CABALLAS, CZARINA M.

BSCE 3D

Civil Engineering Ethics

Ethical Reviews

CASES:

1) Can an engineer who has become a manager truly ever take off her engineer's hat?
Should she?

People are often put into positions without fully knowing what they are
responsible for. Roles are there to provide clarity, alignment, and expectations to
whoever is accountable of executing the work and for keeping the system running. Roles
and responsibilities enables the effective communication in the team and ensures that
everybody is on the same page and pulling their weight is increasingly significant.
Transitioning from engineer to engineering manager is a choice to set headfirst.
It’s a matter of apparently giving up your roles and responsibilities of being an engineer
to finally embracing your role as a manager. It does not mean to expunge the passion
completely; it’s just that priorities would be subjected to change, some important
things would suddenly become less important, and that other things that are given less
attention to in the past are the things that need more focus now. Changes are to set
forth when the new role is obtained. And, for a team to succeed, how you played your
role would always determine the end.
Bigger roles require bigger risk and more difficult decisions. For this case, it’s
“Take of your engineering hat, and put on your management hat on.” Your hat is the
responsibility you carry. It is your duty to perform what the hat promises. One should
fulfill to keep the promise and for the beholder to know what this is all about.
2) In preparing their bid, Paradyne wrote in the present tense, as if the computer
they proposed currently existed, rather than in the future tense, which would have
indicated that the product was still under development. Paradyne claimed that the use
of the present tense in its bid (which led SSA to believe that the P8400 actually
existed) was acceptable, since it is common business practice to advertise products
under development this way. Was this a new product announcement with a specified
availability date? Is there a distinction between a response to a bid and company
advertising? Is it acceptable to respond to a bid with a planned system if there is no
indication when that system is expected to be available?

Ethical problems occur in competitive bidding. Often, most business resort to

unethical conformations for its sake. This includes the ambiguous boundary between
advertising and deceit. Moral issues regarding each of the substance are overlapped by
one another and crossed lines are therefore not considered thoroughly. Unethical
practices that are being normalized in the business ground create no avenue for moral
attainment and therefore bringing about more problems in the process.
In 1980, the Social Security Administration (SSA) published a request for
proposals for computer systems in order to replace the old equipment in its offices.
Purchasing an off-the-shelf system that are already working or is already in the dealer’s
product line rather than a custom system. Paradyne prepared a bid to supply SSA with
new computer systems. In preparing their bid, Paradyne wrote in the present tense, as
if the computer they proposed currently existed, rather than in the future tense,
which would have indicated that the product was still under development. Paradyne
claimed that the use of the present tense in its bid (which led SSA to believe that the
P8400 actually existed) was acceptable, since it is common business practice to
advertise products under development this way.
Looking at the factual issues, the request for proposal clearly specified that what
they would only consider are those existing systems only. Paradyne, that time, didn’t
have any system running and have never tested to operate the system on the product
that had been prepared a bid about, selling then to SSA. These problems were exposed
shortly after Paradyne computers failed the acceptance testing. It was then further
investigated that the product supplied to SSA was not an off-the-shelf system. Then,
there’s a conceptual issue involving whether providing the bid for an off-the-shelf
product when the actual product is only in the planning stages is considered lying or is
it acceptable because it is normal business practice. This is an example of a moral issue
regarding each of the substance that overlaps one another and crosses boundary —
advertising overlapping the request for proposals. Issues should’ve been indicated for the
SSA to consider.
Lying is never acceptable in the business field. The primary goal of the product is
to bring convenience to the customer. Paradyne’s actions were deceptive enough to not
be accepted, and is therefore unethical.

3) Use the ethical theories discussed in this chapter to analyze the Bhopal case. Topics
to be considered should include the placing of a hazardous plant in a populated area,
decisions to defer maintenance on essential safety systems, etc. Important theories to
consider when doing your analysis are rights and duty ethics and utilitarianism.

The Bhopal disaster, often referred to as the Bhopal gas tragedy, was a gas leak
incident on a pesticide plant in Bhopal, India. This is the worst recorded industrial
disaster in the human history with over 500,000 people were exposed to highly toxic
substance and even got its way into and around the small towns located near the plant.
Accidents happen unexpectedly and the case of the water which had probably mixed
with the tank accidentally was not just one factor that triggered this disaster. Upon
investigations, there were several factors that contributed to it and caused the
worsening in consequences and made the accident inevitable.
The plant had experienced leaks already even before the accident in which one had
already lead to fatality. The lack of emergency plans and failure to evacuate the people
in the early warning symptoms of an accident. Also, due to cost-cutting, some safety
equipment were reduced which could’ve minimized the effect of the disaster. Blame was
also certain to the Indian government for not raising standards that are at least in the
bare minimum and is safe enough for the common. There was no policy or zoning
forbidding squatters and others from living so close to a plant where hazardous
compounds are stored and used.
Right and duty ethics and utilitarianism are two conflicting ethical theories but
could somehow help analyze the Bhopal case. They make up different sides of the coin
for the principle of what is ethically and morally right. As with right and duty ethics,
both achieve the same end, individuality is what matters and should be respected. As
with utilitarianism, there could be problems that may arise with considering right and
duty ethics because the rights of one person could be overlapped by that of the group.
Deciding which right to prioritize first. In the Bhopal case, people are subjected to their
right to live freely without the fear of danger but a plant could help increase the rate
of employment and help in the economic development of the people. Then, if plant
would be planted in the location, then neighboring people should’ve been relocated to
where it is safe and free from the hazard that may arise due to the toxicity of the
substance being used in the plant and or if relocation isn’t possible, the plant project
should’ve been terminated, because it is what the utilitarianism dictates, the overall
good of the people.
This characterizes that two ethical theories or even more could be used to know
what is ethical and what is not. After careful considerations of factors, both results to
same different end, might be different solutions especially in engineering cases. Thus,
any complete analysis of an ethical problem could make use of multiple theories to
arrive at the valid and most reasonable conclusion.

4) What should an engineer do in the face of competition from others who are willing
to resort to bribery?

Matters about bribery are all too common in the business world, in the
government, in a competition, literally everywhere. The ethical dilemmas of bribery are
not difficult to define unless otherwise, bribery is normalized in the situation. However,
bribery is still unethical. It is unfair, exploitative and is an illegal practice (to most
countries). It is morally disturbing to have it circulating wherever. An ethically wrong
practice like this should not be tolerated.
A bribe, such as money or favor, is offered to someone in position to induce him
to act dishonestly. When bribery is present in competitions, the ground for equality is
being troubled and creates an avenue to corruption and anti- competitiveness. It
corrupts the justice system and only allows the beneficiary of the unethical act of
advantage. In such competition where bribery is conceivable and is most likely to happen,
it is imperative to have your stomach ready to deal with competitors who are willing to
resort to bribery. Exposing the defilement would be an idea to deal with your rival.
Nonetheless, it is not enough for your suspicions to have you backed up in this. Hearsay
is not adequate. Thorough documentation or strong dependable evidence is a must to
prove that something off - base is going on before exposing it. If it happens that the
rival is gigantic but still pay put tribes, it could get you at least the guarantee that
what you could offer is better against competitors. You would just need to work harder
to stick to the ethical codes, your skills, to impress the decision makers that you are
worthy of trust and title because of how clean you work and how you become a threat
to competitors that would risk to depend on bribing and resort to uncompetitive
grounds.
If people do bribing and get tempted by bribes, you would need to intend that
these people lack education, morals, and poor understanding of what matters to any of
the purpose. Blame wouldn’t be subjected to people, at the least. This is because
people love the idea of “free”, who doesn’t? Practicality is overrated. You could offer
it however, with not being unfair, anti-competitive, without the act of bribery, and
without breaking the rules.

5)What responsibility does an engineer have for checking and ensuring that what is in
the drawings is what actually goes into the building?

In the Code of Ethics for Engineers, the Preamble, first line says that engineering
is an important and learned profession. They are expected to perform all the highest
standards, or, the minimum standards at the least to uphold the safety, health, and
welfare of the people. Engineers create, therefore as agents of planning, it is a duty to
have whatever in their control result to the best.
Topmost consideration in the engineering design process is the safety. Drawing is
an integral part to the planning and designing process, creating an opportunity to
antedate and nearly visualize the design as if it has already existed. In designing a
building, drawings are said to be the fundamentals. Clients put their faith to an
engineer’s stomach, for the reason that engineers completely understand what they are
doing and it is within their area of competence. Habitually, clients rely on these
drawings to visualize whether the design conforms to their design output. It is then the
engineer’s duty to check and ensure that what is in the drawings is what actually goes
into the building. Specially, when it comes to most vital components of the building
design, talking about the number of beams, columns, slab thickness, and although
aesthetic comes last, it is still a significant fragment of the building.
Safety, the peak reason for it. To avoid structural failures, accidents, and worst
cases of structural disappointments. Clients would also face dissatisfactions when they
have seen that what in the drawings is not what went to the building. But, this isn’t
always a case because during the building process, phenomenon could happen that could
lead to revisions or changes in the actual.
Needless of the sudden changes, engineers should make sure that the building is
effective and efficient in all ways possible. Honesty and transparency should then be
fostered by the engineers to disclose all factual information that the client and the
public should know. Risk are the crucial part of the design and building process because
here you are dealing with uncertainties and should be minimized. Buildings when
subjected to failures, people ask two things, “why did it happen” and “who is the
engineer?”

6) You are a civil engineer working for an engineering consulting firm and have just
finished work on a new bridge project. This project involved some innovative designs
developed by you and other engineers in the firm. You have decided that you now have
enough experience to start your own consulting firm. The first project that comes to
you is a bridge. Can you use the innovation pioneered at your previous firm in this new
design?

Taking all the credits for somebody else’s work is an ethical issue. Not only does it
violate the fair-treatment and justice, but the act of disrespect to whom the credit
should be given to is also significant to draw attention to. It exhibits a lack of integrity
because of the unprincipled behavior, a form of deceit to the spectators, and most
importantly personal interests overlay the rule of conduct that an engineer should
embody at all times.
Engineers shall give credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due
and will recognize proprietary interests of others. This is one of the professional
obligations of an engineers. Not giving credit to whom it must be given to, create a
ground for injustice because it is unfair and biased in many ways. Consent is a vital part
of moral issues. In this case, asking for consent from engineers who have worked with
you in that project you pursued to be relevant in your project is obligatory. Their
names should be recognized because it is also theirs or not solely yours to use in the
project. Attempting to obtain this employment by taking advantage of the past project
that you and those engineers who have worked in the design is improper and unethical.
If consent and approval is therefore given, then you can use the design pioneered in
your previous firm in your new project. No code of ethics is violated because proprietary
interests of others are recognized and given credit to.
Giving credit where credit is essential is a highly-stimulating situation. Equals
should be treated equally and unequal unequally. This is only then exercised by fair-
minded engineers in the field of profession. What is theirs is not for yours to keep
whether you are involved or not.

7) How do you separate out skills that you have acquired from previous employers
from the previous employer's intellectual property? In other words, where is the dividing
line between knowledge and skills you have acquired on the job, and your former
employer's trade secrets?

Businesses or firms own at least one trade secret. These trade secrets are the
valuable assets of the firm to protect the tangible or intangible proprietary assets
(designs, methods, formulas, etc.) of such. Safe- guarding of these trade secrets is a
moral issue. It is difficult to diffuse these trade secrets that is to pertain the economic
competence of the firm and distinguish its edge from another. And, to distinguish the
line between the general knowledge and these trade secrets is challenging on its part.
Engineers shall not disclose, without consent, confidential information concerning
the business affairs or technical processes of any present or former client or employer,
or public body which they serve. As engineers, we are expected to carry out a duty of
loyalty and confidentiality to our employer or whichever body we serve. It is not in the
scope to have information, especially trade secrets to be disclosed whenever we see the
current situation is leading to our advantage. General knowledge, skills and experience
acquired in the former employers however, are free to be use or practiced as long as
the former employees get no issues of liability and accountability to any of the
inappropriate results of your actions. But, proprietary confidential information or the
trade secrets are forbidden to be spread out to protect competition and employee
flexibility. It is still then difficult to distinguish the line between general knowledge and
skills from your former employer’s trade secrets. There will be situations where each
would cross each line and the dividing line will sometimes procure inconsistencies.
To conclude, disclosing trade secrets, be it in the engineering profession or not, is
unethical. Being burdened by loyalty and the urge for competence and mobility is always
resorting to moral issues that are difficult to handle. Since, it is unethical, it is not
appropriate to disclose trade secrets. However, to at least be recapped, think about
the fact that information is not knowledge and the only source of knowledge is
experience. If you didn’t experience it first hand, you are not to disclose it.