>>Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. Please note that this scenario would arise only after the di

>>Find a way to package the right thing so they can do it without having to admit they were wrong. Please note that this scenario would arise only after the disaster happens. These people have to make a decision before that. There is no concept of a blame before a disaster, only accountability. For a simple reason that it has not happened yet. Now if a room full of engineers said NO in consensus, and you still go ahead and say YES. Then you either know something they don't which in case you must mention what that information is, and get it reviewed from those engineers who don't have that information. Then vote again, make the YES/NO decision appropriately. Repeat until there is consensus between both you and them. If not take complete responsibility for making that decision, because only you know why you are making that decision. Decisions this crucial are not left to gut feeling and Rambo level on-the-field thinking. There is a reason you have a panel of experts/engineers sitting. You don't make any decisions in reality. You only iterate the process of arriving at YES/NO once all the data and scenarios are reviewed. Situations like these happens when managers/administrators think they are kings with veto to override decisions at whim. Even at the very highest levels. Including that of Prime Ministers and Presidents, governments are largely run by expert panels and commissions, with politicians only give policy directions. And manage things based on recommendations.