Engineering Economics Blog

Jamie is an engineer employed by Burris, a United States–based company that develops sub- way and surface transportation systems for medium-sized municipalities in the United States and Canada. He has been a registered professional engineer (PE) for the last 15 years. Last year, Carol, an engineer friend from university days who works as an individual consultant, asked Jamie to help her with some cost estimates on a metro train job. Carol offered to pay for his time and talent, but Jamie saw no reason to take money for helping with data commonly used by him in performing his job at Burris. The estimates took one weekend to complete, and once Jamie delivered them to Carol, he did not hear from her again; nor did he learn the identity of the company for which Carol was preparing the estimates.

Yesterday, Jamie was called into his supervisor’s offi ce and told that Burris had not received the contract award in Sharpstown, where a metro system is to be installed. The project estimates were prepared by Jamie and others at Burris over the past several months. This job was greatly needed by Burris, as the country and most municipalities were in a real economic slump, so much so that Burris was considering furloughing several engineers if the Sharpstown bid was not accepted. Jamie was told he was to be laid off immediately, not because the bid was rejected, but because he had been secretly working without management approval for a prime consultant of Burris’ main competitor. Jamie was astounded and angry. He knew he had done nothing to warrant fi ring, but the evidence was clearly there. The numbers used by the competitor to win the Sharpstown award were the same numbers that Jamie had prepared for Burris on this bid, and they closely matched the values that he gave Carol when he helped her.

Jamie was told he was fortunate, because Burris’ president had decided to not legally charge Jamie with unethical behavior and to not request that his PE license be rescinded. As a result, Jamie was escorted out of his offi ce and the building within one hour and told to not ask anyone at Burris for a reference letter if he attempted to get another engineering job.

Discuss the ethical dimensions of this situation for Jamie, Carol, and Burris’ management. Refer to the NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers (Appendix C) for specifi c points of concern.

Solution

There are several obvious errors and omissions present in the actions of Jamie, Carol, and  B urris’ management in this situation. Some of these mistakes, oversights, and possible code  violations are summarized here.

Jamie 

•     Did not learn identity of company Carol was working for and whether the company was to
be a bidder on the Sharpstown project
•     Helped  a  friend  with  confi  dential data, probably innocently, without the knowledge or approval of his employer
•     Assisted a competitor, probably unknowingly, without the knowledge or approval of his employer
•     Likely violated, at least, Code of Ethics for Engineers section II.1.c, which reads, “Engineers shall not reveal facts, data, or information without the prior consent of the client or employer except as authorized or required by law or this Code.” 

Carol

•     Did not share the intended use of Jamie’s work
•     Did not seek information from Jamie concerning his employer’s intention to bid on the
same project as her client
•     Misled Jamie in that she did not seek approval from Jamie to use and quote his information
and assistance
•     Did not inform her client that portions of her work originated from a source employed by a
possible bid competitor
•     Likely violated, at least, Code of Ethics for Engineers section III.9.a, which reads, “Engi-
neers shall, whenever possible, name the person or persons who may be individually re-
sponsible for designs, inventions, writings, or other accomplishments.”

Burris’  management 

•     Acted too fast in dismissing Jamie; they should have listened to Jamie and conducted an
investigation 
•     Did not put him on administrative leave during a review
•     Possibly did not take Jamie’s previous good work record into account

These are not all ethical considerations; some are just plain good business practices for Jamie, Carol, and Burris.