Engineering Ethics - Case Study Example

A consultant is not supposed to start working on a new task, which will require him to use the skill he obtained from his former client. It follows then, that the consultant should consider avoiding deceptive acts (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007): Though the consultant, as a requirement must advise his clients most honestly and appropriately, he also barred, as a rule of practice from disclosing any crucial information about another client’s project. Consequently, he can not reveal to the competitor the pitfalls ahead of that project, as he would be disbursing the important information of his client’s project.

He is duty-bound to disclose this conflict of interest to the concerned parties (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007). Truth and objectivity as a guiding rule to the consultancy in the Engineering profession require any information so disseminated by them, not to be misleading. The information should not partisan or aligned to favor a given party (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007). Though the consultant is at liberty to issues opinions and testimonies regarding their area of engagement, it is unexpected of them, under any circumstance to criticize others based on the incentives granted by the interested parties.

Thus, the consultant is not supposed to lure customers from purchasing the competitor products. His duty, instead, is to give all the relevant information, regarding the client’s products and let the customers decide on whether to purchase or not, based on the genuine and relevant information granted to them. They are free to identify with the product and stand the credit, of engaging in the process of generating the revolutionary new products and patents (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007.

Case 3: Faculty Members plan of action As a faculty member in a local university, one is not allowed to participate in decisions as pertains to the services they offered. However, this is applicable in government or quasi-governmental employees or advisors (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007). They are hindered from accepting compensation, financial or otherwise, whether directly or indirectly from outside agents in connection with the work they are in charge of (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007).

The faculty member should then consider declining the offer, based on the principle of practice that one should not be remunerated by more than one party on the same project until all the intentions to pay up are agreeable to the concerned entities. Therefore, the faculty member should seek the opinion of the employer, before deciding whether to accept or decline the offer (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007). It is important for engineers to consider the issues of public wellbeing as well as that of the employees.

They should not assist any illegal activity that takes place or is in the process of being established by any individual or organization, be it their employer or otherwise (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007). They should uphold the principle of safety dearly and thus, should decline the tendency of overlooking the safety measures put in place, as done by the other employees. To the extent that they are unable to stop this unacceptable and reckless habit, that is potentially harmful, then they should go on and report to the relevant authorities, notwithstanding the perceived benefit by the other employees (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007).

Consequently, there should not be any event of misrepresentation of facts regarding a project in any manner. Omitting any relevant and material fact that would be of use in their undertaking is also prohibited. Thus, they are supposed to disclose to the customer any change in the use of material, for the manufacture of the commodity they had contracted, failure to which it would amount to misrepresentation of information or omitting to disseminate vital information to the customers (NSPE code of conduct for Engineers, 2007).

It is also required that the engineers shall not engage in a practice that has adverse effects on their clients, without the prior consent of all parties. This underlines the fact that the customer should be consulted just before this change of material for processing gets executed.