Changing recommendations in report to suit client 8

[s0eebuch]

Ok, so I wrote a report on a system, providing a summary of the data from our inspections and then recommendations for repair or replacement.

My boss reviewed the report and told me to change a number of my recommendations. His reasoning was, "The client won't like what you've proposed. They normally just replace the component instead of repair it when adjacent components are to be replaced. Change your recommendations."

I felt uncomfortable with the changes because the data from our inspections did not support a replacement of this component, only replacement of the adjacent components. As a precaution, I recommended a new coating on all components - but not replacement. My report clearly stated this and provided support from the data our field inspection crew obtained. The inspection data was also included in the report as an appendix.

I made the changes as requested but I approached my boss, explaining that I did not agree with the change in recommendations from that which I had proposed. Therefore, I asked if I could put his name on the report instead of mine. He agreed and appeared somewhat surprised at my request.

The problem is that now I have reason to believe he is unhappy with my choice of actions. I am worried about the possible repercussions but I feel I couldn't ethically sign a report for recommendations that I did not agree.

Am I making a big deal out of nothing? Should I stand firm? Or is tailoring recommendations based on client preferences a common occurrence?

 

[msquared48]

In that replacing is a more conservative option for you and your firm, I do not see the problem .

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[rbulsara]

I agree too with your boss, in this case and for the reason Mike indicated. I would have taken time to understand where your boss was coming from. Yes, actions like one you took are seldom looked up on favorably.

It is always better to go in with conservative option and let the Owner decide what he wants to give up in order to save money.

Rafiq Bulsara

http://www.srengineersct.com

 

[jmw]

"The client won't like what you've proposed. They normally just replace the component instead of repair it when adjacent components are to be replaced. Change your recommendations."

This sounds like a very valid comment to me.
If you found no real problems and he wanted to replace everything then there might be concerns about padding the bills.
But you say adjacent components are to be replaced. It would be a shame if later the un-replaced component were to fail.
How many times when you work on your car do you replace just one belt and not them all?
Client confidence is important.
The client could genuinely be concerned that not replacing one component when a lot of others are to be replaced will be a false economy.
If you wanted to replace a lot of components on safety grounds and the boss wouldn't let you or the client wouldn't pay for that, you have a situation.

JMW

http://www.ViscoAnalyser.com

 

[MintJulep]

Technically conservative is not the same as financially conservative. Did your recommendation consider the cost of down time?

Without context it's difficult to judge.

In general however, writing a report that states only what the client wants to hear, or justifying existing practices without cause is in poor taste.

 

[s0eebuch]

My biggest concern was the reasoning for why the changes to my report were being made.

It was soley because my boss felt the client would not look favorably on my recommendations. No other reasons were given.

So, I was then in the position where I had to write a report that gave data which showed a component in good structural condition, good operational condition, gave good performance, and showed no signs of deterioration at all. Yet, my recommendations would have been for replacement.

I couldn't support the recommendations based on the data at hand.

Perhaps my approach to the overall problem with my boss' direction wasn't the best but I really felt like I was between a rock and a hard place.

 

[s0eebuch]

Oh, and the only reason we were replacing adjacent components is because they no longer met the "latest" standards. They were in fine condition as well but were slightly undersized - again, per the client's most recent design standards.

From a technical standpoint, the system was/is working fine.

 

[MiketheEngineer]

How about rewording with something like:

"I beleive the components need only be cleaned and painted but consideration can be made for their replacement as this will/should prevent future maintainence issues and provide you with the latest upgrades." or some BS like this.

Would that make you and your boss both happy?? BTW - it is not good to piss off your boss unless he is being totally unethical or dangerous....

 

[Ron]

The reason engineering firms have a review policy is usually twofold...one is for risk management and the other is for passing on the benefit of a more senior engineer's experience and judgment. In your case, your boss knew immediately what the client wanted (he had experience with the client). He asked you to change the report (judgment, backed up by experience).

You implied that you had superior knowledge, experience and intellect by disagreeing and then drawing a line in the sand to remove your name from the report. You insulted your boss by not giving him the benefit of his experience and judgment WITH THIS CLIENT!

There are many considerations to make in such a decision. Did you consider the potential downtime of a failure? Did you consider life-cycle costs of the decision to repair? Is there a difference in performance between the new replace parts and the potentially repaired parts? Do you know the client's budgeting method (might have capital for replacement but no budget for repairs...they are often in separate buckets of money.)

The suggestion by MikeTheEngineer is one we often take in facility considerations....something to the effect of "Ideally, this section should be replaced; however, if your budget only allows repair at this time, then you can expect X years of effective useful life of the repaired section, compared to Y years of effective useful life for replacement."....or you can reverse the wording to highlight repair over replacement.

Based on your description, you were probably wrong to take the stand that you did. You might want to discuss with your boss, the reasons he made the call and get the benefit of his experience. No need to grovel, just be clear that you thought you had done the right thing, but upon further reflection you see his point (if you do).

 

[s0eebuch]

Thanks for all the responses.

Ron, your post hit it on the head, I think. You make some great points and, upon reflection, I agree with what you've stated. I think I may see what the intent was but, perhaps at the time, the communication wasn't as clear as it should have been.

I see now how my response was insulting. Not trying to make excuses, but I often find it difficult to reconcile my desire to "take ownership" of my work with the need to learn from the experience and judgement of my superiors.


I'll take some time to consider my next move and hopefully figure out how to approach my boss and make amends.

 

[MintJulep]

The client pays me a lot of money for my recommendations. They are free to follow them or not as they see fit.

"Tailoring" recommendations to fit within a known culture at a client is not uncommon. That is different from making a recommendation that is not supported by the findings of an investigation.

It's too late now of course, but what you should have done was stress to your boss that your recommendation was based on the findings of the investigation that you were paid to do, and if the client doesn't agree with them they are not obligated to follow them.

 

[patprimmer]

There is a bunch of info missing here, but from what I read and presume, much of above I agree with, but Ron really nailed it.

There are commercial, political, marketing and technical reasons that influence real world actions.

You should never let anything overrule safety, but judgment on other aspects are certainly negotiable and much of the knowledge required to make those decisions might be not available to you or the ability to make good decisions in those regards might not yet be in your skills set.

Discuss it with your boss and seek guidance and mentoring in those regards.

I would start the conversation by just fessing up that you where only looking at it from a purely technical viewpoint, but have since realized there was a lot more involved and you would be interested in knowing more for future reference.

Regards
Pat
See FAQ731-376 for tips on use of eng-tips by professional engineers &

http://eng-tips.com/market.cfm

for site rules

 

[s0eebuch]

Thanks again to everyone's insight. I have decided to wait and see. I learned that my boss is dealing with some personal issues, which may have explained his unhappy demeanor yesterday. It could have been coincidence - he learned of this personal issue shortly before receiving my report.

So, I don't want to approach my boss with a perceived slight - only to learn that he didn't feel slighted in the least.

If I get any indications that my actions were, in fact, perceived as insulting or otherwise incorrect, I will certainly heed the advice I've read here.

Regardless, I will strive to seek more background information (polictical, commercial, financial, marketing, and technical) before taking a stand against a recommendation from a superior.

As a side, this board is great. Thanks to all for their continued support and advice!

 

[msquared48]

I would still take the initiative and aplogize to your boss rather than have him possibly approach you later. Regardless of his problem, what you did was a challenge to his authority and needs to be rectified as soon as possible.

Mike McCann
MMC Engineering
Motto: KISS
Motivation: Don't ask

 

[moon161]

Clear the air. Everyone in the room probably thought they had a reasonable point of view and that the other was trying to overrule them.

 

[photoengineer]

I have a very different take on than other people.

Suppose the context of the report is the client wants his insurance company to pay for the repairs to an expensive project (say it is an aerospace engine), and the insurance company is requiring a report to justify whether replacement or repair of the components is feasible.

As an engineer, you have determined that it is not necessary to replace certain components. Your engineering judgment is that one or more expensive components can be repaired and will provide satisfactory operating capability for the item.

The client disagrees, they were looking for an engineer to determine that everything needed to be replaced because they do not want to repair components. They are willing to shop the job around until they find an engineer that writes the report that you want.

I think this is very much a case of engineering ethics, and as a licensed professional, you have an obligation to the public, which would include the insurance company. In the situation I created above, it is your obligation to recommend replacing only those parts that are unrepairable and repairing those parts that are repairable and do not need to be replaced.

(As an aerospace engineer, it is very common that parts are repaired rather than replaced. There is one example where a large aerospace company did a major repair on an airplane that cost $200 million rather than scrap it out at the insistence of the insurance company. It was a bear of a repair but the airplane was returned to normal condition afterwards.)

Cedar Bluff Engineering

http://cedarbluffengineering.webs.com

 

[Ron]

photoengineer...you make a valid point; however, as a subordinate engineer, it was not his call to make. It would have been better if he had inquired and gotten a full explanation of the reasoning behind the decision, rather than going off half-cocked about it. If his judgment is indicated by his actions, then his boss was correct in doing what he did.

I do agree with your premise, though. It happens all the time....unfortunately.

 

[s0eebuch]

If his judgment is indicated by his actions, then his boss was correct in doing what he did.

Ron....Ouch. I would like to think this was an example of poor communication on my part, rather than a direct reflection of my judgement. Again, my motivation was to have the recommendations supported by the inspection data but my approach to the recommended changes by my supperior was wrong.

Photoengineer, to the best of my knowledge, an insurance company is not involved. Although, a board of supervisors is involved, so the question very easily could come up, "Why is Engineer XYZ recommending replacement when the data said everything was in good condition?". I hope the revised report has adequately anticipated (and properly answered) that question.

 

[Ron]

s0eebuch...sorry, but didn't intend that as a slam, just a reflection that your boss likely knows your experience and the project better than you and certainly better than all of us.

I "grew up" in engineering in a large firm that had a very well established review policy. Only one designated to a certain level could be the final signatory on a technical report. I used to argue my points with the Principal Engineer, then I became one...then the younger engineers would argue with me! Nothing at all wrong with the process...it's a part of mentoring. You just got a little miffed a bit quickly from your description and made a seemingly bad decision to ask that your name be removed rather than going through the process of learning the reasons.

Besides...you've already learned something from your actions and from your post. Keep learning...I hope I always will.

 

[s0eebuch]

Ron, no offense taken!

To your second statement - I agree. I did "jump the gun" a bit instead of slowing down and thinking through the reasons behind the suggestions.

And the decision to remove my name from the report was rash and insulting to my boss - I see that now.

Again, thanks to you (and everyone here) to all the advice.