This is the December 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think? This series is comprised of case studies from NSPE archives, involving both real and hypothetical matters submitted by engineers, public officials, and members of the public.
Your peers and the NSPE Board of Ethical Review have reviewed the facts of the case as shown below. And, here are the results.
Your opinion has been registered for the December 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on December 24.
Your opinion has been registered for the December 2024 edition of our monthly series of Ethics case studies titled What Do You Think?
Your vote is recorded as:
Want to know how your peers voted? We’ll send you an email with the poll results on December 24.
A Review of the Facts
Engineer Wendy is employed by a computer manufacturing company. She was responsible for the design of certain computer equipment several years ago. She signed off on the drawings for the equipment at that time. Although Wendy’s design was properly prepared, the equipment manufacturing process was faulty and, as a result, the equipment became too costly and suffered mechanical breakdown. The manufacturing division made a number of recommended modifications to her design that it believed would help reduce costs in the manufacturing process. Wendy’s analysis of the manufacturing division’s recommendations revealed that they would reduce the reliability of the product and greatly increase the downstream costs to the company through warranty claims.
Wendy’s supervisor, who is not an engineer, asks Wendy to sign off on the changes for the new computer equipment. There is nothing to suggest that the equipment would pose a danger to public health and safety. Wendy raises her concerns to her supervisor but nevertheless agrees to sign off on the changes without further protest.
What Do You Think?
Did Wendy fulfill her ethical obligation by signing off on the changes without further action?
Applicable NSPE Code References:
II.1
“Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.”II.1.b
“If engineers’ judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.”II.1.b
“Engineers shall approve only those engineering documents that are in conformity with applicable standards.”II.2.b
“Engineers shall not affix their signatures to any plans or documents dealing with subject matter in which they lack competence, nor to any plan or document not prepared under their direction and control.”II.4
“Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or trustees.”III.2.b
“Engineers shall not complete, sign, or seal plans and/or specifications that are not in conformity with applicable engineering standards. If the client or employer insists on such unprofessional conduct, they shall notify the proper authorities and withdraw from further service on the project.”
Discussion
This case raises a fundamental issue concerning the professional integrity of engineers and the ethical obligations engineers owe to their employers, clients, and others. How far must engineers go in stating concerns in matters that directly involve their judgment as professional engineers but do not directly impact public health and safety?
It is clear from the Code of Ethics and previous Board of Ethical Review opinions that in matters involving public health and safety, the engineer has an ethical obligation to “stand firm” and take action to protect the interest of the public. The Code is replete with provisions that reinforce the view that engineers have a fundamental obligation to the public welfare and if their judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger the public, the engineers should notify employers, clients, or such other authority as may be appropriate.
In the instant case, the ethical concern is less a matter of the protection of public health and safety and more a matter of engineering judgment which is being overruled by her supervisor on the basis of non-engineering criteria.
In addition, we should also note at this juncture that the NSPE Code of Ethics makes it clear that the engineer has an ethical obligation to act in professional matters for her employer as a “faithful agent and trustee.” In this regard, to what extent would this provision in the Code of Ethics impact upon any obligation that an engineer might have to “stand firm,” in a difference of opinion, with an employer on a matter that does not have a direct impact upon the public health and safety?
We believe these seemingly conflicting provisions of the Code of Ethics can be reconciled. While it is clear that the engineer should act consistently with the interests of her employer and not act disloyally by impugning the motives of her employer in any way, we also think it is vitally important for an engineer whose professional judgment is overruled to clearly explain the reasons for her position and vigorously engage those persons who disagree with her judgments in a serious debate as to the technical issues involved.
Here, Wendy was asked to approve modifications that she believed, based on her technical knowledge, would not be in the long-term interests of her employer. Since she possessed the engineering expertise, experience, and background to make these determinations and was presumably hired to provide that input to the company, it would seem that she would clearly be performing as a “faithful agent and trustee” if she were to make her concerns known to those in management who were most directly concerned with the long-term interests of the company.
We cannot see how an engineer could be said to be acting as a “faithful agent or trustee” by silently assenting to a course of action that will have serious long-term ramifications for an employer. Engineers should be vocal on technical issues in which they possess knowledge and should not merely serve as a “rubber stamp” on engineering matters. Code II.4 should not be used as a “crutch” for engineers to avoid confronting difficult professional decisions, but instead as a basis for providing their employers and clients with critical engineering judgments and determinations.
Finally, we would add that since Wendy’s immediate supervisor was not receptive to her concerns, we believe Wendy had an ethical obligation to bring this matter to the attention of those in management at a higher level than her immediate supervisor. Prior to taking this action, we believe Wendy should explain to her immediate supervisor her professional and ethical obligations under the circumstances and disclose her course of action.
The Ethical Review Board’s Conclusion
Wendy did not fulfill her ethical obligation by signing off on the changes without further action.
BOARD OF ETHICAL REVIEW
Eugene N. Bechamps, P.E. Robert J. Haefeli, P.E. Robert W. Jarvis, P.E. Lindley Manning, P.E. Paul E. Pritzker, P.E. Harrison Streeter, P.E. Herbert G. Koogle, P.E.-L.S., chairman
Note – In regard to the question of application of the Code to corporations vis-a-vis real persons, business form or type should not negate nor influence conformance of individuals to the Code. The Code deals with professional services, which services must be performed by real persons. Real persons in turn establish and implement policies within business structures. The Code is clearly written to apply to the Engineer and it is incumbent on a member of NSPE to endeavor to live up to its provisions. This applies to all pertinent sections of the Code. This opinion is based on data submitted to the Board of Ethical Review and does not necessarily represent all of the pertinent facts when applied to a specific case. This opinion is for educational purposes only and should not be construed as expressing any opinion on the ethics of specific individuals. This opinion may be reprinted without further permission, provided that this statement is included before or after the text of the case.
In the end it was a financial decision whether to spend more money in manufacturing or spend more in warranty claims. The employer has the right to make those decisions even if they choose poorly. Engineer Wendy has some concerns but ethically brought those to her employer. Since there was no safety issue I’d say it was ethical. If she thought it was a very bad decision she should take it above her supervisor.
“Wendy raises her concerns to her supervisor”
Wendy raised the concerns to her supervisor. If the company, in this case her supervisor, understands that they are saving in manufacturing costs but will ultimately lose money with the change, she has done her job. It is the company that needs to decide when/how their money is spent. This is not a case of her engineering judgement being overruled. She has provided her employer the facts, verified there are no public welfare concerns with either design, and allowed the employer to make their decision.
I’m conflicted about this decision that it was unethical. The scenario did say she raised her concerns to her supervisor, but did not detail to what level her concerns were documented. The discussion argues that she should have gone above her supervisor and argued more vigorously but this is a subjective standard. How far up the chain should she go, or how vigorously should she defend her points, and at what risk to her career? At what point is this extending beyond her realm of competence? Wendy can speak to the technical issues she has concern with, but she is not an expert in the business model, financial projections, or expected ROI of the equipment. If the company was short on capital in the near term and was modelling for a short design life or quickly deprecating that equipment, it’s not Wendys place to interfere with the business operations if there’s no risk to safety or the public. I think she did her due diligence in reviewing and raised her concerns to the right authority (her supervisor). The scenario does not mention the changes being outside of the applicable engineering standards unless reliability or design life were clearly denoted in the engineering specifications.
Wendy’s job was not to make financial decisions for her company, it was to design product. She presented the impact of the reduced quality standards and her boss decided that those standards were not needed for continued profit. Wendy did not owe more to her company because they promoted a poorly performing boss to supervise her.
you added additional facts when stating that there were those above her supervisor who she should inform (her supervisor could have owned the company). The design engineer does not own bad business decisions above them – they are typically the technical resource and the board is confused.
I think the key is how the concerns were raised. If there is documentation regarding her concerns, her supervisor’s reasons for asking her to sign off and her response that will be permanently on file, I believe it is ethical. If it is just a conversation over coffee it is not ethical. It is also not clear if the changes meant the design no longer “conformed to applicable engineering standards”. If the changes meant they did not her behavior is unethical. If the new design “conformed with applicable engineering standards” her behavior would be ethical.
I don’t believe Wendy acted unethically by allowing those businesses decisions to be made. Neither Employee , property or Public safety were put at risk in this case. There was no mention of the decision causing a violation of any standard or regulation. It is ubiquitous across all industries where poor business decisions get made all the time. Trading off downstream costs for short term gains is an all too common approach. I believe the review board has misapplied the NSPE code in this case. This is not a case of unethical behavior in my view , just a bad choice.
Wendy is employed by a private company. The decisions being made do not impact on health and safety of public. As long as her opinion is documented, she is obligated to do what her employer’s agent in the form of her supervisor directs.
I agree with much of the prior discussion. Wendy made her objections known and there were no public safety ramifications related to the case. At the end of the day, her actions were ethical.
Ethics; What are ethical decisions? or How is an engineering decision made by an engineer an ethical issue in this case? In the discussion, there is not any mention how the engineer is in violation of “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” The engineer is an employee of an engineering firm. The firm may be in violation of ethics by not having a qualified engineer supervising the engineer doing the work. It appears that the company is in violation of the ethics, but not the employee engineer.
In reading the comments, the other writers do not agree with the review board. There are questions here about the review board’s qualifications.