Overview View Extraction
Draft Continue to Step 4

PASS 3: Temporal Dynamics

Case 12: Competence in Design Services

Extraction Complete
Total Entities: 21
Actions: 6
Events: 4
Causal Chains: 4
Allen Relations: 6
Timeline: 10
Timeline Overview
Note: The timeline includes only actions and events with clear temporal markers that could be sequenced chronologically.
Timeline Elements: 10
Actions on Timeline: 6 (of 6 extracted)
Events on Timeline: 4 (of 4 extracted)
Temporal Markers
  • before construction season 1 elements
  • before construction began 1 elements
  • Before advertising 1 elements
  • Before contract pursuit 1 elements
  • during advertisement period 1 elements
  • during bidding process 1 elements
  • after bidding process 1 elements
  • during construction problems 1 elements
  • After lobbying 1 elements
  • After construction began 1 elements
Temporal Consistency Check
Valid
Extracted Actions (6)
Volitional professional decisions with intentions and ethical context

Description: County A decided to advertise for consulting services only locally despite needing specialized roadway design expertise.

Temporal Marker: before construction season

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Support local businesses and expedite procurement

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Local economic support
Guided By Principles:
  • Local preference policy
Required Capabilities:
Procurement management Policy implementation
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Cost savings and supporting local business community

Ethical Tension: Economic efficiency vs technical competence requirements

Learning Significance: Procurement decisions must balance local preferences with technical needs

Stakes: Public safety, project quality, taxpayer money

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Advertise regionally for specialized expertise
  • Partner with state DOT for technical oversight

Narrative Role: inciting_incident

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Local_Advertising_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Advertise regionally for specialized expertise",
    "Partner with state DOT for technical oversight"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Cost savings and supporting local business community",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Higher costs but better expertise pool",
    "Shared resources and quality assurance"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Procurement decisions must balance local preferences with technical needs",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Economic efficiency vs technical competence requirements",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "inciting_incident",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, project quality, taxpayer money",
  "proeth:description": "County A decided to advertise for consulting services only locally despite needing specialized roadway design expertise.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Limited pool of qualified consultants"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Local economic support"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Local preference policy"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "County A (Government Entity)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Local policy vs competent services",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Policy preference overrode competence considerations"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Support local businesses and expedite procurement",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Procurement management",
    "Policy implementation"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "before construction season",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Public safety through competent engineering"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Local Advertising Decision"
}

Description: Engineer B decided to bid on roadway design work despite lacking relevant experience in that engineering discipline.

Temporal Marker: during advertisement period

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Secure revenue to address financial difficulties

Guided By Principles:
  • Business survival
Required Capabilities:
Roadway design expertise Traffic engineering knowledge Pavement design
Within Competence: No
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Financial desperation and hope to expand practice areas

Ethical Tension: Personal financial needs vs professional competence obligations

Learning Significance: Engineers must not undertake work beyond their competence regardless of circumstances

Stakes: Professional integrity, public safety, career reputation

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Seek partnership with roadway engineer
  • Focus on securing water/wastewater work

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Incompetent_Bidding_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Seek partnership with roadway engineer",
    "Focus on securing water/wastewater work"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Financial desperation and hope to expand practice areas",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Shared expertise and responsibility",
    "Slower income but maintained competence"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Engineers must not undertake work beyond their competence regardless of circumstances",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Personal financial needs vs professional competence obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional integrity, public safety, career reputation",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B decided to bid on roadway design work despite lacking relevant experience in that engineering discipline.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Risk of inadequate design quality"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Business survival"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Water/Wastewater Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Financial pressures vs professional competence",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Financial pressures overrode professional competence requirements"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Secure revenue to address financial difficulties",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Roadway design expertise",
    "Traffic engineering knowledge",
    "Pavement design"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "during advertisement period",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Professional competence",
    "Public safety",
    "Honesty about capabilities"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": false,
  "rdfs:label": "Incompetent Bidding Decision"
}

Description: Engineer B actively lobbied the County Commission to secure the contract award despite lacking qualifications.

Temporal Marker: during bidding process

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Influence contract award in their favor

Guided By Principles:
  • Business advocacy
  • Political influence
Required Capabilities:
Business development Political communication
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Desperation to secure income and overconfidence in ability to learn

Ethical Tension: Self-interest vs honest representation of qualifications

Learning Significance: Active misrepresentation of competence violates fundamental professional duties

Stakes: Professional license, public trust, legal liability

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Honestly disclose limited roadway experience
  • Withdraw from consideration

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Commission_Lobbying_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Honestly disclose limited roadway experience",
    "Withdraw from consideration"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Desperation to secure income and overconfidence in ability to learn",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Likely contract loss but maintained integrity",
    "No income but no professional violation"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Active misrepresentation of competence violates fundamental professional duties",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Self-interest vs honest representation of qualifications",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional license, public trust, legal liability",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B actively lobbied the County Commission to secure the contract award despite lacking qualifications.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Undermining merit-based selection"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Business advocacy",
    "Political influence"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Water/Wastewater Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Business needs vs honest competition",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Financial desperation justified aggressive lobbying"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Influence contract award in their favor",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Business development",
    "Political communication"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "during bidding process",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Honest representation of capabilities",
    "Fair competition"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Commission Lobbying Decision"
}

Description: County A awarded the roadway design contract to Engineer B despite their lack of relevant experience.

Temporal Marker: after bidding process

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Support local business and fulfill procurement requirements

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Local business support
Guided By Principles:
  • Local preference
  • Political responsiveness
Required Capabilities:
Contractor evaluation Procurement management
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Local preference and possibly lower cost considerations

Ethical Tension: Supporting local business vs ensuring technical competence

Learning Significance: Clients have duty to verify consultant qualifications before award

Stakes: Public safety, project success, taxpayer value

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Require demonstration of roadway experience
  • Award to most qualified regardless of location

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Unqualified_Contract_Award",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Require demonstration of roadway experience",
    "Award to most qualified regardless of location"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Local preference and possibly lower cost considerations",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Better qualified selection process",
    "Higher expertise but possibly higher cost"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Clients have duty to verify consultant qualifications before award",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Supporting local business vs ensuring technical competence",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Public safety, project success, taxpayer value",
  "proeth:description": "County A awarded the roadway design contract to Engineer B despite their lack of relevant experience.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Risk of design problems"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Local business support"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Local preference",
    "Political responsiveness"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "County A (Government Entity)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Local policy vs competent services",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Political and policy considerations overrode technical competence"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Support local business and fulfill procurement requirements",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Contractor evaluation",
    "Procurement management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "after bidding process",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Due diligence in contractor selection",
    "Public safety",
    "Stewardship of public funds"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Unqualified Contract Award"
}

Description: County A decided to use their own staff for construction period services rather than requiring consultant oversight.

Temporal Marker: before construction began

Mental State: deliberate

Intended Outcome: Reduce project costs and maintain control

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Cost management
  • Resource utilization
Guided By Principles:
  • Cost efficiency
  • Internal capacity utilization
Required Capabilities:
Construction oversight Project management
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Cost control and confidence in internal staff capabilities

Ethical Tension: Budget constraints vs quality assurance needs

Learning Significance: Adequate oversight is essential when using consultants with questionable experience

Stakes: Construction quality, budget overruns, public safety

Decision Point: Yes - Story can branch here

Alternative Actions:
  • Require consultant construction oversight
  • Hire independent construction manager

Narrative Role: rising_action

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Staff_Assignment_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Require consultant construction oversight",
    "Hire independent construction manager"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Cost control and confidence in internal staff capabilities",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Better quality control but higher cost",
    "Professional oversight and accountability"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Adequate oversight is essential when using consultants with questionable experience",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Budget constraints vs quality assurance needs",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": true,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "rising_action",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Construction quality, budget overruns, public safety",
  "proeth:description": "County A decided to use their own staff for construction period services rather than requiring consultant oversight.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Reduced designer accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Cost management",
    "Resource utilization"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Cost efficiency",
    "Internal capacity utilization"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "County A (Government Entity)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Cost efficiency vs design accountability",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Budget constraints drove decision to use internal staff"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "deliberate",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Reduce project costs and maintain control",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Construction oversight",
    "Project management"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "before construction began",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Design accountability",
    "Construction quality assurance"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Staff Assignment Decision"
}

Description: Engineer B admitted during problem meetings that the design issues were outside their area of competence.

Temporal Marker: during construction problems

Mental State: reluctant

Intended Outcome: Acknowledge limitations and potentially reduce liability

Fulfills Obligations:
  • Honesty
  • Professional accountability
Guided By Principles:
  • Truth-telling
  • Professional responsibility
Required Capabilities:
Professional self-assessment Communication skills
Within Competence: Yes
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Character Motivation: Pressure of obvious failures and potential legal exposure

Ethical Tension: Self-preservation vs continued deception

Learning Significance: Late honesty about incompetence cannot undo the harm from initial misrepresentation

Stakes: Professional reputation, legal liability, future practice

Narrative Role: resolution

RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Competence_Admission_Decision",
  "@type": "proeth:Action",
  "proeth-scenario:alternativeActions": [
    "Continue to blame external factors",
    "Offer to redesign at no cost"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:characterMotivation": "Pressure of obvious failures and potential legal exposure",
  "proeth-scenario:consequencesIfAlternative": [
    "Deeper ethical violation and likely exposure",
    "Financial loss but some integrity restoration"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:decisionSignificance": "Late honesty about incompetence cannot undo the harm from initial misrepresentation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalTension": "Self-preservation vs continued deception",
  "proeth-scenario:isDecisionPoint": false,
  "proeth-scenario:narrativeRole": "resolution",
  "proeth-scenario:stakes": "Professional reputation, legal liability, future practice",
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B admitted during problem meetings that the design issues were outside their area of competence.",
  "proeth:foreseenUnintendedEffects": [
    "Professional reputation damage",
    "Legal exposure"
  ],
  "proeth:fulfillsObligation": [
    "Honesty",
    "Professional accountability"
  ],
  "proeth:guidedByPrinciple": [
    "Truth-telling",
    "Professional responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:hasAgent": "Engineer B (Water/Wastewater Engineer)",
  "proeth:hasCompetingPriorities": {
    "@type": "proeth:CompetingPriorities",
    "proeth:priorityConflict": "Honesty vs reputation protection",
    "proeth:resolutionReasoning": "Overwhelming evidence forced honest admission"
  },
  "proeth:hasMentalState": "reluctant",
  "proeth:intendedOutcome": "Acknowledge limitations and potentially reduce liability",
  "proeth:requiresCapability": [
    "Professional self-assessment",
    "Communication skills"
  ],
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "during construction problems",
  "proeth:violatesObligation": [
    "Should have disclosed incompetence before accepting work"
  ],
  "proeth:withinCompetence": true,
  "rdfs:label": "Competence Admission Decision"
}
Extracted Events (4)
Occurrences that trigger ethical considerations and state changes

Description: County A experienced staff shortages that prevented internal completion of rural roadway design work, necessitating external consulting services.

Temporal Marker: Before advertising

Activates Constraints:
  • Resource_Constraint
  • Timeline_Pressure
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Frustration for county officials; opportunity excitement for potential contractors; concern for public about service delivery

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • county_officials: Pressure to maintain infrastructure projects despite resource constraints
  • potential_contractors: Business opportunity in challenging economic environment
  • public: Potential delays in infrastructure improvements affecting daily life

Learning Moment: Shows how resource constraints can create pressure that leads to compromised decision-making

Ethical Implications: Demonstrates how systemic pressures can create conditions where ethical lapses become more likely; reveals tension between efficiency and competence

Discussion Prompts:
  • How should public agencies balance resource constraints with quality requirements?
  • What safeguards should exist when external expertise is required?
  • How do economic pressures affect professional responsibility?
Tension: low Pacing: slow_burn
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Event_Staff_Shortage_Crisis",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should public agencies balance resource constraints with quality requirements?",
    "What safeguards should exist when external expertise is required?",
    "How do economic pressures affect professional responsibility?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "low",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Frustration for county officials; opportunity excitement for potential contractors; concern for public about service delivery",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Demonstrates how systemic pressures can create conditions where ethical lapses become more likely; reveals tension between efficiency and competence",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how resource constraints can create pressure that leads to compromised decision-making",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "county_officials": "Pressure to maintain infrastructure projects despite resource constraints",
    "potential_contractors": "Business opportunity in challenging economic environment",
    "public": "Potential delays in infrastructure improvements affecting daily life"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Resource_Constraint",
    "Timeline_Pressure"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "County forced to seek external consulting services; procurement process initiated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Seek_External_Services",
    "Maintain_Service_Delivery"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "County A experienced staff shortages that prevented internal completion of rural roadway design work, necessitating external consulting services.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before advertising",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Staff Shortage Crisis"
}

Description: Engineer B successfully obtained the roadway design contract despite lacking relevant experience in transportation engineering.

Temporal Marker: After lobbying

Activates Constraints:
  • Competence_Required
  • Professional_Responsibility
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Relief and anxiety for Engineer B (financial relief but competence fears); false confidence for county officials; latent concern for public safety

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_b: Financial relief but professional risk; now obligated to deliver work beyond competence
  • county_a: Believes problem solved but has unknowingly increased project risk
  • public: Unknowingly exposed to substandard infrastructure design
  • engineering_profession: Professional standards undermined by incompetent practice

Learning Moment: Illustrates how competence violations create latent risks that may not manifest immediately; shows consequences of inadequate qualification screening

Ethical Implications: Reveals core tension between personal financial needs and professional competence obligations; demonstrates how system failures enable individual ethical lapses

Discussion Prompts:
  • At what point does accepting work beyond one's competence become unethical?
  • What responsibility do clients have to verify contractor qualifications?
  • How do financial pressures affect professional judgment?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: escalation
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Event_Contract_Award_Success",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "At what point does accepting work beyond one\u0027s competence become unethical?",
    "What responsibility do clients have to verify contractor qualifications?",
    "How do financial pressures affect professional judgment?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Relief and anxiety for Engineer B (financial relief but competence fears); false confidence for county officials; latent concern for public safety",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals core tension between personal financial needs and professional competence obligations; demonstrates how system failures enable individual ethical lapses",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Illustrates how competence violations create latent risks that may not manifest immediately; shows consequences of inadequate qualification screening",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "escalation",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "county_a": "Believes problem solved but has unknowingly increased project risk",
    "engineer_b": "Financial relief but professional risk; now obligated to deliver work beyond competence",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional standards undermined by incompetent practice",
    "public": "Unknowingly exposed to substandard infrastructure design"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Competence_Required",
    "Professional_Responsibility"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Unqualified_Contract_Award",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Unqualified engineer now responsible for critical infrastructure design; professional and safety risks activated",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Deliver_Competent_Work",
    "Maintain_Professional_Standards",
    "Protect_Public_Welfare"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B successfully obtained the roadway design contract despite lacking relevant experience in transportation engineering.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "high",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After lobbying",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "high",
  "rdfs:label": "Contract Award Success"
}

Description: Significant problems arose during construction requiring extensive field revisions and county staff intervention, revealing design inadequacies.

Temporal Marker: After construction began

Activates Constraints:
  • Public_Safety_Paramount
  • Immediate_Correction_Required
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Panic and embarrassment for Engineer B; anger and frustration for county officials; alarm for construction workers; betrayal felt by public

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_b: Professional reputation destroyed; potential legal liability; licensing board scrutiny
  • county_a: Cost overruns; project delays; public trust damaged; emergency resource allocation
  • construction_workers: Safety risks; work disruption; potential injury exposure
  • public: Tax money wasted; infrastructure delays; loss of confidence in government and engineering
  • engineering_profession: Professional credibility damaged; regulatory scrutiny increased

Learning Moment: Demonstrates concrete consequences of competence violations; shows how professional failures create cascading public harm; reveals inadequacy of good intentions without competence

Ethical Implications: Reveals how professional competence failures translate directly into public harm; demonstrates inadequacy of good intentions without technical competence; shows cascading effects of ethical violations

Discussion Prompts:
  • How do design failures during construction amplify the consequences of incompetent practice?
  • What systemic changes could prevent incompetent designs from reaching construction?
  • Who bears ultimate responsibility when multiple parties fail in their oversight duties?
Crisis / Turning Point Tension: high Pacing: crisis
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Event_Construction_Problems_Emergence",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": true,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How do design failures during construction amplify the consequences of incompetent practice?",
    "What systemic changes could prevent incompetent designs from reaching construction?",
    "Who bears ultimate responsibility when multiple parties fail in their oversight duties?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "high",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Panic and embarrassment for Engineer B; anger and frustration for county officials; alarm for construction workers; betrayal felt by public",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals how professional competence failures translate directly into public harm; demonstrates inadequacy of good intentions without technical competence; shows cascading effects of ethical violations",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Demonstrates concrete consequences of competence violations; shows how professional failures create cascading public harm; reveals inadequacy of good intentions without competence",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "crisis",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "construction_workers": "Safety risks; work disruption; potential injury exposure",
    "county_a": "Cost overruns; project delays; public trust damaged; emergency resource allocation",
    "engineer_b": "Professional reputation destroyed; potential legal liability; licensing board scrutiny",
    "engineering_profession": "Professional credibility damaged; regulatory scrutiny increased",
    "public": "Tax money wasted; infrastructure delays; loss of confidence in government and engineering"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Public_Safety_Paramount",
    "Immediate_Correction_Required"
  ],
  "proeth:causedByAction": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Action_Staff_Assignment_Decision",
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Project in crisis; safety concerns materialized; emergency intervention required; public resources diverted to correction",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Stop_Unsafe_Work",
    "Correct_Design_Flaws",
    "Investigate_Cause",
    "Report_To_Authorities"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Significant problems arose during construction requiring extensive field revisions and county staff intervention, revealing design inadequacies.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "critical",
  "proeth:eventType": "outcome",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "After construction began",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "critical",
  "rdfs:label": "Construction Problems Emergence"
}

Description: Engineer B's financial difficulties created pressure to seek work outside their area of competence, driving the decision to pursue the roadway contract.

Temporal Marker: Before contract pursuit

Activates Constraints:
  • Financial_Survival_Pressure
  • Professional_Competence_Requirement
Scenario Metadata
Pedagogical context for interactive teaching scenarios

Emotional Impact: Desperation and anxiety for Engineer B; potential sympathy from colleagues; concern from family; indifference from potential clients unaware of situation

Stakeholder Consequences:
  • engineer_b: Financial survival threatened; professional integrity at risk; career sustainability questioned
  • family_dependents: Economic security threatened by professional crisis
  • engineering_profession: Demonstrates vulnerability of practitioners to economic pressures
  • potential_clients: Unknowingly at risk from desperate practitioners

Learning Moment: Shows how external pressures can create ethical dilemmas; demonstrates need for professional support systems and ethical guidance during crises

Ethical Implications: Reveals tension between personal survival and professional duty; demonstrates how economic vulnerability can compromise professional judgment; raises questions about professional support obligations

Discussion Prompts:
  • How should engineers balance personal financial survival with professional competence requirements?
  • What support systems should exist for practitioners facing economic hardship?
  • When, if ever, do personal circumstances justify compromising professional standards?
Tension: medium Pacing: slow_burn
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "proeth-scenario": "http://proethica.org/ontology/scenario#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#",
    "time": "http://www.w3.org/2006/time#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#Event_Financial_Pressure_Motivation",
  "@type": "proeth:Event",
  "proeth-scenario:crisisIdentification": false,
  "proeth-scenario:discussionPrompts": [
    "How should engineers balance personal financial survival with professional competence requirements?",
    "What support systems should exist for practitioners facing economic hardship?",
    "When, if ever, do personal circumstances justify compromising professional standards?"
  ],
  "proeth-scenario:dramaticTension": "medium",
  "proeth-scenario:emotionalImpact": "Desperation and anxiety for Engineer B; potential sympathy from colleagues; concern from family; indifference from potential clients unaware of situation",
  "proeth-scenario:ethicalImplications": "Reveals tension between personal survival and professional duty; demonstrates how economic vulnerability can compromise professional judgment; raises questions about professional support obligations",
  "proeth-scenario:learningMoment": "Shows how external pressures can create ethical dilemmas; demonstrates need for professional support systems and ethical guidance during crises",
  "proeth-scenario:narrativePacing": "slow_burn",
  "proeth-scenario:stakeholderConsequences": {
    "engineer_b": "Financial survival threatened; professional integrity at risk; career sustainability questioned",
    "engineering_profession": "Demonstrates vulnerability of practitioners to economic pressures",
    "family_dependents": "Economic security threatened by professional crisis",
    "potential_clients": "Unknowingly at risk from desperate practitioners"
  },
  "proeth:activatesConstraint": [
    "Financial_Survival_Pressure",
    "Professional_Competence_Requirement"
  ],
  "proeth:causesStateChange": "Engineer faces competing pressures between financial survival and professional competence requirements",
  "proeth:createsObligation": [
    "Seek_Income",
    "Maintain_Professional_Standards"
  ],
  "proeth:description": "Engineer B\u0027s financial difficulties created pressure to seek work outside their area of competence, driving the decision to pursue the roadway contract.",
  "proeth:emergencyStatus": "medium",
  "proeth:eventType": "exogenous",
  "proeth:temporalMarker": "Before contract pursuit",
  "proeth:urgencyLevel": "medium",
  "rdfs:label": "Financial Pressure Motivation"
}
Causal Chains (4)
NESS test analysis: Necessary Element of Sufficient Set

Causal Language: County A decided to use their own staff for construction period services rather than requiring consultant oversight, contributing to problems during construction that required extensive field revisions

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Inadequate design from unqualified engineer
  • County staff lacking specialized roadway construction experience
  • Absence of designer oversight during construction
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of poor design and inadequate construction oversight
Counterfactual Test: With proper consultant oversight during construction, some problems could have been identified and resolved earlier
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: County A
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Staff Assignment Decision
    County decides to use internal staff rather than consultant for construction services
  2. Limited Construction Oversight
    County staff provides construction oversight without specialized roadway expertise
  3. Design Issues Undetected
    Problems in original design go unrecognized during early construction phases
  4. Problems Manifest
    Design inadequacies become apparent as construction progresses
  5. Construction Problems Emergence
    Significant problems require extensive field revisions and county staff intervention
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#CausalChain_448a0ad2",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "County A decided to use their own staff for construction period services rather than requiring consultant oversight, contributing to problems during construction that required extensive field revisions",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "County decides to use internal staff rather than consultant for construction services",
      "proeth:element": "Staff Assignment Decision",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "County staff provides construction oversight without specialized roadway expertise",
      "proeth:element": "Limited Construction Oversight",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Problems in original design go unrecognized during early construction phases",
      "proeth:element": "Design Issues Undetected",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Design inadequacies become apparent as construction progresses",
      "proeth:element": "Problems Manifest",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Significant problems require extensive field revisions and county staff intervention",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Problems Emergence",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Staff Assignment Decision",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "With proper consultant oversight during construction, some problems could have been identified and resolved earlier",
  "proeth:effect": "Construction Problems Emergence",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Inadequate design from unqualified engineer",
    "County staff lacking specialized roadway construction experience",
    "Absence of designer oversight during construction"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "County A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of poor design and inadequate construction oversight"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: County A experienced staff shortages that prevented internal completion of rural roadway design work, leading to the decision to advertise for consulting services

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Insufficient internal technical capacity
  • Project timeline requirements
  • County's need for external expertise
Sufficient Factors:
  • Staff shortage preventing internal completion
Counterfactual Test: Without staff shortages, County A would not have needed to seek external consulting services
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: County A
Type: indirect
Within Agent Control: No

Causal Sequence:
  1. Staff Shortage Crisis
    County A lacks internal technical capacity for roadway design
  2. Local Advertising Decision
    County decides to advertise only locally for consulting services
  3. Limited Qualified Applicant Pool
    Local-only advertising restricts access to qualified specialists
  4. Incompetent Bidding Decision
    Engineer B bids despite lacking roadway experience
  5. Unqualified Contract Award
    County awards contract to Engineer B due to limited options
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#CausalChain_882ab554",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "County A experienced staff shortages that prevented internal completion of rural roadway design work, leading to the decision to advertise for consulting services",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "County A lacks internal technical capacity for roadway design",
      "proeth:element": "Staff Shortage Crisis",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "County decides to advertise only locally for consulting services",
      "proeth:element": "Local Advertising Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Local-only advertising restricts access to qualified specialists",
      "proeth:element": "Limited Qualified Applicant Pool",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B bids despite lacking roadway experience",
      "proeth:element": "Incompetent Bidding Decision",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "County awards contract to Engineer B due to limited options",
      "proeth:element": "Unqualified Contract Award",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Staff Shortage Crisis",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without staff shortages, County A would not have needed to seek external consulting services",
  "proeth:effect": "Local Advertising Decision",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Insufficient internal technical capacity",
    "Project timeline requirements",
    "County\u0027s need for external expertise"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "indirect",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "County A",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Staff shortage preventing internal completion"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": false
}

Causal Language: Engineer B's financial difficulties created pressure to seek work outside their area of competence, leading to bidding on roadway design work despite lacking relevant experience

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Financial pressure on Engineer B
  • Available contract opportunity
  • Engineer B's willingness to work outside competence area
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of financial pressure and available opportunity
Counterfactual Test: Without financial pressure, Engineer B would likely not have bid on work outside their expertise
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: Engineer B
Type: direct
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Financial Pressure Motivation
    Engineer B faces financial difficulties requiring new work
  2. Incompetent Bidding Decision
    Engineer B decides to bid on roadway work despite lacking experience
  3. Commission Lobbying Decision
    Engineer B actively lobbies County Commission to secure contract
  4. Contract Award Success
    Engineer B successfully obtains the roadway design contract
  5. Construction Problems Emergence
    Significant problems arise during construction due to design inadequacies
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#CausalChain_56d1068d",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "Engineer B\u0027s financial difficulties created pressure to seek work outside their area of competence, leading to bidding on roadway design work despite lacking relevant experience",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B faces financial difficulties requiring new work",
      "proeth:element": "Financial Pressure Motivation",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B decides to bid on roadway work despite lacking experience",
      "proeth:element": "Incompetent Bidding Decision",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B actively lobbies County Commission to secure contract",
      "proeth:element": "Commission Lobbying Decision",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B successfully obtains the roadway design contract",
      "proeth:element": "Contract Award Success",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Significant problems arise during construction due to design inadequacies",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Problems Emergence",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Financial Pressure Motivation",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "Without financial pressure, Engineer B would likely not have bid on work outside their expertise",
  "proeth:effect": "Incompetent Bidding Decision",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Financial pressure on Engineer B",
    "Available contract opportunity",
    "Engineer B\u0027s willingness to work outside competence area"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "direct",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of financial pressure and available opportunity"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}

Causal Language: County A awarded the roadway design contract to Engineer B despite their lack of relevant experience, leading to significant problems during construction requiring extensive field revisions

Necessary Factors (NESS):
  • Contract awarded to unqualified engineer
  • Complex roadway design requirements
  • Inadequate design review processes
Sufficient Factors:
  • Combination of unqualified designer and complex technical requirements
Counterfactual Test: With a qualified roadway engineer, construction problems would likely have been prevented or minimized
Responsibility Attribution:

Agent: County A and Engineer B
Type: shared
Within Agent Control: Yes

Causal Sequence:
  1. Unqualified Contract Award
    County awards contract to Engineer B despite lack of roadway experience
  2. Inadequate Design Development
    Engineer B develops roadway design without sufficient expertise
  3. Design Review Failure
    County fails to catch design inadequacies during review process
  4. Construction Commencement
    Construction begins based on inadequate design
  5. Construction Problems Emergence
    Significant problems arise requiring extensive field revisions
RDF JSON-LD 
{
  "@context": {
    "proeth": "http://proethica.org/ontology/intermediate#",
    "proeth-case": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#",
    "rdf": "http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#",
    "rdfs": "http://www.w3.org/2000/01/rdf-schema#"
  },
  "@id": "http://proethica.org/cases/12#CausalChain_6a8d8c7d",
  "@type": "proeth:CausalChain",
  "proeth:causalLanguage": "County A awarded the roadway design contract to Engineer B despite their lack of relevant experience, leading to significant problems during construction requiring extensive field revisions",
  "proeth:causalSequence": [
    {
      "proeth:description": "County awards contract to Engineer B despite lack of roadway experience",
      "proeth:element": "Unqualified Contract Award",
      "proeth:step": 1
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Engineer B develops roadway design without sufficient expertise",
      "proeth:element": "Inadequate Design Development",
      "proeth:step": 2
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "County fails to catch design inadequacies during review process",
      "proeth:element": "Design Review Failure",
      "proeth:step": 3
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Construction begins based on inadequate design",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Commencement",
      "proeth:step": 4
    },
    {
      "proeth:description": "Significant problems arise requiring extensive field revisions",
      "proeth:element": "Construction Problems Emergence",
      "proeth:step": 5
    }
  ],
  "proeth:cause": "Unqualified Contract Award",
  "proeth:counterfactual": "With a qualified roadway engineer, construction problems would likely have been prevented or minimized",
  "proeth:effect": "Construction Problems Emergence",
  "proeth:necessaryFactors": [
    "Contract awarded to unqualified engineer",
    "Complex roadway design requirements",
    "Inadequate design review processes"
  ],
  "proeth:responsibilityType": "shared",
  "proeth:responsibleAgent": "County A and Engineer B",
  "proeth:sufficientFactors": [
    "Combination of unqualified designer and complex technical requirements"
  ],
  "proeth:withinAgentControl": true
}
Allen Temporal Relations (6)
Interval algebra relationships with OWL-Time standard properties
From Entity Allen Relation To Entity OWL-Time Property Evidence
County A decision to advertise before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		advertisement publication time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Therefore, the County decided to advertise for consulting services to accomplish the needed design.....
advertisement publication before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		firm responses time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Subsequently, the advertisement was published only locally. All local engineering firms responded to...
Engineer B design completion before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		County bidding time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		Engineer B completed the design project, the County bid the project
County bidding before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		construction time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		the County bid the project and then proceeded into construction
construction start before
Entity1 is before Entity2 		problems occurring time:before
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#before 		then proceeded into construction. During the construction phase, problems and issues began occurring...
problems occurring during
Entity1 occurs entirely within the duration of Entity2 		meeting with County time:intervalDuring
http://www.w3.org/2006/time#intervalDuring 		During a meeting with the County as these problems occurred
About Allen Relations & OWL-Time

Allen's Interval Algebra provides 13 basic temporal relations between intervals. These relations are mapped to OWL-Time standard properties for interoperability with Semantic Web temporal reasoning systems and SPARQL queries.

Each relation includes both a ProEthica custom property and a time:* OWL-Time property for maximum compatibility.

© Licensed under the GNU GPL v3 | Report Issue