It is human to go with what FEELS right. Humans have evolved to be instinctive – like all creatures. We are lucky to be living in a time when humans have developed the notion of logical thought and pre-emptive action. Without such thinking, engineering would not be close to as advanced as it is today.

That means you will always have a tendency to make subjective and instinctive decisions. The decisions that will lack the soundness of thoughts that ultimate engineering decisions possess.

This tendency, in turn, means you need something to help keep your mind focused and disciplined.

Within this context – the need to ensure complete and informed thinking for solid decisions – you can understand how things like FMEA, QFD, ODI, DMAIC, have each become a thing. There is frustration with engineers not considering important aspects, so something needs to be done to note all the issues to be considered.

You could argue that these are just glorified checklist – and I sometimes do when people do not use them as an integrated and serious part of their engineering process. This usually happens when the engineer(s) involved have not realised themselves that they tend to lack discipline in their thinking. Have you ever noticed how the people who realise they could improve their thinking or approach are the ones who need to improve less than the ones who think everything is fine (or even really good)? Well, such people will not see the need for these tools and thus not use them – or pretend to use them. I have seen many engineers do an FMEA at the end of a project – basically hoping (they would say “knowing”) there will be no issues.
The lesson here is that you should view such tools as a way to enhance your engineering.

Even make it more enjoyable.

When you use these tools to efficiently collate information and needs, you then have more time to focus on the creative and exploratory side of engineering. You know what needs to be done and how success is measured so your open-minded thinking and creativity is now well informed. So, you can really lean into it.
​
And then when you have engaged in this free thinking, you have a clear method of assessment to ensure the outcome is aligned with needs that initiated the effort in the first place. This is similar to Daniel Kahneman’s suggestion that humans always better select an alternative when they use a formula based on the identified requirements.

But how can these tools help the global engineer specifically?

In her book The Culture Map, Erin Meyer noted a number of factors that change how culture can affect decision making. Things like: a stronger focus on either how or why, what is considered polite when noting issues, and who normally makes decisions based on seniority.

These differences in approach to making a decision can cause tension in a mixed team of engineers.

Therefore, bringing in an objective and transparent method of assessment can align all team members in effort and assessment of options. This alignment will reduce stress and increase productivity in such teams.
So when you start your next project, for the sake of better engineering and better team alignment, think about which objective assessment tools you can incorporate to get everyone on the same page.

Or When fear and shame override logicWelcome to the next “What would an Engineer Do?” article.
As a reminder, these articles take current issues that sit outside engineering and look at them through an engineering lens.
The goal is twofold:

1. To help you better understand the core attributes of engineering expertise by seeing how they apply elsewhere. Sometimes the different context makes things easier to understand.
2. To show how those same attributes can be applied outside of engineering. This allows you to leverage your engineering skills even more globally.

In this article I am going to apply good global engineering principles to shaken baby syndrome.

Why shaken baby syndrome?
Depending on the country you are in, you might have seen debate about the validity of evidence used in shaken baby syndrome convictions.
You might also be in a country where courts now require an independent witness. The physical evidence alone is no longer considered sufficient.
At the very least, you may remember a time when that physical evidence was accepted as proof.
It is in a state of flux so it is a timely topic, which makes for greater interest. It is also well outside of what many would assume is the domain of engineering.

Some background
You can read more about the science and controversy around shaken baby syndrome here, but the key points to note are:

• It isn’t ethically possible to run proper double-blind experiments in this context.
• It hasn’t been proved that no other mechanisms can produce the same symptoms: subdural haemorrhage, retinal haemorrhage, and encephalopathy.
• Other medical conditions are known to sometimes cause similar effects.
• Reviews that claimed to support the shaken baby hypothesis often relied on circular reasoning: the cases examined had already been classified as abuse victims based on the assumed evidence.

If you think like an engineer, and especially like a global engineer, you know that logic and first principles must guide your thinking. You also know that first principles are found through the application of the scientific method. And in this case, there are no first principles that justify concluding that “shaken baby syndrome” has occurred.
And that means something more concerning.  Because the evidence that was used as first principles cannot be treated as first principles, around the world people have been convicted of a crime they did not commit. And a terrible crime at that – so terrible they would never have committed it.
And yet still, when courts are confronted with reports challenging the status quo based on the above, some judges have responded by saying words to the effects of:

• The argument that the scientific evidence is not actually scientific is radical.
• It seeks to set aside decades of study.
• It stands against other respectable scientific opinion.

For any engineer, that kind of reasoning is known to be flawed. It reveals a misunderstanding of how science works. And when it comes to the scientific method, an engineer should think like any other scientist.
You likely recall Albert Einstein’s response to the book titled 100 Authors Against Einstein. He said “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.” This shows that science works on facts and logic – not popularity – and a single piece of evidence that contradicts a theory disproves that theory.
Science is not based on consensus or longevity of an idea. It rests on evidence and logic. And in this instance, it seems the logic has been lost.

How are we in this situation? More use of engineering expertise principles
Did the judges not understand science? Or, was there something else going on, something that would be familiar to the global engineer?
Imagine if you were a judge who just had it suggested to them that a key piece of evidence that the legal profession relies has come under question. For context, the legal profession relied on this so much that some defendants said that their own lawyers did not believe them.  You would start thinking that maybe many innocent people have been wrongly convicted. That is not a pleasant thought, you would be attached to the original idea that the evidence is strong and your profession has done nothing wrong. You would be fixated on it – this would make it hard to accept contradictory evidence.
Ideally, this attachment would not result in a fixation that would override the proper application of first principles.
As an engineer, you know that once contradictory evidence emerges, previous conclusions must be revisited.
So, we would hope and expect, that an engineer would, when in such a situation, understand the weakness of the theory, and acknowledge that all prior decisions made (under the assumption the theory was a strong one) are not justified.
First principles should override fixation and attachment. But this is not what seemed to happen with these judges.

The takeaway for the global engineer
This case highlights a deeper professional lesson.
Are you willing to hold yourself to the same standard; detaching from your own preferred theories, your past assumptions, and maybe even your professional pride when the evidence shifts?
That can be the challenge of genuine first-principles thinking.
Think back to a time when you were attached to an idea that clouded your judgement. Or when you saw a colleague resist evidence that contradicted their preferred model. Anyone can do it. The key is to notice it and then to do your best to let go of it – no matter how serious the issue at hand.
 
References used
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norman_Guthkelch
https://www.theage.com.au/national/australian-court-ruling-in-shaken-baby-case-was-ignorant-and-embarrassing-20251013-p5n25z.html
https://www.theage.com.au/interactive/2025/diagnosing-murder
https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/this-man-spent-six-years-in-jail-but-experts-say-his-case-has-question-marks-all-over-it-20251029-p5n6c9.html