What Do You Believe?

I once worked as subconsultant to an engineering firm that had been hired by a municipality to design a water treatment facility. The prime consultant (my client) had never designed a water treatment facility but had important political connections, and with my firm as part of the project team, could claim significant experience “in the field.”

As my firm began the preliminary fact-finding, information gathering, and planning phase of the work, I came to understand that the municipality had already engaged in conversations with a manufacturer of filtration equipment. In fact, the town board had been led to believe that this manufacturer provided the best value for their community. I was familiar with the equipment that the town board had seen and it was indeed viable. I was also familiar with a competing technology that, I believed, was a better “fit” for the size of plant required and the skill level of the people most likely to operate the plant. My experience had also been that the life-cycle cost of this competing technology would prove to be considerably lower than for the system the board had seen.

My recommendation to the town board that the alternative technology be utilized in their new treatment facility met with surprising skepticism and some outright objection! The board’s position was that other communities in the region were utilizing the filtration equipment they had seen and were generally satisfied with its performance. Further, the equipment manufacturer’s sales staff were known and liked in the region. The board had no interest in evaluating the recommended technology.

After weeks of developing construction budgets and operating models, many long hours of discussion, and a good bit of soul searching, I found myself at a decision point. I could: (1) accept the owner’s preference and design a treatment plant whose life-cycle cost and operating reliability were not, in my professional judgment, the best available; (2) prepare designs for and bid both systems to determine the soundness of my construction projections (at no increase in our previously agreed upon fee); or (3) ask that our firm be excused from the project.

My initial inclination was to simply ask to be excused. Why, I thought, would I continue in a project with an owner who was unwilling to objectively review facts and evaluate operations models? Did I really wish to continue participating in a public works project where decisions seemed to be made based on parochial favoritism and personal bias, ignoring facts? On the other hand, if I chose to remove our firm from the project, to quit, it seemed that my decision was based on the dual paradigm of self-satisfaction and expedience. I was not comfortable with this paradigm.

In discussions with people in my firm and with other professional colleagues, I was advised to “give them what they want.” It was, after all, proven technology and I had fulfilled my obligation to present the facts and explain my recommendations. It was pointed out to me that implementation of the technology represented almost no professional risk to my firm, especially under these conditions. And finally, I was reminded, “pioneers are always the ones who catch the arrows.” This advice seemed to me to be driven by cultural tradition (don’t “make waves”) and, as with the first scenario, a desire for self-satisfaction (in this case represented by risk avoidance). I was also uncomfortable with this paradigm.

I have claimed to support and uphold the ASCE’s “Code of Ethics” for over thirty years. The code’s second fundamental principle states: “Engineers uphold and advance the integrity, honor, and dignity of the engineering profession by being honest and impartial and serving with fidelity the public, their employers, and clients.” If this had been a private owner I believe it would have been my responsibility to develop, present, and explain the facts just as I had done for this town. But, at that point, it would have been my responsibility to implement the owner’s choice, whichever technology it utilized.

This was not, however, a private owner, but was instead a public body that was preparing to spend public funds it did not raise (90 percent of the project cost was to be paid using federal tax dollars). Because of that reality I did not believe that I could “serve the public with fidelity” by supporting what I professionally believed was an overly expensive public project. Since the town would not support my professional recommendation I saw no other way to uphold the code than to design and bid both options. The town’s unwillingness to adjust our fee did not, in my view, reduce my obligation to serve the public with fidelity.

We prepared and bid two independent designs for two different technologies.

I now invite you, the reader, to decide for yourself the course of action you would take. And, more importantly, I invite you to carefully and critically evaluate your chosen course and come to a better understanding of your true belief (in contrast to your claimed belief). I suggest that any option taken, with integrity, is appropriate. I also suggest that any option taken represents a statement of belief. The two questions that each of us must answer are:

• Is the action I am taking supportable in the context of my claimed beliefs?

• Am I comfortable with the belief that the action portrays?In my case, the answer to both questions was affirmative.

If you would like to share your thoughts regarding the decision-making process I have described, please respond to Dr. Charles Glagola, University of Florida, Dept. of Civil Engineering, 365 Weil Hall, P.O. Box 116580, Gainesville, FL 32611-6580; by e-mail, [email protected].