WHAT TO DO Student shared the topic, instruction and draft Student did some work, which is attached there You need to make it in 800 - 1000 words, in a more

organised way. If any correction is required do it/n/n What's the Angle? (Case 1010) The mission of the National Institute for Engineering Ethics (NIEE) is to promote ethics in engineering practice and education. One component of NIEE is the Applied Ethics in Professional Practice (AEPP) program, providing free engineering ethics cases for educational purposes. The following case may be reprinted if it is provided free of charge to the engineer or student. Written permission is required if the case is reprinted for resale. For more cases and other NIEE Products & Services, contact the National Institute for Engineering Ethics, Purdue University, www.niee.org. (All reprints must contain these statements) The Case: Julie Adams is the sole proprietor of a small, but successful, structural engineering firm in a large, older city in the Midwest. Her success is the result of a lot of hard work for more than ten years, as well as establishing excellent relations with her clients. One of the specialty areas that has evolved in her practice has been the renovation of major historic commercial buildings, many in the downtown financial district of the city. Julie has been asked to do a structural survey of the Inverness Block, an old, well-recognized, seven-story granite-faced building in the financial district close to several other buildings which her firm has investigated for renovations in the past. One of her largest clients, Charles A. Smith, is in the final stages of negotiations to sell the Inverness Block to a group of foreign investors represented by Sam Goldworthy, a local attorney. This sale is very important to Smith because it is the last of his properties to be put on the market, and represents the liquid capital he needs to retire to a 30-acre estate he has acquired on Grand Cayman Island, where there is a most advantageous tax structure. In order to wrap up some of the final details and firm up the purchase price (which at present is quite generous), Sam Goldworthy has requested a structural survey of specific building elements, including the outdated window casements, among others. Mr. Smith agrees to have the survey completed, and negotiates a fair price with Julie Adams to do the work. They sign an agreement which contains Smith's usual clause that “all information discovered by the engineer shall become the property of the client (Smith) and shall not be released to others without the client's express written consent." Since Julie is personally tied up with overseeing several structural design projects and she understands that the results of the proposed survey are crucial to completing the purchase negotiations for the building before the established deadline, she assigns Brock Williams, one of her most experienced structural engineers, to proceed with the survey of the Inverness Block. Brock proceeds immediately, covers all of the workscope items required, except for inspection of the window casements, which he saves until last. When he gets to the window casements, they appear to be in excellent shape. However, since there is so much money involved in the purchase negotiations, he decides to dismantle three units at random for a better determination. With permission from Mr. Smith, Brock carefully dismantles one of the units and uses a flashlight to look into the wall cavity to see how the windows are attached. A steel strap for anchoring the windows is clearly visible in the uncovered space. As he is about to replace the dismantled window unit, Brock notices that the three-inch exterior granite veneer is attached to the building by clip angles welded to the steel building frame, typical of an early example of stone-cladding on steel-frame construction. In the beam of the flashlight, the clip angle within reach appears to be rusted. Curious as to the extent of this apparent corrosion, Brock reaches into the space, grasps the clip angle and, to his horror, finds that it breaks off in his hand without any significant pressure. Looking closer at the fracture, he determines that the clip is rusted virtually through the entire cross section. Immediately the implication of his discovery dawns on Brock, since if this condition is typical throughout the building, the cost of repairs could approach the value of the building itself. As he muses about this unwelcome discovery, he glances down to the street level and busy sidewalk below, and involuntarily shudders, imagining the potential damage and injury which could be caused if one or more of the granite veneer blocks were to become dislodged and fall. Realizing that this rusted clip angle may only be an isolated instance, he quickly dismantles the remaining two window units, only to discover the same situation with the clip angles within reach. Based on this evidence, it appears that the exterior granite veneer blocks are merely stacked on one another, with very little attachment to the building frame. Working late that night, Brock finishes his written report covering only the specific items required in the contract scope of work. The first thing in the morning, he hands the report to Julie Adams, and orally advises her of his findings regarding the rusted clip angles, which were not specifically part of their scope of work. She in turn makes an appointment with Charles Smith and delivers the report to him in person that afternoon. At the same time, she advises Smith of the clip angle situation. Smith thanks Julie for giving him the information, compliments her on doing a thorough job, as usual, and says that the written report will be passed on to Goldworthy, as requested. He then indicates that he has other important matters to attend to and quickly ends the meeting. On the way back to the office, Julie goes over her conversation with Smith in her mind, and is bothered by the sudden termination of the meeting. As a result, she calls Smith on the telephone as soon as she gets back to her office, indicating that the condition of the exterior cladding is a far more important issue than any of the items covered in the written report. Charles Smith tells her that he appreciates her concern, but the purchase deal is too far along to do anything about it. Since the buyers and their representative have had access to the building for several months, they could have investigated and determined the condition of the granite cladding themselves. In fact, they may already know about it and have accounted for it in their financial offer of purchase. If not, it will turn up on one of the required periodic building checks in the future, if it is really a substantial problem. In addition, he says that the deal is now ready to close the following afternoon, and her cooperation in seeing things his way will result in additional work on other projects in the future. Besides, if she will feel more comfortable, he will give her a confidential letter confirming that she had fully informed him of the cladding situation. Not knowing what else to say, she murmurs her assent. That night, Julie presents the situation to her husband for his comments. After hearing the story, he indicates that these things happen all the time, and it is the responsibility of the buyer to be satisfied with regard to the condition of the building. Besides, having Smith complete the deal successfully has serious implications about the future of her business relationship with him, and therefore serious implications regarding the future success of her company. After all, there are the fifteen other people working for Julie, as well as their families, to think of. Making an issue of the situation, or even worse going public, would only destroy that relationship with Smith, and could jeopardize her business. Besides, in the heat of the moment she accepted the information given her by Brock, but since she did not observe the clip angles personally, can she be sure that Brock's conclusions were accurate? What should Julie do, if anything? Alternate Approaches and Survey Results for "What's the Angle?" (Case 1010) 1. 2. Do nothing more. The report has been written and delivered in accordance with the contracted scope of work, which did not include inspection of the granite veneer clip angles. In addition, the client, Mr. Smith, has been notified of the condition of the clip angles observed, and it is his responsibility to deal with that information as he feels appropriate. Also, the contract specifically required that "all information discovered by the engineer shall become the property of the client and shall not be released to others without the client's express written consent." Percentage of votes agreeing: 4% Do nothing more. There is no evidence that the rusted clip angle situation is widespread. It is reasonable to deduce that the clip angles closest to the window casements would be the ones most exposed to moisture entering the wall cavity because the window casements are old, and while 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. structurally sound, most likely leak a fair amount around the outside. Julie might recommend that the window casements be caulked from the outside, if Smith feels it to be appropriate. Percentage of votes agreeing: 0% Do nothing more. Mr. Smith has indicated that the purchase deal is too far along to do anything about it at this late date. Additionally, the new owners are equally responsible since they had access to the building for several months and may even know of the problem themselves. Not everything is disclosed between buyer and seller in these sorts of negotiations. If not, one of the periodic building checks will pick up the clip angle defect in the future. The new owners will be in a much better position to handle the corrective action at that time, since they will not be rushed by a deadline and will not have to do a haphazard repair job. Percentage of votes agreeing: 1% Do nothing more. Mr. Smith has said that he will write Julie a confidential letter to her indicating that she notified him of the situation, and if, by chance, anything should happen in the future, the letter will prove she acted in a professional manner by informing Smith of the situation. Julie certainly cannot be responsible for contracting for the repair work and certifying that every granite block in the building has been repaired. She runs an engineering firm, and is not a building repair contractor nor does she own the property. In addition, Smith indicated that he has additional business for Julie's firm in the future, and it would be a poor business decision to jeopardize the well-being of her staff by incurring Smith's ire. Percentage of votes agreeing: 6% Amend the report to clearly state the elements of work that her firm was retained to complete, and add a list of items that were specifically excluded from their services (probably six to eight items long) so that it is clear when the probable accident happens that the cladding anchors/clips were not meant to be examined as part of her firm's scope of services. Percentage of votes agreeing: 4% Write a separate report to Smith describing the condition of the observed clip angles, recommending that the building be closed immediately and the adjacent sidewalks and portions of streets which could be effected by falli granite veneer blocks be cordoned off. Indicate that as the structural engineer, she has an ethical duty to protect the health, safety and welfare of the public. This is a matter of responsibility to the public, which takes precedence over contract clauses requiring confidentiality. Percentage of votes agreeing: 23% Approach Smith again and recommend that she be retained to make additional clip angle observations throughout the building to determine the 8. 9. extent of the problem. If it is localized adjacent to the window casements, or only near a few window casements (perhaps on the side of the building most exposed to wind and rain), it will not be a major issue to rectify, even though it may delay closing the purchase and sales agreement for a period of time. It is quite possible that Brock Williams may have over-emphasized his perception of the problem due to the time constraint to complete the inspection project, and the fact that he only made observations at three locations. Percentage of votes agreeing: 23% The public safety issue, if there is one in this case, is the responsibility of the owner (Smith), unless Julie is certain there is imminent danger to the public. Therefore, informing the owner is all that is necessary. Percentage of votes agreeing: 1% Make an after-hours telephone call to Goldworthy's office and leave a voice message suggesting that he defer closing the deal until he has his own independent structural assessment made, if he hasn't already had one done. Percentage of votes agreeing: 1% 10. Immediately consult with her attorney to ascertain her 'legal' position concerning the release of information to persons other than her client, in violation of the provisions of her contract with Mr. Smith. She could be committing a breach of her contract with Smith which could lead to an expensive law suit. Percentage of votes agreeing: 11% 11. Tell Smith that it may be necessary to confer with the local building officials, and he should consider doing this sooner than later, if for no other reason than to inform them of what has transpired and what steps (if any) are being taken to determine the extent of the perceived problem. While panic is not warranted at this point, due diligence is. Percentage of votes agreeing: 11% 12. Inform the city building official personally of Brock's findings. The most important goal is getting the building repaired immediately. Further, Julie Adams's self-interest is to preserve and enhance her hard-earned reputation, which will crumble if the granite blocks fall. Percentage of votes agreeing: 2% 13. Tell Smith that if he does not inform the city building official of the condition of the exterior veneer clips as observed by Brock within 24 hours, she will do so herself. Percentage of votes agreeing: 10%/n Individual Assignment #2: Ethics Exploration ECE49401 - Professional Communication Capstone - Fall 2023 Background: Ethical decisions will be a regular part of your work life, and making good decisions is easier when you've had opportunities to think about the options, outcomes, and ramifications associated many different kinds of ethical situations and dilemmas. In this unit, you've explored your own ethical views, professional codes, and some philosophical frameworks, and you analyzed an ethics case for our most recent discussion activity. This assignment builds and extends on this previous learning through a more in-depth analysis of a specific case or issue in your area. Overview: This assignment asks you to reflect on key ethical quandaries in your technical area, synthesize the information from this unit, and apply it to the kinds of ethical situations you might encounter in the future. To complete this assignment, you will select a new case study or issue and analyze it using the describe/interpret/evaluate method you practiced in Discussion #4. Your analysis should be at least five paragraphs in length, following the format provided below. Partner Option: If you would like to complete this assignment with a partner, you are welcome to do so. You will need to find someone (NOTE: IT MUST BE SOMEONE FROM YOUR GROUP!) interested in the same case or topic, and then work collaboratively on the write-up. Working together may introduce new challenges since you will need to explore contrasting perspectives - but this can be a valuable learning experience. If you complete this assignment with a partner, ONE of you should turn in the assignment on Brightspace with BOTH names in the header. By working on and submitting the assignment together, you agree to accept the same grade. Length Guideline: Approximate length of this assignment is 800-1,000 words. It will probably be difficult to do a thorough job in less than 800 words. More than 1,000 words is okay, but make sure you edit for concision and have good justification for a higher word count. Submissions written by partners may be a bit longer, on average, in order to reflect multiple perspectives. Assignment Structure: Your write-up should follow the structure outlined below. Deviating from this framework will make for more difficult grading, and could negatively impact your score. Paragraph 1: Introduction – Identify the specific technical field(s) or area(s) that you would like to work in as you look ahead to your career and/or graduate studies. Your description should be accessible to a non-specialist, and provide details or examples that convey the scope or focus of the field(s) or area(s) in question. You are encouraged to discuss what attracts you to a given field, area, career path, industry sector, company, etc. Finally, what are some of the biggest ethical issues or concerns associated with work in the field(s) or area(s) in question, in general? • Paragraph 2: Description (What?) – Introduce and describe the specific case or issue you are analyzing. Remember that this should be a factual description: What key events or incidents are at the heart of this case or issue? Who or what is or was involved, or likely to be involved? What specifically has happened, or could happen, and what particular ethical issues or concerns have already been raised or suggested? NOTE: You will need to ground and support your factual description with TWO OR MORE quality sources, properly cited. Paragraph 3: Interpretation (So what?) – Who are the key stakeholders involved with and/or relevant to this case or issue, and what are (or might) their interests or goals be? • Paragraph 4: Evaluation (Now what?) – Formulate at least TWO possible courses of action or paths forward for the given case or issue. Make sure you clearly identify and justify each recommendation by referring to relevant ethical resources, frameworks, or justifications (e.g., ethics codes, philosophical frameworks, laws or regulations, personal beliefs or values, etc.). Also note that you can agree, disagree, or modify any recommendations or conclusions from prior analyses or commentaries, should such information be available. ● Paragraph 5: Reflection – What have you learned from your exploration and analysis of this case or issue, and/or the ethics unit more generally? To what extent are you prepared for encounters with the kinds of situations or issues that you've explored this semester? What knowledge and skills might you develop to prepare yourself for the ethical aspects of your work? What can we do to better prepare ECE students for such realities? (Some stakeholders and interests may be vague or implied.) What actors or organizations have power and influence, and which do not? What do you think are the most important ethical considerations, issues, or dilemmas associated with this case or issue? Be as specific as possible here, and try to unpack and describe at least 2-3 discrete ethical issues. Format: Your write-up should adhere to the following requirements: Include a header with title, author(s), date, and word count All text in 12 pt Times or 11 pt Arial font ● ● ● Semi-formal tone and professional communication style Appropriate use of complete sentences, paragraph breaks, transitions, etc. Cite all sources in-text and include a complete reference list (APA or IEEE format) Additional Guidelines and Tips: The case or issue you explore needs to be reasonably focused. For example, “ethics of autonomous vehicles” is much too broad, while “ethical dimensions of GM subsidiary Cruise testing self-driving vehicles on public roads” is much more appropriately scoped. The case or issue you explore must be a real-world example, NOT hypothetical or fictional. It also needs to be in your area of technical specialization or interest, and grounded and supported using trustworthy and relevant source materials. (Therefore, most of the cases suggested for Discussion Activity #4 are off limits for this assignment.) If you are looking for case inspiration, web sites and searches like these may be helpful: O https://www.enr.com/topics/121-ethics-corruption O https://www.sciencedaily.com/news/science_society/ethics/ O https://news.google.com/search?q=engineering%20ethics Deadlines: A preliminary case/topic statement is due Wed., November 15. We will review and give feedback on these by Wed., November 22. The final write-up is due Fri., December 1. Grading: This assignment is worth 20% of your semester grade. We strongly recommend that you review the provided grading rubric for additional details about how this assignment will be evaluated.