Engineering Ethics - Essay Example

? Engineering Ethics Case Studies Inserts His/her Inserts Grade Inserts 7th, December, Outline 1.0 Case Study One 03 2.0 Case Study Two 04 3.0 Case Study Three 04 4.0 Case Study Four 05 5.0 Case Study Five 06 6.0 List of References 08 Engineering Ethics Case Studies 1.0 Case Study One The NSPE codes of ethics relevant to this case include (NSPE, 2007): 1. “Engineers shall undertake assignments only when qualified by education or experience in the specific technical fields involved.” 2. “Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputations, prospects, practice or employment of other engineers, nor indiscriminately criticize the work of other engineers.” From the case, we realize the fact that the experience of the former student engineer is in question. Despite serving as an engineer at a local engineering firm, he still searches for guidance in interpreting an engineering report from a more qualified engineer than himself. However, it is his obligation to undertake assignments that he can meet the requirements as it relates to his experience (NSPE, 2007). Therefore, this engineer acts in violation of the NSPE codes of ethics by accepting the assignment that he cannot deliver. Alternatively, the engineer should have reported his inability to interpret the document, and ask for assistance within their engineering company. By reporting the report’s inadequacies, I will be violating the NSPE codes of ethics, which states that an engineer should not maliciously or falsely criticize the works of other engineers. Conversely, the engineer who prepared the report may also be considered as violating the NSPE codes due to his provision of substandard works. As a solution, I would advice the newly practicing engineer to schedule a meeting between the three of us so as to work out the differences (Catalano, 2006). Consequently, there shall be a final solution that will not impact negatively on the career of anyone among us. 2.0 Case Study Two The NSPE codes of ethics relevant to this case include (NSPE, 2007): 1. “Engineers shall disclose to their employers or clients potential conflicts of interest or any other circumstances that could influence or appear to influence their professional judgment or the quality of their service.” From the facts presented in this case, I have an obligation to my employers or clients (NSPE, 2007). After conducting research with this local company, I got appealing results, which does not necessarily mean that the results would be in tandem with their expectations. Since I am not sure that the company’s product, urethane, is closest to matching the human muscle response, I should search for more evidence. Otherwise, blindly accepting their concept as true will be acting in violation of the NSPE codes, which states that engineers shall disclose any situation that may impact engineer’s professional judgment or service quality. Therefore, asking for additional funding should allow ample time for establishing the correct results that should be presented to the company leaders. Severally, such moves may be misinterpreted for conflicting interest in an established business venture (Harris, Michael, & Michael, 2009). As such, I should make all my intentions regarding the project clear before the company officials prior to requesting for additional funding. This will ensure that doubts that may have existed about my intention of requesting for additional funding are eliminated. In that sense, I will have acted in the right manner and without violating the NSPE codes of ethics that require engineers to disclose their plans for participating in projects. 3.0 Case Study Three The NSPE codes of ethics relevant to this case include (NSPE, 2007): 1. “Engineers shall at all times strive to serve the public interest.” 2. “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” 3. “Engineers shall disclose to their employers or clients potential conflicts of interest or any other circumstances that could influence or appear to influence their professional judgment or the quality of their service.” According to the facts in this case, the involvement of our design team appears to be in a precarious situation and needs ethical decision-making process. During the design of the product tests system, we realized that the computer controller card lacks in functionality; hence, the final test system would miss some valuable features. Unfortunately, the project is already 20% over budget, and a new computer card would cost $50,000 with 200 hours for implementation. However, without the additions, the implementation would result in user injury and would lead to violation of the NSPE code of ethics. In this situation, we have an obligation to the client, as well as the public (Catalano, 2006). The NSPE code of ethics requires that engineers attend to the public interest by ensuring their safety, health and welfare, as well as inform clients on situations that would impact the quality of their service. It is ethical to inform the client about the additional requirement, though over budget, because it may result in the purchase of a new control card, which would eliminate the potential risk posed to the end user (NSPE, 2007). As such, the design team should inform the client about the over budget, the repercussions and solutions that must be considered for producing a safe product test system. 4.0 Case Study Four The NSPE codes of ethics relevant to this case include (NSPE, 2007): 1. “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public.” 2. “If the engineer’s judgment is overruled under circumstances that endanger life or property, they shall notify their employer or client and such other authority as may be appropriate.” The facts presented in the case put the affected company in a precarious situation that may lead to liability. As a newly hired production engineer, I have the obligation of ensuring the safety, health, and welfare of the public (Catalano, 2006). As established from the case, workers disregard some of the government-mandated safety regulations that control the presses and stamping machines. By accepting these practices to go on, I will be violating the NSPE code of ethics, which states that engineers must ensure the well being of the public. In this situation, the public refer to workers who have failed to observe safety rules while using the mentioned equipment. In practice, this is unacceptable behavior that would lead to injuries, as well as compromise the professional of engineers. As the production engineer, I will insist against the ignorance of safety rules while using machines and ensure that worker follow all the safety rules (NSPE, 2007). In case my proposal is neglected by some of the workers, I should then go ahead and report the safety issue to my employers or any other relevant bodies. The NSPE code states that where the engineer’s decisions are neglected in life-threatening conditions, he shall report to employers or other relevant authorities. This action will ensure that the company is not exposed to any liabilities arising from resulting machine injuries. 5.0 Case Study Five The NSPE codes of ethics relevant to this case include (NSPE, 2007): 1. “Engineers shall disclose to their employers or clients potential conflicts of interest or any other circumstances that could influence or appear to influence their professional judgment or the quality of their service.” 2. “Engineers shall disclose to their employers or clients potential conflicts of interest or any other circumstances that could influence or appear to influence their professional judgment or the quality of their service.” For every company, there are relevant codes of ethics that should be put to practice. This ensures that all the interested parties benefit from the association. In particular, companies have obligations to their customers, suppliers and other interested parties (NSPE, 2007). From the case, the company discovers a much cheaper way to produce prefabricated wall sections, which results in an ethical dilemma whether to inform the customers or not. As one of the company owners, I must accept the fact that the company has the obligation to share all the resultant savings associated with the change in production methods. As such, it is ethical that customers are not put in the dark about the new production method, profit margins, as well as constituents of the newly produced wall sections (Baura, 2006). The NSPE code of ethics requires that engineers or companies be truthful to their clients and customers. By hiding such information and keeping all the profits resulting from the new manufacturing procedure, the company will be violating the NSPE code of ethics. Therefore, it is ethical that we inform the customers and renegotiate the terms of supplying them with the products. In conclusion, this will ensure that the company remains open to service and does not incur liabilities associated with the fabrication changes. Reference List Baura, G. (2006). Engineering Ethics: An Industrial Perspective. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Inc. Catalano, G. (2006). Engineering Ethics: Peace, Justice, and the Earth. USA: Morgan & Claypool Publishers. Harris, C., Michael, P., & Michael, R. (2009). Engineering Ethics: Concepts & Cases. Belmont, CA: Cengange Learning Inc. NSPE. (2007). NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers. Retrieved December 1, 2011 from the NSPE Website: http://www.nspe.org/resources/pdfs/Ethics/CodeofEthics/Code-2007-July.pdf Read More