Sie sind auf Seite 1von 14

FACULTY OF CHEMICAL ENGINEERING

CHE660- LEADERSHIP AND PROFESSIONAL


ETHICS FOR ENGINERS)
NAME: FAIZ SHAFIQ BIN ZAILI
STUDENT NUMBER:IC NUMBER:
GROUP:EH2216B
GROUP :B
SUBMIT TO :- DR. SYED SHATIR A.SYED HASSAN
DATE SUBMIT :-27.5.2015
1.List down membership classes/grades of the following professional societies. For
each class/grade, define its requirements.
i) IEM
ii) IChemE

i) IEM
IEM stand for Institution of Engineers Malaysia. It was established in 1959.Definition of IEM
is a society established to promote and advance the Science and Profession of
Engineering in any or all its disciplines and to facilitate the exchange of information and
ideas related to engineering.
There are two type of classes:a) Corporate Members
b) Non-Corporate Members
Corporate Member
Non-corporate member
i. Distinguished Honorary Fellows
i. Distinguished Honorary Fellows
(D.Hon. F.I.E.M.)
(D.Hon. F.I.E.M.)
ii. Honorary Fellows (Hon. F.I.E.M.)
ii.
Honorary Fellows (Hon. F.I.E.M.)
iii. Fellows (F.I.E.M.)
iii.
Honorary Members (Hon. M.I.E.M.)
iv. Distinguished Members (D.M.I.E.M.)
iv. Companions (C.I.E.M.)
v. Senior Members (S.M.I.E.M.)
v. Graduate Members (Grad I.E.M.)
vi. Members (M.I.E.M.)
vi.
Incorporated Members (Inc. I.E.M.)
vii.
Affiliate Members
viii.
Associate Members
ix.
Student Members

Focusing on The Engineer the natural person who is expected to have a BEM /
IEM recognized qualification based on an EAC accredited engineering programme which
would have the breath and depth of knowledge content that will enable a graduate engineer
to solve complex problems now and in future and create newer technology.

Requirement for engineer on graduation, shall have acquired in 4 years:

Scientific strength

Professional competency; and be:

Multi-skilled,

Well-respected and a potential industry leader, and

Morally and ethically sound.

The Requirement of these grades:


Distinguished Honorary Fellow

A distinguished Honorary Fellow shall be a person acknowledged eminence such as


Head of State, Prime Ministers, prominent engineers and world renowned figures
who has contributed outstanding services to the engineering profession, the
Institution of the Nation.
Honorary Fellow
An Honorary Fellow shall be a distinguished person of acknowledged eminence
whom the Institution desires to honor for services rendered to the engineering
profession.
Distinguished Member
A distinguished member shall be a distinguished person of exemplary character who
has rendered outstanding and meritorious services to the engineering profession,
the institution and /or the nation.
Honorary Member
An Honorary Member shall be distinguished person from the Corporate or Public
Sector who has rendered outstanding services to the engineering profession or the
Institution.
Conferment Honorary Grades
Distinguished Honorary Fellowship, Honorary Fellowship and Honorary Membership
shall be conferred by the Council. The criteria for these grades shall be set out in the
bylaws and established guidelines.
Fellow
There shall be no direct admission to this grade. Admission shall only be by transfer
from the grade of member. To be eligible for transfer to the grade of fellow, a
member shall have satisfied the Council that he is worthy of transfer to this grade in
accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Regulations.
Senior Member
A senior member, at the time of his advancement or transfer to this grade, shall have
satisfied the Council that he has attained such standard as set by the Council to
testify to his professionalism and proficiency as an engineer of substantial standing
and that he is worthy of election in accordance with the relevant Bylaws and

regulations.
Member
A member, at the time of his advancement or election to this grade, shall have
satisfied the Council that he has attained such standard as set by the Council to
testify to his proficiency as a professional engineer, and that he is worthy of election
in accordance with the relevant Bylaws and Regulations.

Companion
A companion shall be a person who is academically qualified, has the necessary
training and experience or wide exposure to the engineering profession and that he
is worthy for admission in accordance with relevant Bylaws and Regulations.

ii) IChemE
ICheme stand for Institution of Chemical Engineers .It is organization global professional
membership for people with relevant experience or an in interest in chemical engineering.
They responsible to give award Chartered Chemical Engineer status and Professional
Process Safety Engineer.
IChemE had different grades of membership, each giving someone professional support
and a range of services whether level of her/his work at within chemical , biochemical and
process profession.

Fellow (FIChemE)
Chartered Chemical
Engineer

Chartered Member
(MIChemE)
Chartered Chemical
Associate Member
Engineer
(AMIChemE)

Associate Fellow*

Technician Member**
(TICheme)

Student Member

Affiliate Member*

(Sources:- http://www.icheme.org/membership.aspx)
*non-qualified membership
**also available as non-qualified membership

2. What is code of ethics?

A code of ethics is a set of statements about appropriate and expected behavior of

members of a professional group and as such reflects its values.


Every occupational group that claim to have professional status has a code of ethics.
The codes express the rights, duties and obligations of the members of the

profession.
A code of ethics indicate to others that the profession is seriously concerned about
responsible , professional conduct.

3.Write down your own code of ethics for UiTMStudents


Profesional Obligations
i.

Students should wear appropriate attire to class, library , laboratory and other places

ii.
iii.

in the campus area.


Students should respect lecturers and stuff Uitm .
Students should seating for exam must obey any instructions and follow all rule

iv.

examination.
Students should fulfil all the academic requirements specified in the Programme

v.
vi.
vii.

curriculum enrolled at the University


Students should complete the course registration within the specified time.
Students should validate the course registration within the specified time.
Students should be proactive in obtaining guidance and advice from the lecturers,
Student Academic Advisors, Programme Coordinators, administrative staffs and the
Faculty/ UiTM Branch Campus administrators when faced with any form of

viii.

predicaments.
Students cannot smoking inside the campus area due to restricted area. If get

ix.

caught will get disciplinary action.


Students must attend lectures including other learning activities such as
workshops/tutorials/laboratories/studios/fieldwork/practical/work/ /industrial training
and clinical as stipulated in the curriculum. Students with less than 80% attendance
from the total contact hours for every course, without the written approval from the
Faculty/Branch Campus/Learning Centre, are not allowed to sit for the final

x.

examination of that course.


Students should care about the environment around campus area and make sure

xi.

that campus area is clean from the rubbish in order to have clean campus area.
Students must validate their Final Examination Slip via i-Student Portal. Failure to do

xii.

so, the slips will automatically be deemed as valid and final.


Students are required to check their Final Examination Slip (Temporary) in the iStudents Portal. Any amendments made must be validated by the Head of
Programme/ Academic Advisor within the duration of fourteen ( 14) days after the

xiii.

add and drop period status.


Plagiarism other peoples work is strictly prohibited and students are subjected to

xiv.
xv.
xvi.

UiTM Plagiarism Policy.


Students should take care of facilities inside the campus.
Students should avoid using hand phone during class.
Students are strictly not allowed to take illegal drug and alcohol.

xvii.

Students who use personal transport should follow the speed limit inside campus
area which is 25km/h.

4. Define whistleblower

A person who informs on a person or organization engaged in an illicit activity.


A person working within an organization who reports that organizations misconduct.
The person can be a current or past employee.

Misconduct can be,


i.
ii.
iii.

A past act
On going
In the planning stages

2 type of whistleblowing:i.

Internal whistleblowing- the whistleblower reports misconduct to another person

ii.

within the organization


External whistleblowing- The whistleblower repots misconduct to a person outside
the organization, such as law enforcement or the media

Federal Whistleblowers mean government employees who reveal misconduct committed


by their employer or can also be private sector employees who inform about the
misconduct of their employers that is committed in relation to the federal government
Whistleblower Protection Act (WPA) This law protects federal employees who disclose
illegal or improper government activities.
The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989, is a United States federal law that protects
federal whistleblowers who work for the government and report agency misconduct. A
federal agency violates the Whistleblower Protection Act if agency authorities take (or
threaten to take) retaliatory personnel action against any employee or applicant because of
disclosure of information by that employee or applicant. Whistleblowers ] may file complaints
that they believe reasonably evidences a violation of a law, rule or regulation, gross
mismanagement, gross waste of funds, an abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific
danger to public health or safety.

4. Watch the documentary entitled Challenger The Untold Story and answer the
following question:
a) Do you regard Boisjolyas a disloyal employee or a heroic whistle-blower?
Why?
Regarding from documentary from Challenger (Untold Story) for me, Boisjolyas is
a heroic whistle-blower. Roger Boisjoly was an American rockets for the Challenger Space
Shuttle. The reason for this statement is because Boisjoly did a good job during spotted a
design fault that he investigated and reported to his company and NASA in order to give
warning that the rockets is not ready to be launched and need to be repair or replacement.
His working for his company that made the booster rockets for the Challenger Space
Shuttle. But, the most disappointed is his findings were totally ignored. Because it is not his
decision to determine whether space shuttle ready for lunch. In fact, he working as an
engineer not a manager to decide whether space shuttle ready to launch or not.

As

consequence, spacecraft exploded by killing all seven crew members. In the days, months
and years after the Challenger disaster, Boisjoly experienced intense feelings of guilt and
depression. Recovery was not helped by the fact that many in the business he loved

rejected him as an unwelcome whistle-blower. In my opinion, he did great job in order


during inspection of Space Shutter and finding something wrong with the booster rockets.

b) Did Morton Thiokol treat Boisjoly fairly? Why, or why not? Explain.
No, Morton Thiokal treat not fairly. After that accident, when he returned to work at
Morton Thiokol Wasatch Operations, Boisjoly found that he was ostracized by management
and re-moved from responsibility for the redesign of the rocket booster. This shown that
Morton Thiokol acting like put all blamed to Boisjoly. Beside that, Boisjoly really could not
understand and curious why his expertise was not being utilized in there design effort.
Eventually he discovered something that made his day to day become worst after know the
truth that he had been intentionally isolated from NASA on the orders of Edward Garrison,
Morton Thiokol's President of Aerospace Operations .Boisjoly felt that his work environment
had become hostile toward him. Then, he took sick leave and eventually resigned from
Morton Thiokol after psychological strain became too great and he cannot handle it.

c) Which specific parts of an engineering code of ethics applicable to the


situations faced by Morton Thiokol engineers?
A code of professional ethics generally appears when an occupation organizes itself into a
profession. Usually, the code is put in writing and formally adopted. According from this
situations faced by Morthon Thiokal engineers, they could apply organizational
communication and ethics including the ethics of organizational structure and culture as it
promotes or discourages necessary communication the ethics of whistle bowing and an
excellent study of group think.
From this sitauion, we can see that, the specific parts of an engineering code of
ethics applicable to the situation faced by Mothon Thiokol engineers especially is to Vide
President for enginnering that is Robert Lund. This critical situation happened on the night
of January 1986 where Robert Lund find that the flight should be postponed or not to be
launch due to that night preceding the launching was very cold it froze 10 degrees Celsius
and it was not safe to be launched at that time. The risk of O-ring eroding at low
temperature due to them had never been tested in sub-zero conditions. He informed to his

boss, Jerald Mason then Jason Mason informed to Space Center. But , NASA will continue
to launch unless it had be proven by technical approved it is unsafe to launch due to NASA
have its own good record. The launch should be postpone due to O-rings were not perfect
and they never try testing below 40F.The engineers had to extrapolate. But, with the lives of
seven astounds at stake, the decision seemed clear enough. Safety first.
The

Space

Center

also

surprised

with

evidence

on

which

no

launch

recommendation by Thiokol.They want to launch. But they would not launch without
Thiokals approval. The urged Mason to reconsider. He had re-examined the evidence and
decided the rings should hold at the expected temperature. Joseph Kilminster, Thiokol's
vice president for shuttle programs, was ready to sign a launch approval, but only if Lund
approved. Lund's first response was to repeat his objections. But then Mason had said
something that made him think again. Mason had asked him to think like a manager rather
than an engineer. Lund did and changed his mind. The next morning the shuttle exploded
during lift-off, killing all aboard. An O-ring had failed.
By applying code of ethics for this case, should Lund have reversed himself and
approved the launch? Since Lund seems to have reversed himself and approved the
launch because he began to think like a manager rather than an engineer.In this case, in
my opinion we must know what the difference is between thinking like manager and
thinking like an engineer. Basically, manager are trained to handle people meanwhile
engineers are trained to handle things. According to this explanation, Lund was asked to
concern himself primarily with how best to handle his boss, the Space Center and his own
engineers. He was to draw upon his knowledge of engineering only as he might his
knowledge of a foreign language, for example, to help him understand what his engineers
were saying. He was to act much as he would have had he never earned a degree in
engineering. Besides that, if Mason also an engineer, did not when he re-examined the
evidence himself, what was he asking Lung to do?He acting like do not apply knowledge of
engineering instead to depend other team member engineer to give action.
In this case, engineers cannot depend on mere private conscience when choosing
how to practice their profession, no matter how good that private conscience, and
engineers should take into account what an organization of engineers has to say about
what engineers should do. Based on code of professional ethics actually provide a guide to

what engineers may reasonably expect of one another, what (more or less) the rules of the
game are.

- Engineers shall hold paramount the safety, health and welfare of the
public.
- Engineers shall issue public statements only in an objective and truthful
manner.
- Engineers shall act for each employer or client as faithful agents or
trustees.
- Engineers shall be guided in all their relations by the highest standards of
honesty and integrity.
- Engineers shall accept personal responsibility for their professional
activities provided.
d) Describe three different responsibilities (obligation, blame and role) by using
examples based on the videos shown.
There are three types of responsibility; Obligation responsibility, Blame responsibility
and Role responsibility.
1. Obligation responsibility mean this refers to the positive obligation of an engineer to
do his or her own work to standard and to do the extra bit when needed
2. Blame responsibility mean this refers to the responsibility of an engineer when it
comes to harmful action and how an engineer should take responsibility for his or her
action
3.Role responsibility mean this refers to the role an engineer has in a project and how
he or she has both an obligation responsibility and has a share of blame responsibility
depend on his or her role in the project
Roger Boisjoly clearly demonstrated obligation responsibility here. He did his own
work to standard to the best of his ability with the resources he had. He also kept
requesting extra resources to try to do more tests on the sealing of the joint. At every
opportunity he told his managers of the dangers and that the shuttle should not launch. At

the teleconference he went against his managers and said that the launch should not go
ahead. This was very hard for him to do as it can be very difficult for someone to face up to
their bosses. Here he shows how he was putting society ahead of the company and his
own job. This is something all engineers need to do as part of their daily jobs.
Roger Boisjoly accepted his part of the blame responsibility. Following the disaster
he went back to his office and remained there for the rest of the day. When anyone called
by to see how he was he was unable to talk to them. This clearly shows the guilt he was
feeling. Engineers must be able to take blame because they are given a special role in
society to make informed decisions. If they make an incorrect decision then they need to be
accountable for it.
Roger Boisjolys role in the shuttle involved the O-Rings. He accepted his obligation
responsibility and tried to avert the disaster but failed to stop the launch. Engineers must
have a role responsibility. If something is their responsibility then if anything goes wrong
with it they must be responsible for it.
In conclusion, from this video the responsibility as an engineer has a large role to
play in field engineering. As an engineer, they should ask themselves if what they doing is
responsible and if they will responsible if anything goes wrong. In fact, every single action
they taking in field of engineering not only effect to environment, company but also to
human life and other. According to this video in the Challenger disaster that we can see
Roger Boisjoly took on his responsibilities every his action and his did the best in order to
prevent the disaster from happened but management decisions overruled him. Moral
values from this video, engineer should be more aware something case like this. They must
make engineering decisions based on their knowledge engineering and not management
based decisions. Engineers also need to remember that their responsible not just to their
employer, but also to society.

Roles
NASA

Marshall

Organizations
The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, responsible
for space exploration. The space shuttle is one of NASAs
programs
Space A NASA facility that was in charge of the solid rocket booster

Flight Center
Morton Thiokol

People
NASA
Larry Mullay

Morton Thiokol
Roger Boisjoly
Arnie Johnson
Joe Kimnister
Alan McDonald
Robert Lund
Jerald Mason

development for the shuttle


`-in charge of booster rocket development
A private company that won the contract from NASA for building
the solid rocket boosters for the shuttle
-Contracted by NASA to build the solid rocket booster
Role
Solid Rocket Booster Project manager at Marshall challenged the
engineers decision not to launch

Engineers who worked on the Solid Rocket Booster Development


Program- engineer who worked under McDonald
Engineers who worked on the Solid Rocket Booster Development
Program- engineer who worked under McDonald
Engineering Manager on the Solid Rocket Booster Developmet
Program
Director of the Solid Rocket Booster Project
Vide President for enginnering
Senior excutive who encouraged Lund to reassess his decision not
to launch

e) Aboard the shuttle for this flight was the first teacher in space. Should civilians be
allowed on what is basically an experimental launch vehicle?
In my opinion, my answer is no. It is a risk to send civilians to orbit due to it is
experimental program because it is first time and the change of failed also might can
happened .I think that civilians should not be allowed on the space shuttle for the first
experimental launch vehicle. There are many reason due to this horrific disasters causes
loss of 7 astronaut including a teacher, Christa McAuliffe. This is because, civilians is
lacking of knowledge about space. In plus, that civilians should be attend classes and
program to gain more knowledge not only knowledge about to survive on the space but
also the knowledge about space ship also. Besides that, NASA should consider indirect
causes if anything bad happening to the civilians. For instance, they need to pay
compensation to their victim civilians family. But, it also cannot be denied that NASA also

sent professional astronauts including scientist and engineers into orbit. In fact that,
scientist and engineer also part of civilians allowed in space that could contribute vast
amounts of knowledge and insight to new technologies. If they are not allowed in spaces,
all we doing is hindering our own advancement.