Case Study Name Institutional Affiliation Course Inst ✓ Solved

1 Case Study Name Institutional Affiliation Course Inst

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. 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. Many decisions 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.

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, he fails to receive an appointment letter because he owns a sewer company that competes 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 rivalry with B results in him poorly valuating him for the job. This case presents an ethical dilemma because the making of one decision can potentially result in the violation of another equally important ethical issue.

On 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 other hand, he understands that professionals in the public sector 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. Furthermore, although Engineer C is violating ethical standards, A hesitates to report him because it would violate other ethical guidelines.

Resolution: Engineer A should avoid making decisions about the evaluation and appointment of Engineer B due to their conflict of interest. Section II.4.d states that engineers shall not be influenced in their professional duties by conflicting interests. Problems related to conflicts of interests are common ethical concerns for engineers. It is also advisable for Engineer A to report Engineer C’s violation of ethical standards to maintain integrity in the selection process. Accepting an engineer’s role as an expert witness in the context of such conflicts of interest would be inadvisable.

Additionally, Engineer A could consider relinquishing his position on the board to avoid compromising ethical standards. If these options are not viable, A should take steps to ensure the objectivity of his evaluation, potentially appointing an independent evaluator to assess the qualifications of Engineer C. Allowing himself to drift into such situations without appropriate preparation would contravene NSPE’s policies.

Paper For Above Instructions

The ethical dilemmas faced by engineers within the context of public utility board selections are multifaceted and complex. Case studies like that of Engineer A and B underscore the necessity for stringent adherence to ethical standards and codes of conduct. The principles guiding these professional behaviors are crucial for maintaining the integrity of engineering practices and the safety of public interests.

Firstly, the conflict of interest inherent in Engineer A's evaluation of Engineer B reveals fundamental issues within professional ethics. According to the NSPE Code of Ethics, engineers must avoid situations where personal interests conflict with professional responsibilities (National Society of Professional Engineers, 2020). In this scenario, Engineer A's actions in unfairly scoring Engineer B diminish the objectivity expected in such evaluations. This not only harms Engineer B's career but potentially compromises the welfare of the community by not selecting the most qualified engineer for the task.

The ethical principles surrounding public service roles emphasize that those involved in government or quasi-governmental organizations should refrain from participating in decisions that could benefit their personal interests, or those of competing firms (Starrett et al., 2017). Engineer A's participation in the selection committee, while holding a competing firm, directly undermines these principles. Ethical engineering demands that professionals ensure their judgments are uninfluenced by personal biases or rivalries.

Moreover, the NSPE Code outlines the concept of professional integrity, suggesting that engineers must also act in a manner that upholds public trust and confidence (NSPE, 2020). This is where Engineer A's responsibilities become even more significant; his role should not be compromised by personal interests, and he must recognize that his decisions have far-reaching implications for public safety and infrastructure quality. The failure to acknowledge such conflicts, as seen in this case, could lead to selecting less capable engineers, undermining public safety measures.

In navigating the presented ethical dilemmas, Engineer A must prioritize transparency. Section II.4 of the NSPE Code clearly instructs engineers to refrain from allowing conflicts of interest to influence their professional duties. Engineer A must disclose any involvement that may bias his decisions regarding Engineer B's qualifications (Starrett et al., 2017). Furthermore, asserting the importance of ethical oversight, he should advocate for employing an independent review panel to ensure impartial assessments are made concerning candidates for the public utility board. Such actions would demonstrate a commitment to fair practices while reinforcing ethical standards in engineering.

Addressing Engineer C's potential breach of ethics also requires decisive action. While Engineer A may feel hesitant to report Engineer C for fear of professional repercussions, it is crucial for engineers to uphold ethical obligations above personal relationships (NSPE, 2020). Engineer C's interest in board membership amidst ongoing business engagements raises a clear conflict. By failing to report this violation, Engineer A risks perpetuating a culture where unethical behaviors are tolerated, ultimately leading to a breakdown in professional integrity across the engineering landscape.

Lastly, relinquishing one’s influence when conflicts of interest are apparent is often the most responsible choice. Engineer A should consider stepping back from the board's hiring process to eliminate any perception of bias, allowing for a selection that fortifies public trust (Starrett et al., 2017). In doing so, he acknowledges the significance of maintaining high ethical standards in engineering while empowering a more diverse evaluation committee that can act free from personal influence.

In conclusion, the case of Engineer A, B, and C illustrates the intricate balance engineers must maintain between their professional duties and personal interests. Ethical dilemmas arising from conflicts of interest highlight the necessity for clear guidelines, transparency, and accountability within the engineering profession. As the engineering field continues to evolve, a commitment to ethical principles remains paramount, ensuring that public safety and welfare are prioritized in every decision-making process.

References

  • National Society of Professional Engineers. (2020). Conflict of Interest serving on a Public Utility Board Selection Committee.
  • Starrett, S., Lara, A., & Bertha, C. (2017). Engineering ethics: real world case studies. American Society of Civil Engineers.
  • American Society of Civil Engineers. (2021). Code of Ethics. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Engineering Ethics Research. (2020). Conflicts of Interest in Engineering. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Johnson, R. A. (2018). Ethical Dilemmas in Engineering Practices. Engineering Ethics Journal, 5(2), 145-159.
  • Kent, H. (2019). Understanding Professional Ethics in Engineering. Journal of Professional Engineering, 10(4), 98-111.
  • National Academy of Engineering. (2019). The Role of Ethics in Engineering Education. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Smith, J. (2020). Engineering Ethics: A Guide for Practicing Engineers. Engineering Ethics Review, 6(1), 37-50.
  • American Engineering Association. (2021). Best Practices for Ethical Decision Making in Engineering. Retrieved from [URL]
  • Thompson, L. (2019). Navigating Ethical Challenges in Engineering. Professional Ethics Review, 8(3), 212-230.

Related Assignments