Engineering Ethics (Case Study of Parking Structure Foundation)

 Parking Structure Foundation Ethical Case

Narrative
Mary Johnson has recently passed the PE exam. She works for Spire Engineering as a structural design engineer.
For her first project as lead engineer, she designs a parking structure in an area where the soil is poor. She
requests a detailed soils report, and the geotechnical engineer recommends continuous footings. Mary designs a
reinforced concrete section according to the prevailing ACI standards. The design is reviewed by another of
Spire’s PE’s and Mary proudly stamps and signs her first set of plans.
The owner of the structure engages Spire to monitor and inspect the construction process, take concrete
samples, etc. Since Mary is the engineer of record, she visits the construction site during the site preparation
phase. Although she has heard about the way in which women are sometimes treated by construction workers,
she was unprepared for what she encountered. The whistling, taunting and general crudeness made her very
uncomfortable, but she was determined to follow through.
Mary is relatively inexperienced in dealing with contractors. Thus, in the eyes of the superintendent and
construction workers, her credibility is suspect. On the first day of pouring concrete, Mary is on site, taking
cylinder samples, inspecting the placing of reinforcement, and generally getting a feel for the construction process.
She notices a few problems and brings them to the superintendent’s attention. He accommodates some of her
concerns, but also dismisses others as unnecessary, commenting on her lack of familiarity with day-to-day
construction practices. Mary protests and makes additional suggestions. The superintendent takes advantage of
her inexperience and ignores her concerns. When she gets back to the office, she talks to some of her more
experienced colleagues and they give her some additional advice about construction and contractors.
The following day is a warm one, and after about half the concrete pour is completed, the batch plant breaks
down and the trucks stop coming. Mary knows from school and the previous evening’s discussion that if more
than an hour or two passes, the poured concrete will begin to set up and will not bond well with newly poured
concrete, forming a “cold joint.” She discusses the problem with the superintendent who assures her that the plant
will be up soon and tells her not to worry. After an hour and a half has passed, the batch plant is not yet on line.
Mary tells the superintendent that the already placed concrete will have to be removed. A protracted discussion
ensues in which the superintendent says such a drastic action is unnecessary and that if Mary knew anything
about construction, she would understand. He also makes several other derogatory comments about her level of
knowledge and competence. He says that he can simply agitate the already poured concrete and produce a
structurally sound joint. At that instant, the first concrete truck arrives, and Mary must decide right away.
Mary is not sure about the nuances of placing concrete and does not want to risk further abuse from the
superintendent and construction workers. Thus she decides to trust the experience of the superintendent and
continue the pour. The finished product looks OK, and the rest of the construction is completed without incident.

Questions about Ethics and Professionalism
1. Consider Mary’s preparation before visiting the site. Did Mary fulfill her professional obligation to her
employer? Give an argument for your answer with reference to the ASCE code of Ethics.
2. What about Mary’s actions on the site the second day? Did she behave in a professional, ethical manner? Cite
the relevant ethical references in formulating your answer. If you think her actions should have been different,
describe what you would do in similar circumstances.
3. Should Mary’s boss have let her inspect the construction job without supervision? Be sure to substantiate your
answer with reference to the ASCE Code of Ethics.
4. Suppose that Mary’s boss, after hearing of her experiences on the first day, assigns Alex, a more experienced
engineer, to accompany her to the site. Rather than simply advising and supporting her, Alex takes over the inspection process, ignoring Mary but also preventing the cold joint problem. Analyze the ethical positions of
Mary, Alex and their boss.
5. Imagine yourself as an expert witness for Spire Engineering. How would you assess the actions of Mary and
her boss with respect to the firm’s liability.
IV. Answers to Ethical Questions:
1. Consider Mary’s preparation before visiting the site. Did Mary fulfill her professional obligation to her
employer? Give an argument for your answer with reference to the ASCE code of Ethics.
There are several items noted in the ASCE code of ethics that are relevant to this case:
1. “Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the public in the performance of their
professional duties.”
2. “Engineers shall perform services only in areas of their competence.”
3. “Engineers whose professional judgment is overruled under circumstances where the safety, health, and
welfare of the public are endangered, shall inform their clients of the possible consequences.”
4. “Engineers who have knowledge or reason to believe that another person or firm may be in violation of any of
the provisions of Cannon 1 (to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public) shall present such
information to the proper authority in writing and shall cooperate with the proper authority in furnishing such
further information or assistance as may be required.”
Mary’s preparation before the visit is suspect. Mary seems to have the technical knowledge to handle this case.
However, Mary’s knowledge about practical construction techniques and ability to deal with the contractor are in
question. Mary has probably not been trained to deal with contractors. However, she was aware of the way
women were sometimes treated at construction sites. She was not prepared for the abuse she received at the
sight. Is she expected to prepare herself for this abuse? Mary should not have been subjected to the ‘whistling,
taunting, and general crudeness’. However, Mary shouldn’t allow that to affect the way that she performs her job.
Is Mary’s preparation at fault? If it is, is this a case of Mary acting outside of her expertise.
2. What about Mary’s actions on the site the second day. Did she behave in a professional , ethical manner? Cite
the relevant ethical references in formulating your answer. If you think her actions should have been different,
describe what you would do in similar circumstances.
The same codes that applied to question 1 apply to question 2. Mary’s foremost obligation is to the public. It is
questionable whether Mary was competent in this situation. She did not know the ‘nuances of placing concrete.’
One might ask if she is acting out of her area of expertise, which would be a direct violation of the ASCE codes.
Also, she allows herself to be overruled in this situation which involves the safety of the public. Is Mary only
responsible for technical expertise, suggestions, and consultation, or is Mary on sight to police the contractor and
make sure he doesn’t cut corners? Mary has voiced her concerns about the ‘cold joint’, however she is badgered
into backing down from that recommendation. In this situation Mary has some different options. She could refuse
to back down from her recommendation. Mary could notify her employer of the contractor’s actions. If it is
determined that there is a problem with the ‘cold joint’, Mary could notify the owner of the structure. If there was any criminal action by the contracting firm then the appropriate government officials could be notified.
3. Should Mary’s boss have let her inspect the construction job without supervision? Be sure to substantiate your
answer with reference to the ASCE Code of Ethics.
In hindsight, it appears that Mary was not quite ready to deal with the contractor. If Mary’s boss foresaw
problems in the relation between Mary and the contractor, he might have chosen to ease her transition by
allowing her to go with a supervisor. On the other hand, it seems that Spire Engineering had confidence in Mary’s
abilities. Perhaps they thought that Mary was qualified to go into the field, and that this would be the best way to
give her experience. If Spire sent Mary into a situation that they knew she would not be able to handle, then that
might be considered equivalent to practicing outside of your area of expertise, which the ASCE code explicitly
forbid.
4. Suppose that Mary’s boss, after hearing of her experiences on the first day, assigns Alex, a more experienced
engineer, to accompany her to the site. Rather than simply advising and supporting her, Alex takes over the
inspection process, ignoring Mary but properly handling the cold joint problem. Analyze the ethical positions of
Mary, Alex, and their boss.
The ASCE Code of Ethics also states:
“Engineers shall give proper credit for engineering work to those to whom credit is due, and shall recognize the
proprietary interests of others. Whenever possible they shall name the person or persons who may be
responsible for designs, inventions, writings or other accomplishments.”
By ignoring Mary’s recommendations on a project Mary designed, Alex might be trying to take credit for Mary’s
work. This is a violation of the ASCE code. However, Alex’s primary obligation is to the public’s safety, and he
has apparently lived up to that obligation. Mary has an obligation to herself to get credit for her work. If she feels
that she is not given credit for her work, she might voice that opinion to her employer. The boss in this situation
has an obligation to his client and to the public. By sending Alex with Mary he has prevented possible problems
resulting from Mary’s inexperience. The boss also has an obligation to maintain a good working environment for
his employees. In this situation Mary’s opinions were valuable, and she should have been able to voice them. The
boss might make the working environment more open, to allow Mary room to express her views.
5. Imagine yourself as an expert witness for Spire Engineering. How would you assess the actions of Mary and
her boss with respect to the firm’s liability.
Mary has put her company in a very precarious position. By allowing the contractors to go against her better
judgment, she may have incurred liability for the company. She was on sight to make sure that construction
would go as expected and she failed to do so. So, she has put her company in a position where they are liable.
The question is raised again: is Mary only responsible for technical expertise, suggestions, and consultation, or is
Mary on sight to police the contractor and make sure he doesn’t cut corners?