Engineering Case Study

“Onerous Favorites”

Anne is an established electrical engineer at Onerous, a computer hardware company. Not

Two employees, who had been newly hired, were given visible roles in a prominent project.
Upon the project’s successful completion, the new-hires were given generous promotions by
management. On the other hand, Anne’s co-workers were asked to play supporting roles in the
project, and were not given any special recognition (i.e., promotions) for their work.

Anne’s non-confrontational co-workers were angry and came to Anne for advice since they
knew she had broad professional experience. They told her that they were going to leave the
company if management did not stop playing favorites.

Although strongly inclined to bring this matter up to her manager, Anne felt like doing so
would be futile because her manager is stubborn and inflexible. How should Anne deal with this
situation?

Reference:

https://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/engineering-ethics/engineering-ethics-
cases/onerous-favorites/?fbclid=IwAR0rCSXozr0D4hMMNHzTv0xf1WCdgIw4Csig_VeUAR
9Yb5FRSLebH4sTIzM

Group 4

Alcantara, Cindy

Atienza, Paul

Caparoso, John Mark

Dimayuga, Naucien

Endozo, Angelika

Garcia, Rosbyne Mitzi

Magnaye, Krystle

Ronquillo, Christian Oliver

“Conflicting Engineering Opinions”

Facts:

A state legislature has pending various bills involving water supply, flood control and
production of electric power. The most efficient and economical method to achieve the desired
result has been debated within the legislature and among the citizenry generally for several years.
Hearings are called by a committee of the state legislature to receive comments and
recommendations on the various proposals which have been offered. Engineer A, a professional
engineer representing the state power commission, testifies that engineering studies by him and
his professional colleagues indicate the most efficient solution from an engineering standpoint is
a series of low dams. Engineer B, another professional engineer representing a private power
company, testifies that his engineering analysis indicates a more effective and less expensive
solution, producing the same results, by using one high dam. Each engineering witness submits
voluminous engineering data in support of his position, and freely criticizes the analysis and
findings of the other.

Question:

1. Is there a violation of the Canons of Ethics by Engineer A, representing the state power
commission, in offering a conflicting opinion or in criticizing the work of Engineer B at a hearing
on an engineering project in the interest of the public?

2. Is there a violation of the Canons of Ethics by Engineer B, representing a private power

"He will express an opinion only when it is founded on adequate knowledge and honest
conviction while he is serving as a witness before a court, commission or other tribunal."

Code C7

"He will refrain from expressing publicly an opinion on an engineering subject unless he
is informed as to the facts relating thereto."

Code C24

"He will exercise due restraint in criticizing another engineer's work in public, recognizing
the fact that the engineering societies and the engineering press provide the proper forum
for technical discussions and criticism."

Code R6:10

"He will not advocate or support enactment of community laws, rules, or regulations that
he believes are not in the public interest."

Discussion:

Some aspects of an engineering problem will admit of only one conclusion, such as a
mathematical equation, but it is a fallacy to carry this statement to the ultimate conclusion that all
engineering problems admit of only one correct answer. Particularly in large and complicated
engineering problems, such as a water-power complex, there may be many approaches, all based
on sound engineering principles. Large public projects are notably in this category, and the
approach finally adopted may properly reflect not only engineering diagnoses, but also
determinations of public policy. Engineering judgment from exclusively an efficiency and cost
standpoint may conclude that a proposed highway should be built through the heart of a heavily
populated residential district. Public policy may dictate, however, that the highway should be built
at greater cost and less efficiency through a lightly populated area. An engineer who presents either
point of view cannot be said to be "incorrect."

There may also be honest differences of opinion among equally qualified engineers on the
interpretation of the known physical facts. Assuming complete factual agreement on such factors
as water flow, soil conditions, rate of evaporation, past rainfall, runoff, etc., engineers can and do
arrive at different conclusions based on their best understanding of the application of those facts.
Also, it should be recognized that in the type of case at hand the engineers must base their opinion
on estimates of indeterminate factors, e.g., construction cost by one method or another, population
growth, economic development of the area and possible future trends in more efficient equipment.

Code C5 and Code C7 refer to expression of "opinion," confirming the idea that the
engineer is called upon for the expression of his judgment, not the mere recital of known
engineering data. Code R6:10 refers to the engineer being an "advocate" of a position, again
recognizing that contrary conclusions are to be expected. The practice of engineering is "the
application of special knowledge of the mathematical, physical, and engineering sciences to . . .
creative work...." (Code 2(d), Model Law).

The only Canon which need give us pause is Code C24 dealing with public criticism of the
work of another engineer. But Code C24 does not prohibit such public criticism; it only requires
that the engineer apply "due restraint." We take this language to mean that in offering public
criticism of the work of another engineer, the engineering witness will avoid personalities and
abuse, and will base his criticism on the engineering conclusions or application of engineering data
by offering alternative conclusions or analyses. Code C24 implies that engineering criticism
should be confined to engineering society gatherings and the engineering press. However, this
should not be interpreted as interfering with the duty of the engineer to his client, employer or the
public to offer his expert knowledge and opinion to public bodies which bear the responsibility for
acts of public importance. Code C5 recognizes the expression of opinion on engineering matters
in connection with testimony before courts, commissions and other tribunals. We believe that the
wording of Code C5 can be extended to public hearings and procedures.

Conclusion:

1. It is not unethical for Engineer A, representing the state power commission, to offer a conflicting
opinion on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of Engineer B, at
hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered
on a high level of professional deportment.

2. It is not unethical for Engineer B, representing a private power company, to offer a conflicting
opinion on the application of engineering principles, or to criticize the work of Engineer A, at
hearings on an engineering project, in the interest of the public, provided such criticism is offered
on a high level of professional deportment.
Reference:

https://www.cs.cmu.edu/~bmclaren/ethics/caseframes/63-6.html?fbclid=IwAR2-dWsObfTWBb-
ZWuOTo4I15FQAeSm6HRYblM5XCFCzcHKmo2K30XtLBdM

Group 4

Alcantara, Cindy

Atienza, Paul

Caparoso, John Mark

Dimayuga, Naucien

Endozo, Angelika

Garcia, Rosbyne Mitzi

Magnaye, Krystle

Ronquillo, Christian Oliver