Under Your Direct Supervision and When Your EIT Gets Independent - Ethics 2

[Envelope3]

Consider this scenario. EIT working under EOR for a few years and EOR is comfortable with the EIT's capability. EIT/EOR produces a set of sealed construction drawings for a building renovation. During construction admin, the EIT is the point man, making decisions as they come up without necessarily checking with the EOR in real time. One of these decisions is a structural oops that results in a collapse.

Question: Do you think the EOR has broken any ethics rules?

 

[WARose]

Being the "point man" and making engineering decisions are 2 different things. (The former is fairly nebulous legally.) If the "EIT" is making those kinds of decisions.....he/she is basically practicing without a license. (Which would be a issue (I would think) with the PE/SE board.)

 

[fel3]

Yes. The EOR has the legal and ethical responsibility to fully supervise the EIT, regardless of how good the EIT appears to be. When I am the EOR, I don't let EITs or even subordinate PEs make decisions that materially affect the design because that puts the design and my license in jeopardy. I want them to do the work, but they have to run it by me first before *** I *** issue the decision.

============
"Is it the only lesson of history that mankind is unteachable?"
--Winston S. Churchill

 

[IRstuff]

Seems to be more of a "due care" or possibly negligence issue.

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

 

[jayrod12]

I have my seal, and I still run most major decisions by the Partner-in-Charge on the respective project. They rarely have much in terms of comments, but every once in a while they'll bring up an item/idea that I hadn't thought of previously. For minor small things I won't talk to them about them each time, but often I'll give them a brief rundown of small changes at some point. Something like "Oh, well I've got you here just to keep you updated, on project No Fun we had to change this widget to that sprocket and this thingy for that fiddly bit. Nothing major just keeping you in the loop."

 

[MotorCity]

The buck stops with the EOR. Regardless of what responsibilities were assigned to the EIT, the EOR is ultimately responsible. If the EOR gives the EIT authority to make decisions, then the EOR needs to have complete confidence in the ability of the EIT and also be willing to accept the outcome of the EIT's decisions. That said, the EOR should be aware of all responses, decisions, etc. I have no problem assigning these type of tasks to a capable EIT, but if its my seal, I expect to be informed of any information or decision made before it leaves the office.

 

[Envelope3]

I'm mainly asking the question because "under the direct supervision" language adopted by various state license boards seems to be interpreted in multiple ways.

While an EIT blatantly practicing without a license does not likely meet the licensing board rules (and therefore isn't ethical), licensing board rules are not law to my knowledge. Since you guys are bringing up what is Legal, what pathway are you taking to get to an adopted statue as it pertains to the EIT practicing without a license? I'll say that the IBC is weak in this respect as it focuses on the permit documents only and gives no consideration to field decisions.

 

[JoshPlumSE]

How do other firms respond to questions from the field?

The firms I've been with have generally used a formal "Request For Information" from the field. Or, if they just sent an e-mail or something then we turned it into an "RFI" and filed it with the project. Then we typed up our response, give the engineer's name who is responding, date and such. Normally, the response would be stamped, though not always by the EOR. I believe that person was ALWAYS named in the company's insurance policy.

To me, this process was implemented to address this exact kind of situation.... where an informal response by someone who wasn't quite qualified to respond could result in an issue.

 

[phamENG]

Isn't this scenario almost exactly what happened with the Hyatt walkway collapse?

An EIT should know better, and a PE should know to teach them that. EIT could be practicing without a license, and PE could be failing to maintain proper control over the design.

When I was an EIT, I had a senior that trusted me too much. Got to the point that I'd ask him dumb questions just to make him paranoid enough to review my work.

As for board rules and laws... in Virginia the 'board rules' are regulations and codified in state law. I'm pretty sure that's the case in all 50 states, but I could be mistaken.

 

[Tomfh]

There’s no clear cut answer. It depends on the situation.

If the senior is generally across what’s going on and has delegated some decision making for minor matters to the subordinate I don’t see how it’s necessarily unethical that one of those matters ends up a big deal. (There but for the grace of god go all of us)

If however the senior is completely absent and has thrown the junior in the deep end then it’s unethical.

 

[dik]

I think it's pretty clear... the EOR screwed up and is 'on the hook', and both the EOR and the EIT can be criminally liable if there is harm done... and both can be financially liable.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[Envelope3]

Lets reel it back to ethics and if the EOR is meeting the intent of "under the direct supervision". In my experience, I think EIT's are given leeway when an EOR gets comfortable with their work product. So just because there is a structural oops doesn't necessarily mean that there was an ethics violation pertaining to "under the direct supervision".

If you dont agree, are you guys saying that when an EIT checks a set of shop drawings, the EOR must then go over all markups?

 

[BAretired]

If a mistake is made by the EIT which results in a collapse, the permit holder, i.e. the engineering company will be held liable by the court. Whether the professional responsibility lies with the EOR or the EIT or both, is of no interest to the parties suffering loss. That would be determined by the Discipline Committee of the professional association after holding a hearing.

BA

 

[Tomfh]

If a mistake is made by the EIT which results in a collapse, the permit holder, i.e. the engineering company will be held liable by the court.

Yes, but we’re talking about ethics, which is a different question.

A mistake doesn’t automatically constitute an ethical breach.

 

[BAretired]

A mistake doesn’t automatically constitute an ethical breach.

Of course not; that is why a D.C. hearing is required to determine the circumstances. We are not in a position to make a valid judgment on an imaginary infraction.

BA

 

[Envelope3]

So based upon this thread, I see people interpreting "under the direct supervision" ranging from

"EIT cant do any work without the EOR's approval"

to

"EIT has some leeway and as long as the EOR isnt completely absent, it's ok"

There is a similar rainbow of opinions in my office and hence my reason for asking here.

 

[dik]

The EOR is responsible for determining what work the EIT can do... all work to be subject to the EOR's approval, and ultimately is the EOR's responsibility. Same thing if an EIT is designing something for a set of drawings. I've encountered some EITs that provide excellent results, and some EORs that don't.

Rather than think climate change and the corona virus as science, think of it as the wrath of God. Feel any better?

-Dik

 

[JoshPlumSE]

This is very similar to the communication issues that led to the Hyatt walkway collapse. Except the original design for the Hyatt walkway was deficient as well.... though not nearly as much as the revised one.

1) Engineer of record released stamped set of drawings.
2) Fabricator doesn't like a detail and proposes a change, but no engineer on their end checked it.
3) An Engineer (not an EIT) working under the EOR looks at proposed change and thinks it's okay. But, never does any calculations to demonstrate that. I don't think any revised set of drawings was issued.

Either way, I think the blame falls on the engineering company. Thought the engineer may argue that the issue wasn't directly his fault. But, was rather a communication issue. Unfortunately, he stamped the drawings and he was in charge of the shop review procedure at his office..... Obviously, if the fabricator has "slipped" the change in there without notifying the engineer that would be something different.


I don't think the EIT necessarily made an ethical error. Unless he violated the internal procedures of his office.

That's one of the reasons why I asked how RFI's or change orders or such are handled in other offices. The fact that my office usually stamped any RFI's (or design changes) makes it clearer for the office I worked for.

 

[Envelope3]

I can understand how engineers have a mindset that "the buck stops with the EOR", but I assure you that it's not quite that simple during the legal process. From a standpoint of who's named in a civil lawsuit, it really doesnt matter who made the mistake in the company (EIT vs EOR). Unfortunately, the sad side to civil lawsuits is that even blatant engineering fouls get defended, the fault spread to multiple parties, and the plaintiffs have to make a case.

What does matter is if a plaintiff can utilize ethics violations as an arguing point toward the allocation of fault, and hence having an understanding of what "under the direct supervision" means comes into play.

 

[Settingsun]

Do the US boards provide any guidance? Eg

https://www.bpeq.qld.gov.au/direct-supervison/