Engineering Ethics - Brian Coltharp
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
1 like•299 views
TWCA Mid-Year Conference 2018
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
More from TWCA
More from TWCA (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Engineering Ethics - Brian Coltharp
- 2. Case 16-2 Bill is a professional engineer with significant expertise in fire protection engineering. Case 16-2
- 6. QUESTION: What are Engineer A’s ethical responsibilities under the circumstances? SUMMARY • Bill is a PE with expertise in fire protection engineering • A fire sprinkler contractor asked Bill to review, sign, and seal the layout design document • The document was developed without the involvement of a PE • State law requires PE involvement What are Bill’s ethical responsibilities under the circumstances?
- 7. Case 16-2 NSPE Code of Ethics References: • I.2 • II.2 • II.2.a • II.2.b • II.2.c Decline. Propose to initiate the design process instead.
- 8. Case 16-6
- 9. Name Company Name e-mail Address Phone Number Website
- 11. SUMMARY • Sue is a PE licensed in TX • She is a sole practitioner • Her professional business card does not list a geographic address or the state(s) in which she is licensed Is it unethical for Sue to not include a geographic address or the state(s) in which she is licensed on her business card?
- 12. Case 16-6 NSPE Code of Ethics References: • I.5 • II.5.a • III.3 • III.3.a • III.8.a Not unethical.
- 13. Case 16-5
- 16. SUMMARY • Joe (a P.E.) is a consultant to an automobile manufacturer • He is on an engineering risk assessment team • Team will make a recommendation relating to potential situations that could arise in connection with the operation of autonomous vehicles. What are Joe’s ethical responsibilities under the circumstances?
- 17. Case 16-5 NSPE Code of Ethics References: • I.1 • II.1 • II.1.b • II.3.b • III.1.b Joe has an obligation to state that the prime ethical obligation of the vehicle operation is to minimize harm to affect the least number of persons.
- 18. Case 16-11
- 22. 1. Was it ethical, under the facts, for Billy to ask Amber and her firm to design the playground? 2. Would it be ethical for Amber to donate engineering services for the playground design under the circumstances? SUMMARY • Amber’s engineering firm frequently performs engineering services for Allgood • The town engineer asks Amber to donate engineering services to design a playground supported by a council member • This will keep her firm “in good graces” regarding future work
- 23. Case 16-11 NSPE Code of Ethics References: • II.5.b • III.2 • III.3 • III.5.a • III.6 1. Not ethical 2. Not ethical
- 24. Case 16-7
- 28. SUMMARY • Sam (a P.E.) performs a forensic engineering investigation for an attorney about a product failure • The attorney’s client suffered injuries • Sam submits his report to the attorney • Before the settlement concludes, Sam discovers that he used inaccurate data • If more accurate data had been used, Sam’s conclusions would be different What are Sam’s ethical responsibilities under the circumstances?
- 29. Case 16-7 NSPE Code of Ethics References: • II.3.a • II.3.b • III.1.a • III.1.b • III.3.a Immediately advise the attorney.
- 30. Case 16-8
- 34. SUMMARY • Jackie designs a new facility for the City of Chesterton • She estimates it would take to 150 hours complete the assignment: under a “best-case scenario” • Jackie knew that a similar nearby facility encountered unanticipated site conditions resulting in significant additional time and costs to the client • Jackie did not disclose this to the City Was it unethical for Jackie to fail to disclose to the City the unanticipated site conditions that she encountered from her previous project?
- 35. Case 16-8 NSPE Code of Ethics References: • II.3 • II.3.a • II.4 • II.5 • III.1.b • III.3.a Unethical for Jackie to fail to disclose site conditions on previous project.
- 36. Case 16-12
- 37. Case 16-12
- 39. SUMMARY • Peter is preparing an engineering proposal on a private project. • The project includes other team members, including a subconsultant. • The subconsultant informs Peter that he has a copy of a proposal by another firm to Peter’s client for the same project. What are Peter’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
- 40. Case 16-12 NSPE Code of Ethics References: • I.4 • II.1.d • II.1.f • II.4 • III.1 Peter should remove the subconsultant. If Peter suspects that the sub reviewed another firm’s proposal, Peter should report concerns to the client.
Editor's Notes
- To hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, engineers must be morally committed and equipped to grapple with ethical dilemmas they confront.
- Bill is a professional engineer with significant expertise in fire protection engineering as required by National Fire Protection Association standards.
- Bill was contacted by a fire sprinkler contractor and asked to review, sign, and seal the proposed layout design document so that the document could be submitted to the local code official for review and approval.
- The document was developed solely by the fire sprinkler contractor without the involvement of a professional engineer.
- Under the state law, fire sprinkler design documents are required to be prepared by or under the responsible charge of a licensed professional engineer.
- Question: What are Bill’s ethical responsibilities under the circumstances?
- The Board of Ethical Review’s Response: Bill should decline to review, sign, and seal the fire sprinkler contractor’s proposed layout design documents developed solely by the fire sprinkler contractor. Instead, Engineer A should propose that Engineer A should initiate the design process, taking into account an evaluation of the broad range of hazards and protection schemes required to develop a workable, integrated solution to address fire safety concerns, and then move forward in preparing design documents for the fire protection system. Following this process, the fire sprinkler contractor and its competent engineering technicians should perform system layout, prepare shop drawings, and develop material submittals, all in accordance with the professional engineer’s design, and support the installation of fire protection systems under the direction of the professional engineer.
- Sue is a professional engineer licensed in Texas and is a sole practitioner with no employees.
- Her professional business card lists her name, company name, e-mail address, phone number, and website, but does not list any geographic address or the state(s) in which she is licensed.
- She distributes her professional business card to a potential client in Texas.
- QUESTION: Is it unethical for Sue to not include a geographic address or the state(s) in which she is licensed on her business card?
- BER Summary of Findings: It is not unethical for Sue to not include a geographic address or the state(s) in which she is licensed on her business card. “…handing out a business card, in whatever setting, is tantamount to offering to do work. Rather, this Board believes that other documents exist expressly for the purpose of securing work, such as statements of qualifications, proposals, contracts, and the like…”
- Joe is a professional engineer working as a consultant to an automobile manufacturer that is considering the development of a driverless/autonomous vehicle operating system.
- Joe is assigned to an engineering risk assessment team whose members are being asked to make a recommendation relating to potential situations that could arise in connection with the operation of driverless/autonomous vehicles.
- The following scenario is among the situations that are being considered by the engineering risk assessment team: In the event of an unavoidable crash, does the vehicle’s system choose the outcome that will likely result in the greatest potential for safety for the vehicle’s passengers or does the vehicle’s software system instead choose an option in which the least amount of potential harm is done to any of those involved in an accident, such as having the car crash into a stationary object (e.g., telephone pole, etc.) with the probability of causing some passengers serious but non-life-threatening injuries instead of striking and potentially causing a fatal injury to a pedestrian, cyclist, or motorcycle rider? (THIS IS THE TROLLEY CAR PROBLEM)
- QUESTION: What are Joe’s ethical obligations?
- BER Summary of Findings: Joe has a responsibility to fully and actively participate as a member of the engineering risk management team, clearly and unambiguously express any and all concerns he has regarding the safety of the proposed autonomous vehicle operation system, and explore additional potential technical options that could mitigate the risks identified in the proposed system. In light of the fact that engineers should strive to do no harm in the performance of their professional services, if necessary, Joe should propose that further study be undertaken by the company before the autonomous vehicle operating system is utilized. That being said, to address the specific question posed in the case, Joe has an obligation to state that the prime ethical obligation of the vehicle operation is to minimize harm to affect the least number of persons.
- Amber is the owner of an engineering firm in the small town of Allgood. Amber and her firm frequently perform engineering services for Allgood and also for other local agencies that are overseen by the town council.
- Recently Amber and her firm were selected by a local agency to design a major public project in Allgood.
- Following the firm’s completion of the project, Billy, the town engineer who leads a panel that approves the selection of engineering firms performing services for the town and other local agencies, asks Amber and her firm to donate engineering services to design a playground on behalf of a local not-for-profit organization that the city council member is active in and supports.
- Before Amber has a chance to reply, Billy advises Amber that Amber’s firm’s design of the playground will “keep Amber and her firm in good graces” with Billy regarding future work with Allgood or other public work.
- QUESTION: 1. Was it ethical, under the facts, for Engineer B to ask Engineer A and his firm to donate engineering services to design a playground on behalf of a local not-for-profit organization that the city council member is active in and supports? 2. Would it be ethical for Engineer A to donate engineering services for the playground design under the circumstances?
- BER Conclusions: 1. It was not ethical for the Town Engineer to ask Amber and her firm to donate engineering services for the design of a playground on behalf of a local not-for-profit organization that the Town Engineer is active in and supports. 2. It would not be ethical for Amber to agree to donate engineering services for the design of the playground under the circumstances. Amber may have had a desire to support this initiative separate and apart from the Town Engineer’s request to support the playground project. However, the Town Engineer improperly entangled Amber and her firm’s professional services with the Town Engineer ‘s request for support for the playground project. Amber must clearly communicate with the Town Engineer —a party who has influence and authority over the selection of engineering firms to perform work for the town—that she has no intention of abiding by the Town Engineer’s request to assist with the playground project as a condition for future work with the town or other public work. Any other action would amount to an effort to make a contribution (in-kind services) to influence the award of a future contract.
- Sam is a professional engineer. Part of his duties is to perform forensic engineering services for attorneys in connection with pending litigation.
- Sam is retained by an attorney to perform a forensic engineering investigation and prepare a written report in connection with a mechanical product failure, which resulted in extensive injuries to the attorney’s client.
- Sam conducts the investigation for the attorney, prepares the written report along with conclusions regarding the cause of the accident, and submits the written report to the attorney.
- The attorney is in the process of settlement negotiations with the defendant’s attorney in the case. Following Sam’s investigation and Sam submitting the report to the attorney, but before the settlement negotiations are concluded, Sam discovers that the data upon which he based his report conclusions was inaccurate and that if more accurate data had been used in his investigation, Sam’s conclusions would be different.
- QUESTION: What are Sam’s ethical responsibilities under the circumstances?
- BER’s Conclusion: Sam had an affirmative obligation to step forward and immediately advise the Attorney. Since the Attorney was in the middle of negotiations with the defendant’s attorney, which may or may not have resulted in a settlement of the case, this was critically important information for the Attorney to have in his possession.
- Jackie is contacted by the City of Chesterton to design of a new facility for them.
- Jackie prepares a preliminary estimate of the amount of time it would take to complete the assignment: 150 hours under a “best-case scenario.”
- At the time of these discussions, Jackie knew that a similar nearby facility in which she was involved in for another client, encountered unanticipated site conditions that resulted in significant additional time to complete the final design which ultimately resulted in Jackie significantly exceeding his original estimate and, as a result, additional costs to the client
- Jackie did not disclose to the City of Chesterton the circumstances involved in the unanticipated site conditions that resulted in significant additional time for Jackie to complete the final design for her client on the previous project.
- QUESTION: Was it unethical for Engineer A to fail to disclose to Client B the unanticipated site conditions that resulted in significant additional time for Engineer A to complete the final design for Client C?
- BER’s Conclusion: It was unethical for Jackie to fail to disclose to her Client the previously encountered site conditions that resulted in significant additional time for her to complete the final design for her previous client.
- Peter is preparing an engineering proposal on a private project for a client.
- The project includes preliminary design information and subproposals from other team members, including a subconsultant.
- One day before Peter is scheduled meet with the Client to provide a preliminary proposal on the project, the subconsultant informs Peter that his firm has gained access to a copy of an engineering proposal prepared and presented by another firm for the same project.
- QUESTION: What are Peter’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
- BER’s Conclusion: Peter has an obligation to immediately advise the subconsultant that its access to another firm’s proposal was improper, and that under no circumstances should that proposal be reviewed or considered by the subconsultant. In addition, in light of this development, Peter should take immediate steps to remove this subconsultant on his design team. If Peter has a reasonable suspicion to believe that the subconsultant may have had access to or reviewed the other firm’s proposal, Peter has an obligation to report his concerns to his current client.
- To hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public, engineers must be morally committed and equipped to grapple with ethical dilemmas they confront.