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.
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?
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.
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 ...?
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.
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.
I personally feel that it is common courtesy
Because ...?
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?"
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.
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:
If the code is so perfect, why was there ever a need to change it? Or have we finally "arrived"?
