ABET outcome 4: “an ability to recognize ethical and professional responsibilities in engineering situations and make informed judgments, which must consider the impact of engineering solutions in global, economic, environmental, and societal contexts;”
In an optimal engineer/client relationship, ethical responsibilities would not be compromised, and the engineer would be able to make informed judgements considering the impacts of the engineering solutions. The case study discussed involves an engineer who would like to prepare for a 100-year storm, when the project owner doesn’t. Engineer A and Client A have conflicting ideals since the engineer believes that in order for the project to be safest for the general public it should be built to a 100-year projected storm and the client feels as though it doesn’t need to be. These incompatible ideals between the engineer and the client threaten to compromise the ethical responsibility of the engineer to uphold public safety.
Since one of the driving factors to compromise public safety by not preparing the project for a 100-year storm event was the desire for cost reduction, it may be worthwhile for the engineer to research more cost effective methods to build the residential development to a 100-year projection storm surge elevation. The cost of the project could be reduced with the materials purchased, the amount of materials used, etc. The engineer could also explore options that would prepare the project for a 100-year projection that would cost less. When evaluating more cost effective options it is paramount that the engineer and client ensure that public safety is never put at risk, no matter the amount money it may save. Furthermore, if the engineer feels as though the project doesn’t satisfy current standards and best practices then it is necessary for the engineer to report the client to the appropriate authorities. So, if the client chooses to move forward with the project by not preparing for a 100-year projected storm surge, it may be in the engineers best interest to contact their boss or other engineers at the private practice to identify the proper authorities to alert if necessary. The engineer feels as though the project does not uphold the principles of a sustainable development. The client wants to forgo planning for a 100-year projected storm surge which implies that the development will not be sustainable for future generations which may experience such a storm surge.
In agreement with the conclusion offered in the case study, I would recommend that the engineer should initially attempt to urge the client to reconsider their position on choosing a more cost effective project design over the safety of the public. However, if the client still insists on moving forward with the project disregarding the recommendation of developing the project for the 100-year projected storm surge, I would recommend that the engineer research any other way to reduce cost of the project that would not potentially hinder the safety/welfare of the public. If the client still refuses to adjust the project to prepare for the 100-year storm surge, the engineer should then contact the appropriate local authorities regarding the situation while removing themselves from the project until the problem is fixed.