ENGR131 - Transforming Ideas into Innovations I

Chapter 3 – Ethics in Engineering (Part 2: Case Studies)

 Attention Please

No Cell Phones

No Photos

2
 Outline

• Code of Ethics: Revision

• Ethics in Engineering: Case Studies

3
 The Engineering Code of Ethics

The Engineering Code of Ethics has

three components:
The Fundamental Canons: which
articulate the basic components of
ethical engineering.
The Rules of Practice: which clarify
and specify in detail the fundamental
canons of ethics in engineering.
Professional Obligations: which
elaborate the obligations that
engineers have.
4
 NSPE Fundamental Canons of
Ethics
Engineers in the fulfillment of their professional duties shall:
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.
Perform services only in areas of their competence.
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
Avoid deceptive acts.
Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully,
so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the
profession.
National Society of Professional Engineers: NSPE
5
Hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public

• If engineers' judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they
shall notify their employers or clients and such other authority as may be appropriate.
• Engineers shall approve those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable
standards.
• Engineers shall not reveal facts, data or information without the prior consent of the client or
employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.
• Engineers shall not permit the use of their names or associates in business ventures with any
person or firm that they believe is engaged in fraudulent or dishonest enterprise.
• Engineers shall not aid or abet the unlawful practice of engineering by a person or firm.
• Engineers having knowledge of any alleged violation of this Code shall report thereon to
appropriate professional bodies and, when relevant, also to public authorities, and cooperate
with the proper authorities in furnishing such information or assistance as may be required.
6
Perform services only in areas of their competence

• Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education

or experience in the specific technical fields involved.
• Engineers shall not affix their signatures to plans or documents dealing
with subject matter in which they lack competence.
• Engineers may accept assignments and assume responsibility for
coordination of an entire project and shall sign and seal the engineering
documents for the entire project, including each technical segment of the
plans and documents.

7
Issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
• Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements or
testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such
reports, statements, or testimony, which shall bear the date indicating when it
was current.
• Engineers may express publicly technical opinions that are founded upon
knowledge of the facts and competence in the subject matter.
• Engineers shall issue no statements, criticisms, or arguments on technical
matters that are inspired or paid for by interested parties, unless they have
prefaced their comments by explicitly identifying the interested parties on
whose behalf they are speaking and revealing the existence of any interest the
engineers may have in the matters.
8
 Act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.
• Engineers shall disclose all known or potential conflicts of interest that
could influence or appear to influence their judgment or the quality of
their services.
• Engineers shall not accept compensation, financial or otherwise, from
more than one party for services on the same project, or for services
pertaining to the same project, unless the circumstances are fully
disclosed and agreed to by all interested parties.
• Engineers shall not solicit or accept financial or other valuable
consideration, directly or indirectly, from outside agents in connection
with the work for which they are responsible.
9
 Avoid deceptive acts
• Engineers shall not falsify their qualifications or permit misrepresentation of
their or their associate's qualifications. Thy shall not misrepresent or
exaggerate their responsibility in or for the subject matter of prior
assignments. Brochures or other presentations incident to the solicitation of
employment shall not misrepresent pertinent facts concerning employers,
employees, associates, joint ventures, or past accomplishments.
• Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, nor receive, either directly or indirectly,
any contribution to influence the award of a contract by a public authority, or
which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent
of influencing the award of a contract unless such contribution is made in
accordance with applicable federal or state election campaign finance laws and
regulations.
10
 Code of Ethics of Engineers: Professional Obligations

• Engineers shall be guided in all their professional relations by the highest standards of
integrity,
• Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest,
• Engineers shall avoid all conduct or practice which is likely to discredit the profession or
deceive the public,
• Engineers shall not disclose confidential information concerning the business affairs or
technical processes of any present or former client or employer without his/her consent,
• Engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests,
• Engineers shall uphold the principle of appropriate and adequate compensation for those
engaged in engineering work,
• Engineers shall not attempt to obtain employment or advancement or professional
engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers, or by other improper or
questionable methods.

11
 Code of Ethics of Engineers: Professional Obligations

• Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the
professional reputation, prospects, practice or employment of other engineers, nor
untruthfully criticize other engineers’ work.
• Engineers shall accept responsibility for their professional activities; provided, however,
that Engineers may seek indemnification for professional services arising out of their
practice for other than gross negligence, where the Engineer’s interests cannot
otherwise be protected.
• Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and will
recognize the proprietary interests of others.
• Engineers shall cooperate in extending the effectiveness of the profession by
interchanging information and experience with other engineers and students, and will
endeavor to provide the opportunity for the professional development and advancement
of engineers under their supervision.

12
 Case study 1
Facts:
• Engineer A is employed by SPQ Engineering, an engineering firm in private practice
involved in the design of bridges and other structures. As part of its services, SPQ
Engineering uses a CAD software design product under a licensing agreement with a
vendor. Under the terms of the licensing agreement, SPQ Engineering is not permitted
to use the software at more than one workstation without paying a higher licensing fee.
SPQ Engineering ignores this restriction and uses the software at a number of
employee workstations. Engineer A becomes aware of this practice and calls a “hotline”
publicized in a technical publication and reports his employer’s activities.

Question:
Was it ethical for Engineer A to report his employer’s apparent violation of the licensing
13 agreement on the “hotline” without first discussing his concerns with his employer?
 Case study 1

Conclusion :
• It was not ethical for Engineer A to report his employer’s apparent
violation of the licensing agreement on the “hotline” without first
discussing his concerns with his employer.
• Engineering firms acting through engineering managers who willfully
ignore licensing agreement restrictions are in violation of the NSPE Code
of Ethics.

14
 Facts: Case study 2
• Engineer A is a software systems engineer hired by NewSoft, a start-
up company, to help in the development of a new software product.
Engineer A soon learns that the plans for the proposed new product
will be based upon proprietary software for which NewSoft does not
have a license. Engineer A assumes that this is some sort of mistake
and speaks to the company president about the matter. Engineer A
is assured by the company president that the situation will be
rectified. But several months pass, and no licenses have been
secured for the proprietary software. Repeated efforts by Engineer
A to get the NewSoft leadership to address this issue have failed.
Engineer A is uncertain as to what steps she should take next.

Question:
15 What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?
 Case study 2

Conclusions :
• It would be ethical for Engineer A to insist that the matter be
immediately resolved
(1)the company must take immediate steps to obtain the necessary license,
permission, or other legal clearance in order to proceed with the work or
(2)the company must obtain a legal opinion from competent legal counsel
demonstrating that the actions being taken by NewSoft do not amount to a
copyright infringement.

• If NewSoft fails to follow the course of action in either (1) or (2),

Engineer A may either resign from NewSoft and/or report NewSoft’s
actions to the appropriate authorities

16
 Case study 3

Facts:
• Engineer A works for UVW Engineering. As part of Engineer A’s activities and
employment responsibilities on behalf of UVW Engineering, he attends various
conferences and trade shows. While attending a recent conference and trade
show at UVW Engineering’s expense, Engineer A won a door prize worth
$5,000.
Question:
• Would it be ethical for Engineer A to keep the door prize or is he required to
remit the prize to UVW Engineering?

17
 Case study 3

Conclusion :
• Engineer A has an ethical obligation to, at a minimum, report the
substantial door prize to UVW Engineering since Engineer A
attended the educational event at the expense of UVW Engineering.
The ultimate decision as to the best method of addressing this
matter is solely between Engineer A and UVW Engineering.

18
 Case study 4
Facts:
• Several years ago Engineer A, a mechanical engineer, consulted for Company A, a pressure
vessel manufacturer, on a specific pressure vessel problem relating to the design of a boiler
system. Engineer A’s work focused on specific design and manufacturing defects that caused
deterioration of the boiler system. Engineer A completed his work and was paid for his services.
• Ten years later, Engineer A was retained by, Attorney X, plaintiff in a case involving the fatal
explosion of a recently designed and manufactured pressure vessel at a facility previously
owned by Engineer A’s former client, Company A. The facility was sold to Company B seven
years before the explosion. The litigation does not involve any of the issues related to the
services Engineer A provided to Company A ten years earlier. The defendant’s attorney
discovered through Engineer A’s deposition and statements relating to his professional
experience that Engineer A had worked for Company A on a pressure vessel problem. Engineer
A explains to the defendant’s attorney that he is not relying upon any of his prior work for
Company A in this case. Nevertheless, the defendant’s attorney requests that Engineer A provide
his files from the previous work performed for Company A.
Question:
19 • Would it be ethical for Engineer A to voluntarily release the files to defense counsel?
 Case study 4

Conclusion :
• It would not be ethical for Engineer A to voluntarily release the files
to the defense counsel

20
 Case study 5

Facts:
• Engineer A is a forensic engineer and is hired by Plaintiff Attorney Y in a
product liability case to review technical attachments that are part of
settlement documents. The documents are relayed by Defense Attorney X to
Plaintiff Attorney Y who then e-mails them to Engineer A. Engineer A’s
computer has commonly available commercial software that reveals embedded
notes in the original document, which includes comments that are damaging to
the interests of Defense Attorney X’s interests. Engineer A reads the comments
and realizes the implications of the comments.
Question:
• What are Engineer A’s ethical obligations under the circumstances?

21
 Case study 5

Conclusion :
• Engineer A had an ethical duty to immediately advise his client,
Plaintiff Attorney Y, of the fact that Defense Attorney X’s comments
had been revealed to Engineer A. In addition, Engineer A may be
required to suspend further action in this matter pending the court’s
resolution of the issue.

22
 Case study 6
Facts:
• Engineer A, employed by ENJ Engineering, recently accepted a position as an engineer with RFP
Engineers, a competitor of ENJ Engineering. Engineer A has files in his office including the
following:
1. Client files, which include correspondence between Engineer A and various clients while
employed by ENJ Engineering and project specific technical information;
2. Technical information files, such as articles, publications, and external reports, that Engineer
A has personally received and saved during the course of his employment with ENJ
Engineering to assist him in providing technical and professional services for clients;
3. Personal files, which include personal correspondence received from past and present clients
acknowledging and expressing appreciation for Engineer A’s work on various engineering
projects and technical information obtained outside of his employment by ENJ Engineering.
Questions:
i. Would it be ethical for Engineer A to take the client files with him when he terminates his
employment with ENJ Engineering?
ii. Would it be ethical for Engineer A to take the technical information files with him when he
terminates his employment with ENJ Engineering?
23 iii. Would it be ethical for Engineer A to take the personal files with him when he terminates his
employment with ENJ Engineering?
 Case study 6

Conclusions :
• It would not be ethical for Engineer A to take the client or project
specific files with him when he terminates his employment with ENJ
Engineering.
• It would not be ethical for Engineer A to take the corporate or
technical information files that pertains to the employer’s business
without the employer’s permission.
• It would be ethical for Engineer A to take personal files, which
include personal correspondence received from past and present
clients acknowledging and expressing appreciation for Engineer A
and ENJ Engineer’s work on various engineering projects, and
technical information obtained outside of his employment by ENJ
24 Engineering.
 Case study 7

Facts:
• Engineer A is a small business owner. Engineer B, a licensed engineer formerly employed by
Engineer A’s firm, makes calls to Engineer A’s employees (at home and at work) requesting that
they make him copies of their company's proprietary schematics. Engineer B’s request
specifically instructs these individuals to not mention these conversations to Engineer A.
Engineer A’s employees alert Engineer A to the problem. However, Engineer A is concerned about
Engineer B’s activities and the potential threat these requests could have on the health of
Engineer A’s company (if their proprietary information were to fall into competitor’s hands).
• Engineer A confronts Engineer B at a seminar and, in front of many other engineers, architects,
contractors, clients, and others, and makes several accusations and angry comments to Engineer
B. Engineer B denies the accusations, and both Engineer A and B exchange a series of derogatory
comments. Following this exchange, Engineer A and Engineer B both leave the seminar.
• Questions:
i. Was it ethical for Engineer B to contact Engineer A’s employees?
ii. Was it ethical for Engineer A to confront Engineer B in the manner described?
25
 Case study 7

Conclusions:
1. It was not ethical for Engineer B to contact Engineer A’s
employees.
2. It was not ethical or professional for Engineer A to confront
Engineer B in the manner described. Also, it was not
professional for Engineer B to engage in derogatory language at
the seminar.

26
 Case study 8

Facts:
• Engineer A, a quality assurance at Company C, learns that the manager for
Company C has contracted with a new supplier of plastic components. It turns
out that the production manager at the new supplier is the Engineer A’s wife - a
fact unknown to everyone at Company C. The quality assurance did not create
this situation, and there is no effort to put pressure on any party in connection
with the dealings between the parties.

Question:
• Was it ethical for Engineer A to not create the situation since no effort was
putted on any party?

27
 Case study 9

Facts:
• A mechanical Engineer works in the maintenance department of a food factory.
He provides a program for the maintenance of the machines employing the
facility of the factory. After a season of the production, the engineer discovers
that his program has several faults and issues. He will go into difficulties with
his management if he doesn't provide satisfactory outcomes. The mechanical
engineer can fool his management by displaying manipulating results that are
inaccurate in real-world settings.

Question:
• Do you believe the mechanical engineer is within his rights to exclusively
display results that hold true in program but not in actual use? Explain your
response.
28
 Case study 10

Facts:
• Emily works in Quality Control. Once a year, her supervisor gives away the
refurbished computers to the local elementary school. No specific records are
kept of this type of transaction and Emily really needs a computer for her son
who is in college. Her supervisor asks her to deliver 12 computer systems to the
school.
What do you do?
1) Put aside one computer for your son.
2) Deliver the 12 computer systems and charge the school enough money to buy
a computer.
3) Consult with the supervisor to take one of the refurbished computers.
4) Sell all the computers.
29
 Case study 11
Facts:
• Richard and Conway are talking in the hallway about the employee benefits
program. Conway, who has had some recent financial trouble, explains to
Richard how the benefits program has a loophole that will allow him to receive
some financial assistance that he really needs to help pay health care costs for
his mother. Cathy, a fellow worker, overhears the conversation. Later, Cathy is
approached by her supervisor who says he heard a rumor that some people
were taking advantage of the company benefits program.
What do you do?
1) Report what you heard and let the supervisor deal with it.
2) Say you know nothing.
3) Deny and go tell your coworkers to be careful that the supervisor is trying to
catch them.
4) Report what happened without mentioning any names and then advise the
30 coworkers to stop taking advantage of the policy.