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.

 

[vc66]

Star for you, Tick.

Well said, as usual.

V

 

[Anon732]

I started this thread with the question: "What is the thinking behind this part of the NSPE's Code of Ethics?"

I think that the answers so far boil down to the following:
1. It is the "courteous" thing to do.
2. It prevents reviews from happening in secret.
3. It promotes a free exchange of information between engineers.

I'm not trying to exclude any answers that have been provided. If one of the answers provided in this thread doesn't fit in these three categories, please suggest a category for it.

Let's take the categories listed above one at a time:

1. It is the "courteous" thing to do.

Why?

If one is so secure on the high horse from which to proclaim, "Of course it is the 'courteous' thing to do", then it shouldn't be too hard to articulate why it is the "courteous" thing to do. If "courtesy" demands telling him that I am reviewing his work, then why doesn't the same "courtesy" demand that I tell him what I concluded about it?

2. It prevents reviews from happening in secret.

What does it prevent from happening in secret? It alerts someone who didn't have an expectation that their work would be review to the fact that someone is actually looking at their work. All the details of that review can happen in as much secrecy as the client wants.


3. It promotes a free exchange of information between engineers.

Does it really?

Suppose Joe PE calls you and says, "Hey, I'm reviewing your design." Are you going to say, "Oh, good. Let's do lunch. Afterwards, come to my office and I'll let you go through my files."? Probably not.

True story: A client hired me to write a report to address concerns raised by a community. It was filed with the local government office. The community hired their own engineer. Their engineer called me to set up a time when he might stop by and look at my calculations. I wasn't sure whether I was obliged to do that. I called my client. He said that I was under no obligation to let that other engineer go through my files. If the opponent's engineer thought that the conclusions should be different, then he should come up with his own -- on his own.

I called the other engineer back and declined his request to show him what I had done. That was the end of his attempts to use my own files against me.

My client wasn't paying me to do the other engineer's work. Nor was I obliged to help the other engineer to focus on my weakest assumption and blow it out of proportion in a public meeting.

Lawyers are advocates for their clients. Engineers provide services, but
these services do not include advocacy in a legal sense.

An engineer had better be on his client's side -- else why did he agree to do the work?

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.

If it is true that "engineers have a primary responsibility to the public at large", then should I have given full access to the engineer who called and asked for behind-the-scenes details on how I came to the conclusions in my publicly-filed report? He was working for a different client (on the other side of the issue), but why should that matter if my obligation is to the "public at large" is greater than my obligation to my client?

Why isn't a PE in MegaCorp held to the same standard of having a "primary responsibility to the public at large" instead of to their employer? There are cases where whistle-blowing is appropriate, but the amount of public injury needed to justify becoming a whistle-blower seems to be pretty high.

As I understand it, someone who is on trial for being a serial murderer is referred to by all lawyers involved as "Mr. ...". That seems quite gentlemanly to me.

You are correct that the codes of ethics for the different
professions vary, and for good reasons based on long experience.

And those good reasons for the "courtesy" of notifying another engineer only that I am looking at his work (but not telling him any more than that) would be ...?

It sounds, for some reason, that you have a personal vendetta against this
tenet of the NSPE code

Well, I'm not rolling over at the unsubstantiated assertion that it is the "courteous" thing to do.

JAE gave five points in defense of the provision. The first allows someone to know that a BAD engineer is looking at his work. What is the defense against the BAD engineer at that point? To call the client, and say, "Don't listen to that BAD engineer, because he's a BAD engineer."? That would create a code of ethics violation by the GOOD engineer.

The last four of JAE's points assume more openness than the code of ethics requires. Everyone working together toward a common end is a nice scenario. I doubt that such scenarios exist in the majority of cases where a client requests an engineer to review the work of another.

Find out what the rules for your state are, and abide by them--or move.

Comply with an unexplained provision or move? This isn't a law of physics. If the provision is flawed, then maybe it should be changed. If it is easily defensible, then it shouldn't be hard to explain it concisely -- with something more than the bare assertion that it is a "common courtesy". Or a utopian appeal to openness.

I personally feel that it is common courtesy

Because ...?

unless you're fishing for problems with the original engineer's work

That would be a common reason for reviewing someone's work -- to find problems with it. There is nothing necessarily dishonorable in that. How often would you expect someone to show you another engineer's work and say, "Look at this design! Didn't Joe PE do a wonderful job for me?"

there should be no reason not to contact him/her.

If I submit a design to MegaCorp, it is likely that someone on their staff of 100 engineers is going to look at it, but they are operating in practical anonymity.

If I submit a design to Mom&Pop&Sons, it is likely that it won't receive thorough scrutiny from them. If they hire Joe PE and he tells me that he is looking, he has no anonymity. If Mom&Pop&Sons come back and say: "This part of your design has a problem", I am going to have a very good idea where they heard that.

If I thought that I was going to get away with something because the client is unsophisticated, and Joe PE is responsible for my being found out, then (as a demonstrably BAD engineer) I might try to find a way to retaliate against Joe -- professionally or not. Maybe I can cause damage in his social circle without violating the engineering code of ethics.

I mostly agree with what graybeach said early on:
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.

I think that how, when and whether a client decides to tell another engineer that I was paid (or not) to look at their work is up to the client who paid for (or was the beneficiary of) my work.

The ethical reason is because that is what the code of ethics states.

How circular is that?!

The code of ethics is not some immutable law of physics.

Check out the revision history here:

http://www.nspe.org/Ethics/CodeofEthics/CodeHistory/historyofcode.html

If the code is so perfect, why was there ever a need to change it? Or have we finally "arrived"?

 

[melone]

According to Wikipedia, ethics is

Ethics is a major branch of philosophy, encompasses right conduct and good life. It is significantly broader than the common conception of analyzing right and wrong. A central aspect of ethics is "the good life", the life worth living or life that is satisfying, which is held by many philosophers to be more important than moral conduct. The major problem is the discovery of the summum bonum, the greatest good.

Ethics and morals are respectively akin to theory and practice. Ethics denotes the theory of right action and the greater good, while morals indicate their practice. "Moral" has a dual meaning. The first indicates a person's comprehension of morality and his capacity to put it into practice. In this meaning, the antonym is "amoral", indicating an inability to distinguish between right and wrong. The second denotes the active practice of those values. In this sense, the antonym is "immoral", referring to actions that violate ethical principles.

Personal ethics signifies a moral code applicable to individuals, while social ethics means moral theory applied to groups. Social ethics can be synonymous with social and political philosophy, in as much as it is the foundation of a good society or state.

Ethics is not limited to specific acts and defined moral codes, but encompasses the whole of moral ideals and behaviors, a person's philosophy of life (or Weltanschauung).[1]

So I guess P.E.'s get to redefine the meanings of words?

 

[hokie66]

Anon732,

Are you sure you haven't missed your calling? I would suggest the legal profession, as then all this arguing would be billable.

 

[TheTick]

When's the last time a person was convicted of breaking "law". A person gets convicted for breaking a law.

Likewise, here. Ethics for PE's are codified, in a "code", as it were.

One may also wish to cite sources more authoritative than Wiki "folk knowledge".

 

[melone]

Ok, how about Webster's? Is that authorative enough?

Main Entry: eth·ic
Pronunciation: \?e-thik\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English ethik, from Middle French ethique, from Latin ethice, from Greek ?thik?, from ?thikos
Date: 14th century
1plural but sing or plural in constr : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a: a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> <an old-fashioned work ethic> —often used in plural but singular or plural in construction <an elaborate ethics><Christian ethics> bplural but sing or plural in constr : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> c: a guiding philosophy d: a consciousness of moral importance <forge a conservation ethic>
3plural : a set of moral issues or aspects (as rightness) <debated the ethics of human cloning>

 

[TheTick]

the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group

Kinda sorta precisely what I said.

Ethics in this scope is conduct, delineated by a code of ethics. Conduct, not belief. One can not enforce belief.

 

[Anon732]

Ethics in this scope is conduct, delineated by a code of ethics.

So is a random code equivalent to a reasoned code?

What is a good reason for requiring only engineers in private practice to expose themselves to personal retaliation via the limited kind of notice required by the code of ethics?

Isn't that a anti-competitive provision? Engineers in a large engineering company (private-practice or not) can operate without much fear of personal retaliation for the actions of their firm. Not so the solo practitioner. Or is that the point of the code of ethics provision -- to inhibit the free expression of opinions by small engineering firms?

The other reasons discussed for the three categories identified in my previous post seem unclear or insufficient.

Suppose that I tell a client: "I cannot review a design prepared for you by another engineer unless I tell that other engineer that I am looking."

The client says to me: "Why can't you respect my privacy?"

The only answer that I have is "the code of ethics says that I must notify the other engineer."

Is the client supposed to be satisfied with that answer?

Am I supposed to be satisfied with that answer?

If so, why? Did I forfeit my brain when I acquired a PE license?

If I am exhibiting exceptional professionalism -- supposedly exceeding that of lawyers -- by placing the interests of colleagues above those of the client's, shouldn't I be able to explain the advantages of that hyper-professionalism to the client?

So far, the best answer that I can think of is that it is intended to create fear in solo practitioners. That isn't hyper-professionalism. It is intimidation.

btrueblood had good advice: don't get involved in wrestling matches with pigs in the first place.

It may not become clear that the other engineer is a pig until one starts to review their design. If the first step in reviewing his design is to let him know that I am looking, it is too late to decide that I don't want to be in a wrestling match with a pig.

I know; the code of ethics says, "Thou shalt not call another engineer a pig ..." But a rose (or a snake) by any other name ...

 

[JAE]

 

[vc66]

We can go through this over and over again, and nothing will come of it. You have your opinion, of which some agree. Beating a dead horse, as JAE suggests, is a waste of time.

Petition your state board if you're not happy with the counter-arguments to your hypothesis. Obviously no one here can come up with a argument that is sufficient for you.

Ho hum...

V

 

[btrueblood]

I would agree that you have a point Anon, as I alluded to. And, yes, you will find yourself occasionally encountering pigs in life. You must identify them first before deciding what to do with them, and unfortuneately that means they may get mud or other offal on you first, before you have a chance to escape. Ethics is: how do you conduct business with people you have never met before, do you a) expect pig behavior until proven otherwise, or b) expect fair treatment until proven otherwise; the code tells you to follow option b). And that is a fair life lesson, one you can sleep nights with.

 

[TheTick]

It's never professional to call a fellow professional such names. You can, however, diplomatically lead someone to that conclusion without saying so.

 

[Anon732]

Obviously no one here can come up with a argument that is sufficient for you.

Perhaps more accurately, assertions that weren't accepted at face value have been left unexplained.

I don't recall seeing an explanation for the assertion that it is "courteous" only to let someone know that I am looking at their work. Why am I not discourteous if I leave them in the dark about what I conclude about their work?

 

[IRstuff]

Courtesy only extends to the point where you violate the law. You can be courteous and allow everyone to pass you, and you'll be cited for driving too slow.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[Anon732]

[small]image from www.hiren.info[/small]​

Why did the horse die?

Maybe it died for lack of water.

I think that the three categories of answers provided in defense of the provision were refuted.

The notion that the provision in the code of ethics is anti-competitive finally crystallized for me. That makes the most sense to me at this point.

Maybe the horse was shot to keep it quiet.

 

[SylvestreW]

Going to pipe in. Often we get clients who ask us to peer-review something another firm/engineer has done. We are always upfront and state that we intend to call the engineer and let them know etc. etc. Never had a firm come back and say "oh, uh, in that case..."

And we do call the engineer and explain the circumstances etc. They never have an issue, and actually, when things come up, they ask we contact them directly (which we do) to resolve any issues (so there's no surprises).

-
Syl.

 

[IRstuff]

I think that people can read what they want and interpret things their way with the ethics code.

If you're a positive person, you see it as a good thing, if not, then you see something else.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[Anon732]

I think that people can read what they want and interpret things their way with the ethics code.

Isn't a code intended to be more objective than that?

Will that fly before an ethics board?
Joe PE: "I interpreted things my way."
Ethics Board: "Oh. Well, OK then."

Shouldn't the code be explainable to clients?

I am not looking to get into the situation of operating in secret. But if a prospect has been jerked around by an engineer, he might not want that engineer privy to the fact that they are taking steps to defend themselves against being jerked around further on the same project.

So far, the best explanation that I have for the code of ethics saying that only certain engineers must be "nice" to others (in a very limited way and even if at the expense of loyalty to the client or respect for the client's privacy) is that the code of ethics contains an intimidation clause.

 

[IRstuff]

I was referring to the perceived motivations, not the stipulated behavior. Some interpret it as some sort of cabalistic behavior requirements, while everyone else sees it as a perfectly reasonable set of constraints.

You would not violate the law just because the client asked you to. So, client loyalty is limited in scope and not in question.

TTFN

FAQ731-376

 

[JAE]

Anon - lots of good reasons were provided in support of that ethical requirement found in the NSPE code of ethics.

You don't agree with the reasons. Fine. No problem with me.

I just know that if I was designing something for a client and the client didn't trust me and asked another engineer to review my work, I would certainly appreciate it if I were simply notified that this was happening.

All the details about in-house reviews with big firms, ticking off the client by negating his secrecy, etc. don't bother me a bit.

Like the famous quote about "knowing pornography when I see it" I think I know bad ethical behavior when I see it and sneaking behind another engineer's back to check their work is bad behavior in my book.

You might disagree - again - fine.

The NSPE provision, to me, is a good faith effort to simply keep our practice above-board and fair.

If you have that much fear in ticking off your client, then don't tell the other engineer. It's your decision.

You might try to contact NSPE to see what they say about how this provision came to be.

Also, check out the following website - perhaps someone there can explain the source of that particular ethical rule:

http://www.niee.org/murdoughCenter/

I'd be interested to see what they say.