Am I doing the right thing 19

[dvanommen]

I'm a new engineer at a small company which really isn't set up for engineering work. It's mostly a job shop, manufacturing parts that have been engineered by larger companies. They have been awarded a couple of contracts over the past decade, but there isn't a significant amount of experience doing internal engineering projects. I was hired in May after graduating from university, and I was brought into a project that was nearing the end of the design phase. Now it's going out for product certification testing. The CEO and lead engineer (who doesn't have any formal engineering training) is guiding me on this project. If we just focus on the project at hand, there are quite a lot of things he's doing and asking me to do that I don't feel ethically stable on. For example, our customer's approved qualification testing plan document specifically states that all of the units we send to be tested must be production quality units. However, most of the detail parts and subassemblies that make up the final unit are test parts that were made as design validation, not made through the proper methods of tracking material and parts used, having quality inspection buy-off on all stages of the process, etc. We're doing all that now, after everything has already been completed, which leads to a lot of guesswork (we can't verify hardware lot number, for example, so we just pick one that was ordered around the time we think the units were assembled). These certainly aren't production quality units to me.

Another example of this is minimum electrical clearance on electrical assemblies (for the same product I discussed above). We're performing high voltage tests at 1000 V through the unit to ensure there aren't short/open circuits anywhere. I calculated MEC based on IPC-A-610, and there is a part of the design which violates MEC for 1000 V. However, operating voltage is 200 V, and MEC isn't violated at that level. I was instructed to not worry about it because MEC is for operating voltage, not testing voltage, even though the document states "rated voltage" (which to me is whatever our tests run at) as the basis for MEC.

All of this comes down to us being late for certification testing. The unit was supposed to be sent for testing weeks ago, but that kept getting pushed back because of design changes and manufacturing. So it seems like instead of admitting fault and doing it right, the lead engineer wants to try to figure out a way around the system to make the incorrect design work.

Am I right to be concerned about all of this? I feel like the whole situation is unethical, but I don't have a very solid footing for making an argument against it to my boss. I keep getting told this is how it's done all the time in industry. Yesterday I told myself I was going to look for a new job. But I wonder if I'm being rash and getting worked up about nothing. Please share your advice

 

[CWB1]

PEs tend to work in industries with fairly little regulation on projects impacting relatively few people, so their work and ethics arent nearly as critical nor as likely to be challenged. They also tend to work at smaller firms where training often isnt a high priority. Non-PEs OTOH make up the majority of highly regulated industries, often with high volume products where ethics are held to the highest standards out of necessity and ethics training is often the best. I'd wager that the usual 4-8 hour online introductory ethics course most junior engineers take is better training than most PEs could put together, nvm the in-person 40 hour corporate refresher taught by the attorneys.

 

[Terratek]

See, I just knew I knew less about ethics than a non-PE.

So OP, and all rookie engineers - make it a goal to be the sole engineer at a contractor shop since industry exempt engineers have better ethics training.

I think that is the point that you guys are trying to make?

 

[BridgeSmith]

"PEs tend to work in industries with fairly little regulation on projects impacting relatively few people..."

Relatively few people? Really? How many people work in buildings designed by a PE? How many people live in structures designed by a PE? How many people drive over or under bridges every day designed by a PE? It seems that covers nearly everyone.

It may be true that PEs don't spend as much time in ethics training as others, but perhaps it's because they're reminded of their ethical responsibilities every time they put their stamp on, and take responsibility for, something that people's lives depend on to function properly.

 

[lacajun]

See, I just knew I knew less about ethics than a non-PE.

Me, too. And our limited scope of work.

Pamela K. Quillin, P.E.
Quillin Engineering, LLC
NSPE-CO, Central Chapter
Dinner program:

http://nspe-co.org/events.php

 

[Terratek]

Actually it's an interesting point that some engineers that work in exempt industries help develop products that affect a larger number of people than any single one of my thousands of projects.

So lets play the game of making confident, uniformed (dumb) statements about what each other's jobs entail. Most of these exempt engineers work under corporate policies which strip one's personal choice to the extent that it would be difficult to make ethical bloopers. These are industries with heavy regulations in which big brother has already made critical decisions for the company and the engineers that work there. These engineers are forced to sit through countless hours of expensive but mind numbingly, non-engaging, non-relevant ethics training regarding situations they will rarely,if ever, see solely so the corporation can say they have extensive ethics training for liability purposes. Only the top level, very small percent of engineers are engaged in ethical decisions.

I'd say the above fictional statement is on par with CBW1's fictional statement.

 

[drawoh]

Terratek,

The OP has clearly identified himself as a recent graduate with no professional engineer co-workers, i.e. not a professional engineer.

drawoh, you're right that I'm the closest thing to a licensed PE here

That is the whole point of the quote. Somebody somewhere may be assuming that a recent college graduate is just as good as a professional engineer. This may be due to ignorance, or it may be they have learned from experience that professional engineers won't sign off on this crap. OP is quite correctly not buying it.

Not being a professional engineer does not relieve the OP of the responsibility to act ethically. It just eliminates the consequences of peer review.


--
JHG

 

[CWB1]

Relatively few people? Really? How many people work in buildings designed by a PE? How many people live in structures designed by a PE? How many people drive over or under bridges every day designed by a PE? It seems that covers nearly everyone.

Relatively few people live or work in any given structure, so yes, the specific PE(s) who designed it are impacting relatively few people. An extremely small project for me sees a couple hundred units produced and sold to the public annually, most are in the hundreds of thousands annually. Over a career, that's a helluva lot of potentially injured customers and lawyers who might dig into whether/not I did my diligence, conducted the required peer reviews, or otherwise violated my ethics.

Only the top level, very small percent of engineers are engaged in ethical decisions.

Grossly incorrect. Many (most?) of us face ethical decisions daily signing off on safety or other critical design and testing while balancing the usual shortage of both time and budget.

 

[BridgeSmith]

"An extremely small project for me sees a couple hundred units produced and sold to the public annually, most are in the hundreds of thousands annually."

I'll bet everything you do is tested, reviewed, tested some more, reviewed by several more people, etc. before those 200,000 units ever go into production.

I don't have the luxury of being able to test my designs before it gets built - it has to be right the first time, or people could lose their lives. If the designer of a skyscraper cuts corners and doesn't do his due diligence, thousands of lives are at risk. The responsibility falls squarely on the guy who put his stamp on the design.

The point is, all engineers have a responsibility to safeguard public safety. Certain things, especially those that cannot be tested and verified, require qualified and licensed people to take responsibility at each phase. I stamp my design, taking responsibility for the adequacy design. My squad leader stamps the plans, taking responsibility that those plans accurately reflect the design. The field engineer stamps the as-built drawings, taking responsibility that the construction was done in accordance with the plans. If it fails, a determination will be made as to what one person is responsible. The adequacy of the design, and the consequences of a failure of that design, and the lives that could be lost, rest squarely on my shoulders. I don't need to take some class in ethics to remind me of my duty, I just have to look at that stainless steel ring on my little finger, and feel that knot in the pit of my stomach every time I put the seal with my name on it and my signature on a set of design calculations, to know what's riding on my ethics.

 

[IRstuff]

"it would be difficult to make ethical bloopers"

Blooper sounds more like accidents, but most times, it's not an accident. I once had a shouting match with my GM because he wanted to hide some bad test results and continue shipping; I promptly prepared my Pearl Harbor email, and luckily, a GIDEP alert was issued a couple days later anyway, so we had to stop shipments until the problem got fixed. Same company once had months of DOA parts returned because a test manager needed to make his month, so he had a technician wire the testers to always pass parts. A big company is simply bigger, we're still creatures of free will and can make decisions as bad as any made in a small company.

A famous case about 20 years ago involved Boeing, where an engineer found that their competitor had left a proprietary presentation at Boeing, after a customer meeting. Silly engineer had to go and read the VERY clearly marked presentation with his manager, thereby almost eliminating Boeing from the competition.

An older famous case involved Northrop's engineers buying unqualified parts and falsifying test results; Northrop was fined $17 million dollars and lost out on a later contract that they had already spent millions chasing that should have been a slam dunk.

Of course, after that, we started getting annual ethics training and refreshers.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm

 

[Terratek]

As I stated, my comment was a fictional stupidity, just like CBW1's comment.

The only reason this got sparked off is that gregLock got hurt because he interpreted my statement as some slight against non-licensed engineers. Quite frankly, I don't deal with exempt industry people, so I tend to just take if for granted that engineers get licensed. The OP's situation is certainly one in which the licensing is relevant. And even if it wasn't, I still think it is silly for rookies to go work for contractor shops where there is no mentor-ship.

I suppose if this conversation was face to face, this poop storm wouldn't have have happened. People are rude on the net just like they are when they're driving.

Next time the smallest of small time engineers helps you design your house, tell him that his job is unimportant because it only affects little old you.

 

[CWB1]

I'll bet everything you do is tested, reviewed, tested some more, reviewed by several more people, etc. before those 200,000 units ever go into production.

It varies by company and position but in general, unless we're developing a system with govt mandated testing then the decision of what to test and to what extent is largely up to the responsible engineer(s) for that project. Even in the case of govt mandated testing, testing tends to be rather limited/focused and leaves some massive holes that dangerous design can sneak through. In some cases there's enough overlap of knowledge and responsibility within the project team that these decisions are shared and peer reviews quickly conducted. In many more, resources are stretched thin and its up to the individual engineer to go back to their dept and give due diligence to holding reviews and scheduling testing. Its the usual struggle between time, money, and calculated risk, and managers IME put the decision-making on the engineer as they're generally too busy to know many specific details of each project.

I concur with your statement about ethical duty. My only personal nitpick (not with your statement) is when folks correlate a license with having a higher ethicacy, competency, liability, or are otherwise different than any other. IME those are all independent variables and may loosely correlate to an industry but not a license.

 

[BridgeSmith]

"...what to test and to what extent is largely up to the responsible engineer(s) for that project."

My point is that the reason certain engineering areas are exempt from having designs approved by a PE is that the design is tested and verified to be adequate, usually using prototypes, before the product is mass produced and used by the public. There are typically no full-scale prototypes for bridges and buildings that can be tested, so the very first model has to be done right.

"...unless we're developing a system with govt mandated testing..."

Which is generally anything that carries a significant risk of death if it's not right.

As far as the risk to the public being supposedly higher in those industries where items are mass-produced for public use, consider that it doesn't take more than a few deaths from a defective product before the rest get recalled. OTOH, a poor design (or more often a poorly thought out change to the design) for buildings and bridges have cost dozens of lives. In one case over a hundred lives were lost from one seemingly insignificant change to a single component of a building design.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

Any engineer, PE or non-PE, who thinks their group has the market on ethics, is an arrogant fool with blinders on. To argue otherwise is putting your head in the sand.

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[Terratek]

So, just curious, since I don't actually know:

Are non-licensed engineers bound by the same laws promulgated by the state engineering board as licensed engineers? Do they face the same consequences? Can you legally title yourself engineer outside of you place of employment? Are you legally required to take continuing education classes? Do you have to have an accredited degree, several years of experience, prove a level of competency through exam, etc, etc.? Who regulates you other than your employer and common law?

Again, I am just curious. Since I do have a license, I don't concern myself with the rules for not being licensed. I was under the impression that a licensed PE would be held to a legally higher standard of ethics. you know, the additional set of laws that the state board has for licensed engineers. Not that one would necessarily have higher ethics, just that one would be held to a higher standard if something unfortunate were to occur. And it stands to reason that I would be more familiar with the laws that bind my license than someone who does not have a license. Otherwise, why do we even have licensing? According to exempt engineers on this board, licensing is irrelevant.

 

[MacGyverS2000]

You continue to confuse legal limitations with individual, personal choices. Just because a group is legally bound to provide an ethical decision process does not mean the other group does not use a similar process, as well... it simply means the members of the former group have a slightly better-defined path to punishment, nothing more.

And prefacing a statement with "just curious" when the previous intent of your statements has been pretty straightforward? I'm sorry, but that dog won't hunt...

Dan - Owner

http://www.Hi-TecDesigns.com

 

[drawoh]

Terratek,

Can you please list for us the ethical behaviours that we not-professional engineers are not required to do? Is it okay if we lie, cheat, steal and endanger the public? I would hate to be doing ethical stuff for no good reason.



--
JHG

 

[CWB1]

My point is that the reason certain engineering areas are exempt from having designs approved by a PE is that the design is tested and verified to be adequate, usually using prototypes, before the product is mass produced and used by the public. There are typically no full-scale prototypes for bridges and buildings that can be tested, so the very first model has to be done right.

I believe that in your world new materials, construction techniques, and other new technologies are typically developed by researchers in a lab before having relatively large safety factors applied to their application in the field. In mine, engineers commonly develop and apply the new technologies ourselves, usually rushing them into production after applying relatively tiny safety factors with minimal testing. Work "done right" is extremely efficient and heavily based upon FEA and other simulation, work applying the old overly conservative hand calcs and rules of thumb is often viewed as questionable along with the engineer's abilities due to waste (insert maintenance grumblings about cost reducing $0.10 worth of plastic here). Once decently understood here, technology is commonly handed off to non-engineers, many industrial artists, designers, and sales folks today are using FEA as a prescreen before reviewing proposed design changes or new products with an engineer. I cannot comment as to larger firms in your field, but IME the smaller ones seem decades behind the times on both technology and engineering ability, and they seem to be a significant portion of the industry. I really respect the innovators in your field as I suspect its rather difficult to be one, in mine engineers aren't doing too well unless they seriously innovate and are patented every few years.

As far as the risk to the public being supposedly higher in those industries where items are mass-produced for public use, consider that it doesn't take more than a few deaths from a defective product before the rest get recalled.

I've worked in missile guidance, flight guidance, and now the auto industry. IIRC the 90s Ford Explorer tipovers killed ~80, crashed planes commonly kill that or more, and I dont care to think about missile failures bc I saw plenty of those while serving in the military.

Genuinely not trying to offend or put on airs in the least btw bc SE to ME-prod dev is a tough comparison, just trying to understand and learn more in my own, occasionally Sheldon Cooper'ish manner.

 

[Terratek]

drawoh, even the guy working the cash register at Walmart should not be doing these things. Is your point that everybody is apt to have the same level of ethical behavior? Are you arguing there is no point to licensing? Is it your opinion that requirements for maintaining a license don't deter engineers from swaying the wrong direction on gray decisions? That licensing requirements, in general, help to keep an entire industry more ethical than it would be without the extra legal requirements? If not for reinforcing ethical behavior, what is licensing for?

And if licensing does, in fact, help keep an entire industry in check, is it so crazy to think that, on average, the individual components of the industry (the licensed engineers) might be just a little more cognizant of their ethical responsibilities - again on average? God knows that any engineer who posts in this forum is white as snow, but lets talk about real life here.

 

[BridgeSmith]

CWB1, your description of your industry makes it sound fairly haphazard, but somewhere in all of that, we end up with very few truly dangerous products in use by the public.

"...crashed planes commonly kill that or more..."

True, but plane crashes are rare, and crashes due to faulty engineering, even rarer. Faulty maintenance, yes, but faulty design? How many of those have there been?

"Genuinely not trying to offend or put on airs in the least..."

Same here.

"...SE to ME-prod dev is a tough comparison..."

Agreed. I wasn't necessarily trying to compare, so much as exploring the differences in how various industries handle safeguarding public safety.

 

[IRstuff]

A licensing exam hardly guarantees ethical behavior. Doctors are licensed, yet there are plenty of doctors that break both their ethics rules and the law. The so-called doctor that was in charge of US Women's gymnastics team comes readily to mind.

Just this week was yet again another scandal mongering about Catholic priests that hid child abuse and blatant violation of their vows. These are people that spent a sizable portion of their lives studying and supposedly learning ethical behavior, took solemn vows to obey the laws of the Church and vows of celibacy.

Are you saying that licensed engineers are better than doctors or priests?

This conundrum is like certain statistics problems about tests that are not 100% accurate. The licensing exams are not intended to test ethical behavior; they are intended to verify a certain level of technical competence and knowledge. The whole PE structure was only intended to ensure that the public has access to competent engineers. If there are lots of unethical engineers, then there's bound to quite a few that get licensed. If unethical behavior is rare, then licensing doesn't do much. Obviously, the latter is most likely the case, since we know that unethical behavior is relatively rare, otherwise, our jail system would need 10x the capacity it has.

TTFN (ta ta for now)
I can do absolutely anything. I'm an expert!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BKorP55Aqvg

faq731-376 forum1529 Entire Forum list

http://www.eng-tips.com/forumlist.cfm