Speaking with greater clarity, why did the subject of the investigation deform or break? Why did some of its material disappear? Why have the strength characteristics become degraded?

As I plug away at writing the materials-engineering-informed failure-analysis book that has been on and off my “Get it Done!” list since 2003, I have at last come to the part about writing the report.

Failure is a loaded word. It implies fault. But the type of failure analysis engineers usually work on is of things.

So, why did it fail? If the failure is due to mechanical causes, including fracture, wear and deformation, a true answer is always “because the stress exceeded the strength.”

My favorite example is the story of why human-resource people decided that they should discourage people from “using knowledge in the workplace.” Huh? I really did not understand this idea at first.

Debbie Aliya's series on critical thinking continues.

In the last post (part 2), I discussed my definition of critical thinking. Critical thinking is only one skill set in the “took kit of thinking” that I have developed over the last 25 years. In order of our natural tendencies, I usually list the six basic thinking types as follows.

We talked about David Levy’s book Tools of Critical Thinking: Metathoughts for Psychology in part 1. There is no similar book for people involved in failure analysis, although that will change if I ever finish the book I have been working on since 2003.

After spending a few years on a LinkedIn Group called “Critical Thinking in the Workplace,” it became clear to me that there was no universally accepted definition of critical thinking. 

Every once in a while we have large, painful failures that are visible to lots of people.