×
INTELLIGENT WORK FORUMS
FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONALS

Log In

Come Join Us!

Are you an
Engineering professional?
Join Eng-Tips Forums!
  • Talk With Other Members
  • Be Notified Of Responses
    To Your Posts
  • Keyword Search
  • One-Click Access To Your
    Favorite Forums
  • Automated Signatures
    On Your Posts
  • Best Of All, It's Free!
  • Students Click Here

*Eng-Tips's functionality depends on members receiving e-mail. By joining you are opting in to receive e-mail.

Posting Guidelines

Promoting, selling, recruiting, coursework and thesis posting is forbidden.

Students Click Here

Jobs

Reviewing the work of another engineer
11

Reviewing the work of another engineer

Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)
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.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

The NSPE Code of Ethics is not legally binding. The Code of Ethics that you should be following is the one of the state where the project is.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

In college we heard from an engineer that had did this and was brought before the state board for it.

He was on a site visit and the head of building maintenace asked him informally to look at a set of the plans he had recieved from another engineer.  He looked at the plans and they were poorly prepared, hard to read, and missing information.  He told the head of maintenace this informally.  Later he wrote a letter to the head of maintenace regarding the plans in hopes of getting more work from him.  The head of maintenace took this leter to the original engineer and the original engineer took the leter to the state board.  

After the engineer went before the state ethics board a board member told him he was morally right but ethically wrong.  The plans were bad and should have been fixed, but he should not have reviewed them without notifying the orignal engineer.

As I remember the discussion from college the reasoning behind this is that it is there to protect the integrity of the profession as a whole.  By reviewing and critizing the other engineer publicly without his knowledge you undermine the credability of the profession as a whole.  

Yes there may be flaws or there maybe an alternate design that also works.  However there maybe other factors and/or assumptions that the original engineer took into acount that you are not aware of.  By notifing the original engineer you are allowing them to defend themselves and explain their reasoning behind a design.  

So yes if a potential clients asks you to review a design without contacting the original engineer and the engineer is still working for the client politely refuse to do the work.

Being ethical can and will cost you, but as a professional we are held to higher standards due to the knowledge we have.  Second being moral and being ethical are not always the same thing. It can be rather confusing at times.

EddyC if I'm not mistaken don't most states use the NSPE's Code of Ethics as the basis for their individual codes?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

What if medical doctors had a similar ethic.  No one could get an independent second opinion because the second doctor would have to contact the first doctor before examining the patient.  The argument of protecting the integrity of the medical profession over the health of the patient doesn't hold water.

IMHO 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.  

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

I've never liked or understood that particular section of the COE either.

It smacks of croneyism.

"Any Joe P.E. is 'in the club', so his stuff has to be good, and you better not say otherwise."

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

This is the full section of the NSPE's code of ethics

   7. Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.
         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.
         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.
         c. Engineers in sales or industrial employ are entitled to make engineering comparisons of represented products with products of other suppliers.

The welfare of the public is the ultimate canon of the code and that is our first and utmost duty as professionals. If we see something that could potentially endager the public it is our ethical obligation to inform the correct authority.  

 

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

I understand the concern. Perhaps this should be addressed contractually. Of course the client needs to be savvy enough to know they need a "subject to review" clause. Any thing like this in the standard contracts?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

2
I think this is exists to ensure full disclosure of a client's actions to the original engineer.  In that respect, I think it is fair.  When acting within professional circles, I think the original engineer has a right to know if his work is reviewed by another professional engineer.

Any good professional should have no problem with a client getting a second opionion.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

It is normal and expected that a doctor will advise his patient to get a second opinion when a serious diagnosis is made.  Most, if not all, doctors will even provide the patient with a list of doctors he would suggest have the experience to review the diagnosis.  The 2nd doctor is expected, perhaps even required, to consult with the first doctor, if for no reason other than to request test results, examination notes, etc. to aid in his objective - to deliver the best possible review of the patient's condition.

Same reasons would apply to engineers here - you ought to call the first guy, both as professional courtesy, and to make sure you are not overlooking something.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)
Okay: "Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, ..."

That sounds like a prohibition against : "I have a grudge against Joe P.E.  So I'm going to hunt for his work and try to shoot holes in it wherever I can."

That is quite different from a client saying: "I'd like a higher degree of confidence in this design before I spend a million dollars to build it.  Will you take a look at it for me?"

I agree with the medical example.  Suppose my doctor is a prima dona and recommends a risky surgery.  Why should my health be put at risk by getting an opinion from a second doctor?

If it is "ethical" for the first doctor to get PO'd because I dared to question him without telling him that I was getting a second opinion, might he not remain justifiably PO'd during my surgery?

Why should my peace of mind in the form of
"I guess this surgery really is necessary"
be overshadowed by a new fear?:
"My surgeon has a grudge against me for not telling him that I was getting a second opinion; and he knows that I got a second opinion only because the 'good old boy' network just bit me in the ass."

About the exclusion in subparagraph b:  Suppose the staff at MegaCorp is swamped and they farm out some design work to Joe P.E.  So Joe P.E. does the work and submits the design to MegaCorp.  Then the engineers on the staff at MegaCorp review Joe's design and say all manner of bad things about it to their employer.

Are the engineers at MegaCorp excused for doing what is prohibited by private engineer because they were "only following orders"?  That seems quite close to a Nuremberg Defense to me.

One might argue that Joe P.E. knew that there would be engineers at MegaCorp who would be capable of reviewing the design.

So is a private engineer entitled to operate under the assumption that unsophisticated clients are fair game to be hoodwinked?  And an engineer deserves to be informed if they mis-read the client and find themselves dealing with a client who is more savvy than they expected?

Why is it up to me to inform another engineer about the actions taken by their client?  Why is it not ethical for me to respect the privacy of someone who is seeking my services.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

It gets down to perception.  Whether or not something bad is found, doing such things in secrecy raises answerable questions.

As for the second clause, I think you are completely misreading it, "required by their employment duties" meaning that part of their job is to review received documents.  As such, those that submit documents are automatically to assume that their documents are to be reviewed by another engineer as part of their contract.  There is no comparison, since these reviews, particularly those in government or industry, are done openly, and as a routine part of the contract, hence "required by their employment duties."

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Why would anyone ever question the work done by a P.E.?  The "P.E." proves their competance, right?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

melone - I assume and sincerely hope that your statement is sarcastic.

I imagine it is.

V


RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

Most, if not all, doctors will even provide the patient with a list of doctors he would suggest have the experience to review the diagnosis.

Arguably, this is symbiotic marketing.  It may be also be beneficial to patients.

How many times might the second doctor disagree with the first doctor's diagnosis before he gets dropped from the list?


Quote:

The 2nd doctor is expected, perhaps even required, to consult with the first doctor, if for no reason other than to request test results, examination notes, etc.

I am not aware that it is common for engineers to share their files with each other.  If someone doubts the result of one of my calculations, I am not eager to give them my field measurements, photocopy my calculations, or list all the assumptions that I made.


Quote:

Same reasons would apply to engineers here - you ought to call the first guy, both as professional courtesy

Why is it a professional courtesy?  How cordial would that conversation be?

How awkward is this call?: "I was hired to redo your work.  What help are you willing to give to me?"


Quote:

and to make sure you are not overlooking something.

In the situation where an engineer has been fired (or whose work is being questioned), how much help might I expect in making sure that I didn't overlook something and get fired myself?

It turns out that the situation that I was called about didn't turn into a project for me anyway.  Now I'm into this for future reference.

I asked the prospect why the first engineer wasn't being asked to make the changes.  He didn't give me a credible response.  For whatever reason, he doesn't seem to want the original engineer involved at this point.  Is he officially fired?  I don't know.  Do I need a document to that effect from the client before I am free to start work without calling the first engineer?

If my call to the other engineer is the first time that they are hearing that were fired, the client just put me in the cross-hairs for a "shoot the messenger" response.

Then fired engineer is likely to be PO'd at the client and at me.  My calling wouldn't have done anything other than allow me to put a check mark on the code of ethics.  Nothing changed -- he still wouldn't be doing the work.  And he's not likely to be eager to help me.

So what would have been the point of me calling him?  How would the profession be served/protected?  How would the public be served/protected?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

I am starting to see the point of the provision.  It is a matter of professional courtesy, and there is the danger that the second reviewer could be shilling for work.  There could be isolated cases where secrecy is justified - like maybe the original engineer is threatening to kill the client if he gets a second opinion.  But in general everything should be in the open.  I work on the owner's side and will keep this in mind in my dealings with consultants.  I appreciate that Anon732 brought this up today.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Anon732,

I have checked the regulations of a state in which I am licensed (New Jersey). I cannot find any prohibition on the review of another engineers work. As I stated before, the NSPE Code of Ethics is NOT law.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

This is taken from the Minnesota rules

https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/getpub.php?pubtype=RULE_CHAP&;year=current&chapter=1805

 1805.0500 FALSE OR MALICIOUS STATEMENTS.  

    A licensee shall make no false or malicious statements
 which may have the effect, directly or indirectly, or by
 implication, of injuring the personal or professional reputation or business of another member of the profession.

    STAT AUTH: MS s 326.06

    HIST: 17 SR 1279
Current as of 05/14/04

Obviously the rules and laws of each state differ, but in Minnesota this is something that you can be brought before the board on.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

I agree with the NSPE ethics provision.  I am happy to have my work reviewed by another "peer" engineer, and expect notification of such.  It is only fair play.  It only takes a phone call, properly noted.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Anon - I think you are asking a very valid question.

But I have to honestly say it seems like you are boiling this into a big issue when it just really isn't, in my view.

Your main question you posed:

So what would have been the point of me calling him?  How would the profession be served/protected?  How would the public be served/protected?


The main point(S) that are served by this ethical provision are:

1.  It protects the other engineer from secretive, malicious opinions regarding a specific engineering service.
   In most cases, and in your case perhaps, there was no danger of maliciousness on your part.  By notifying the other engineer it simply disallows any secretive attempts by BAD engineers who attempt to elevate themselves at the expense of other engineers.  The effort to notify is minimal and not burdensome and yet goes a long way to protect reputations from false accusations.

2.  It allows rebuttals to false accusations.  
   By keeping it open, any accusation that cannot be defended comes out in the open.  Additionally, any opinion that can be defended comes out in the open.  This ends up actually helping the client better find the truth.  If only one side is secretly heard, the client doesn't really know for sure but is left to simply trust one engineer over the other based upon the client's whim.

3.  It protects you.
   It allows you the opportunity to respond to other engineers when they review your work.

4.  It forces the client to be honest in dealings with the engineer.
   A client may attempt to bolster an attack on an engineer by shopping around secretly for just the right negative opinion that could be dishonestly used against the engineer.  If you notify a client that "yes, I'll review the work, but by our code of ethics I need to notify the other engineer, then the client must realize that he needs to be honest with the first engineer in expressing his concern, distrust, or unhappiness with the project.  Any time you get people communicating on an open, straight-forward level, you improve the chances that disagreements and lawsuits are kept to a minimum.

5.  It keeps dealings in engineering on a professional level.
   When reviews are known and acknowledged, each party is really forced to let the facts speak for themselves in that they know that every engineering statement or assertion can be counter-reviewed and debated.  If I knew that my engineering review was going to be subject to the other engineer's knowledge, then I know for a fact that my efforts and services would be done much more carefully and backed up.

These are just some ideas.  I'm sure there are many more but I guess bottom line is, why the angst over this?  It isn't that big of a deal to me to be straight with my other fellow engineers and I think it keeps our profession on a "higher level".

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

So why shouldn't the client's staff engineer make that same call prior to review?

The differences between the staff engineer and the contract engineer are in how taxes are paid, and in who provides insurance, tools, etc. I fail to see the ethical distinction.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

I was in a situation once where a large firm did an Electrical Area Classification review (based on API RP 500) of a compressor station for a client of both of ours.  A new Electrical Engineer moved into town (an employee of the client), and he absolutely hated the work that the big firm had done--he said that we would not countenance the modifications that they recommended.  His boss hired me to review the regs, the document, and the recommendations.

I called the big firm and told them what I'd been hired to do.  The guy who originally did the work hung up on me in the middle of a word.  The big firm started a submarine smear campaign against every project that I had ever done for the client, and started pulling the clients files on my projects and bringing up deficiencies in my documentation (an area that I have occasionally struggled with, I just can't seen the benefit of a P&ID on a pipeline with two valves, no controls, no vessels, and no PSV's).  It ended up pretty heated and my work with this client was significantly curtailed for a couple of years, while the big firm's work with them increased dramatically.  Funny thing was that I mostly agreed with the big firm.

It would be really nice if everyone behaved like the posters above hope people will, but engineers are people first.  People are petty, small minded, and take offense easily.  Next time this happens, I'll ask the client to assure me that the firm who's work I'm to evaluate is no longer in the picture in any way, shape, or form.

David

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

It gets down to perception.  Whether or not something bad is found, doing such things in secrecy raises answerable questions.

Such as ...?


Quote:

As for the second clause, I think you are completely misreading it, "required by their employment duties" meaning that part of their job is to review received documents.

And lambaste the design as they see fit.


Quote:

As such, those that submit documents are automatically to assume that their documents are to be reviewed by another engineer as part of their contract.

So if one does work for a large company, are they to assume that their work should be held to a higher standard than if they do work for a small company?

It may often work that way, but is it moral to penalize a client for not being a Fortune 500 company by forbidding them from having shoddy work examined without the knowledge of the one who did that shoddy work?  Is it ethical of engineers to codify that kind of double-standard?

Prices may be subject to change without notice.  Why aren't the review policies of a client subject to change without notice?

Quote:

There is no comparison, since these reviews, particularly those in government or industry, are done openly

I don't see why it matters how it is done.  I doubt that most reviews in industry are done all that openly.

Is it okay for an engineer on the payroll of MegaCorp to give an unfavorable report to a purchasing agent, but a hired gun is unethical if they do the same thing?  The distinction is lost on me.

Why is openness an issue?  Cities have unmarked police cars.  They are not practicing openness.  Is it unethical for a police officer in an unmarked car to write me a ticket for speeding?

I think intent matters.

If I'm out to "get" Joe P.E. and I'm looking for ways to sling as much mud as I can find, that's one thing.

But if a prospect calls me and asks for a second opinion or an alternate approach to part of a design in progress, then that seems to me like work that walked through the door.

bpattengale cited the speech that he heard in college by an engineer who had this kind of work practically walk through the door.  The engineer responded with a letter.  It sounds like he sought to improve a situation without exercising malice.  I think it was wrong for him to be penalized based on what I have heard of his case.

Quote:

By reviewing and criticizing the other engineer publicly without his knowledge you undermine the credibility of the profession as a whole.

I don't see that it was "public" criticism -- not any more than an employee-engineer's bad report to the purchasing agent at MegaCorp is.  Had he run a full-page ad in the newspaper and said, "Look at this crap drawing!  Don't hire this guy." -- that would have been public criticism.  Or if he had been whispering all over town about how bad the other engineer is -- also not good.  But he expressed an opinion to someone who asked for that opinion.  That isn't "public" in my book.

Am I opposed to telling another engineer about my involvement?  Probably not.  Do I think it is up to me to decide for the client what he wants someone else to know about what the client is doing with the client's own money?  No.  Why should it be?  Hiring two engineers isn't immoral, illegal or unethical.  Why is it my job to advertise the fact that he has hired two engineers?

Isn't attorney-client privilege something like this?  If I hire two attorneys to get independent opinions on some problem, I'm probably going to be pissed -- and fire them both -- if they start talking to each other about my case without my knowledge.

How is it in my interest if one refuses to work for me unless they are allowed to let one of their colleagues know about their involvement in my business?  Why am I not buying confidentiality and respect for my privacy when I hire a professional?

"The very act of observing affects the observation."

Consider that a client might get a low rate from a young engineer.  He also wants a prominent engineer, who charges a premium rate, to protect his interests by reviewing what the young engineer submits to the client.  The bottom line cost is lower for the client this way.

If the young engineer knows that his work is being scrutinized by a prominent engineer, it might make the design better.  It could also make him nervous -- and prone to mistakes -- to the detriment of the design.  The client wants to minimize the stress on the young engineer, so he doesn't tell him about the extra scrutiny that is in place.  Why require prominent engineer to spill the beans?

Do I fulfill my obligation to the code of ethics merely by calling the other engineer to inform him of what I am doing?

So I call Joe P.E. and say, "I am reviewing your work.  Now you know.  Bye."

What does it accomplish to make that call?

Paragraph 7 of NSPE's code of ethics has three subparagraphs.  One of them prohibits private engineers from doing what employee-engineers in the other two subparagraphs are expected to do.  It seems broken to me.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

In contracting, it is common for the owner's engineer to require the contractor to do certain aspects of engineering, which is then reviewed by the owner's engineer.  It sounds like some of this wording is in there to allow that kind of arrangement.

I think the comparison with a doctor is partly misleading.

Suppose you have a building which is sagging on one corner.  So you hire an engineer to look at it and he tells you what he thinks it will take to fix it.  You don't like his idea, so you hire a second engineer to look at the building.  In this case, the second engineer is not reviewing the first one's work, and it doesn't violate that clause.  Quite often when doctors are looking for a second opinion, it's not a matter of one doctor reviewing another doctor's work, but of two doctors both looking at the same physical problem.  For a proper comparison to the engineering, you'd have to march into another doctor's office after your surgery, show him your scar, and ask "Well, what do you think of that?"

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

But I have to honestly say it seems like you are boiling this into a big issue when it just really isn't, in my view.

That's because you agree with the NSPE document, as written.

I don't.

It seems burdensome (what kind of documentation do I need to prove that I contacted the other engineer?), potentially inflammatory (as zdas04's story illustrates), and none of my business (what kind of relationship the client has with other professionals).

The story about the engineer who got into trouble for calling crap drawings "crap drawings" when he was asked for his opinion seems problematic to me.

I don't read the code of ethics as saying that I need to cc: the other engineer.

So the other engineer knows that I am reviewing their work.  That doesn't tell them what I am saying about their work.  And if the client is inclined to keep them out of the loop, they still won't know what I am saying about their work.

The level of "openness" by required the code of ethics may be just enough to create some of the problems that it is supposed to prevent.

Quote:

why the angst over this?

Because I wasn't sure why this prospect called me as opposed to having the original engineer make whatever changes he wanted.

If it was going to be a deal-breaker that he didn't want the other engineer to know about my involvement, I wanted to have a good reason why it should be a deal-breaker.

This might not be the last time that I run into this kind of thing.  It seems like it would be a good idea to have my ducks in a row if I need to tell a prospect that they are trying to entice me into an unethical act.

A reasonable question from the client at that point would be: "What is unethical about respecting my privacy?"

I don't have an answer that I believe in and matches the code of ethics.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Your OP didn't sound like they were asking for a redesign, "Will you take a look at this?"  Now, you're saying it's a redesign or changes to a design.

Again, the second clause has NOTHING to do with the size of the company.  In a two-person company, if one engineer has the job duty to check plans, then any plans that are generated internally, or submitted to the company are going to be reviewed, with the informed consent of the other engineer, or as part of the written contract with a subcontractor.  There is no discrepancy or conflict between the two clauses.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

Your OP didn't sound like they were asking for a redesign, "Will you take a look at this?"  Now, you're saying it's a redesign or changes to a design.

True enough.

I think the same provision in the code of ethics applies to both.


Quote:

Again, the second clause has NOTHING to do with the size of the company.

Okay.  It has to do with the type of the company.

Joe P.E. does an office HVAC project for a bunch of doctors.  They have no engineers on staff.

Jim P.E. does a similar project for Lucent Techologies.  They are a private-sector company.  I am not aware that they are required to make any review of Jim's design public in any way.  They may have P.E.s with PhDs who have time on their hands.

Jim's design might be torn to shreds by a team of PhDs over the course of weeks.  They might tell the purchasing agent: "We never want to see another one of Jim's designs -- ever!"  No one is required to tell Jim that anybody looked at his design.  They didn't make a "public" statement about Jim's work -- but they shut him out of consideration for future work at the largest employer in town anyway.

The doctors want to question the placement of one diffuser in Joe's design.  They call another engineer.  The second engineer is required to tell Joe that he is reviewing Joe's work.

What is wrong with this picture?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Nothing, in my opinion, but you have made your point well.  If you have a problem with this tenet, you should probably take it up with NSPE.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Again, the type of company is irrelevant.  You seem to insist on ignoring, "by their employment duties."  If the medical group is sufficiently large, they may well employ their own PE as well.  In ANY case, review is made with the full knowledge of the responsible engineer, either by direct contact, or through provision in the contract.  

A private practice engineer is NOT the customer, therefore he has no right to review anyone else's work, except at the behest of the actual customer.  A PE, employed by a company, who is the customer is the customer and not a disinterested third party.  

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Quote:

what kind of documentation do I need to prove that I contacted the other engineer?

A copy of your letter, or memo to file for your phone call.    Simple


Quote:

It seems…..none of my business (what kind of relationship the client has with other professionals)

This has nothing to do with the client’s relationship with the other engineer.  You simply tell the other engineer that you have been asked by the client to review his work.   Again…simple.


Quote:

The story about the engineer who got into trouble for calling crap drawings "crap drawings" when he was asked for his opinion seems problematic to me.

You are right – an engineer should simply provide the client with what he/she determines is the proper design.  Calling another engineering work “crap” is unprofessional, in my opinion.

And it has NOTHING to do with the notification to the other engineer that a review is being made.

The sentence directly before the notification section states:     Engineers shall not attempt to injure, maliciously or falsely, directly or indirectly, the professional reputation, prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers. Engineers who believe others are guilty of unethical or illegal practice shall present such information to the proper authority for action.

So calling someone’s design “crap” isn’t correct anyway.

Quote:

I don't read the code of ethics as saying that I need to cc: the other engineer.

You are again technically right.  The code of ethics states that you shouldn’t review another’s work “except with the knowledge of such engineer”.  How you go about verifying that the other engineer “knows” you are reviewing is simply something you should determine prior to the review.

Quote:

A reasonable question from the client at that point would be: "What is unethical about respecting my privacy?"

I don't have an answer that I believe in and matches the code of ethics.

The client, having a building designed in which the public safety is at stake, has no privacy related to the design, or to the profession that designs it.  This is not between client and engineer.

This is all between engineer and engineer.  You simply tell the client that the applicable code of ethics (if it is applicable where you are) compels you to notify the other engineer that HIS design is being reviewed.    

Now having said all this – I note that in Michigan, there is not replica of this ethics provision in the administrative rules.


RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

If the medical group is sufficiently large, they may
well employ their own PE as well.
Thus, the code of ethics discriminates against smaller (and/or non-technical) companies who are clients of engineers.

A mom and pop operation isn't likely to have engineers on staff and they aren't as likely to pay another fee for another engineer to become involved.  There probably isn't another engineer looking over the client's shoulder to keep the first engineer honest.  And the code of ethics prevents the mom and pop operation from getting any other engineering help (gratis or paid) without broadcasting it to the first engineer.

Quote:

A private practice engineer is NOT the customer, therefore he has no right to review anyone else's work, except at the behest of the actual customer.
What I do for a client after they hire me is "at the behest of the actual customer."

Quote:

A PE, employed by a company, who is the customer is the customer and not a disinterested third party.
Understood.

The type and/or size of the client is a huge indicator of whether there is a PE employed by the company and what kind of review a design might receive without raising red flags (someone who knows what they are doing is actually looking out for this client's interests) for the first engineer.

So I think that the code of ethics discriminates against clients who don't have their own engineers by prohibiting them from performing the same level of review in private that a client who does have engineers on staff can do in private.

Quote:

This has nothing to do with the client’s relationship with the other engineer.
"The very act of observing affects the observation."

It seems to me that it could complicate the client's relationship with the other engineer to let them know that another engineer is involved.

"Character is what you do when no one is looking."

Why should a professional insist on being told that someone is looking -- only in cases where it isn't obvious that someone might be looking?

Quote:

The sentence directly before the notification section states:
Engineers shall not attempt to injure, ... directly or indirectly, the ... prospects, practice, or employment of other engineers.
That would seem to preclude marketing efforts in a limited market -- any project that I win might be counted as a loss for someone else.

Quote:

So calling someone’s design “crap” isn’t correct anyway.
Agreed.

Quote:

The client, having a building designed in which the public safety is at stake, has no privacy related to the design, or to the profession that designs it.
A big chunk of privacy can go away when plans are filed.  Up until that time, it seems to me that the client is entitled to as much privacy as they want.  It is true for MegaCorp who has engineers in-house -- or brings one on-board temporarily to shepherd the project.  Why is a mom and pop operation not entitled to the same level of privacy?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

One of my employers designed a building renovation for one of their customers. After it was built, the owner turned on the HVAC system, which performed very badly. The owner asked both engineer (us) and the contractor to remedy the situation. We investigated and the contractor had changed the design significantly. The contractor said we designed it wrong. The owner refused to make a final payment to engineer and contractor until the building was made functional. Neither party budged. Finally, the owner hired another engineer who investigated and said that the 1st engineers design was good. So this is a case where the hiring of a 2nd engineer was of help in solving the problem.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

The client I refer to is the one who is contracting for the original design.  There is no discrimination against any companies or individuals.  

In ALL cases,  the engineer doing the original design is already aware of someone reviewing by virtue of the contract with a client who has their own engineers on payroll, or, by notification that their work is to be reviewed, in the case in of the client who separately contracts for an engineering review by a third party.  In all cases, a client would have "right to review" clause in their contract with the original designer, whether he employs his own engineers that do reviews as part of their duties, or he separately contracts a reviewer.

This is identical in nature to all military development contracts; we have specific design reviews at different points in the contract period to ensure that the contractor is progressing and is designing a compliant product.  No contractor is surprised to find that his design is to be reviewed.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Code of Ethics or not... as a common courtesy, I'd advise a fellow engineer/technologist that I was reviewing the work and would also expect another to provide the same courtesy.

I don't know the code of ethics per se... but I do know what is proper and improper and guide myself accordingly.

Dik

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)
According to what I understood from tonight's episode of "60 Minutes" on CBS, lawyers may be ethically-bound to put loyalty to a client ahead of justice being done.

At what point does the level of "courtesy" that I should (for reasons which remain unclear to me) extend to another engineer end?  If I should be "courteous" enough to tell them "I'm reviewing your work", then should I also be "courteous" enough to tell them what I have concluded about their work?  If not, why not?

Why does "courtesy" to a fellow engineer trump loyalty to a client?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Lawyers are advocates for their clients.  Engineers provide services, but these services do not include advocacy in a legal sense.  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.  You are correct that the codes of ethics for the different professions vary, and for good reasons based on long experience.   

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

It sounds, for some reason, that you have a personal vendetta against this tenet of the NSPE code which, as EddyC pointed out, is NOT legally binding. Find out what the rules for your state are, and abide by them--or move. I personally feel that it is common courtesy, and unless you're fishing for problems with the original engineer's work, there should be no reason not to contact him/her.

V


RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

You. in reviewing someone else's work, are been paid by the client, not the other engineer.  Your reports and conclusions are the property of the client.  The code of ethics simply requires you to esnure that the engineer being reviewed is aware of the review, period.  Giving your report and conclusions to the engineer would be a breech of contract, which is a legal matter.

TTFN

FAQ731-376: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

So why do you HAVE to inform the other engineer?  What are the ethical reasons?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Sigh.  The right reason to contact the first engineer is to make sure that some important detail has not been left out or forgotten, either on his part or yours, and thus to make sure the customer (and the customer's employees, the general publick, society at large...etc) receive the best possible (safest, cleanest, most economical) design possible.  Both parties cooperate, the customer is happy and pays both of you.  In theory.  Have some more of this free lemonade, while we're here.

But, if engineer #1 is a complete nimwit, or some large multinational corporation with a reputation for sabotaging the careers of small guys, send him/them an anonymous fax from the local copy store, or attached to a brick thru the front window, or as suggested above, ignore him/them completely.  Your choice.  Better yet, don't get involved in wrestling matches with pigs in the first place.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Melone:

The ethical reason is because that is what the code of ethics states.  As a PE, one would be bound by such a code.  Don't like it?  Don't be a PE.

Don't confuse ethics with touchy-feely this-is-what-feels-right personal morality.  Ethics is rules.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Star for you, Tick.

Well said, as usual.

V


RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)
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.

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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 ...?

Quote:

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.

  

Quote:

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.

Quote:

I personally feel that it is common courtesy
Because ...?

Quote:

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?"

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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"?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

According to Wikipedia, ethics is

Quote:

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?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Anon732,

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

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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".

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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

Quote:

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>

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Quote:

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.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

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 ...

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer



RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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.  

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

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?

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)
image from www.hiren.info
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.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

(OP)

Quote:

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.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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: Eng-Tips.com Forum Policies

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

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.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

This is a very interesting thread. Anon732 obviously raises an itresting point. Once personal view of right & wrong are defined by their life experiences and are unique to each individual. Situations where ethics are to be applied are never as black and white as in the examples that are provided with the code of ethics. Thus the question is rasied - who decides how we to decide what is the proper way to act and who gives these pepole the right to make these judgements?
One standard that might be applied is that we do not want to unfairly  damage someone. By applying the code of ethics, Anon732 feels he may be unfairly damaged by losing work from a client and worse having the client see him as non responsive. the easy answer is that we should explain our code to our clients and if they don't support us, then we should find more ethical clients. In truth we don't find clients, they find us, and losing a client, espeacily a major client can be devistating. On the the other hand say Anon 732 is hired to review my work for a plant I have worked at for several years. I do not know my work is being reviewed. I have calculations, but the notes are sketchy at best. I have done this for years and know why I do what I do. Anon reviews it and finds several code violations and reports back to management. They look at the report and say we are not using DRC1 again. Now I may have very good reasons why the code did not apply, and if I knew I could have explained. Now I have lost a major client. Anon is corect that we can not expect or non engineering clients to adopt our ethic code. Although I generally favor less government over more, perhaps we should expand the code to state that we will welcome or even encourage clients to have a peer review of our work, and that we will cooperate with a 2nd party review. There should be guidelines established on how both parties should act.
Just some thoughts

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

If there are code violations, then you should have clearly documented it.  You SHOULD be called on this type of thing.

What bothers me most, is the perceived "boys club" aspect of this rule.  Some claim that this is a way to regulate common decency, others may view it as a way for PE's to stick together.  I guess it depends on your ultimate view of people.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Some codes have methods to override requirements.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

There is a similar rule where I work, and it cheesed me off too. Why can't a client get their own independant review whenever they want? And what exactly is meant by "terminated?" Do I have go tell my coworker who got moved to a different project that I'm looking at his calcs?

This thread has motivated me to get a "textbook" answer to Anon's question, to at least see the reasoning behind the rule. See http://www.niee.org/pdd.cfm?pt=NIEE&doc=EthicsCases
 
The NSPE commentary for Case No. 79-7 states:
 

Quote:

the purpose of 12(a) is to provide the engineer whose work is being reviewed by another engineer the opportunity to submit his comments or explanation for his technical decisions,thereby enabling the reviewing engineer to have the benefit of a fuller understanding of the technical considerations in the original design in framing his comments or suggestions for the ultimate benefit of the client. (See Cases Nos. 68-6 and 68-11.)

The Utopian implication is that you'll want to give your reviewer every assistance possible, so that the two of you can work together make the best design possible. But even if the other reviewer is an "adversary," this gives you the option of providing some extra information and context. You might want to - even if only to head off some possible complaints.
 
There are similar ethical rules in Canada. I once read some solved case studies from British Columbia that seem to support this justification for the reviewing rule: the  cases studies included examples where an engineer makes an embarrassingly wrong conclusion because they fail to make a courtesy call and get all the necessary facts:

-In one case, an engineer asks to review some building plans, hoping to find fault and then steal the job. He criticizes the unecessarily thick walls as wasteful, without realizing that the walls are thick because the client intends to add additions to the building 5 years later. It's an egg-on-the-face moment that a phone call could have avoided.
-In another case, a software engineer writes a public letter criticizing a goverment water pumping scheme as over-sized, without realizing that design codes require sizing for a 10-year storm event. The engineer is almost sued for liable.
 
I don't live in the US, but personally I would interpret the big-industry/government "course of employment" waiver as: if you submit your work to a government agency or a company, knowing in advance that a review is intended, the individual worker who reviews your work doesn't have to call you. The point is that you are expecting the review and so will include all the information you want to in your submission package.

...at least, I hope that's what the intent of that wording is.
 
If an engineer gets offended at a review and starts attacking the reviewer, as in zdas04's case, then that's childish and unethical.
 
---

If that's the intent, we're still left with the valid question of if this rule is right or not. The code of ethics has some provisions to protect the public, some the client, some other engineers, and some yourself.

---

P.S. Two interesting NSPE cases:
-Case 83-6: The engineer sues the client, so the client hires a second engineer before the case is settled in court. The NSPE acknowledges that the engineer-client relationship is probably irreparably damaged, so even though the suing engineer is not yet 100% officially/completely terminated from the project, another engineer can come in and review without notification (although notification is still "encouraged.")
-Case 91-2: the client fires engineer A, and then hires B to look for faults in A's work. B's fee will be dependant on the court case against A. This doesn't run against the reviewing clause, but is against taking contingent fees that can impair your impartial professional judgement.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

Melone, granted that code deviations should be clearly documented, but they are not always. For example, we are working on a site that has a tight schedule. Codes and specifications clearly prohibit placing frozen ground. We were asked what could be done to improve the schedule. One suggestion was to use limited frozen materials in areas that were only going to be landscaped. If you were reviewing the project, you may not have had the documentation as this was communicated seperately. My point is that as elieble pointed out, the re are often places were the code is not or should not be applicable, I should have an opertunity to explain what was done.
My other point is that peer  review should be much more common than it is. It would a. gives us more work and b gives us a better quality product for our clients.

RE: Reviewing the work of another engineer

IRStuff... if my client doesn't want me to advise the other engineer, I would refuse the assignment...

Dik

Red Flag This Post

Please let us know here why this post is inappropriate. Reasons such as off-topic, duplicates, flames, illegal, vulgar, or students posting their homework.

Red Flag Submitted

Thank you for helping keep Eng-Tips Forums free from inappropriate posts.
The Eng-Tips staff will check this out and take appropriate action.

Reply To This Thread

Posting in the Eng-Tips forums is a member-only feature.

Click Here to join Eng-Tips and talk with other members!


Resources