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.

 

[zdas04]

I was in a situation once where a large firm did an Electrical Area Classification review (based on API RP 500) of a compressor station for a client of both of ours. A new Electrical Engineer moved into town (an employee of the client), and he absolutely hated the work that the big firm had done--he said that we would not countenance the modifications that they recommended. His boss hired me to review the regs, the document, and the recommendations.

I called the big firm and told them what I'd been hired to do. The guy who originally did the work hung up on me in the middle of a word. The big firm started a submarine smear campaign against every project that I had ever done for the client, and started pulling the clients files on my projects and bringing up deficiencies in my documentation (an area that I have occasionally struggled with, I just can't seen the benefit of a P&ID on a pipeline with two valves, no controls, no vessels, and no PSV's). It ended up pretty heated and my work with this client was significantly curtailed for a couple of years, while the big firm's work with them increased dramatically. Funny thing was that I mostly agreed with the big firm.

It would be really nice if everyone behaved like the posters above hope people will, but engineers are people first. People are petty, small minded, and take offense easily. Next time this happens, I'll ask the client to assure me that the firm who's work I'm to evaluate is no longer in the picture in any way, shape, or form.

David

 

[Anon732]

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

Such as ...?

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.

And lambaste the design as they see fit.

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.

So if one does work for a large company, are they to assume that their work should be held to a higher standard than if they do work for a small company?

It may often work that way, but is it moral to penalize a client for not being a Fortune 500 company by forbidding them from having shoddy work examined without the knowledge of the one who did that shoddy work? Is it ethical of engineers to codify that kind of double-standard?

Prices may be subject to change without notice. Why aren't the review policies of a client subject to change without notice?

There is no comparison, since these reviews, particularly those in government or industry, are done openly

I don't see why it matters how it is done. I doubt that most reviews in industry are done all that openly.

Is it okay for an engineer on the payroll of MegaCorp to give an unfavorable report to a purchasing agent, but a hired gun is unethical if they do the same thing? The distinction is lost on me.

Why is openness an issue? Cities have unmarked police cars. They are not practicing openness. Is it unethical for a police officer in an unmarked car to write me a ticket for speeding?

I think intent matters.

If I'm out to "get" Joe P.E. and I'm looking for ways to sling as much mud as I can find, that's one thing.

But if a prospect calls me and asks for a second opinion or an alternate approach to part of a design in progress, then that seems to me like work that walked through the door.

bpattengale cited the speech that he heard in college by an engineer who had this kind of work practically walk through the door. The engineer responded with a letter. It sounds like he sought to improve a situation without exercising malice. I think it was wrong for him to be penalized based on what I have heard of his case.

By reviewing and criticizing the other engineer publicly without his knowledge you undermine the credibility of the profession as a whole.

I don't see that it was "public" criticism -- not any more than an employee-engineer's bad report to the purchasing agent at MegaCorp is. Had he run a full-page ad in the newspaper and said, "Look at this crap drawing! Don't hire this guy." -- that would have been public criticism. Or if he had been whispering all over town about how bad the other engineer is -- also not good. But he expressed an opinion to someone who asked for that opinion. That isn't "public" in my book.

Am I opposed to telling another engineer about my involvement? Probably not. Do I think it is up to me to decide for the client what he wants someone else to know about what the client is doing with the client's own money? No. Why should it be? Hiring two engineers isn't immoral, illegal or unethical. Why is it my job to advertise the fact that he has hired two engineers?

Isn't attorney-client privilege something like this? If I hire two attorneys to get independent opinions on some problem, I'm probably going to be pissed -- and fire them both -- if they start talking to each other about my case without my knowledge.

How is it in my interest if one refuses to work for me unless they are allowed to let one of their colleagues know about their involvement in my business? Why am I not buying confidentiality and respect for my privacy when I hire a professional?

"The very act of observing affects the observation."

Consider that a client might get a low rate from a young engineer. He also wants a prominent engineer, who charges a premium rate, to protect his interests by reviewing what the young engineer submits to the client. The bottom line cost is lower for the client this way.

If the young engineer knows that his work is being scrutinized by a prominent engineer, it might make the design better. It could also make him nervous -- and prone to mistakes -- to the detriment of the design. The client wants to minimize the stress on the young engineer, so he doesn't tell him about the extra scrutiny that is in place. Why require prominent engineer to spill the beans?

Do I fulfill my obligation to the code of ethics merely by calling the other engineer to inform him of what I am doing?

So I call Joe P.E. and say, "I am reviewing your work. Now you know. Bye."

What does it accomplish to make that call?

Paragraph 7 of NSPE's code of ethics has three subparagraphs. One of them prohibits private engineers from doing what employee-engineers in the other two subparagraphs are expected to do. It seems broken to me.

 

[JStephen]

In contracting, it is common for the owner's engineer to require the contractor to do certain aspects of engineering, which is then reviewed by the owner's engineer. It sounds like some of this wording is in there to allow that kind of arrangement.

I think the comparison with a doctor is partly misleading.

Suppose you have a building which is sagging on one corner. So you hire an engineer to look at it and he tells you what he thinks it will take to fix it. You don't like his idea, so you hire a second engineer to look at the building. In this case, the second engineer is not reviewing the first one's work, and it doesn't violate that clause. Quite often when doctors are looking for a second opinion, it's not a matter of one doctor reviewing another doctor's work, but of two doctors both looking at the same physical problem. For a proper comparison to the engineering, you'd have to march into another doctor's office after your surgery, show him your scar, and ask "Well, what do you think of that?"

 

[Anon732]

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.

That's because you agree with the NSPE document, as written.

I don't.

It seems burdensome (what kind of documentation do I need to prove that I contacted the other engineer?), potentially inflammatory (as zdas04's story illustrates), and none of my business (what kind of relationship the client has with other professionals).

The story about the engineer who got into trouble for calling crap drawings "crap drawings" when he was asked for his opinion seems problematic to me.

I don't read the code of ethics as saying that I need to cc: the other engineer.

So the other engineer knows that I am reviewing their work. That doesn't tell them what I am saying about their work. And if the client is inclined to keep them out of the loop, they still won't know what I am saying about their work.

The level of "openness" by required the code of ethics may be just enough to create some of the problems that it is supposed to prevent.

why the angst over this?

Because I wasn't sure why this prospect called me as opposed to having the original engineer make whatever changes he wanted.

If it was going to be a deal-breaker that he didn't want the other engineer to know about my involvement, I wanted to have a good reason why it should be a deal-breaker.

This might not be the last time that I run into this kind of thing. It seems like it would be a good idea to have my ducks in a row if I need to tell a prospect that they are trying to entice me into an unethical act.

A reasonable question from the client at that point would be: "What is unethical about respecting my privacy?"

I don't have an answer that I believe in and matches the code of ethics.

 

[IRstuff]

Your OP didn't sound like they were asking for a redesign, "Will you take a look at this?" Now, you're saying it's a redesign or changes to a design.

Again, the second clause has NOTHING to do with the size of the company. In a two-person company, if one engineer has the job duty to check plans, then any plans that are generated internally, or submitted to the company are going to be reviewed, with the informed consent of the other engineer, or as part of the written contract with a subcontractor. There is no discrepancy or conflict between the two clauses.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[Anon732]

Your OP didn't sound like they were asking for a redesign, "Will you take a look at this?" Now, you're saying it's a redesign or changes to a design.

True enough.

I think the same provision in the code of ethics applies to both.

Again, the second clause has NOTHING to do with the size of the company.

Okay. It has to do with the type of the company.

Joe P.E. does an office HVAC project for a bunch of doctors. They have no engineers on staff.

Jim P.E. does a similar project for Lucent Techologies. They are a private-sector company. I am not aware that they are required to make any review of Jim's design public in any way. They may have P.E.s with PhDs who have time on their hands.

Jim's design might be torn to shreds by a team of PhDs over the course of weeks. They might tell the purchasing agent: "We never want to see another one of Jim's designs -- ever!" No one is required to tell Jim that anybody looked at his design. They didn't make a "public" statement about Jim's work -- but they shut him out of consideration for future work at the largest employer in town anyway.

The doctors want to question the placement of one diffuser in Joe's design. They call another engineer. The second engineer is required to tell Joe that he is reviewing Joe's work.

What is wrong with this picture?

 

[hokie66]

Nothing, in my opinion, but you have made your point well. If you have a problem with this tenet, you should probably take it up with NSPE.

 

[IRstuff]

Again, the type of company is irrelevant. You seem to insist on ignoring, "by their employment duties." If the medical group is sufficiently large, they may well employ their own PE as well. In ANY case, review is made with the full knowledge of the responsible engineer, either by direct contact, or through provision in the contract.

A private practice engineer is NOT the customer, therefore he has no right to review anyone else's work, except at the behest of the actual customer. A PE, employed by a company, who is the customer is the customer and not a disinterested third party.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[JAE]

what kind of documentation do I need to prove that I contacted the other engineer?

A copy of your letter, or memo to file for your phone call. Simple

It seems…..none of my business (what kind of relationship the client has with other professionals)

This has nothing to do with the client’s relationship with the other engineer. You simply tell the other engineer that you have been asked by the client to review his work. Again…simple.

The story about the engineer who got into trouble for calling crap drawings "crap drawings" when he was asked for his opinion seems problematic to me.

You are right – an engineer should simply provide the client with what he/she determines is the proper design. Calling another engineering work “crap” is unprofessional, in my opinion.

And it has NOTHING to do with the notification to the other engineer that a review is being made.

The sentence directly before the notification section states: [blue] 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.[/blue]

So calling someone’s design “crap” isn’t correct anyway.

I don't read the code of ethics as saying that I need to cc: the other engineer.

You are again technically right. The code of ethics states that you shouldn’t review another’s work “except with the knowledge of such engineer”. How you go about verifying that the other engineer “knows” you are reviewing is simply something you should determine prior to the review.

A reasonable question from the client at that point would be: "What is unethical about respecting my privacy?"

I don't have an answer that I believe in and matches the code of ethics.

The client, having a building designed in which the public safety is at stake, has no privacy related to the design, or to the profession that designs it. This is not between client and engineer.

This is all between engineer and engineer. You simply tell the client that the applicable code of ethics (if it is applicable where you are) compels you to notify the other engineer that HIS design is being reviewed.

Now having said all this – I note that in Michigan, there is not replica of this ethics provision in the administrative rules.

 

[Anon732]

If the medical group is sufficiently large, they may
well employ their own PE as well.

Thus, the code of ethics discriminates against smaller (and/or non-technical) companies who are clients of engineers.

A mom and pop operation isn't likely to have engineers on staff and they aren't as likely to pay another fee for another engineer to become involved. There probably isn't another engineer looking over the client's shoulder to keep the first engineer honest. And the code of ethics prevents the mom and pop operation from getting any other engineering help (gratis or paid) without broadcasting it to the first engineer.

A private practice engineer is NOT the customer, therefore he has no right to review anyone else's work, except at the behest of the actual customer.

What I do for a client after they hire me is "at the behest of the actual customer."

A PE, employed by a company, who is the customer is the customer and not a disinterested third party.

Understood.

The type and/or size of the client is a huge indicator of whether there is a PE employed by the company and what kind of review a design might receive without raising red flags (someone who knows what they are doing is actually looking out for this client's interests) for the first engineer.

So I think that the code of ethics discriminates against clients who don't have their own engineers by prohibiting them from performing the same level of review in private that a client who does have engineers on staff can do in private.

This has nothing to do with the client’s relationship with the other engineer.

"The very act of observing affects the observation."

It seems to me that it could complicate the client's relationship with the other engineer to let them know that another engineer is involved.

"Character is what you do when no one is looking."

Why should a professional insist on being told that someone is looking -- only in cases where it isn't obvious that someone might be looking?

The sentence directly before the notification section states:
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, ... directly or indirectly, the ... prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.

That would seem to preclude marketing efforts in a limited market -- any project that I win might be counted as a loss for someone else.

So calling someone’s design “crap” isn’t correct anyway.

Agreed.

The client, having a building designed in which the public safety is at stake, has no privacy related to the design, or to the profession that designs it.

A big chunk of privacy can go away when plans are filed. Up until that time, it seems to me that the client is entitled to as much privacy as they want. It is true for MegaCorp who has engineers in-house -- or brings one on-board temporarily to shepherd the project. Why is a mom and pop operation not entitled to the same level of privacy?

 

[EddyC]

One of my employers designed a building renovation for one of their customers. After it was built, the owner turned on the HVAC system, which performed very badly. The owner asked both engineer (us) and the contractor to remedy the situation. We investigated and the contractor had changed the design significantly. The contractor said we designed it wrong. The owner refused to make a final payment to engineer and contractor until the building was made functional. Neither party budged. Finally, the owner hired another engineer who investigated and said that the 1st engineers design was good. So this is a case where the hiring of a 2nd engineer was of help in solving the problem.

 

[IRstuff]

The client I refer to is the one who is contracting for the original design. There is no discrimination against any companies or individuals.

In ALL cases, the engineer doing the original design is already aware of someone reviewing by virtue of the contract with a client who has their own engineers on payroll, or, by notification that their work is to be reviewed, in the case in of the client who separately contracts for an engineering review by a third party. In all cases, a client would have "right to review" clause in their contract with the original designer, whether he employs his own engineers that do reviews as part of their duties, or he separately contracts a reviewer.

This is identical in nature to all military development contracts; we have specific design reviews at different points in the contract period to ensure that the contractor is progressing and is designing a compliant product. No contractor is surprised to find that his design is to be reviewed.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[dik]

Code of Ethics or not... as a common courtesy, I'd advise a fellow engineer/technologist that I was reviewing the work and would also expect another to provide the same courtesy.

I don't know the code of ethics per se... but I do know what is proper and improper and guide myself accordingly.

Dik

 

[Anon732]

According to what I understood from tonight's episode of "60 Minutes" on CBS, lawyers may be ethically-bound to put loyalty to a client ahead of justice being done.

At what point does the level of "courtesy" that I should (for reasons which remain unclear to me) extend to another engineer end? If I should be "courteous" enough to tell them "I'm reviewing your work", then should I also be "courteous" enough to tell them what I have concluded about their work? If not, why not?

Why does "courtesy" to a fellow engineer trump loyalty to a client?

 

[hokie66]

Lawyers are advocates for their clients. Engineers provide services, but these services do not include advocacy in a legal sense. Lawyers are officers of the court, while engineers have a primary responsibility to the public at large. So our responsibility is greater and higher than that of the legal profession, and we should have a higher ethical and gentlemanly standard. You are correct that the codes of ethics for the different professions vary, and for good reasons based on long experience.

 

[vc66]

It sounds, for some reason, that you have a personal vendetta against this tenet of the NSPE code which, as EddyC pointed out, is NOT legally binding. Find out what the rules for your state are, and abide by them--or move. I personally feel that it is common courtesy, and unless you're fishing for problems with the original engineer's work, there should be no reason not to contact him/her.

V

 

[IRstuff]

You. in reviewing someone else's work, are been paid by the client, not the other engineer. Your reports and conclusions are the property of the client. The code of ethics simply requires you to esnure that the engineer being reviewed is aware of the review, period. Giving your report and conclusions to the engineer would be a breech of contract, which is a legal matter.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[melone]

So why do you HAVE to inform the other engineer? What are the ethical reasons?

 

[btrueblood]

Sigh. The right reason to contact the first engineer is to make sure that some important detail has not been left out or forgotten, either on his part or yours, and thus to make sure the customer (and the customer's employees, the general publick, society at large...etc) receive the best possible (safest, cleanest, most economical) design possible. Both parties cooperate, the customer is happy and pays both of you. In theory. Have some more of this free lemonade, while we're here.

But, if engineer #1 is a complete nimwit, or some large multinational corporation with a reputation for sabotaging the careers of small guys, send him/them an anonymous fax from the local copy store, or attached to a brick thru the front window, or as suggested above, ignore him/them completely. Your choice. Better yet, don't get involved in wrestling matches with pigs in the first place.

 

[TheTick]

Melone:

The ethical reason is because that is what the code of ethics states. As a PE, one would be bound by such a code. Don't like it? Don't be a PE.

Don't confuse ethics with touchy-feely this-is-what-feels-right personal morality. Ethics is rules.