Case Study on

1
Case Study on Conflict of Interest

• Reference Feasibility Study (adopted from NSPE
  Case No. 88-1)

2
Problem Statement

• Engineer A is asked by the county to perform a
  feasibility study and make recommendations
  concerning location of a new power facility in
  the county.
• Two parcels of land have been identified by the
  county as the "candidates" for facility sites.
• Land 1 is undeveloped and owned by an individual
  who plans to build later.
• Land 2 is owned by Engineer A, is developed.

3
Other Facts

• Engineer A discloses that he is the owner of the
  second parcel of land
• Non-disclosure is clearly unethical without
  doubt
• The county did not object to having Engineer A
  perform the feasibility study.
• Does that remove the conflict of interest?
• Does it matter that the choice is a one-person
  decision or a committees decision?
• A performs the study and recommends that the
  county build the facility on the undeveloped
  parcel of land (option 1) because
• it is a better location for the power facility
  from an engineering standpoint, and
• it would be less costly for the county to
  acquire.
• Does it matter that if the decision is reversed?

4
Questions and Discussion

• Was it ethical for Engineer A to perform a
  feasibility study and make recommendations given
  all considerations?
• Support your arguments (for or against) based on
  established codes of ethics

5
Case Study 85-6

• An engineer was asked by the state to perform a
  feasibility study concerning a possible highway
  extension through an area where the engineer
  lives.
• The engineer disclosed to the state the fact that
  his residential property might be affected and
  fully disclosed the potential conflict.
• The state did not object to the engineer
  performing the work.
• Engineer A proceeded with his feasibility study
  and ultimately recommended that the extension be
  constructed.
• The ruling it was not unethical for the engineer
  to perform the feasibility study.
• Section II.4.a requires the full disclosure of
  conflicts but not necessarily to completely avoid
  all potential conflicts.
• Conflict of interest not necessarily equal to
  unethical act
• Indiscriminately enforce the code would leave
  engineers without any real understanding of the
  ethical issues nor any guidance as to how to deal
  with the problem

6
Case Study 69-13

• An engineer was asked to study and recommend a
  water and sewer system in the general area of a
  land owned by the engineer.
• The Board ruled that the engineer could not
  ethically design the system under those
  circumstances.
• His study and recommendation could lead to a
  considerable appreciation in the value of his
  land depending upon the exact location of certain
  system elements in proximity to his land.
• A full disclosure was not enough under the Code.
• The real test of ethical conduct is not when
  compliance with the Code favors the personal
  interest, but when compliance is considered
  adverse to ones interest.
• Section III.1.b public perception is important
  factor in consideration of the success of the
  study/project

7
Conclusion

• It is considered unethical to perform the
  feasibility study to recommend the power
  facility.
• Other scenarios to consider
• Land 2 is owned not by the engineer but his
  relative/friend/neighbor/colleagues
• One of the potential power plant sites locates in
  the general area of As home

8
Relevant Code of Ethics

• NSPE Code of Ethics- Section II.4.a."Engineers
  shall disclose all known or potential conflicts
  of interest to their employers or clients by
  promptly informing them of any business
  association, interest, or other circumstances
  which could influence or appear to influence
  their judgment or the quality of their services.
• NSPE Section III.1.b."Engineers shall advise
  their clients or employers when they believe a
  project will not be successful."

9
Case Study on Engineers dispute with client
over design

• Reference Feasability study (Adopted from NSPE
  Case No. 84-4)

10
Problem Statement

• Engineer A is hired by a client to design a
  particular project.
• Client and Engineer A are unable to resolve
  disagreements on success of design.
• Client feels design is overly complex
• Engineer A has reservations about results/safety
  of a simpler solution

11
Other Facts

• Client demands Engineer A turn over design
  drawings so project can be completed by Engineer
  B
• Client is prepared to pay Engineer A for his
  drawings, plans, etc.
• Engineer A refuses to turn over drawings

12
Issues for Discussion

• Is it ethically acceptable for Engineer A to turn
  over his drawings to the client?
• Engineer A has expressed concerns that a simpler
  solution may endanger the public
• Engineer A has made the assumption that Engineer
  Bs work will result in a compromise of public
  safety
• Engineer A does not have factual basis to believe
  a safety issue actually exists, nor that a design
  from Engineer B will result in one

13
Conclusion

• It was found that it would not be a violation of
  ethics for Engineer A turn over his design plans
  to the client
• Engineer A fulfilled his ethical duty by
• Presenting his plans for a successful design
  project
• Expressing his concerns over a simplified
  solution to the problem
• Engineer A would be ethically required to report
  safety concerns to proper authorities if there is
  verifiable evidence that Engineer Bs designs
  pose a danger to the public