration of authority.
- Absence of independent review.
- Reduced transparency.
A separation between regulatory oversight and technical investigation strengthens public confidence in the outcome of failure investigations.
5.0 Failure Analysis Requires Peer Review by Subject-Matter Experts
The credibility of engineering failure investigations depends heavily on peer review. Professional engineering institutions possess:
- Technical divisions.
- Specialist committees.
- Fellowships.
- Technical working groups.
- Expert review panels.
Such structures enable findings to be scrutinized by recognised experts in the relevant discipline. A centralized body may lack sufficient specialist peer-review mechanisms for every engineering field.
6.0 Continuous Updating of Technical Knowledge
Engineering failures often arise from emerging technologies, new materials, digital systems, advanced manufacturing processes, artificial intelligence applications, and evolving industry standards. Professional institutions are usually at the forefront of:
- Research dissemination.
- Continuing professional development.
- Technical conferences.
- Industry engagement.
- International collaboration.
Engineering institutions are consequently better positioned to maintain current methodologies for forensic engineering and failure analysis.
7.0 International Best Practice Favours Specialist Participation
In many jurisdictions, forensic engineering investigations are undertaken by multidisciplinary teams composed of specialists nominated or drawn from relevant professional societies and technical institutions.
The accepted principle is that the closer the investigator’s expertise is to the technology involved in the failure, the greater the reliability of the investigation. Professional institutions therefore provide the natural pool from which competent failure analysts should be drawn.
8.0 Concerns Regarding Partnership with a Non-Engineering Forensic Audit Association
Where a regulatory engineering body partners with a forensic audit association that is primarily non-engineering in orientation for the purpose of training and certifying engineering failure analysts, several legitimate questions may arise.
9.0 Distinction Between Forensic Auditing and Forensic Engineering
- Forensic auditing focuses principally on: financial investigations, fraud detection, governance reviews, compliance verification, and financial evidence.
- Forensic engineering focuses on: physical evidence, design verification, materials behaviour, structural integrity, failure mechanisms, and engineering causation analysis.
The competencies required are substantially different. While forensic auditors may contribute to investigations involving procurement irregularities or contractual disputes, they do not ordinarily possess the technical expertise required to determine why a bridge collapsed, a pipeline ruptured, a pressure vessel exploded, or an electrical system failed.
10.0 Risk of Diluting Engineering Rigour
Certification of engineering failure analysts should be based on demonstrated competence in:
- Engineering science.
- Failure mechanics.
- Materials characterization.
- Root-cause analysis.
- Reliability engineering.
- Safety engineering.
- Applicable engineering standards.
A programme developed primarily from a forensic audit perspective may not provide sufficient technical depth in these areas.
11.0 Questions of Professional Legitimacy
Practitioners and courts generally place greater reliance on expert opinions when the expert’s credentials are directly related to the subject under investigation. An engineering failure analyst trained through forensic engineering organizations, engineering academies, or specialist engineering institutions may enjoy greater professional credibility than one certified through a programme principally associated with non-engineering forensic practice.
12.0 Missed Opportunity for Collaboration with Forensic Engineering Bodies
A more technically defensible model would involve collaboration among:
- Engineering regulatory authorities.
- Professional engineering institutions.
- Universities.
- Research laboratories.
- Forensic engineering organizations.
Such collaboration would ensure that training programmes are grounded in engineering science while maintaining regulatory oversight.
13.0 Preservation of Professional Standards
Professional engineering institutions have a vested interest in maintaining technical excellence, professional competence, public safety, and engineering ethics. Entrusting specialist failure-analysis training to organizations outside the engineering profession may inadvertently weaken the profession’s control over standards of technical competence.
14.0 Recommended Framework
A balanced framework would be one in which:
- The engineering regulatory body establishes policy, accreditation criteria, and oversight mechanisms.
- Professional engineering institutions develop discipline-specific failure-analysis curricula.
- Recognized forensic engineering organizations provide specialized forensic methodologies and investigative tools.
- Universities and research laboratories support testing, certification, and continuing education.
- Certification panels are multidisciplinary but led by subject-matter experts from the relevant engineering disciplines, nominated by the relevant professional engineering institution.
Such a model preserves regulatory oversight while ensuring that engineering failure analysis remains firmly rooted in the technical disciplines from which engineering failures arise. It aligns competence, accountability, and professional responsibility, thereby enhancing both public confidence and the quality of failure investigations.
HR Engr. Otis Anyaeji KSG FAEng
Obi Onowu II n’Okija
Vice President COREN (2015-2016)
President NSE (2016-2017)
Founding & Former Chairman, Automotive & Locomotive Engineers Institute (AutoEI)