Reviewer dilemma 1

[bkal]

I was asked to review an assessment of an existing structure carried out by a tird party. While I agree, mostly, with conclusions of the assessment, I do not agree with the arguments and the way it has been jutified. In order to convince myself I had to do some additional calculations. The assessment report needs to be formally approved and accepted, but the original author seems to take any criticism quite personally. While I will try to push the author to modify his approach, I would like to hear what is this forum's experience and opinion about situations like this.

 

[civilperson]

Be succinct: (no debates or backup data)
1)agree, 2) agree with reservations, 3)disagree, 4)could not assess.

 

[TheTick]

You were formally asked for your professional opinion, so give what was requested of you.

 

[Maury]

Talk to the author ahead of time about any reservations you have without getting into a debate. He may or may not want to change anything, but at least he won't be blind sided by your comments. Other than that, do what civilperson ant TheTick suggested.

 

[MillR]

Obviously, the best scenario would be to develop a decent working relationship with the original author, but sometimes that isn't possible. If you are being asked to review another engineer's work, but do not have authority to request changes (you aren't overstamping his report), it seems you must submit your opinion independently. This might take the form of a letter saying you agree with a, b and c but take exception to d, and cannot confirm conclusion e.

 

[GrimesFrank]

If I understand the problem;
You received a report you do not agree with the approach so you "redid" it and concluded that although the author took the "wrong" assumptions the conclusions are still correct.

I have come across this many times (luckily huge safety margins where I work). I submit a verification sheet when I review something, showing I independently reviewed it with my comments and alternate calcs. I will sign the document and submit it with my sheet to the supervisor for signature. He sees that I have been due diligent with it and although I don't agree with the author's approach, I have done my duty.

JMO

Frank "Grimey" Grimes
You can only trust statistics 90% of the time.

 

[DRC1]

I agree with the Tick. You were hired to review and give your opinion. Itis not your job to get the original designer to agree with you. That is a matter for your client and the original designer.

 

[dik]

You can reply that although the author used an alternate method, one that you wouldn't (for stated reasons) that the results of the review or analysis indicate that ??? is acceptable within the assumed parameters. You might want to sit with the other engineer and review your findings and methods prior to publishing the report. Is he copied on the report? Unless it's a 'glaring' error, you may want to soften the comments. Hopefully, the other engineer will learn from your review and you may pick something up from his dialogue.

Dik

 

[JAE]

bkal,

The best thing here is to simply do your job.

As an engineer, your first duty is to protect the public safety and welfare. If the disagreements within the report are not related to safety/welfare, then your job is to simply respond to the report with your professional opinion...period. Don't worry about changing his mind. Simply report what you see, what you know, what you recommend, etc. If the original engineer takes your advice, fine, if not, fine again.

If the issues do relate to public safety and welfare, and the report would endanger others, then you have a duty to go further than your simple response, and notify the appropriate parties of this issue.

 

[dik]

JAE: I think you have to use a little caution... if you arrive at the same location, using different paths, it warrants a quick review of the alternative path. Same thing with building codes... although some may differ in various areas, because of other assumptions, they can arrive with a safe building... one of the concerns of taking information from one code and applying it to another.

 

[jmw]

...the original author seems to take any criticism quite personally.

That is his problem, don't let him make it yours.
Don't let it alter the way you respond. He should do his job and you yours. There is only so much "people management" you should do.



JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[kchayfie]

Its not quite the same situation, but all our design documents are subject to peer review. Two of my colleagues have a nasty habit of refusing to sign off on something because it hasn't been done the way they would do it; they won't look at whether the way it has been done is equally valid. I am not saying you are like these colleagues but its worth taking a moment of introspection to be certain that your reasons for disagreeing have substance. If you're sure that the method is wrong, the fact that they have reached the same conclusion could be a happy accident and you should highlight this to ensure the same method isn't applied in another case and erroneous conclusions reached.

 

[sdl]

I have just gone through a similar situation, except that human safety was/is involved. The advice I got was #1 - be professional. Tell it like it is, no personal comments only facts. #2 - back up anything you say with facts. Use reference materials, etc. so that it takes the focus off of what you are saying and onto standards, codes, general practices, etc.

JAE: Excellent response. Wish I had read that 2 months ago.