CE 445 KSU Professional Practice: Professional Ethics Questions

Anonymous
timer Asked: Feb 18th, 2019
account_balance_wallet $15

Question Description

hello there

i attached all the documents that you are going to need

thanks

CE 445 – Professional Practice. Spring 2019 Ethics Homework Answer the following questions. Support your answer by referencing both the Canon(s) and Subcanon(s) from the ASCE Code of Ethics Ņ. Nick started a new job at a structural engineering consulting firm. He has a target of 1800 hours of billable time for his first year of employment and is permitted to charge the balance of his time to training. Recently, Nick has had little project work assigned to him. One of the project managers in the office asks Nick to work on a design-build project with several sub-tasks including field work, design work, and construction management. The project is being billed to the client on a time and expense basis with a not to exceed budget of $30,000 for field work, $20,000 for design work, and $20,000 for construction management. Nick is assigned to perform independent field work on the project. However, the project manager indicates that his project is currently over budget, and he asks Nick to charge only half of his time to the project and the other half of his time to training. In addition, Nick is instructed to use the design work subtask when charging his time to the project instead of the field work subtask. Use the HARPS analysis method (Slide 42 in ethics lecture) to decide the following: Should Nick be required to only charge half of his time to the project? Should he be required to charge the other half of his time to training? When would it be appropriate to charge time to a training instead of to a project? How can he minimize conflict with the project manager? Should Nick charge time to a subtask (i.e. design work instead of field work) for which he is not performing work? When would this action be acceptable / not acceptable? What cannons and subcannons of the ASCE Code of Ethics provide guidance to the engineer in making these decisions? How do they apply? 2. Compare section 37.81 of the PA Code identifying actions that represent misconduct to the ASCE Code of Ethics. Identify Canons that correlate with each of the misconduct items listed in the 37.81 PA Code, use NA if you do not believe there is a corresponding cannon. You do not need to write out a formal response, only use the table below for your response. PA 37.81 1 2 3 4 5 6 ASCE Cannon (1-7) PA 37.81 7 8 9 10 11 ASCE Cannon (1-7) ŇŎYou are the engineer responsible for conducting a geotechnical investigation for a major tunnel project. One of the things you must investigate is the presence or absence of explosive gases in the rock, such as methane. You develop an investigation program which includes checking for gas at each soil boring location as the boring is being drilled. This is done with a hand-held gas detector operated by your field engineer. The field work includes 30 deep test borings and is completed without any apparent complications. Methane is found in three (3) test borings and the rest appear to be free of explosive gas. As you review the field records, you note that a replacement field engineer monitored the gas levels at five of the borings. Since the records are not clear, you discuss the results with that field engineer. To your dismay, you find that he/she did not know how to use the gas detector and that his readings cannot be relied upon. The client is expecting the report next week and to re-drill the borings to obtain accurate gas data would take several weeks and cost several thousand dollars. zÈÁÔÄÏÙÏÕÄÏŕ Describe your decision making process, using the HARPS method.  Reference by Canon and Subsets the ASCE Code of Ethics. Make sure to read and consider all subsets for each Canon and reference the subsets of the  Canons that apply for the course of action that you might take.
Ethics, Dealing with Dilemmas ETHICS DEFINED AND CASE STUDIES Technical and Ethical Responsibilities of Licensed Engineers? Most of a civil engineer’s education focuses on technical matters, that is, “how to do things right,” and most of the engineer’s professional practice is devoted to applying this technical knowledge in service to the needs of society. However, another important element of both education and practice involves ethics, or “how to do the right thing.” Engineering ethics is a vital part of the engineering profession. The ethical issues are not always easy. Choosing between “good” and “bad” is complicated by time constraints, family, promotion opportunities, job security, peer pressure, supervisor pressure, & professional reputation. Choosing among competing goods often confronts the civil engineer. Critical Skills - beyond technical skills that CE Students Need •A clear understanding of professional ethics. •The ability to recognize ethical issues and a capability and willingness to communicate them. •An appreciation for the frequency at which ethic issues occur. •An awareness that guidance on technical issues is available from ASCE and other organizations. •Comprehension to understand “what is right” and a desire and willingness to do “what is right”. Students Need to Develop The Ability to resolve ethical issues by using traditional engineering methods of inquiry, namely: Listing our options Testing our options Making a decision, and Most importantly, Acting ! A CASE STUDY IN ENGINEERING ETHICS Consider Sara’s situation from 3 viewpoints: 1. A “PERSONAL” VIEWPOINT -- CONSIDER THAT “YOU” ARE THE ENGINEER FACING THE ETHICAL ISSUE. 2. AN “IMPERSONAL” VIEWPOINT -- ASSUME YOU ARE AWARE OF THE SITUATION, BUT NOT DIRECTLY INVOLVED. 3. A “RESPONSIBLE” VIEWPOINT -- ASSUME THAT YOU ARE DIRECTLY RESPONSIBLE FOR FUTURE DECISIONS. Sara… by the Lake  Sara has been reported to her State’s Engineer’s Board for a possible ethics violation.  She reflects on how she got to this point. Sara… the early years  Graduated from an ABET-accredited program  Took the FE Exam  Worked under the supervision of a licensed engineer for almost 4 years  Just before she took the PE Exam... Sara and The Apartment Complex  Sara’s firm was retained to investigate the structural integrity of an apartment complex.  STRICT confidentiality required.  Noticed no structural problems  BUT, she did observe some apparent electrical deficiencies To Report, or NOT to Report...  Sara knew these electrical deficiencies might pose a hazard to the occupants  She knew the client didn’t want to hear bad news  She felt the strain of the strict confidentiality requirement  She did not want to damage the client relationship... The Decision...  She verbally informed the client about the problem  She made an “oblique” reference to the problem in her report Those Nagging Doubts...  Later Sara learned the client did not disclose any of her concerns about the electrical deficiencies  She struggled with whether she should have been more persistent in making her concerns known.  She eventually put it out of her mind. Questions for Discussion What were the main issues Sara was wrestling with in this situation? Do you think Sara had a “right” or an “obligation” to report the deficiency to the proper authorities – and when? Who might Sara have spoken with about the dilemma? Questions for Discussion Who should be responsible for what happened: Sara, or Sara’s employer, or the client, or someone else? How does this situation conflict with Sara’s obligation to be faithful to her client? Is it wise practice to ignore “gut feelings” that arise? Involvement with Professional and Technical Societies  Sara is encouraged to become active in professional and technical societies  But her new supervisor opposes her participation and requires that Sara take vacation to attend meetings.  Sara is very frustrated about this. When Opportunity Knocks...  When attending a meeting with the CEO on another matter…  Sara inquires about company policy on the matter of professional society participation.  The CEO reaffirms the company policy to be active in professional societies. Fallout  Sara informs her supervisor of the CEO’s support and resumes her participation.  Her relationship with her supervisor is strained. Questions for Discussion What might Sara have done differently to seek a remedy and yet preserve her relationship with her supervisor? Where could Sara have found guidance in the ASCE Code of Ethics, appropriate to this situation? Vendor Bender: The Christmas Ham  As Christmas approached the following year, Sara discovered a gift bag on her desk.  Inside the gift bag was an expensive honey-glazed spiral cut ham.  This concerned Sara as she felt it might cast doubt on the integrity of their business relationship.  Several others received gifts from the vendor as well. The Decision After sleeping on it, Sara sent a polite note to the vendor returning the ham. Questions for Discussion Was Or On she really obligated to return the ham? was this taking ethics too far? the other hand, could she be obligated to pursue the matter further than just returning the gift she had received? Sara for City Council!  Sara, now a highly successful principal in a respected engineering firm, is urged to run for public office and she agrees to run.  A draft political advertisement is prepared that includes her photograph, her engineering seal, and the following text: “Vote for Sara! We need an engineer on the City Council. That is simple common sense. Sara is an experienced licensed engineer with years of rich accomplishments, who disdains delays and takes action now!” Questions for Discussion Should Sara’s engineering seal be included in the advertisement? Should Sara ask someone in ASCE his or her opinion before deciding? The Apartment Complex, Again...  Sara’s investigation of the apartment complex so many years ago resurfaced.  Sara learned that the apartment complex caught on fire, and people had been seriously injured.  During the investigation, Sara’s report was reviewed, and somehow the cause of the fire was traced to the electrical deficiencies. Thinking it Over  Sara pondered her situation. Legally, she felt she might claim some immunity since she was not a licensed engineer at the time of her work. Professionally, she keenly felt she had let the public down.  Having carefully studied the ASCE Code of Ethics, Sara now realized that occasionally some elements of the code may be in conflict with other elements.  In her case, this was Canon 1 (her obligation to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public) versus Canon 4 (her obligation to her client). Questions for Discussion Why do you think that Codes of Ethics conflict within themselves? What are some ways to recognize a conflict of interest? List some options whereby Sara might have resolved this basic conflict. Sara Before the BOARD  The meeting with the Licensing Board began early the following morning.  The State Licensing Board only enforces their own Rules of Conduct and Ethics, but they noted that their rules are very similar to the ASCE Code of Ethics. The BOARD Finds... It is important for Sara, or any licensed engineer, to realize the engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety of the public. The occupants of the apartment complex were not aware of the electrical deficiencies. Although not an electrical engineer, Sara had some knowledge of city building codes and the ability to foresee the potential dangers. The BOARD Finds… continued Sara had informed her client of the possible electrical deficiencies, but she failed to mention possible consequences of ignoring her concerns. Sara could have referred to the ASCE Code of Ethics before making a decision. From the ASCE Code of Ethics  Canon 1. Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public…. On the way home...  In the taxi back to the airport, Sara thumbed through her newspaper  She saw an editorial about her campaign which claimed that, as a result of the allegations against her, she was no longer fit for public office.  How should Sara respond to such claims? Ethics  Ethics defined - synonymous with morality  Study of decisions, policies, and values that are morally desirable in engineering practice and research. (Martin and Schinzinger 2005)  Standards of conduct – derived from the community’s values, norms, and priciples, that indicate how one should behave and act. (Valparaiso 2011).  Behavior desired by society which is above and beyond the minimum standards established by law (Onsrud 1987) Ethics  Ethics defined - synonymous with morality  Walesh (textbook author) The process used to make value-laden decisions beyond the law in professional matters. Related to, but different than and above, laws.  Referenced to, but more than legal behavior.  Action (what you do), not knowledge (what you know).  How you apply your mosaic of values to make a decision  • People rank values in different hierarchies – ethics vary. Ethics  Ethical Dilemmas  Situations where moral reasons come into conflict  It is not immediately obvious what should be done Legal and Ethical Domain Vertical line separating legal and illegal actions is solid – typically defined by contracts and laws Horizontal line separating ethical and unethical behavior is grey – because it is based on personal values Illegal Legal Model of legal and ethical domains. Ethical Ethical Developed by: Illegal Legal Unethical Unethical McCuen and Wallace, 1987 Onsrud 1987 Inevitable Ethical Situations 1. Plagiarize – write a paper / report using ideas, data, and/or information developed by others and not crediting them. 2. Embellish your resume 3. Shift blame for your errors to others 4. Fail to fulfill agreed-upon responsibilities within a team setting Inevitable Ethical Situations 5. Share sensitive information about a client, owner, or customer with a third party outside of your employer 6. Claim expertise you do not possess 7. Break a signed confidentiality agreement with an employer because of safety to the public. 8. Log more time to a project than actually worked Inevitable Ethical Situations 9. Provide negative information about a competing consulting firm, contractor, etc… 10. Hide errors discovered in plans and specifications 11. Accept a gift offered by a vendor knowing the vendor expects something in exchange 12. Participate in a proposal meeting knowing a less capable group would be assigned to the project. 9 Steps of the Decision Making Process 1. Determine the facts in the situation obtain all of the unbiased facts possible 2. Define the Stakeholders those with a vested interest in the outcome 3. Assess the motivations of the stakeholders Using effective communication techniques and personality assessment 4. Formulate alternative solutions Based on most complete information Decision Making Processes 5. Evaluate proposed alternatives Short-list ethical solutions; there may be more than one 6. Seek additional assistance, as appropriate Code of ethics, previous cases, peers, personal experience 7. Select the best course of action That which satisfies the highest core ethical values 8. Implement the selected solution Take action as warranted 9. Monitor and assess the outcome Note how to improve the next time HARPS Decision Making Processes  HARPS – Ethical Analysis Methodology (Mr. Donald Searing) Information Issues Get “lie of the land” Ask questions Gather facts Determine information you don’t know Find holes in facts, missing questionable data Determine main issues re: ethics Analysis Determine what moral considerations come into conflict Conclusions Examine results Come to a conclusion Develop options Determine permissibility / impermissibility of an action Implement and Evaluate Outcome Decision Making Processes  Systematic Group Process, Frederick (1997) How do we know there is an ethical dilemma occurring? Sometimes figuring out that there is an ethical issue is the hardest part –use your gut. Define ethical dilemma Create list of options Eliminate options considered unacceptable and those opposed by others Make decision Codes of Ethics  Purpose - to express the rights, duties, and obligations” of organization members and provide “a framework for ethical judgment”  Code can not anticipate all ethical situations and dilemmas  Codes do not necessarily prioritize competing demands  Codes are not legal documents – failing to follow it is not illegal, but ramifications of not following the codes may affect livelihood as an engineer ASCE Code of Ethics Code of Ethics Fundamental Principles Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor and dignity of the engineering profession by: 1. using their knowledge and skill for the enhancement of human welfare and the environment; 2. being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their employers and clients; 3. striving to increase the competence and prestige of the engineering profession; and 4. supporting the professional and technical societies of their disciplines. ASCE Code of Ethics New Jersey Church Roof Evaluation Church Roof Findings • Four truss heels are severely deteriorated. • Strength loss is significant enough to fear collapse. New Jersey Church Roof ▪ Report is issued recommending repair to truss heels. ▪ Included in report is the following statement: ▪ If repairs for the truss heels cannot be implemented prior to the 2007-2008 winter, we recommend that shoring be installed at each truss heel. New Jersey Church Roof ▪ The church does nothing and winter is approaching… ▪ A call is made to the church expressing the safety concern. ▪ Finally, the church authorizes additional probes – the trusses are in worse condition than originally anticipated. New Jersey Church Roof A follow-up report / letter is issued to the church on 31 October 2007 stating: We caution you that the deterioration at the roof truss support locations is structurally significant. Shoring should be installed immediately, and definitely prior to any snowfall. The sanctuary should not be used until such shoring is installed. New Jersey Church Roof The engineer’s paramount responsibility is for the safety of the public. The occupants of the church were not aware of the structural deficiencies – only the board members were aware. New Jersey Church Roof It is now the end of November and there is a snow storm approaching. You know that the church has not installed shoring, because you have spoken to the church’s contractor. What do you do? Crab Island, Inc. North Wildwood, New Jersey Assignment from manager – to investigate the cause of a pipe separation at a hot water heater. Assignment is not within “structural engineering” field of practice.  Discuss concern with the manager, but the manager indicates that he wants the work and is sure we can handle the assignment.  The entire interior of the building is a loss $$$$  What would you do?  Crab Island, Inc. North Wildwood, New Jersey Site visit  Confirms that cause is related to the hot water system – not a structural engineering issue.  Documented all of the piping, manufacturer’s, and any other information that could be found on the system. Crab Island, Inc. North Wildwood, New Jersey Crab Island, Inc. North Wildwood, New Jersey  Researched Hot Water Heating Systems and Soldering Procedures  Asked manager if a Mechanical Engineering sub- consultant could be retained to review report findings. - Met the manager’s wishes of performing the work and the concern of practicing outside of engineers knowledge. Crab Island, Inc. North Wildwood, New Jersey Concluded  The water heater supply line pipe connection failed as a result of excessive pressure in the water supply line combined with a deficient solder connection.  The excessive pressure was the result of installation of check valves on both of the water supply lines to the water heater, without the use of an expansion tank. Condominium Complex  Retained to investigate a newly constructed wood framed structure. - Framing was comprised of wood stud walls, wood beams, and plate connected wood floor trusses.  Strict confidentiality is requested by the condominium board – the client. Condominium Complex Findings:     Fractured truss members Pulled out connector plates. Missing or deficient wood columns within the wall framing. It is unclear at this time whether the structure is unsafe. Further investigation is needed… Condominium Complex A resident of the condominium complex asks what you are doing and if there is a problem with the building.  What do you say? Ethics Case Study: Citicorp Tower Citicorp Tower The 900-foot skyscraper is the fourth tallest building in New York and the tenth tallest in the world. The entire structure rests on a central core and four outriding column-like towers. A computer driven load mass damper enables the reduced number of vertical supports and ensures the stability of this complex structure. The entire design was driven by the need to accommodate St. Paul’s Lutheran church. Citicorp Tower  When planning for the skyscraper began in the early 1970s, the northwest corner of the proposed building site was occupied by St. Peter's Lutheran Church.  Old church was demolished to build the skyscraper under one condition: new church to be built on the same corner, with no connection to the Citicorp building and no columns passing through it.  Architects wondered at the time if this demand was too much, and if the proposal could even work.  Structural engineer William LeMessurier set the 59- story tower on four massive 114 foot high columns, positioned at the center of each side rather than at the corners.  Design allowed northwest corner of the building to cantilever 72 feet over the new church.  LeMessurier designed a system of stacked load bearing braces, in the form of inverted chevrons. Each chevron redirected the loads to the center, then downward into the ground through the uniquelypositioned columns. Citicorp Tower V-shaped wind braces on each façade Chevron pattern arrangement Transfer wind loads to columns Citicorp Tower  At the cost of $1.5 million, a “tuned mass damper” was installed in the angled top to reduce wind-induced displacements.  First tuned mass damper of its kind implemented in the United States.  400-ton block of concrete, floating on a film of oil, computer controlled to absorb the energy of the swaying structure and to reduce the building’s wind-induced movement by as much as 50%. Citicorp Tower Engineering student questions LeMessurier’s design.  June 1978, Princeton University engineering student Diane Hartley wrote her undergraduate thesis on Citicorp: “Implications of a Major Office Complex: Scientific, Social and Symbolic Implications” on The Citicorp Center.  She requested and received the structure’s plans and engineering calculations, performed her own calculations— which indicated that quartering winds produced significantly higher stresses than those produced by winds hitting just one face of the building. Citicorp Tower Student’s questions to a junior engineer at LeMessurier’s firm:  Could the building withstand a quartering wind?  Only code requirement - perpendicular wind loads.  LeMessurier concludes– braces as designed could handle excess load without difficulty provided the welds were of the expected high quality.  Calls his NYC office to find out how welding went at Citicorp and is informed bolted connections were substituted Citicorp Tower  While LeMessurier's original design and load calculations for the chevron load braces used to support the building were based on welded joints, a labor and cost-saving change altered the joints to bolted construction after approval of building plans.  When steel fabricator requested the change, calculations were not done to check the impact of wind forces acting on two surfaces of the building's curtain wall at the same time.  If hurricane-speed winds hit the building at a 45-degree angle there was the potential for catastrophic failure due to bolt failure. The wind speeds needed to topple the models of Citigroup Center in a wind-tunnel test were predicted to occur in New York City every 55 years. If the "tuned mass damper" went offline, the necessary wind speeds were predicted to occur every 16 years. Citicorp Tower What to do?  What is LeMessurier’s ethical dilema? Citicorp Tower What to do?  What is LeMessurier’s ethical dilema? Ensure public safety  Financial responsibility to client and insurance company  Self-interest, protect his prestige  Citicorp Tower  LeMessurier agonised over how to deal with the problem, but made the decision to approach Citicorp directly, and advise them of the need to take swift remedial action. They hired a crew of welders to repair the building without informing the public, a task made easier by the press strike at that time.  For the next three months, a construction crew welded two-inchthick steel plates over each of the skyscraper's 200 bolted joints at night after each work day, almost unknown to the general public. Six weeks into the work, a major storm, Hurricane Ella was off Cape Hatteras and heading for New York. With only half the reinforcement finished, New York City was hours away from emergency evacuation. Luckily, Ella turned eastward and veered out to sea, buying enough time for workers to permanently correct the problem. Citicorp Tower https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZhg TewKhTQ&list=PL8NCxxyI_2qDEEFBzL2 h7UXYQ04XtzYc4 Moral Reasoning Was LeMessurier Responsible?  Moral Obligations – Did he meet his morally mandatory actions and role responsibilities?  Accountable – Did he have the capacity to understand and act on moral reasons, can he explain why he acted as he did? Or, was he reckless?  Conscientious – Did he diligently try to do the right thing?  Comprehensive Perspective- Blameworthy/Praiseworthy – Does he deserve the credit / blame? Outcomes Final Dollar Value:  Parties settled out of court  LeMessurier’s liability insurance company paid two million dollars to Citicorp and Citicorp agreed  “… to find no fault with LeMessurier’s firm and to close the matter.”  Insurance company actually lowered his premium afterwards.  12.5 Million Repair Bill, 8+ million in structural repairs alone Outcomes  The crisis was kept hidden from the public for almost 20 years. It was publicized in The New Yorker in 1995. LeMessurier was criticized for insufficient oversight leading to bolted rather than welded joints, for misleading the public about the extent of the danger during the reinforcement process, and for keeping the engineering insights from his peers for two decades.  However, his act of alerting Citicorp to the problem inherent in his own design is considered an example of ethical behavior.  The building is now generally considered to be one of the most structurally sound skyscrapers in the world.

Tutor Answer

TabbyK
School: Cornell University

here is the paper

Surname: 1
Student Name
Instructor
Course
Date
CE 445 – Professional Practice- Professional Ethics

Nick should not be required to charge only half of his time to the project. He should
neither be required to charge the other half on the project. He should charge the whole of the
time on the project because he has not hit the 1800-hour target of the billable time. To limit
conflict with the manager, Nick should seek to know if the manager’s argument that the project
is under budgeted it true. He should find out if there are any elem...

flag Report DMCA
Review

Anonymous
awesome work thanks

Similar Questions
Hot Questions
Related Tags
Study Guides

Brown University





1271 Tutors

California Institute of Technology




2131 Tutors

Carnegie Mellon University




982 Tutors

Columbia University





1256 Tutors

Dartmouth University





2113 Tutors

Emory University





2279 Tutors

Harvard University





599 Tutors

Massachusetts Institute of Technology



2319 Tutors

New York University





1645 Tutors

Notre Dam University





1911 Tutors

Oklahoma University





2122 Tutors

Pennsylvania State University





932 Tutors

Princeton University





1211 Tutors

Stanford University





983 Tutors

University of California





1282 Tutors

Oxford University





123 Tutors

Yale University





2325 Tutors