Professional Ethical Issues

Recently, the general public has become more aware and concerned about the importance of business ethics and organizations are seeking incorporation and alignment of high business ethical standards with their strategy. Even governments have been asked to emphasize on the importance of that matter through legislation in order to assure the integration of ethical standards in business and industries.
As an engineer, our advice is sought in order to help implementing business ethical standards among other operational efficiency and business excellence standards to every aspect of the business. Therefore, we are supposed to set the model in dealing ethically at all times. However, some complicated cases are faced in the real engineering world, and the solution is not always obvious and clear cut.
Case #1: Consequences
Shuttle challenger launches failure:
“Many readers are already familiar with some aspects of this case. The space shuttle Challenger was launched in extremely cold weather. During the launch, an O-ring on one of the solid-propellant boosters, made more brittle by the cold, failed. This failure led to the explosion during liftoff. Engineers who had designed this booster had concerns about launching under these cold conditions and recommended that the launch be delayed, but they were overruled by their management (some of whom were trained as engineers), who didn’t feel that there was enough data to support a delay in the launch. The shuttle was launched, resulting in the well-documented accident.” http://www.rcs.k12.va.us/engineer/Unittwo.pdf a- Description of the professional context: * The shuttle lunched on an extremely cold day * The failure of the O-ring due to the cold weather * Primary reason for the shuttle explosion after the liftoff is the failure of the O-ring * Design engineers had recommended delaying the launch of the shuttle because of concerns on launching during a cold day. * Design engineers recommendation was overruled by top management
Assumptions:
* Political influence with demands to launch the mission even under unsafe conditions. * NASA was ordered to use a weaker sealant for environmental reasons. b- Stating the ethical issue:
Top management by ignoring the recommendation of the design engineers due to political pressure, and underestimating or maybe disregarding the consequences of such decision led to the unavoidable price of progress with the death of the astronauts and the disappointment of the American people. c- Identifying the primary and secondary stakeholders: * NASA, Astronauts, design engineers, top management, Politicians all consist the primary stakeholders. * Tax payers or the American people as secondary stakeholders. d- Full analysis of the professional issue * Potential Positives * First and foremost, the astronauts would have returned home safe. If the launch had been successful, it would satisfy the purpose of the mission, NASA and its engineers and management would have proven again a high level of achievement in the space technology and opens up the possibilities for rewards. Since the shuttle Challenger flew several times to space on different missions and came back, if that last flight would have been successful, then most likely it would have flew again to space on several other missions. Tax payers will be recognizing the value of the taxes they paid to help fund such project. * This incident educated NASA much about the susceptibilities of the challenger and gave them the opportunity to make space travel safer and hopefully evade the possibility of another similar incident. * Potential Negatives * No doubt, the mission was catastrophic and especially in terms of the dead astronauts, let along the cost associated for the whole operation. After the explosion, it’s a matter of identifying who to blame and hold them accountable based on their level of involvement in the decision making. Ideally, design engineers, top management and the politicians involved should be apprehended as liable parties, but of course small players will pick up much of the blame and most likely lose their jobs and ultimately damage the security of their families. * It will be a while before NASA was able to send another team of astronauts into space for another mission. * Magnitude and probability of consequences
At this point, it would have gotten much worse if the shuttle had exploded over a residential area or a highway and endangered more lives than what it already did. However, the magnitude of consequences is very high since seven astronauts died.
If a similar decision would take place again in similar situation, where management ignores certain safety aspects of such projects, then there is a high probability of component failure and another tragedy. * Short term consequences:
The short term consequences mainly are as follow: dead astronauts, a destroyed shuttle that took several years in the making, huge financial and moral loss, aggressive media coverage and speculations and federal investigations. In addition to the interruption of the project. * Long term consequences:
National and international lack of confidence in NASA, scandalous violation of the fundamentals NSPE code of ethics for engineers and especially the first point which states that engineers shall “hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public” in addition to points 5 & 6 stating respectively: “Avoid deceptive acts”, “Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession”. * Symbolic consequences
NASA employees will lose faith in their management and their company’s mission. * secrecy consequences:
NASA being a non-trustful organization that lacks competence and professionalism since decision is influenced by political power.

* Psychological dimensions
Design engineers responsible for the project execution might think that they will not be held responsible for the action since they were following political orders. In this case they were not thinking about integrity or following the NSPE code of ethics, and might have underestimated potential risks because of illusion of optimism aiming to satisfy their direct boss (making decision in self-interested manner). e- Solution:
The design engineers should have blown the whistle despite the political pressure and prioritizing their code of ethics by reporting their concerns to the highest level possible and resign if it became necessary.

Case #2: Principles
“You have quoted time and materials pricing for two similar assignments both requiring preparatory work. To your delight both clients order the work but a dilemma has been created. The preparatory work on one job can also be used on the other job. Potentially this reduces your costs and allows you to reduce pricing on one or both jobs. What would you do?” http://www.bcs.org/content/ConWebDoc/16421 a- Description of the professional context: * Two clients order a similar job * The preparatory work on one job can be applied to the other job as well * Potential reduction in the cost * Reduce the cost which lead to reducing the price and create a competitive advantage for the firm.
Assumption:
* The two clients are not competitors * The consultant engineer has plenty of time to prepare each job alone b- Stating the ethical issue:
Is it appropriate to use the preparatory work of one job and implement it to the other job without reducing the pricing of the tender presented to the second firm since less effort and time will be consumed in the process? c- Identifying the primary and secondary stakeholders: * Both clients and the consultant as primary * The consultancy firm and its competitors as secondary d- Full analysis of the professional issue: * Ethical principles:
Do no harm: in applying the preparatory work of one client to the other, the work will be more efficient since the consultant engineer won’t be in a rush to finish each work alone, and the analysis will be deeper (due to time availability). Also in this case, both of the clients will benefit since the consulting fees will be reduced. On the other hand, when dealing with a consultant, the client should expect that he might use his previous analysis, tools and cases without revealing any specific data related to the previous client (he does not use explicit examples from another client, he makes sure not to refer to any specific situation which happened during previous jobs to the current one).
Considering that, the consultant has to deeply consider any non-similarities between the two cases and work on it separately. * Psychological dimensions
In this case, the consultant might employ the confirmation trap and think to himself that this is pretty common practice in the consultancy world. Also the consequences are minimal even if the two clients knew because the consultant will exercise care by not sharing private information, which might fall under the illusion of control since there is a big chance where the consultant would share some information thinking that it’s not proprietary to one firm, but this firm might have think the opposite. e- Solution:
Accept to use the same preparatory work for both jobs under the assumption: introducing a clause in the contract which states that the consultant engineer won’t reveal any private information proprietary to one client, however he reserve the right to use any preparatory work that applies to another firm and its general in terms of format.

Case #3: Rights
The New York Times (November 16, 1993, p. A12) reported that an engineer filed a lawsuit against her employer, claiming that her superiors "forced her to have sex with a Pentagon official so that the company could get millions of dollars in government financing." She said her bosses told her she would lose her job unless she maintained a sexual relationship with a key Pentagon official. She contended that "in an act of desperation" she went to bed with the official and that talks between her company and the official began the very next day. Adding that she "refused to continue the relationship," the engineer said that one of her superiors "retailiated by abusing her and degrading and humiliating her." http://wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/templates/student_resources/0534605796_harris/cases/Cases/case37.htm a- Description of the professional context: * Engineer filed a lawsuit against her employer * Superiors forced the employer to have sex with a pentagon official * As a result the company could get millions of dollars in government financing * Employer will lose her job if she doesn’t maintain a sexual relationship with official * Employee accepted because she was desperate * Talks began between employer and official as a result * When employer decided to back down, she was abused and humiliated
Assumption:
* Company didn’t have a reputation for sexual harassment. * Documented employee rights and code of conduct that protect employees * Company located in the United States b- Stating the ethical issue:
In order for the engineer to retain her job, she was forced to provide sexual favors so that the company can improve its financial standing. Therefore, the engineers was deprived her basic rights as human being and her pride was crushed as a result. c- Identifying the primary and secondary stakeholders: * Engineer, employer, pentagon officials as primary * The company, engineer’s family, government as secondary d- Full analysis of the professional issue: * Ethical principles:
One of the fundamental rights of an employee is a free sexual harassment work place which imposes a great obligation on the employer to maintain such an environment because it constitutes a basic human right to protect an individual’s basic autonomy, whereas bonuses and rewards and benefits are considered secondary rights for this purpose. Also the engineer was abused, degraded and humiliated as a result of her refusing to continue with the act, falls under the negative right criteria that states no employees are to be harmed. As far as the employer rights, it creates an obligation on employees to do their best to fulfill the company’s objectives and improve its financial situation and that constitute a basic right from the employer’s standpoint. But when it comes to the pentagon official, the notion to be able to perform his job and assess this company’s financial needs without any influence, could be considered as a secondary right as it’s not powerful enough to qualify as a basic right.
When it comes to the rights of the secondary stakeholders, the employee’s family security could be jeopardized and the money that belongs to the government is being mismanaged by untrustworthy employees such as the official, and in both cases a basic right is being violated. * Psychological dimensions
Knowing the engineer would do anything to maintain her job status, the boss not only underestimated the number of consequences such as a lawsuit, the company’s reputation and the publicity such an event will attract, also his morals were blinded by his illusion of optimism and control and the illusion of superiority and allowed him to dehumanize that engineer and force her to perform such actions. e- Solution:
The company should work on raising the moral awareness by education the employees on their rights, and the company should show commitment to those employees’ rights by firing this top management that was involved in the scandal, and encourage employees to report such problems by blowing the whistle when the situation requires it.

Case #4: Justice
XYZ orders 5000 custom made parts from ABC for one of its products. When the order is originally made ABC indicates it will charge $75 per part. This cost is based in part on the cost of materials. After the agreement is completed, but before production of the part begins, ABC engineer Christine Carsten determines that a much less expensive metal alloy can be used while only slightly compromising the integrity of the part. Using the less expensive alloy would cut ABC's costs by $18 a part.
Christine brings this to the attention of ABC's Vernon Waller, who authorized the sales agreement with XYZ. Vernon asks, "How would anyone know the difference?" Christine replies, "Probably no one would unless they were looking for a difference and did a fair amount of testing. In most cases the performance will be virtually the same -- although some parts might not last quite as long." Vernon says, "Great, Christine, you've just made a bundle for ABC." Puzzled, Christine replies, "But shouldn't you tell XYZ about the change?" "Why?" Vernon asks, "The basic idea is to satisfy the customer with good quality parts, and you've just said we will. So what's the problem?"
The problem, Christine thinks to herself, is that the customer isn't getting what was promised. Further, even if XYZ would be satisfied with the different part, shouldn't it be given the opportunity to decide if it finds the change acceptable -- and to benefit from lowered cost?
Should Christine share her further thoughts with Vernon, or should she simply drop the matter?
*From NSF Engineering Ethics Case Report. http://wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/templates/student_resources/0534605796_harris/cases/Cases/case14.htm a- Description of the professional context: * ABC, the supplying company promised to provide 5000 custom made parts to ABC for 75$ a piece * The price was set based on the cost of raw material * ABC’s engineer finds out that a much cheaper alloy can be used without compromising on the integrity of the part ordered: in general the performance will be the same but some parts might not last quite as long * The difference between the two materials cannot be detected without the conduction of a fair amount of testing * Mr. Walker, who authorized the sakes agreement, does not want to reveal the changes in the product in order to ensure higher profit margin. He thinks that the priority is to satisfy the client through good quality parts. * The engineer is confused b- Stating the ethical issue:
“Would it be ethical to change the composition of the part, significantly lower the cost, without informing the client about the changes, describing the difference and let him decide which option to choose?” c- Description of the primary and secondary stakeholders in the situation: * ABC’s production department, Mr. Walker and Christine the engineer are the primary stakeholder * ABC and XYZ are the secondary stakeholders d- Full analysis of the professional issue:
In this case, the distributive type of justice is mainly faced: the price agreed upon in the contract was based on the usage of a certain type of material that cost more to produce. Therefore, the price 75$/piece was accepted by ABC based on the composition and qualifications of the first alloy. That being said, unfairness in the distribution of outcomes will occur in case XYZ will provide the cheap alloy without informing ABC and reducing the price. * Psychological dimensions:
It is clear that Mr. Walkers is very profit driven and lacks of moral awareness that might be common among the sales people who might consider that the results are much more important than the means. Also, Mr. Walker tends to believe that satisfying the customer through providing best quality parts is the most important point and by providing the cheap alloy he would still be fulfilling that part (confirmation trap). In this way, he reduced the number of consequences and underestimated the potential risk that might occur: the cheap alloy might not last as long and the ABC will have the right to sue XYZ in case they got suspicious about the quality of the product received and conducted needed testing. e- Solution:
The engineer should report the unethical conduct of Mr. Walkers that might ruin XYZ’s reputation and refuses to produce the new alloy unless they provide her with a signed agreement from ABC stating that they are aware of the changes in both specifications and cost. In that way, the engineer would have respected the NSPE code of ethics for engineers and avoided the occurrence of any deceptive act.

Case #5: Virtue
John Budinski, quality control engineer at Clarke Engineering, has a problem. Clarke contracted with USAWAY to supply a product subject to the requirement that all parts are made in the United States. Although the original design clearly specifies that all parts must satisfy this requirement, one of Clarke's suppliers failed to note that one of the components has two special bolts that are made only in another country. There is not time to design a new bolt if the terms of the contract are to be met. USAWAY is a major customer, and not meeting the deadline can be expected to have unfortunate consequences for Clarke.
John realizes that the chances of USAWAY discovering the problem on their own are slim. The bolts in question are not visible on the surface of the product. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that those who work on repairs will notice that the bolts are foreign made. In any case, Clarke is under contract to do the repairs. Meanwhile, it can work on a bolt design so that it will be ready with USA bolts when, and if, replacements are needed.
What should John do?
*From NSF Engineering Ethics Case Report. http://wadsworth.com/philosophy_d/templates/student_resources/0534605796_harris/cases/Cases/case21.htm a- Description of the professional context: * John quality engineer at Clarke Engineering * Clarke contracted with USAWAY to supply a product with parts and components are made in USA * One of Clarke’s supplier didn’t notice that one of the component has two bolts that are made outside of the USA * No time to design new bolts and meet the deadline of the project * Not meeting the deadline could damage Clarke’s relationship with USAWAY * Slim chances that USAWAY will find out about the bolts since they will not be visible on the product’s surface * Clarks will also be doing the repairs for the supplied product and in the meantime it will be working on new bolts made in USA and will change them when replacement is needed.

b- Stating the ethical issue:
Should John not comply with the fifth and sixth Engineering fundamentals code of ethics which states “Avoid deceptive acts” and “Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession” by ignoring the bolts issue and not report it to the top management, and take into consideration only the consequences of losing this contract and what it could pertain on him and Clarke? c- Description of the primary and secondary stakeholders in the situation: * John, Clarke, USAWAY as primary stakeholders * Clarke’s employees as secondary stakeholders d- Full analysis of the professional issue: * The kind of decision that an individual of integrity would make in this situation:
Convince Clarke’s management to attempt opening communication channels with USAWAY and let them know of the exact circumstances of the situation, given the business relationship between the two companies and that the bolts might constitute an irrelative component of the product, there is a big chance USAWAY might disregard the bolts issue, and therefore the business relationship is not jeopardized. * Specific virtues relevant in this situation are mainly concentrated on trust and truthfulness as USAWAY believes they are receiving the product as requested and that truthfulness aspect is completely violated concerning the bolts issue since Clarke is not providing the correct information. * Disclosure rule:
In case the job is done as Clarke is planning and USAWAY somehow found out about the bolts, and eventually this information gets out and published, Clarke could risk to be known for deceiving their customers in order to deliver fast and inadequate products, which will destroy the company’s reputation * I would assume with the decision to notify USAWAY of the bolts origins will be highly appreciated by USAWAY and most likely it will enforce the bond between the two companies since Clarke will demonstrate that it won’t deceive its customers and conduct business in an unethical way in order to improve its financial figures or preserve a certain project. * Cognitive biases/ barriers
Clarke in this situation is overconfident that USAWAY will not find out about the bolts and it’s looking for facts that support their preferred choice which is to go on with the imported bolts since Clarke is also contracted to do repairs on the product. It’s that illusion of optimism that the situation is under control and nobody will find out and not really weighing the consequences and the risks involved in case USAWAY finds out, let alone the risk to endanger the integrity of the company and the consequences of its inability to get new projects. e- How does a decision based solely on character relate to the potential decision of other analyses?
In this case Clarke should consider the long term consequence to be more important to the company than the short term consequence, therefore trust and truthfulness should be highly considered as the main factor for such decision as other analyses. a- Solution:
John should blow the whistle and inform top management of the long term consequences of such decision and recommend discussing it with USAWAY and hopefully making adjustment to the contract.

Conclusion:
In the engineering world things can be a little more complicated due to the importance of the ethical reputation of the engineer and its company. No company would be delighted to work with an engineer who is known to commit ethical misconduct and could have endangered people’s life in some instances or even delivered some internal secrets to another firm such as patents for example. Therefore confidentiality, integrity, justice, non bias, loyalty and professionalism are the core values of the engineering industry, once broken by one employee the reputation of the whole company will be seriously harmed.