Case Analysis for EN philosophy

Case Study

Name

Institutional Affiliation

Course

Instructor

Date

Case Study

Relevant Facts

Engineer A has been selected to act as a member of the public utility board selection committee, which is tasked with hiring engineers for a sewer program. Engineer B, on the other hand, is a professional who works in the private sector. He sends an application letter, which explains his level of qualifications for the sewer project. Both Engineers A and B own their personal companies, which compete within the same geographical region in which the sewer program will be implemented. However, A is not competing for the project but during the utility selection program, A assesses and assigns B a low score in order to disqualify him from the job. As a result, B is not selected to participate in the program. On the contrary, Engineer C is appointed after being awarded the highest-ranked score.

On numerous occasions, the NSPE Board of Ethical Reviews observes that the ways in which engineers and engineering organizations are appointed and compensated has, for a long time, been controversial. This is because such appointments often fail to meet the NSPE Code of Ethics and the standards of the Board of Ethical Review’s opinions. Nonetheless, many decisions that have been made by the American Department of Justice and other federal antitrust organizations have resulted in the need to eliminate or amend code of ethics provisions that prevent or ban certain activities. These provisions are particularly related to the professional selection, compensation, restriction, bidding, as well as advertising activities. As such, professional organizations such as NSPE are often banned from providing ethical or other policy standards in such cases and other relevant areas. Similarly, some of the most critical outcomes of antitrust policies and legislation is the essential principle that federal, state, and local rules that govern procedures to provide engineering services are not often affected, and as such, remain in full force and effect.

Dilemma

Engineer A has evaluated B poorly for the board membership position because of their existing conflict of interest. For instance, the two engineers own firms that compete with each other in their respective industry. Although Engineer B is highly qualified for the opposition, he fails to receive an appointment letter because he owns a sewer company that compete within the same geographical area where the sewer project is being proposed. While A is not competing for a position or business in the board, his existing bitter rivalry with B results in him poorly valuating him for the job. As a result, he is not appointed for the position.

The case presents an ethical dilemma because the making of one decision can potentially result in the violation of another equally important ethical issue. On the one hand, Engineer A is required by law to disclose all known or possible conflicts of interest that can potentially influence or appear to influence his judgment on the quality of engagement with Engineer B. On the other hand, Engineer A recognizes that professionals in the public sector who act as members, advisors, or employees of a government or quasi-governmental organization should not take part in any decisions that are related to services solicited or provided by them or their firms in private or public engineering service.

Further, Engineer A understands that although C is violating Section II.4.d, because he wants to join the public sector while having vested interests in the private sector, he should not report him. This is because Section III.6 of the NSPE code of ethics states that an engineer must not try to obtain employment or advancement or professional engagements by untruthfully criticizing other engineers or by improper questionable methods. As such, he is in a major ethical dilemma because addressing one ethical problem results in the violation of another. At the same time, he cannot make decisions that results in the appointment of Engineer B because the two parties are already mired in a conflict of interest case in which they own rival private firms.

Resolution

Engineer A should first avoid making decisions about the evaluation and appointment of Engineer B into the job. His is because the two entities are involved in a major conflict of interest. For instance, Section II.4.d states that engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2020). Indeed, problems that are related to conflicts of interests are some of the most common ethical concerns that face engineers. In the last few years, the Board of Ethical Review has examined many problems that are related to multifaceted issues in which engineers encounter with conflicts that involve clients, employees, and other engineers. For instance, an engineer must never for the development of organization while acting as a consultant to the NSPE or the government.

The second option that Engineer A should consider is to report C’s case of violation of ethical standards. Engineer C wants to be a board member for NSPE while he still knows that he owns a private company that is already providing similar sewer services. This is because C has violated Section II.4.d, which states that engineers in the public sector who act as members, consultants, or employees of a government agency or quasi-governmental organization should not take part in decisions that are related to services that are solicited or provided by them or their organizations in private or public engineering practice. By applying for a position at NSPE, therefore, engineer C is contravening the law. Therefore, A should report this violation to bar him from assuming the organization’s position. Additionally, it would be imprudent to accept an engineer’s role as an expert witness in the ordinary sense of that kind of professional service arrangement. Engineer A should recognize the fact that C is doing more than offering his expertise in engineering issues as an aid. In fact, C is a paid employee at a private interest firm in an open conflict with the standards and values of the NSPE.

Another option that is not off the table or engineer A is to relinquish his position as a member of the board. This decision should be informed by the fact that he has a private firm with interests that conflict with those of NSPE’s activities and ethical standards. Making decisions on behalf of the board regarding appointments would be imprudent especially when the parties to be confirmed of the jobs are his bitter rivals in the private sector. As a result, he lacks the moral and ethical capacity to make such sound decisions. Additionally, relinquishing his position as a board member is advisable, especially when there is a need for him to avoid all the known potential conflicts of interest with their prospective employers, employees, and clients. In such a case, he should promptly inform the board, which can influence their judgment or the quality of their services.

In case these options are not viable, A should consider making decisions that do not compromise the objectivity of his evaluation of engineer C. This can be done by selecting a different group of people to perform the evaluation on his behalf. For instance, hiring external consultants to assess the qualification of Engineer C would help A to avoid engaging in subjective judgment (Starrett et al., 2017). Allowing oneself to drift into such situations without appropriate preparation also amounts to violation of NSPE’s policies.

References

National Society of Professional Engineers. (2020). Conflict of Interest serving on a Public

Utility Board Selection Committee. https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER19-5-

APPROVED.pdf

Starrett, S., Lara, A., & Bertha, C. (2017). Engineering ethics: real world case studies.

American Society of Civil Engineers.