Step 4: Synthesis Review
Case 14: Providing Incomplete, Self-Serving Advice
Full Entity Graph
Loading...Entity Types
Synthesis Reasoning Flow
Shows how NSPE provisions inform questions and conclusions - the board's reasoning chainNode Types & Relationships
→ Question answered by Conclusion
→ Provision applies to Entity
NSPE Code Provisions Referenced
View ExtractionII.3. II.3.
Full Text:
Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful manner.
Applies To:
II.3.a. II.3.a.
Full Text:
Engineers shall be objective and truthful in professional reports, statements, or testimony. They shall include all relevant and pertinent information in such reports, statements, or testimony, which should bear the date indicating when it was current.
Applies To:
II.5.b. II.5.b.
Full Text:
Engineers shall not offer, give, solicit, or receive, either directly or indirectly, any contribution to influence the award of a contract by public authority, or which may be reasonably construed by the public as having the effect or intent of influencing the awarding of a contract. They shall not offer any gift or other valuable consideration in order to secure work. They shall not pay a commission, percentage, or brokerage fee in order to secure work, except to a bona fide employee or bona fide established commercial or marketing agencies retained by them.
Applies To:
Questions & Conclusions
View ExtractionQuestion 1 Board Question
Was it ethical for Engineer A to include project summaries and references to encourage selection of their firm for the recommended method for project delivery?
It was not unethical to include marketing materials that display Engineer A’s firm’s qualifications.
Question 2 Board Question
Was it ethical for Engineer A to recommend the method for which they could provide services?
It was ethical for Engineer A to recommend progressive design build is the best choice, as long as reasons are objective, described, valid, and compared against all available and appropriate delivery methods.
Question 3 Board Question
Was it ethical for Engineer A to provide a recommendation on project delivery methods that only included two of the possible methods, without providing the complete analysis and the reasoning behind recommending the two selected methods over others?
It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation.
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A unethically omitted relevant information, this case demonstrates a critical distinction between technical competence and analytical completeness. Engineer A possessed technical capability in wastewater systems and specific delivery methods, but failed to recognize that providing incomplete analysis exceeded the bounds of their competence when acting as an advisor rather than a service provider. The ethical violation extends beyond mere omission to encompass a fundamental misunderstanding of professional scope when transitioning from technical expert to strategic consultant.
Question 4 Implicit
Should Engineer A have disclosed their financial interest in the Progressive Design Build method before providing the recommendation?
Regarding disclosure timing (Q101), Engineer A should have disclosed their financial interest and service limitations before providing any recommendation. The ethical obligation for disclosure arose at the moment of solicitation, not after analysis completion. Given the informal context and the City Administrator's non-professional status, Engineer A should have either declined to provide partial analysis or explicitly framed their response as preliminary input requiring comprehensive third-party evaluation.
Question 5 Implicit
What ethical obligations arise when providing professional advice to a non-professional decision maker like the City Administrator?
The Board's acceptance of Engineer A's recommendation as ethical (when properly supported) overlooks the inherent conflict created by the informal solicitation context. When providing uncontracted advisory services to a non-professional decision maker, Engineer A assumed a heightened duty of care that required either complete neutrality or explicit disclosure of limitations and conflicts. The informal nature of the request amplified rather than diminished these obligations, as the City Administrator lacked professional expertise to identify gaps in the analysis.
Question 6 Implicit
Does the informal nature of the solicitation affect Engineer A's ethical obligations regarding completeness and objectivity?
The Board's acceptance of Engineer A's recommendation as ethical (when properly supported) overlooks the inherent conflict created by the informal solicitation context. When providing uncontracted advisory services to a non-professional decision maker, Engineer A assumed a heightened duty of care that required either complete neutrality or explicit disclosure of limitations and conflicts. The informal nature of the request amplified rather than diminished these obligations, as the City Administrator lacked professional expertise to identify gaps in the analysis.
Question 7 Principle Tension
How should Engineer A balance the principle of Competence_CityB_Services against Disinterested_Service_NSPE when they have expertise in only some delivery methods?
Beyond the Board's finding that Engineer A unethically omitted relevant information, this case demonstrates a critical distinction between technical competence and analytical completeness. Engineer A possessed technical capability in wastewater systems and specific delivery methods, but failed to recognize that providing incomplete analysis exceeded the bounds of their competence when acting as an advisor rather than a service provider. The ethical violation extends beyond mere omission to encompass a fundamental misunderstanding of professional scope when transitioning from technical expert to strategic consultant.
This case reveals a fundamental tension between Competence and Disinterested Service that the Board resolved by prioritizing completeness over self-interest. When Engineer A's competence limitations (inability to provide all delivery methods) conflicted with their obligation to provide disinterested service, the ethical resolution required either declining the engagement or providing complete disclosure of limitations. The case establishes that competence boundaries must expand the scope of disclosure rather than contract the scope of analysis.
Question 8 Principle Tension
Does the principle of Transparency_CityB_Recommendation conflict with Disinterested_Service_EngineerA when full disclosure might eliminate business opportunities?
The interaction between Transparency and Public Welfare principles in this case demonstrates that transparency serves as the primary mechanism for protecting public welfare when engineers have financial interests in their recommendations. The Board's resolution suggests that public welfare is best served not by prohibiting engineers from recommending profitable methods, but by ensuring complete transparency about alternatives, limitations, and conflicts. This creates a framework where market participation and professional integrity can coexist through disclosure rather than prohibition.
Question 9 Principle Tension
How do the principles of Completeness_NSPE_Code and PublicWelfare_WastewaterProject interact when incomplete analysis might lead to suboptimal public infrastructure decisions?
The interaction between Transparency and Public Welfare principles in this case demonstrates that transparency serves as the primary mechanism for protecting public welfare when engineers have financial interests in their recommendations. The Board's resolution suggests that public welfare is best served not by prohibiting engineers from recommending profitable methods, but by ensuring complete transparency about alternatives, limitations, and conflicts. This creates a framework where market participation and professional integrity can coexist through disclosure rather than prohibition.
From a deontological perspective, did Engineer A fulfill their categorical duty of truthfulness when omitting viable delivery methods?
From a deontological perspective (Q301), Engineer A failed their categorical duty of truthfulness not merely by omitting information, but by presenting incomplete analysis as sufficient for decision-making. The ethical violation lies in the implicit representation that the two-option analysis constituted adequate professional advice, violating the duty to treat the City Administrator as a rational agent deserving complete information for autonomous decision-making.
From a consequentialist perspective, did the potential benefits to Engineer A's firm justify the incomplete analysis provided to City B?
From a virtue ethics perspective, did Engineer A demonstrate professional integrity and honesty in their interactions with the City Administrator?
Question 13 Counterfactual
Would the ethical analysis change if Engineer A had explicitly disclosed their inability to provide services under Construction-Management-at-Risk due to the funding requirement for separate entities?
Question 14 Counterfactual
What if Engineer A had recommended that City B seek a comprehensive analysis from a neutral third party rather than providing the incomplete recommendation?
Question 15 Counterfactual
How would the ethical implications differ if City B had formally contracted Engineer A for the delivery method analysis rather than making an informal request?
Rich Analysis Results
View ExtractionCausal-Normative Links 4
Recommending Profitable Method
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
- EngineerA_ConflictManagement_CityB
- EngineerA_Disclosure_SelfInterest
Soliciting Engineering Advice
Providing Uncontracted Services
- Non-Solicitation Obligation
- EngineerA_NonSolicitation_CurrentCase
Omitting Viable Options
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation
- EngineerA_FullOptionsDisclosure_CityB
- Completeness Obligation
Question Emergence 15
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
- Memo Submission
Triggering Actions
- Providing Uncontracted Services
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Non-Solicitation Obligation Completeness Obligation
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation Full Disclosure of Options Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
- Memo Submission
Triggering Actions
- Providing Uncontracted Services
- Recommending Profitable Method
- Omitting Viable Options
Competing Warrants
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Completeness Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
Triggering Actions
- Providing Uncontracted Services
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Completeness Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
Triggering Actions
- Providing Uncontracted Services
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Completeness Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
Triggering Actions
- Providing Uncontracted Services
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation EngineerA_Competence_Recommendation
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation Completeness Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Triggering Actions
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Completeness Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
Triggering Events
- Memo Submission
- Decision Process Compromise
Triggering Actions
- Omitting Viable Options
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Competing Warrants
- Completeness Obligation Full Disclosure of Options Obligation
- Non-Solicitation Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
Triggering Actions
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Completeness Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Triggering Actions
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Completeness Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
Triggering Events
- Memo Submission
- Decision Process Compromise
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
Triggering Actions
- Providing Uncontracted Services
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation Completeness Obligation
Triggering Events
- Memo Submission
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
Triggering Actions
- Omitting Viable Options
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Completeness Obligation
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
- Decision Process Compromise
Triggering Actions
- Providing Uncontracted Services
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
Competing Warrants
- Non-Solicitation Obligation Full Disclosure of Options Obligation
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation Completeness Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Triggering Actions
- Recommending Profitable Method
- Omitting Viable Options
Competing Warrants
- Non-Solicitation Obligation Full Disclosure of Options Obligation
- Conflict of Interest Management Obligation Completeness Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
- Memo Submission
Triggering Actions
- Omitting Viable Options
- Recommending Profitable Method
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
- Completeness Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
Triggering Events
- Soliciting Engineering Advice
Triggering Actions
- Recommending Profitable Method
- Omitting Viable Options
- Providing Uncontracted Services
Competing Warrants
- Full Disclosure of Options Obligation Conflict of Interest Management Obligation
- Completeness Obligation Non-Solicitation Obligation
Resolution Patterns 9
Determinative Principles
- Truthfulness
- Completeness
- Public Welfare
- Professional Integrity
Determinative Facts
- Engineer A only analyzed two delivery methods
- Other viable methods existed
- Analysis was incomplete
- City Administrator relied on incomplete information
Determinative Principles
- Objectivity
- Professional Competence
- Disinterested Service
Determinative Facts
- Engineer A had expertise in progressive design build
- Recommendation could be objectively justified
- Complete analysis and comparison was required
Determinative Principles
- Transparency
- Professional Marketing Standards
- Disclosure
Determinative Facts
- Marketing materials disclosed firm's capabilities
- Materials were factual
- No deceptive practices were involved
Determinative Principles
- Competence
- Scope of Professional Practice
- Advisory vs. Service Provider Roles
Determinative Facts
- Engineer A had technical expertise but provided incomplete analysis
- Role was advisory not service provision
- City Administrator was non-professional decision maker
Determinative Principles
- Heightened Duty of Care
- Conflict of Interest Management
- Professional Responsibility in Informal Contexts
Determinative Facts
- Informal solicitation context
- Non-professional decision maker
- Uncontracted advisory services
- Financial interest in recommendation
Determinative Principles
- Timing of Disclosure
- Conflict of Interest Management
- Transparency
Determinative Facts
- Financial interest existed from the start
- Disclosure came after recommendation
- City Administrator needed information before receiving advice
Determinative Principles
- Categorical Duty of Truthfulness
- Respect for Rational Agency
- Professional Representation
Determinative Facts
- Incomplete analysis presented as sufficient
- Implicit representation of adequacy
- City Administrator treated as rational decision maker
Determinative Principles
- Competence
- Disinterested Service
- Completeness over Self-Interest
Determinative Facts
- Limited competence in delivery methods
- Financial interest in recommendation
- Obligation to provide disinterested service
Determinative Principles
- Transparency
- Public Welfare
- Market Participation with Integrity
Determinative Facts
- Financial interest in recommendation
- Public infrastructure decision
- Need for complete information
Decision Points
View ExtractionShould Engineer A provide free engineering services to City B without a contract?
- Provide Free Services
- Decline Without Contract
- Refer to Contracted Engineer
Engineer A should adopt the Offer preliminary engineering advice at no cost to help City B with their wastewater project
Because this promotes Cost Effectiveness
Engineer A should NOT adopt the Offer preliminary engineering advice at no cost to help City B with their wastewater project
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Engineer A should refuse to provide services without a formal contractual arrangement
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT refuse to provide services without a formal contractual arrangement
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Engineer A should adopt the Direct City B to seek advice from an engineer with whom they have an existing contract
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT adopt the Direct City B to seek advice from an engineer with whom they have an existing contract
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer A recommend methods based on personal profitability or comprehensive public benefit?
- Recommend Profitable Method
- Recommend Best Public Option
- Disclose Conflict and Recuse
Engineer A should adopt the Focus recommendations on methods that would generate the most profit for Engineer A's business
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT adopt the Focus recommendations on methods that would generate the most profit for Engineer A's business
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Engineer A should recommend the method that best serves public welfare regardless of personal profit
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT recommend the method that best serves public welfare regardless of personal profit
Because this may conflict with client relationship obligations
Engineer A should acknowledge the conflict of interest and withdraw from providing recommendations
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT acknowledge the conflict of interest and withdraw from providing recommendations
Because competing professional interests may be affected
Should Engineer A disclose their financial interest in recommended engineering methods?
- Full Disclosure
- Selective Disclosure
- No Disclosure
Engineer A should adopt the Openly disclose all financial interests and potential conflicts related to the recommendations
Because this promotes Disclosure
Engineer A should NOT adopt the Openly disclose all financial interests and potential conflicts related to the recommendations
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Engineer A should disclose only some conflicts while omitting others that might be detrimental
Because this promotes Disclosure
Engineer A should NOT disclose only some conflicts while omitting others that might be detrimental
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Engineer A should provide recommendations without revealing any financial interests or conflicts
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT provide recommendations without revealing any financial interests or conflicts
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Should Engineer A present all viable engineering options or selectively omit certain alternatives?
- Complete Options Disclosure
- Selective Presentation
- Limited Scope Response
Engineer A should present all technically viable options with objective analysis of each
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT present all technically viable options with objective analysis of each
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Engineer A should present only options that align with Engineer A's business interests
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT present only options that align with Engineer A's business interests
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Engineer A should conduct the Clearly define and limit the scope of advice to avoid comprehensive option analysis
Because this promotes Professional Judgment
Engineer A should NOT conduct the Clearly define and limit the scope of advice to avoid comprehensive option analysis
Because this may compromise confidentiality obligations
Case Narrative
Phase 4 narrative construction results for Case 14
Opening Context
You are Engineer A, a seasoned professional engineer contracted to provide technical consulting services to City B on a critical wastewater infrastructure project. As you prepare your comprehensive recommendations, you must navigate the complex challenge of maintaining transparency about your financial interests while ensuring the city receives the most technically sound advice. The decisions you make regarding information disclosure will significantly impact both the project's success and your professional integrity.
Characters (2)
A professional engineer serving as a consultant or advisor to City B who has potential conflicts of interest that must be disclosed while providing comprehensive technical recommendations.
- To maintain professional integrity and NSPE ethical standards while providing competent engineering services, despite potential personal or financial interests that could influence recommendations.
A municipal government entity seeking engineering expertise and consultation, with the right to receive complete, unbiased information about all available technical options.
- To obtain objective, comprehensive engineering advice that serves the public interest and enables informed decision-making for municipal projects or infrastructure needs.
States (10)
Event Timeline (10)
| # | Event | Type |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | The case begins in a municipal engineering context where an engineer faces pressure to withhold certain technical information while managing competing financial interests. This situation sets up a fundamental tension between transparency obligations and business considerations. | state |
| 2 | City officials approach the engineer seeking professional technical advice on a municipal infrastructure project. This request establishes the engineer's advisory role and creates professional obligations under engineering ethics codes. | action |
| 3 | The engineer begins providing technical services and recommendations without a formal contract or clear scope definition. This arrangement creates ambiguity about professional responsibilities and compensation expectations. | action |
| 4 | During the advisory process, the engineer deliberately excludes certain technically viable solutions from consideration. This selective presentation of options compromises the completeness of professional advice provided to the client. | action |
| 5 | The engineer specifically recommends the technical approach that would generate the highest financial return for their firm. This recommendation prioritizes business interests over objective technical merit and client benefit. | action |
| 6 | The engineer submits a formal written memorandum documenting their recommendations to city officials. This documentation creates a permanent record of the potentially biased technical advice. | automatic |
| 7 | The city's decision-making process becomes compromised due to incomplete technical information and biased recommendations. This represents the practical consequence of the engineer's failure to provide objective, comprehensive advice. | automatic |
| 8 | A critical ethical dilemma emerges as the engineer realizes they must choose between full professional disclosure and protecting sensitive information. This conflict highlights the tension between transparency obligations and confidentiality concerns that defines the case's central ethical challenge. | automatic |
| 9 | Engineer A has a duty to manage conflicts of interest properly, but the absence of a formal contractual relationship may limit the engineer's ability to establish clear boundaries and disclosure mechanisms | automatic |
| 10 | It was unethical for Engineer A to leave out relevant and pertinent information from the analysis/ recommendation. | outcome |
Sequential action-event relationships. See Analysis tab for action-obligation links.
- Soliciting Engineering Advice Providing Uncontracted Services
- Providing Uncontracted Services Omitting Viable Options
- Omitting Viable Options Recommending Profitable Method
- Recommending Profitable Method Memo Submission
Key Takeaways
- Engineers have an absolute duty to provide complete and accurate information to clients, even when disclosure may harm their own business interests or competitive position.
- The absence of formal contractual relationships does not diminish an engineer's ethical obligations to maintain transparency and manage conflicts of interest appropriately.
- Professional competence requirements mean engineers must either fully understand all aspects of technical solutions they recommend or clearly communicate the limitations of their analysis.