Author Archives: saladoluis

Group 1 Revised Proposal: E126

Posted on by
3

E126: Ethics in Engineering and Business

Fall 2014, 4 units

Lecture: MW 10:00-11:00AM, C220 Cheit Hall

Discussion: F 2:00-4:00PM, C220 Cheit Hall

 

Course Description

  • Rarely can we separate ethical questions into either the realm of business ethics or the realm of engineering ethics. Engineers are frequently put in positions that affect business and vice versa, but we either seldom consider ethical issues from both an engineering and business perspective or believe that business and engineering ethics are disparate. In this class we will consider both business ethics and engineering ethics in an attempt to create a system of values to help facilitate students in their future endeavors. This course takes a hands-on approach to understanding ethics through the use of case studies and discussions with representatives from industry.  Assignments include individual reflections on case studies. Students will be asked to analyze theses case studies from both an engineering and business perspective and make conclusions that try to satisfy both.

 

Prerequisites

  • E125 or Haas equivalent – application and analysis skills practiced in E125 will be highly emphasized and used in this class

 

Objectives

  • Analyze ethical issues from both a business and engineering viewpoint rather than just an engineering or just a business perspective

  • Understand compromises between business and engineering from an ethical perspective.

  • Practice communication and presentation skills (especially about technical subjects to a nontechnical audience)

  • Be able to identify ethical dilemmas and have a basic familiarity with approaching the problem

  • Recognize and become familiar with different ethical philosophies

  • Reflect upon the current role of ethics in the engineering and business industries and how it is effective or can be changed

  • Differentiate between responsibility to self, society, government

 

Logistics

  • Piazza will be our main course tool. You will be able to download course materials and announcements.

  • We will go field trip on 11/27. Let me know if you cannot attend on the day. I can provide alternative way to fulfill the requirement.

  • You must create an Edublogs account for this course. All of your assignments will be submitted on this platform. For convenience, we will link the edublogs to a Facebook group page, where students can see everything posted on the edublogs page. Any posts that students make on the Facebook group will also show up on the Edublogs website.

  • There is no textbook for this class, save the Earth!

 

Assignments and Evaluation

Participation (35%)

Each student is expected to attend all lectures and discussion unless previously discussed with the instructor. The main purpose of this course is to develop your communication skills; active participation will be required, especially during discussions on Fridays. Since there will be 50 students in the class, and we only have 2 hours of discussion per week, students may gain participation points by posting their ideas on their Edublogs or the Facebook group page. There will be a post after every discussion section for students to reply with their input on the topic covered during class.

Written Essay Responses (20%)

Throughout the school year, we will be watching two films (topic of films to be decided based upon student voting in the beginning of the semester) and a written response reflection will be required for one of the films. (Although not mandatory, you may choose to write a response on the other film as well and the highest grade between the two reflections will be counted)There will also be a written midterm where students will have to reflect upon the differences and similarities (if there are any) between managerial and engineering ethics and whether the two have the same expertise and responsibilities.

Case Study Report (25%)

Students will form a group of 4 students and research an ethical case study of their choice. Each student will analyze the decisions made during the dilemma from both an engineering and business managerial viewpoint and compare and contrast the two. Students will then create a 20 minute presentation discussing their findings and lead a discussion with the class.

Interview Report (20%)

Near the middle of the course, students will be required to conduct an interview with an industry personnel (preferably one that has a technical background and has transitioned into management or vice versa). A list of questions will be provided to help you start the conversation but it is completely up to you what you want to get out of the interview.

CPA Students

Students who are interested in taking the Certified Public Accounting Examinations upon graduation are required to take 10 units of Ethics Related courses in addition to their Accounting and Business Related Courses. The Haas School of Business currently offers 7 units that count towards your Ethics Related course work. Engineering 126 will allow student to fulfill their CPA Ethics requirements with a course that covers topics they may experience in their professions after graduation.

Buy Cheap, Pay Dear

Posted on by
14

November 8, 2013

Hyatt Regency Walkway Collapse

On July 17, 1981, the Hyatt Regency Hotel in Kansas City hosted a tea-dance party in its atrium lobby. Many people were in attendance, filling the lobby and two walkways that were suspended above it. One walkway connected the fourth floor and the other walkway connected the second floor. The aggregate weight of people standing on the fourth floor’s and second floor’s walkway was too high for the connectors to hold, causing them to break and drop the fourth floor’s walkway on the second floor’s walkway and then falling to the lobby. Due to the accident, 114 people died and over 200 people were injured.  The hotel’s construction had been completed just one year before the accident occurred.

The cause of the collapse was the poor design that went into the walkways’ connectors. The connectors originally had a design that required a single rod system, but they were changed to have a two-rod system to simplify the assembly task. This caused the load on the connector to double which eventually caused it walkway to fall. The design was altered by the fabricators who were working with the engineers on the design team.

This case demonstrates different examples of conflict of interest. One in particular was the conflict of interest between the engineers and the owner (Crown Center Redevelopment Corporation) of the project. During lecture on November 4, Professor Scarlat asked if all firms were driven by profits, and in this case it seems like the owner was more concerned with the profits the hotel would generate than the safety of its structure. Ten months after construction was initiated, a portion of the roof collapsed due to failed connectors. An investigation was called in, but the contract dealt primarily with the investigation of the cause of the roof collapse and created no obligation to check any engineering or design work beyond the scope of the investigation and contract. As a result, the engineering team requested on-site project representation during the construction phase on three separate occasions however the requests were not acted on by the owner due to additional costs of providing on-site inspection. In my opinion, launching an investigation that re-evaluated the design of the failing parts would have been the ethical steps to take after the collapse. This step, however, could have delayed the construction of the hotel and driven up the cost of the project. Taking into account the fact that the Hyatt Regency was a client of the engineering team and the team was hired to provide a design given certain constraints such as time and a budget, is it ethical to follow your clients orders even though they may impose a risk on a person’s life? Who is accountable in this case (engineers for developing a weak design or the Hyatt Regency for not investing an on-site inspection).