View
215
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
7/27/2019 To Protest or Not
1/228 www.tcetoday.com april 2012
tce OPINION
What can you dowhen orders from your
superiors conflict withengineering rationale?Harvey Deardenadvises
And yet
Professional integrity is
what no man can give youand none can take away.Professional integrity is anengineers gift to himself.
IN 1633 Italian astronomer, physicist
and philosopher Galileo was forced to
retract his view that the earth was not
the fixed point at the centre of the universe,
which at the time was contrary to the
teachings of the Roman Catholic church.
The Inquisition (the churchs tribunal
to combat non-believers) found him
vehemently suspect of heresy and he spent
the rest of his life under house arrest. There
is an apocryphal story that after recanting
his theory he muttered the phrase Eppur
si muove (And yet it moves). Its unlikely
that Galileo actually said this, but he surely
must have thought it.
While this might, at first sight, appear as a
quaint historical story, well removed from
our modern sophisticated culture, thereis nothing quaint about it. It was a highly
significant episode in the history of science,
and it is representative of a commonplace
dilemma for professional engineers in the 21st
century the engineering rationale points
one way, the political pressure in another. Be
alert for this dilemma (it may come in many
guises), and be prepared to jealously guard
your engineering integrity.
Note that I do not insist on a refusal to
compromise. There are many circumstances
where compromises are an intelligent
response to competing demands, andexpediency may be a valid consideration.
It may be appropriate to compromise on
the engineering execution in order to meet
the wider project objectives. There is a
legitimate debate to be had whenever the
execution specifics conflict with the broader
project objectives in terms of, for example,
cost, deadlines and contractual obligations.
Compromises on the engineering execution
might well be appropriate. However, the
question will remain as to whether the
proposed compromise is in the best interests
of optimal project delivery or someones
personal agenda, whether declared or not.
getting personalPersonal agendas might be based on avoiding
responsibility; saving face; securing a larger
budget; acquiring more influence; or
inflating importance.
I do not say that all such objectives are
necessarily suspect. Its when they conflict
with good engineering that they become
unworthy. Some engineers, as well as
journalists, will not allow the facts to get in
the way of a good story (personal agenda).
You might be urged to pursue one course
over another, and thats fine as long as there
is an honest debate about the merits of each.
But if youre ever invited to turn a blind eye
or disregard engineering rationale then
you must recognise this as a test of your
professional integrity.
Here I may bend a line concerning
honour from the 1995 film Rob Royto my
purpose: Professional integrity is what noman can give you and none can take away.
Professional integrity is an engineers gift
to himself. It follows then, that an engineer
can only lose his integrity if he chooses to
give it away (or sell it).
challenging the nonsenseAlthough typically there are levels of
seniority and authority within engineering
enterprises, most do not have a military-
style chain of command. Were not required
to execute orders unquestioningly; on the
contrary, there is a professional obligation to
challenge orders if they do not make sense.
(I intend no criticism of the military here; its
approach is necessary to its role.)
If an instruction does not make sense to
you, there are only a few reasons for that:
you have not understood;
your boss has not understood; or
your boss has a personal agenda.
If you havent understood, then you
should seize the continuing professional
development (CPD) opportunity. If
your boss has not understood, then you
should diplomatically highlight the CPD
opportunity to your boss. If you suspect
your boss has a personal agenda, then you
should tread warily and look to defend your
professional integrity.
If the transgression is wilful and
7/27/2019 To Protest or Not
2/2
april 2012 www.tcetoday.com 29
CAREERS tceOPINION
deliberate, rather than inadvertent or
misguided, then a formal complaint may
be called for; but be sure of wrongful intent.
Ultimately, if serious matters of safety or
corruption are involved, maintening yourintegrity requires that you blow the whistle
long and hard. More typically youll meet
issues of misalignment rather than outright
corruption. Perhaps most insidious is
the unthinking insistence on compliance
with some tradition/standard/guidance,
where there is no consideration of the
context, the underpinning engineering
rationale, or the wider implications.
Compliance is generally held to be a good
thing, but if inappropriate it will distort the
engineering.
stripping out the spinSo what if youre being pressured to
compromise the engineering for no worthy
reason? Its all very well taking a stand,
but the personal consequences might
be profound. Perhaps the best approach
is to not vociferously protest (unless the
transgression is blatant), but rather to
summarise the considerations as a matter
of record without spin, without point
scoring, and without rancour; a simple
summary statement of the engineering
considerations with an acknowledgement
of where judgement is required.
This will highlight any misaligned
behaviour. It will prevent distorted
engineering being deliberately
camouflaged. If others choose to
misrepresent matters, that is their affair; if
this leads to waste or inefficiency, well at
least you did what you could to make the
position clear.
If you find yourself obliged to implement
some distorted instruction or policy, then
feel free to mutter And yet it moves, and
recognise that you take your place in a long
history of denials in the face of evidence.tce
Harvey Dearden (htdearden@tdsl.org.uk)
runs consultancy Time Domain Solutions
get that Galileofeeling?
Ever
Recommended