Department of Chemical Engineering

University of San Carlos Technological Center

Nasipit, Talamban, Cebu City

CHE 522N

Laws and Ethics in ChE Practice

CASE STUDY

FRAMING AND RESOLVING ETHICAL DILLEMAS

Submitted by:

Date submitted:
 January 9, 2017

For a brief description of the case, Sean was assigned to design a new air extraction
system that is better than the old system installed two decades ago that have not been working
efficiently for quite some time. Company policy and good engineering practice required that
Seans design and calculations should be checked by a secondary engineer. The secondary
engineer, Lawrence, was given the files for the design for checking. Since Lawrence was busy
clearing his desk before he went for a leave, Lawrence signed the design for the new air
extraction system without reviewing and checking the calculations for errors. After coming back
from his leave, Lawrence decided to check Seans design calculations and found some error in
the calculation. This simple error meant that the new system will work only slightly better than
the old system but the company had already spent 4M in building the unit and would spend
even more for the installation of the unit. If Lawrence did his job properly, the error would have
been picked up before the construction of the unit began. What should Lawrence do?

In order to identify Lawrences best course of action, it is important to first identify the
problem and the ethical dilemma faced by Lawrence. To do this; factual, conceptual, and moral
issues involved in this case must first be identified.

FACTS:

The problem in this case is that the error in Seans design calculations meant that the new
system will work only slightly better than the old one that it had to replace. The company had
already spent a lot of money in building the unit and will have to spend more in the installation.
Lawrence is required by company policy and good engineering practice to thoroughly check and
review Seans design and calculations for errors. Lawrence signed Seans design calculations
which he has not checked and reviewed in detail. Is Lawrence an ethical engineer for signing
Seans design and calculations without properly checking and reviewing it?

CONCEPTUAL ISSUE:

Sean was assigned to design a new air extraction system that must be better than the
current system installed. This begs the question, how much better, is better? Since the new unit
that has already been built will work only slightly better than the current unit installed, does it
fall short of the companys requirement or does it still fall within an acceptable margin?

NORMATIVE/MORAL ISSUE:

If Lawrence does not report the error to his superior and the company proceeds in
installing the new unit based on the erroneous design, the company will have a new air extraction
system that is only slightly better than the current system that they have. If Lawrence decides to
report the error, the company will have to spend more money for the modifications in the design
of the new system and additional cost in the construction of the unit based on the modified
design. Lawrence could also face repercussions from the company for not following the
companys policy and his reputation as an engineer might be tarnished. In this case, is it
acceptable for Lawrence to lie if doing so will lessen the burden in the companys finances and
save his career? Does he go against the ethical codes of his profession for the sake of reducing
the companys expenses due to his mistakes?

Modification of the design vs. cost

If Lawrence were to report about the error in the design calculation to his superiors, they
might decide to modify the design which will end up having higher cost compared to if they go
through with the installation of the already constructed unit based on the erroneous design.
Which should Lawrence choose the improvement in the performance of the system by modifying
the design or the total cost of construction and installation of the new system?

PERTINENT CHEMICAL ENGINEERING CODE OF ETHICS

Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers (PIChE) Code of Ethics and Good Governance

Section 2.2 of the PIChE Code of Ethics - We shall conduct a review/audit of the work of
another chemical engineer for the same client or employer only after the said client of employer
shall have informed him/her of such endeavor. Since it was part of the company policy that a
secondary engineer checks another engineers design and calculations, Lawrence was aware that
it was his responsibility to check Seans design and calculations. If he had done his job properly,
the error in the design calculation would have been picked up before the construction of the unit
started. By not doing his job properly, Lawrence already violated this section of ethics provided
the Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers (PIChE).

Section 1.9 of the PIChE Code of Ethics We shall acknowledge our own mistake/error when
proven wrong and refrain from distorting or manipulating the facts to justify our mistake. If
Lawrence decides to lie about the error in the design calculation, he will violate this section of
the code of ethics provided by the Philippine Institute of Chemical Engineers.

RELEVANT CASES:

One example of a case which relate to Lawrences ethical dilemma is the case of Citicorp.
William LeMessurier was understandably proud of his structural design of the 1977 Citicorp
building in downtown Manhattan. LeMessurier found out that the initial specification for full-
penetration weld was not followed. Instead, the joints were bolted. He discovered that this leaves
the building vulnerable to total collapse if the areas were subjected to powerful storms. Despite
knowing that reporting what he had discovered might affect his reputation as an engineer, he
acted responsibly and drew up plans to rectify the problem and informed the owners of Citicorp
about what he had learned. This case directly relates to Lawrences ethical dilemma because
William LeMessurier also found flaws in the design and acted according to the codes of ethics of
his profession.

Another example is Case no 86 2 found in the National Society of Professional

Engineers, Report on a Case by the Board of Ethical Review. The engineer in that case was a
Chief Engineer responsible for affixing his seal to some of the plans prepared by registered
engineers under his general direction. Because of the size of the organization, the Chief Engineer
finds it impossible to check and review in details all the plans that he affixes his seal to. He find
it acceptable not to check and review the plans in details because of the confidence he have on
the ability of the people that he hired. This case is directly related to Lawrences case because he
had the similar mindset when he signed Seans design and calculations before he went on a
leave.

RESOLUTION
 Lawrences best course of action is to report about the error to the company and admit his
mistakes. He should make plans on how to rectify the problem similar to what William
LeMessurier did in the case of Citicorp. He should make modification in the already built unit
for the air extraction system that would satisfy the modified design instead of building another
unit from scratch. This would improve the performance of the system with smaller additional
cost.

CONCLUSION

This should serve as an example to all engineers to do their job properly and responsibly,
abiding by the codes of ethics at all times. Failure to follow these codes can have repercussion,
personally, to the society, or to your profession/discipline. It is important to realize that actions,
as an engineer will have possible consequences and reactions that could affect a huge number of
people. It is important for engineers to be honest with themselves, their profession, and to the
community to which they serve. This way, engineers can make a difference in the world and
make it a better place to live in.
References:

Case No. 86-2: Signing and Sealing Plans not Prepared by Engineer. (1986).
Retrieved January 8, 2017, from National Society of Professional Engineers
Web site:
https://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/resources/pdfs/Ethics/EthicsResources
/EthicsCaseSearch/1986/BER%2086-2.pdf

AR, H. (2014, April 12). Framing and Resolving Ethical Problems. Retrieved January
8, 2017, from Prezi: https://prezi.com/jmj4ha-_ovcb/framing-and-resolving-
ethical-problems/

ETHICAL DILEMMAS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR ENGINEERS. (n.d.). Retrieved

January 8, 2017, from http://www.pitt.edu/~hds8/MF.html

Harris, C., Pritchard, M., & Rabins, M. (2009). Engineering Ethics: Concepts and
Cases. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning.