Reviewing the work of another engineer 11

[Anon732]

What is the thinking behind this part of the NSPE's Code of Ethics?

http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/index.html

a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.​

Consider a client who lacks the background to evaluate a design which has been done by them for others. Why is it unethical for a private engineer to provide a discreet second opinion?

If a potential client comes to me and says, "Will you take a look at this?", am I supposed to agree to do so only on the condition that either:
1. They agree to my contacting the other engineer and let them know what I am doing, or
2. The client has already fired the other engineer?

Why should I decline the work if they say, "No, we don't want the other engineer to know that we are getting a second opinion"? I don't know why they might say that, but why should it matter to me whether the other engineer knows what I am doing?

If the design is sound, then whatever criticism I might have would be merely "another way to do it". If the design is flawed, then the client is doing a smart thing by getting a second opinion.

No one wants to be second-guessed, but a client is within their rights to do as much second-guessing as they want to.

There are exclusions in the code of ethics for second-guessing by engineers who are employees of an entity that is large enough to have its own engineering staff:

b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties.​

So why isn't it ethical for engineers in private practice to do the same for an entity that is not large enough to have its own engineering staff?

Thanks.

 

[EddyC]

The NSPE Code of Ethics is not legally binding. The Code of Ethics that you should be following is the one of the state where the project is.

 

[bpattengale]

In college we heard from an engineer that had did this and was brought before the state board for it.

He was on a site visit and the head of building maintenace asked him informally to look at a set of the plans he had recieved from another engineer. He looked at the plans and they were poorly prepared, hard to read, and missing information. He told the head of maintenace this informally. Later he wrote a letter to the head of maintenace regarding the plans in hopes of getting more work from him. The head of maintenace took this leter to the original engineer and the original engineer took the leter to the state board.

After the engineer went before the state ethics board a board member told him he was morally right but ethically wrong. The plans were bad and should have been fixed, but he should not have reviewed them without notifying the orignal engineer.

As I remember the discussion from college the reasoning behind this is that it is there to protect the integrity of the profession as a whole. By reviewing and critizing the other engineer publicly without his knowledge you undermine the credability of the profession as a whole.

Yes there may be flaws or there maybe an alternate design that also works. However there maybe other factors and/or assumptions that the original engineer took into acount that you are not aware of. By notifing the original engineer you are allowing them to defend themselves and explain their reasoning behind a design.

So yes if a potential clients asks you to review a design without contacting the original engineer and the engineer is still working for the client politely refuse to do the work.

Being ethical can and will cost you, but as a professional we are held to higher standards due to the knowledge we have. Second being moral and being ethical are not always the same thing. It can be rather confusing at times.

EddyC if I'm not mistaken don't most states use the NSPE's Code of Ethics as the basis for their individual codes?

 

[graybeach]

What if medical doctors had a similar ethic. No one could get an independent second opinion because the second doctor would have to contact the first doctor before examining the patient. The argument of protecting the integrity of the medical profession over the health of the patient doesn't hold water.

IMHO the client should have the courtesy to inform the original engineer and allow him or her to respond but not necessarily before or during the review.

 

[MintJulep]

I've never liked or understood that particular section of the COE either.

It smacks of croneyism.

"Any Joe P.E. is 'in the club', so his stuff has to be good, and you better not say otherwise."

 

[bpattengale]

This is the full section of the NSPE's code of ethics

7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.
a. Engineers in private practice shall not review the work of another engineer for the same client, except with the knowledge of such engineer, or unless the connection of such engineer with the work has been terminated.
b. Engineers in governmental, industrial, or educational employ are entitled to review and evaluate the work of other engineers when so required by their employment duties.
c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering comparisons of represented products with products of other suppliers.

The welfare of the public is the ultimate canon of the code and that is our first and utmost duty as professionals. If we see something that could potentially endager the public it is our ethical obligation to inform the correct authority.

 

[stevenal]

I understand the concern. Perhaps this should be addressed contractually. Of course the client needs to be savvy enough to know they need a "subject to review" clause. Any thing like this in the standard contracts?

 

[TheTick]

I think this is exists to ensure full disclosure of a client's actions to the original engineer. In that respect, I think it is fair. When acting within professional circles, I think the original engineer has a right to know if his work is reviewed by another professional engineer.

Any good professional should have no problem with a client getting a second opionion.

 

[btrueblood]

It is normal and expected that a doctor will advise his patient to get a second opinion when a serious diagnosis is made. Most, if not all, doctors will even provide the patient with a list of doctors he would suggest have the experience to review the diagnosis. The 2nd doctor is expected, perhaps even required, to consult with the first doctor, if for no reason other than to request test results, examination notes, etc. to aid in his objective - to deliver the best possible review of the patient's condition.

Same reasons would apply to engineers here - you ought to call the first guy, both as professional courtesy, and to make sure you are not overlooking something.

 

[Anon732]

Okay: "Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, ..."

That sounds like a prohibition against : "I have a grudge against Joe P.E. So I'm going to hunt for his work and try to shoot holes in it wherever I can."

That is quite different from a client saying: "I'd like a higher degree of confidence in this design before I spend a million dollars to build it. Will you take a look at it for me?"

I agree with the medical example. Suppose my doctor is a prima dona and recommends a risky surgery. Why should my health be put at risk by getting an opinion from a second doctor?

If it is "ethical" for the first doctor to get PO'd because I dared to question him without telling him that I was getting a second opinion, might he not remain justifiably PO'd during my surgery?

Why should my peace of mind in the form of

"I guess this surgery really is necessary"​

be overshadowed by a new fear?:

"My surgeon has a grudge against me for not telling him that I was getting a second opinion; and he knows that I got a second opinion only because the 'good old boy' network just bit me in the ass."​

About the exclusion in subparagraph b: Suppose the staff at MegaCorp is swamped and they farm out some design work to Joe P.E. So Joe P.E. does the work and submits the design to MegaCorp. Then the engineers on the staff at MegaCorp review Joe's design and say all manner of bad things about it to their employer.

Are the engineers at MegaCorp excused for doing what is prohibited by private engineer because they were "only following orders"? That seems quite close to a Nuremberg Defense to me.

One might argue that Joe P.E. knew that there would be engineers at MegaCorp who would be capable of reviewing the design.

So is a private engineer entitled to operate under the assumption that unsophisticated clients are fair game to be hoodwinked? And an engineer deserves to be informed if they mis-read the client and find themselves dealing with a client who is more savvy than they expected?

Why is it up to me to inform another engineer about the actions taken by their client? Why is it not ethical for me to respect the privacy of someone who is seeking my services.

 

[IRstuff]

It gets down to perception. Whether or not something bad is found, doing such things in secrecy raises answerable questions.

As for the second clause, I think you are completely misreading it, "required by their employment duties" meaning that part of their job is to review received documents. As such, those that submit documents are automatically to assume that their documents are to be reviewed by another engineer as part of their contract. There is no comparison, since these reviews, particularly those in government or industry, are done openly, and as a routine part of the contract, hence "required by their employment duties."

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[melone]

Why would anyone ever question the work done by a P.E.? The "P.E." proves their competance, right?

 

[vc66]

melone - I assume and sincerely hope that your statement is sarcastic.

I imagine it is.

V

 

[Anon732]

Most, if not all, doctors will even provide the patient with a list of doctors he would suggest have the experience to review the diagnosis.

Arguably, this is symbiotic marketing. It may be also be beneficial to patients.

How many times might the second doctor disagree with the first doctor's diagnosis before he gets dropped from the list?

The 2nd doctor is expected, perhaps even required, to consult with the first doctor, if for no reason other than to request test results, examination notes, etc.

I am not aware that it is common for engineers to share their files with each other. If someone doubts the result of one of my calculations, I am not eager to give them my field measurements, photocopy my calculations, or list all the assumptions that I made.

Same reasons would apply to engineers here - you ought to call the first guy, both as professional courtesy

Why is it a professional courtesy? How cordial would that conversation be?

How awkward is this call?: "I was hired to redo your work. What help are you willing to give to me?"

and to make sure you are not overlooking something.

In the situation where an engineer has been fired (or whose work is being questioned), how much help might I expect in making sure that I didn't overlook something and get fired myself?

It turns out that the situation that I was called about didn't turn into a project for me anyway. Now I'm into this for future reference.

I asked the prospect why the first engineer wasn't being asked to make the changes. He didn't give me a credible response. For whatever reason, he doesn't seem to want the original engineer involved at this point. Is he officially fired? I don't know. Do I need a document to that effect from the client before I am free to start work without calling the first engineer?

If my call to the other engineer is the first time that they are hearing that were fired, the client just put me in the cross-hairs for a "shoot the messenger" response.

Then fired engineer is likely to be PO'd at the client and at me. My calling wouldn't have done anything other than allow me to put a check mark on the code of ethics. Nothing changed -- he still wouldn't be doing the work. And he's not likely to be eager to help me.

So what would have been the point of me calling him? How would the profession be served/protected? How would the public be served/protected?

 

[graybeach]

I am starting to see the point of the provision. It is a matter of professional courtesy, and there is the danger that the second reviewer could be shilling for work. There could be isolated cases where secrecy is justified - like maybe the original engineer is threatening to kill the client if he gets a second opinion. But in general everything should be in the open. I work on the owner's side and will keep this in mind in my dealings with consultants. I appreciate that Anon732 brought this up today.

 

[EddyC]

Anon732,

I have checked the regulations of a state in which I am licensed (New Jersey). I cannot find any prohibition on the review of another engineers work. As I stated before, the NSPE Code of Ethics is NOT law.

 

[bpattengale]

This is taken from the Minnesota rules

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=RULE_CHAP&year=current&chapter=1805

1805.0500 FALSE OR MALICIOUS STATEMENTS.

A licensee shall make no false or malicious statements
which may have the effect, directly or indirectly, or by
implication, of injuring the personal or professional reputation or business of another member of the profession.

STAT AUTH: MS s 326.06

HIST: 17 SR 1279
Current as of 05/14/04

Obviously the rules and laws of each state differ, but in Minnesota this is something that you can be brought before the board on.

 

[hokie66]

I agree with the NSPE ethics provision. I am happy to have my work reviewed by another "peer" engineer, and expect notification of such. It is only fair play. It only takes a phone call, properly noted.

 

[JAE]

Anon - I think you are asking a very valid question.

But I have to honestly say it seems like you are boiling this into a big issue when it just really isn't, in my view.

Your main question you posed:

[blue]So what would have been the point of me calling him? How would the profession be served/protected? How would the public be served/protected?
[/blue]

The main point(S) that are served by this ethical provision are:

1. It protects the other engineer from secretive, malicious opinions regarding a specific engineering service.
[red]In most cases, and in your case perhaps, there was no danger of maliciousness on your part. By notifying the other engineer it simply disallows any secretive attempts by BAD engineers who attempt to elevate themselves at the expense of other engineers. The effort to notify is minimal and not burdensome and yet goes a long way to protect reputations from false accusations.[/red]

2. It allows rebuttals to false accusations.
[red]By keeping it open, any accusation that cannot be defended comes out in the open. Additionally, any opinion that can be defended comes out in the open. This ends up actually helping the client better find the truth. If only one side is secretly heard, the client doesn't really know for sure but is left to simply trust one engineer over the other based upon the client's whim.[/red]

3. It protects you.
[red]It allows you the opportunity to respond to other engineers when they review your work.[/red]

4. It forces the client to be honest in dealings with the engineer.
[red]A client may attempt to bolster an attack on an engineer by shopping around secretly for just the right negative opinion that could be dishonestly used against the engineer. If you notify a client that "yes, I'll review the work, but by our code of ethics I need to notify the other engineer, then the client must realize that he needs to be honest with the first engineer in expressing his concern, distrust, or unhappiness with the project. Any time you get people communicating on an open, straight-forward level, you improve the chances that disagreements and lawsuits are kept to a minimum.[/red]

5. It keeps dealings in engineering on a professional level.
[red]When reviews are known and acknowledged, each party is really forced to let the facts speak for themselves in that they know that every engineering statement or assertion can be counter-reviewed and debated. If I knew that my engineering review was going to be subject to the other engineer's knowledge, then I know for a fact that my efforts and services would be done much more carefully and backed up.[/red]

These are just some ideas. I'm sure there are many more but I guess bottom line is, why the angst over this? It isn't that big of a deal to me to be straight with my other fellow engineers and I think it keeps our profession on a "higher level".

 

[stevenal]

So why shouldn't the client's staff engineer make that same call prior to review?

The differences between the staff engineer and the contract engineer are in how taxes are paid, and in who provides insurance, tools, etc. I fail to see the ethical distinction.