Module: Engineering Professionalism (MECH 4201)

Programme:

 BEng (Hons) Mechanical Engineering (level IV)

 BEng (Hons) Industrial Engineering (level IV)
 BEng (Hons) Electrical and Electronics Engineering (level IV)
 BEng (Hons) Electrical and Communication Engineering (level IV)
 BEng (Hons) Chemical Engineering (minor: Environmental Engineering) (level IV)
 BEng (Hons) Chemical Engineering (minor: Energy Engineering) (level IV)

Assignment (Individual)
Objective: assess competencies for framing and resolving ethical problems.

Below are two case studies. Choose ONE of them as your assignment question and conduct
the following:

(i) Use brainstorming and mind mapping techniques for a rigorous extraction and analysis
of facts from the case. (You may wish to conduct a timeline analysis of the different
events in the case).
(ii) Identify the caveat areas with justification. State all your assumptions made (if any).
(iii) Frame the ethical dilemma from the ambiguity of the case.
(iv) Analyse the ethical obligations. You must support your analysis with ethics and
professionalism theories learnt (for example responsibility, trust, occupational safety
and health, sustainability, ethical design, public health, data analysis, use of IT,
confidentiality, intellectual property rights, legal compliance)
(v) Analyse the impacts of the different ethical obligations either in the short or long term
(vi) Discuss the potential options and their respective consequences.
(vii) Use a decision matrix to analyse the benefits of the different options and present your
preferred solution.

Submission

The submission deadline is Tuesday 7 April 2020 (before 9:00am).

The submission should be in hard copy with professional formatting, structuring, page
numbering, abstract and properly formatted diagrams or pictures.

All researched materials should be referenced (both in-text and list of references).

You are requested to use the Harvard Style of Referencing.

Late submission will NOT be accepted.

Case study 1

Background
Being the sole engineer in my discipline at a large company certainly had its
advantages. It was difficult for people to disagree with me, I was generally able to get involved
in everything, and I was, in a way, able to be my own boss. This was simply because most
people around me did not understand the technical aspects of the components I was designing.
Of course, these advantages can also be disadvantages. If I ever had questions or needed
help with a design, I was then on my own. Like in any other profession, just because an
engineer holds a specific title (electrical, mechanical, etc.), it does not mean they understand
every aspects of that discipline. For instance, a mechanical engineer who has experience in
designing pistons may not understand the finer technical aspects of designing a suspension
system. Because of this, being a sole engineer in a company can hence be a challenge.

I was working for a consumer products company where I designed lighting systems for
the products. Like most companies that design and manufacture their own products, there
were certain milestones that needed to be completed to complete the development process
before the product can be sent to production. In addition, there are certifications that need to
be obtained from regulatory agencies like UL, SAE, and CE. Product development cycles at
companies are generally aggressive and rely on very few failures occurring. If at any point the
development timeline, cost, etc. slips, upper management must sign off on the changes.
Hence, the engineering department must work very carefully to ensure no mistakes are made
otherwise key performance parameters will be missed.

Designing Components
I was in the middle of the design phase for a new product. I was designing the electrical
power supplies to help power lighting systems. With my background, I did not have in depth
understanding of the regulations needed to pass UL tests to certify the safety of the power
supply. In addition, I was working with a supplier who did not have a history of designing this
type of product. I reluctantly signed up for an aggressive timeline and cost target of the
product, knowing that I was potentially setting myself up for failure. With this thought at the
back of my mind, I submitted several components, schematics, and specifications to UL testing
labs to verify that my power supply plans would meet the existing regulations. I knew that if
that power supply failed, the entire project would not meet regulations and consequently
production would be delayed. In addition, I had management breathing down my neck to
provide constant information on this key component. I was exasperated with how often
management asked me for status updates. My only response was, “I am pushing UL as hard
as I can, but you have to understand we are a small customer of theirs, especially their
electronics division.” Management did not accept this reply; honestly though, there was not
much else I could do. The entire UL certification process took about eight weeks, so if I missed
any step, the process would have to start all over again and the project timeline would slip.

The Design Error

I remember the afternoon very clearly. I was testing some components in the environmental
chambers when I received a phone call from UL. I answered the phone, “Engineering, this is
Chris”. The person replied on the phone, “Chris, this is Juan from UL, we encountered some
problems with the power supplies you submitted.” Immediately my heart sank, as Juan begins
to explain that the proposed enclosure (that I chose to save money, of course) was causing
issues during testing. Juan stated he was going to put testing on hold until a new solution was
provided. He also stated that, depending on the changes, UL might need to have the whole
paperwork resubmitted for fresh testing. I hung up the phone and put my hands over my face.
My inability to grasp the specification was going to cause a major delay in the validation of the
power supply. To make matters worse, I did not have a single clue how to fix this issue. I
called the supplier Jim and told him the bad news about the enclosure. He stated that he had
a solution, but it had some safety risks. Jim proposed that we insert a protective lining on the
inner walls of the enclosure so that the enclosure meets the test requirements; however, there
was a greater risk for safety issues arising down the line. Jim stated that nobody would know
that we made a mistake. I asked him whether there were any alternatives; and he said, “Yes,
to design a new enclosure. But that would add major delays and costs to the project”. The
worst part about this would be that I would have to admit that I made a mistake that caused
major delays in the program. What was I supposed to do?
Case study 2

Background
Working in the engineering department of consumers products can be a fun and

rewarding experience. Probably the best part of this experience is working on products and

innovative ideas long before the product has been introduced on the market. The product

development process takes a very large amount of time, resources, and testing to ensure that

products are safely designed before they are released to consumers. Because of this,

numerous prototypes and production replicas are created and are subjected to various tests

and validation exercises during the development process. The size of the project and cost

generally determines the number of prototypes that are created and tested. Hence, when a

project is complete, prototypes, worth thousands of dollars, are generally left aside.

Sometimes these prototypes are destroyed from testing but occasionally some of these units

are still in perfect condition. Most companies have a disposal policy to destroy and dispose of

test units. Although, it seems ridiculous to destroy perfectly good units, it prevents the

likelihood of questionable units from reaching the market.

The Issue
We had just designed an innovative new product that was about to be released. This

was one of the best products that our group had ever created. It would outshine the

competition from the performance, cost, and efficiency aspects. Consequently, there was a

lot of excitement surrounding the product and employees were eager to use it. I had just

completed the final test of the product and was busy completing the test report when suddenly

Roger, an engineering manager from another division, approached me. Roger asked me what

was planned to be done with the left-over test units; I told him that I had not thought of that yet.

I said that I would eventually dispose of them as per the usual practice but I had not yet got

around to that, since the final tests had just been completed. Roger said he needed these left-

overs to be removed so that he could send other products to the lab for testing. He said he
would gladly assist in removing and disposing of the current left-over. Although Roger’s offer

was unusual, I did not think anything of it and gladly accepted his help.

“Disposal of the Test Unit”

I stayed later than usual that night, to finish up my test report and before I went home,

I quick ran to the bathroom, which I reached by walking by the shipping department. As I was

walking back from the bathroom, I was not expecting anybody else to be around. To my

surprise, I noticed that Roger had backed his truck to the docking station. I was not sure what

was going on, but I noticed that Roger was loading the unit that I had finished testing into his

truck. It finally dawned on me why he was so eager to help me out with the disposal of the

unit; it was because he was going to take it for himself! Roger was my superior and accusing

him of stealing a unit could have a tremendous negative impact on my career. What was I

supposed to do?
 University of Mauritius
Faculty of Engineering
Mechanical and Production Engineering Department

Engineering Professionalism (MECH 4201)

Academic Year 2019 / 2020
Evaluation sheet

Student Id:

NOTE:
0 – no work, 1 – some attempt, 2 – elementary efforts, 3 – satisfactory efforts, 4 – good work, 5 – excellent work
Criteria Criteria details Evaluation Remarks
Understanding of the The student is able to read and fully understand the
case study case study and thus able to use brainstorming and
timeline analysis on the ideas in the text. He / she is
able to identify the different stakeholders and their
respective roles in the case study.
Extraction of facts from The student is able to extract the different facts from the
the case case study and assess their relevance for Engineering
Professional Ethics. He / She is also able to depict and
analyse the facts using a mind map.
Making assumptions The student is able to identify caveat or areas which
lack critical information and is thus able to formulate
relevant assumptions.

Framing of the ethical The student is able to have a multi-perspective view

problem and identify why there is an ethical dilemma, the
responsibilities of the different stakeholders and the
rationale for solving the problem.
Literature review The student has carried out adequate and relevant
literature review to better understand the perspectives
of the different ethical issues in the case study.

Assessment of the The student is able to assessment the different

different obligations obligations (in terms of health and safety, sustainability,
public health, IPR, ethical design, confidentiality, use of
data and IT) to solve the ethical dilemma
Development of options The student is able to formulate different options based
for improving the on his prior analysis of facts and use of literature
handling review.

Analysis of the The student is able discuss and analyse the short-term
consequences of the and long-term consequences of the different options on
options the career of the affected person, the organization
concerned, the other stakeholders involved and other
general interests.
Ability to analyse the The student is able to analyse the benefits of the
benefits of the different different proposed options using a decision matrix. The
options before criteria for evaluation are backed by literature review.
formulating the most
appropriate
recommendation.
Clear recommendations The student is able to explicitly explain the most
supported by a relevant recommendations and the details of their
proposed plan for respective implementation.
implementation

Total marks (A): / 50

Total marks:
Total marks (A) =

- Penalty marks (poor formatting – max 5 marks) = -

- Penalty marks (poor language – max 5 marks) = -

- penalty marks (poor referencing – max 5 marks) = -

Total marks =