25'107 Intro' to Engineering Session 22: Introduction to Engineering Ethics

1
25.107 Intro. to EngineeringSession 22
Introduction toEngineering Ethics

• David O. Kazmer, P.E., Ph.D.

2
Module FourEngineering Ethics

• Dates/Topics
• 11/21 Introduction to Engineering Ethics
• 11/28 Incident at Morales, Part I
• 11/30 Incident at Morales, Part II
• 12/5 Engineering Society
• Important Notes
• Homework 5 due next Tuesday, Nov. 28th
• Project 2 due during lab sections the week of
  Dec. 4th

3
Agenda

• Discussion
• Withdrawal of Offer
• Engineers Dispute with Client
• Lecture
• Fundamental Principles
• Rules of Engineering Practice
• Discussion
• Withdrawal of Offer
• Engineers Dispute with Client

4
NSPE Case No. 91-1 Withdrawal of Offer

• Smith, an unemployed graduate engineer who
  recently received certification as an
  Engineer-Intern, is seeking employment with a
  consulting firm. Smith is contacted by Engineer
  A, a principal with a large consulting firm.
  After a long discussion including such matters as
  working conditions, salary, benefits, etc.
  Engineer A offers and Smith accepts a position
  with the firm. Smith cancels several additional
  job interviews with other individuals.

5
NSPE Case No. 91-1 Withdrawal of Offer

• Two days later, in a meeting with other
  principals of the firm, it was agreed by the
  firm's management, including Engineer A, that the
  vacancy should be filled by an engineering
  technician. Not until a week and a half later did
  Engineer A contact Smith and rescind the firm's
  offer.
• Did the actions of Engineer A in his relations
  with Smith constitute unethical conduct?

6
Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design Case
No. 84-4

• Client hires Engineer A for a project. Engineer A
  develops what he believes to be the best design
  and meets with the client to discuss the design.
  After discussing the design plans and
  specifications, the client and Engineer A are
  involved in a dispute concerning the ultimate
  success of the project.
• The client believes Engineer A's design is too
  large and complex and seeks a simpler solution to
  the project.
• Engineer A believes a simpler solution will not
  achieve the result and could endanger the public.
  
• The client demands that Engineer A deliver over
  to him the drawings so that he can present them
  to Engineer B to assist Engineer B in completing
  the project to his liking.

7
Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design Case
No. 84-4

• The client is willing to pay for the drawings,
  plans, specifications, and preparation but will
  not pay until Engineer A delivers over the
  drawings.
• Engineer A refuses to deliver the drawings.
• Question Would it be ethical for Engineer A to
  deliver over the plans and specifications to the
  client?

8
Agenda

• Discussion
• Withdrawal of Offer
• Engineers Dispute with Client
• Lecture
• Fundamental Principles
• Rules of Engineering Practice
• Discussion
• Withdrawal of Offer
• Engineers Dispute with Client

9
Agenda

• Discussion
• Withdrawal of Offer
• Engineers Dispute with Client
• Lecture
• Fundamental Principles
• Rules of Engineering Practice
• Discussion
• Withdrawal of Offer
• Engineers Dispute with Client

10
NSPE Case No. 91-1 Withdrawal of Offer

• Smith, an unemployed graduate engineer who
  recently received certification as an
  Engineer-Intern, is seeking employment with a
  consulting firm. Smith is contacted by Engineer
  A, a principal with a large consulting firm.
  After a long discussion including such matters as
  working conditions, salary, benefits, etc.
  Engineer A offers and Smith accepts a position
  with the firm. Smith cancels several additional
  job interviews with other individuals.

11
NSPE Case No. 91-1 Withdrawal of Offer

• Two days later, in a meeting with other
  principals of the firm, it was agreed by the
  firm's management, including Engineer A, that the
  vacancy should be filled by an engineering
  technician. Not until a week and a half later did
  Engineer A contact Smith and rescind the firm's
  offer.
• Did the actions of Engineer A in his relations
  with Smith constitute unethical conduct?

12
NSPE Case No. 91-1 Withdrawal of Offer

• Discussion
• Engineers should be faithful to employer.
• Employer should disclose fully all information to
  employees on working conditions and other
  conditions of employment.
• Just as a prospective engineer employee has an
  obligation to act in good faith with a potential
  employer, an engineer employer owes a duty to
  deal honestly, fairly and openly with a
  prospective engineer employee.

13
NSPE Case No. 91-1 Withdrawal of Offer

• Facts
• Engineer A knowingly made commitments to Smith
  which were relied and acted upon by Smith.
• Engineer A, as a principal in the firm, knew or
  should have known all necessary facts and
  circumstances involved in filling the vacancy in
  the firm.
• Engineer A let a week and a half pass before
  informing Smith that the offer had been
  rescinded.
• Conclusion
• The actions of Engineer A, in his relations with
  Smith, constituted unethical conduct.
• Furthermore, the involvement of all the
  principals of the firm, in connection with the
  withdrawal of the employment offer, constituted
  unethical conduct.

14
Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design Case
No. 84-4

• Client hires Engineer A to design a particular
  project. Engineer A develops what he believes to
  be the best design and meets with the client to
  discuss the design. After discussing the design
  plans and specifications, the client and Engineer
  A are involved in a dispute concerning the
  ultimate success of the project.
• The client believes Engineer A's design is too
  large and complex and seeks a simpler solution to
  the project.
• Engineer A believes a simpler solution will not
  achieve the result and could endanger the public.
  
• The client demands that Engineer A deliver over
  to him the drawings so that he can present them
  to Engineer B to assist Engineer B in completing
  the project to his liking.

15
Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design Case
No. 84-4

• The client is willing to pay for the drawings,
  plans, specifications, and preparation but will
  not pay until Engineer A delivers over the
  drawings.
• Engineer A refuses to deliver the drawings.
• Question Would it be ethical for Engineer A to
  deliver over the plans and specifications to the
  client?

16
Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design Case
No. 84-4

• Facts
• Engineer A has an ethical obligation to the
  public good.
• This obligation assumes that Engineer A is in
  possession of verifiable facts or evidence which
  would substantiate a charge that an actual danger
  to the public health or safety exists.
• Conclusions
• In this case, Engineer A makes the overly broad
  assumption that if he were to deliver over to the
  client the drawings so that the client can
  present them to Engineer B to assist Engineer B
  in completing the project to the client's liking,
  Engineer B would develop a set of plans which
  would endanger the public health and safety.
• Such an assumption is ill-founded.
• In reviewing the conduct of Engineer A , Engineer
  A went as far as he was ethically required to go
  in preparing what he believed was the best design
  for the project and in informing the client of
  the dangers of proceeding with the client's
  simplified solution.

17
Engineer's Dispute With Client Over Design Case
No. 84-4

• Answer It would be ethical under the above
  circumstances for Engineer A to deliver over the
  plans and specifications to the client.
• Note Continuing obligations
• In the event, however, that Engineer A does
  deliver over to the client the plans so that the
  client can present them to Engineer B for
  completion of the project to the client's liking,
  and thereafter Engineer A discovers that Engineer
  B developed plans which constitute a danger to
  the public, certain actions would then be
  required by Engineer A.
• Any verifiable conduct on the part of Engineer B
  which indicates that Engineer B's plans are a
  danger to the public, should be brought to the
  attention of the proper authorities, i.e., the
  responsible professional societies or the state
  engineering registration board.