Credit for Engineering Work—Implying Responsibility

The issues in the present case are among some of the earliest issues examined by the NSPE Board of Ethical Review. The issue of giving credit (and responsibility) to the appropriate professional engineers involved in a project goes to the very heart of the professional issues relating to personal responsibility and individual accountability.

As one example, BER Case No. 64-7 involved a professional engineer who was employed as an assistant sanitary engineer in a state health department. The engineer was responsible for the administration of certain programs which required approval of plans for proposed water supply and sewage treatment facilities and for the issuance of permits for such projects, as prescribed by state law. The engineer’s immediate supervisor was the district sanitary engineer, also a professional engineer. The policy and practice of the office was that all approval of plans and issuance of permits were under the signature of the district sanitary engineer, although the assistant sanitary engineer performed the actual engineering review in the great majority of applications. The policy of the office also provided that when the district sanitary engineer was absent, the assistant sanitary engineer would review the plans and applications for permits and, after approval, sign the name of the district sanitary engineer, even though the district sanitary engineer had not seen or reviewed the documents. In deciding that it was not ethical for the assistant sanitary engineer to sign the name of the district sanitary engineer to engineering documents, the Board noted that the thrust of NSPE Code of Ethics is that individual accomplishments and the assumption of responsibility by individual engineers should be recognized by other engineers. This principle is not only fair and in the best interest of the profession, but it also recognizes that the professional engineer must assume personal responsibility for his decisions and actions. The Board noted that it is not unusual for the engineer in charge to sign his name and title to engineering documents which are prepared or reviewed by his subordinates under his supervision. There is no criticism of this practice, since it is based on the requirement that the engineer attaching his signature is familiar with and has checked the work involved. However, said the Board, in this case, the facts are that the assistant sanitary engineer on occasion reviewed the engineering documents on his own responsibility and without the supervision or verification of the district sanitary engineer. In that case, it is obvious that the assistant sanitary engineer took sole responsibility for the decision to approve the plans or authorize the issuance of a permit. On that basis, he alone should have signed the engineering documents.

The Board saw no objection, however, in the interests of clarity and continuity of authority, for the approval to indicate by stamp or printing the name of the district sanitary engineer, provided his name is followed by the name and signature of the assistant sanitary engineer. This will indicate that the approval is under the general authority of the district sanitary engineer and that the assistant sanitary engineer is acting within the scope of a delegation of authority to pass professional judgment on his own responsibility.

The Board noted that the matter of credit for engineering work is a factor in this consideration, but that this is secondary to the more important principle of a clear indication of professional responsibility.

We believe the NSPE Board of Ethical Review’s treatment of this case is very instructive in the context of our consideration of the present case. Under the facts in the present case, there appears to be nothing to indicate any limitation on the ability of Engineer A to sign and seal the engineering drawings and assume personal responsibility for the work in question. Again, as noted earlier and reinforced in BER Case No. 64-7, the salient ethical issue in both cases is the duty of the professional engineer to assume personal responsibility and be accountable for the work under his or her direct control and personal supervision. Issues related to credit given is considered a secondary matter.

At the same time, it should be stated that on the basis of fairness and equity, it would seem reasonable and justified that an engineer who has primary design responsibility and signed and sealed the engineering documents should be given due and appropriate recognition for the engineer’s contributions to the work. Without attempting to get involved with specific personnel decisions, management prerogatives, or the unique circumstances that might be involved in this or similar matters, it would seem that Engineer B would want to provide appropriate visible recognition for Engineer A’s achievements and accomplishments for the benefit of the firm’s clients. This concept is clearly embodied in the language of the NSPE Code Section III.9.a.

The Board recognizes that companies and firms may have different methods of recognizing achievements and accomplishments for marketing, firm identity, and other purposes. However, the Board believes that the manner in which firms today assign credit and recognition should in some measure be connected to actual responsibility for the work. Where there is no reasonable connection between the actual responsibility/accountability for the engineering work and the credit/recognition provided, the Board is concerned that a misrepresentation could occur that would be detrimental to the interests of potential clients and ultimately the public. Unless there is some unique or compelling business reason to do otherwise, it is the Board’s review that consistent with the NSPE Code of Ethics, credit and recognition should follow responsibility and accountability.