Engneering manegment
Order Description
Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined
in the course specification:
?
review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
?
evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of
operations and financial control
?
distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability
and professional negligence
?
determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
?
apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific
situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.
ENG3003 Engineering management
Assignment 2
Engineering practice case study
Description Marks out of Wtg(%) Due date Case study 2 Engineering practice 300 30.00 18 Jan 2015
Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined in the course specification:
? review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
? evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of operations and financial control
? distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability and professional negligence
? determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
? apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.
Special Instructions
This assignment is to be electronically submitted via Study desk assignment drop-box.
Please submit as a generated PDF file or Word file. Do not submit zip files or scanned PDF files.
File name for your assignment may follow the following format:- Student surname (in capitals)_first name_ENG3003_ASS 2_S3_2015
For example JONES_Bob_ENG3003_ASS 2_S3_2015
This is not critical but helps in sorting student submissions.
ENG3003 Engineering management
CASE STUDY: ISAAC’S DILEMMA
Isaac King is a qualified civil engineer who graduated from Eastern University three years ago. Isaac was able to secure a job with Grandview Consulting Engineers soon after graduation and has been with the company since graduation. Grandview Consulting Engineers specialise in project management for civil engineering construction projects.
The principals of Grandview are Tom Foster, Glen Drew and Eugene Smogger. Tom is the original founder of Grandview and started the company 47 years ago. Tom is semi-retired and does little professional engineering work in the company anymore. Tom took Glen and Eugene in as equal partners 12 years ago. Glen and Eugene are now responsible for handling most of the affairs of the company.
Glen has been a professional engineer for 18 years. He has worked for the company for 25 years and completed his engineering degree by part time study while working for the company. Eugene joined the company 14 years ago after 3 years with a rival consulting engineering firm. Eugene was brilliant at university and graduated with first class honours and the University Prize.
Isaac’s impression is that Glen and Eugene do not get along particularly well. They each tend to be concerned only with their own projects. When joint strategy and decision making is required for the company they often clash, sometimes quite heatedly. Tom has been able to play the mediator and “father-figure” role in these disputes, but as Tom is getting older (he is now 78 years old) he is less and less involved in day-to-day company affairs.
For most of his time with the company Isaac has worked under the control of Glen Drew. Isaac has been involved in the management of small and medium sized construction projects. He has found Glen to be an extremely conscientious and capable engineer. Glen is meticulous when it comes to details and insists on knowing all details before making a decision. Isaac has sometimes found this to be annoying, particularly in the cut and thrust of construction work where decisions often need to be made quickly and sometimes you inevitably make the wrong decision but learn to live with it. Isaac holds Glen in very high regard however, and feels that he has been the ideal mentor for an engineer in the first years of his career. Isaac has always found Glen to be scrupulously ethical.
Four months ago Isaac was assigned duties to be involved in the project management of an $86 million (Australian) project under the control of Eugene. This is by far the biggest project the company has ever had to manage. Eugene is the Project Manager and is “the Superintendent” as defined under the contract (AS4000). Isaac is the Inspection Engineer and reports to Eugene.
The project is the duplication of a section of the Buxom Highway. The State Highways Department is the constructing authority and the contractor for the job is Buildbig Australia. The job involves construction of a four lane roadway, and includes construction of 5 bridges. The tender was let after public advertising and assessment of bids by the State Highways Department.
ENG3003 Engineering management
The contract is a Schedule of Rates contract (i.e. unit price contract) that uses AS4000 General Conditions of Contract. Grandview Consulting Engineers were appointed project managers for the work by the State Highways Department as the Department did not at that time have the manpower to supervise the contract as well as look after all the other projects they had underway.
After 4 months Isaac has found that Eugene is a very different person from Glen. Eugene is a very strong, forceful character who always wants to get his own way. He is not afraid to trample on other people’s feelings to get things done. He is not averse to making hard decisions and will “cut corners” if it will help his cause. Isaac is of the opinion that Eugene’s ethics are at times a little suspect and that he tends to bend rules to suit his convenience.
John Mangle is the Site Manager for Buildbig. John is an engineer with nine years experience. Two Project Engineers, both relatively inexperienced, assist John in the control of the work.
The project has not been progressing well. Prolonged wet weather and a fairly serious industrial dispute between Buildbig and the Formworker’s Union have delayed progress, particularly on the major Ned’s Gully Bridge.
Ten days ago Isaac arrived at the Ned’s Gully Bridge site to find a large concrete pour was under way on the northern abutment foundation. John Mangle was supposed to have advised Isaac before concrete pouring started so that an inspection of the reinforcing steel placement could be made and signed off before any concrete was poured. Once on site Isaac quickly looked over the steelwork (which seemed to be satisfactory) and then telephoned John Mangle to complain about the incorrect procedure being followed in getting approval for the pour. John told Isaac that he had tried to telephone him the previous day but he was unable to reach him. As a result he claimed to have checked with Eugene who told him to go ahead with the concrete pour. Back in the office, a few hours later, Isaac asked Eugene about the issue. Eugene was evasive and said that “it didn’t really matter anyway as long as the steelwork was okay”. Isaac therefore decided to sign off (i.e. authorise payment to the contractor) on this aspect of the project even though he had not been able to inspect the entire steel placement prior to the concrete pour.
Yesterday Isaac received a telephone call at 4pm from John Mangle to say that the southern abutment foundation was to be poured today starting at 7am, and that Isaac would need to be on the job before this to check the steel. This morning Isaac experienced trouble getting his car started and did not manage to arrive at the site until 8am. When he arrived at the site he found that the concrete pour was almost finished and that it was impossible for him to check that the proper amount of reinforcing steel had been placed in the concrete. He did notice however, that there appeared to be a large amount of reinforcing steel lying about the job. John Mangle arrived on the job soon after Isaac had arrived. When Isaac asked him about the lack of inspection for the steelwork John replied that he had received Eugene’s approval for the pour over the telephone at 6:30am, when Isaac was nowhere to be seen on the job. Eugene arrived on the job about half an hour later and when Isaac asked him if he approved the concrete pour Eugene said “Not really, but don’t worry Buildbig is a good construction company and they do everything according to the specification”.
ENG3003 Engineering management
Eugene also said that Isaac would have to sign off on the work to say that the steel inspection had been done prior to the concrete pour. Isaac said this was not possible as he was not sure that the correct amount of steel had been placed. Eugene said the only other option open to him (Isaac) was for coring and X-ray tests to be carried out on the concrete to check steel locations. However, as the steel inspection should have been carried out by Isaac prior to the concrete pour, the cost of the extra testing would have to be deducted from his salary. Isaac said a few unsavoury words to Eugene and stormed off to check the progress on the curing of the concrete in the northern abutment.
When Isaac inspected the northern abutment he found severe cracking of the concrete had taken place in one corner of the foundation. This seemed to be consistent with a lack of steel reinforcement having been placed in this area of the work. Looking back across Ned’s Gully to the southern abutment Isaac became aware of Eugene and John standing together near John’s car, and John handing a reasonably fat brown envelope to Eugene. Isaac did not think this unusual at the time but a few hours later back at the office Eugene dropped his cigarette lighter on the floor, and when he bent over to pick it up a brown envelope fell from his pocket and spilt its contents on the floor. Isaac noticed the envelope contained a large number of $50 notes that Eugene quickly scooped back up and shoved in his pocket.
Identify and discuss the contractual and ethical issues involved in this case. What course of action would be appropriate for Isaac to follow now?
Notes:
(i) Marks will be allocated in the following way:
Identification and Discussion of Issues: Maximum 50 marks
Identification of course of action: Maximum 150 marks
Written Communication: Maximum 100 marks
Total Maximum 300 marks
(ii) The case should be examined and reported using the guidelines set out in ‘Course assessment – Case study’ section of the Course Content.
(iii) The answer should be no more than 2000 words. The final section of the report should clearly identify the course of action that Isaac should follow. This section will be the major section of the report on which technical content will be judged. The conclusions reached and action recommended, however, will need to be supported by the arguments presented in the previous sections of the report. This final section should be between 200 and 250 words in length.
(iv) Your report should have a formal format with title page, executive summary, contents page, introduction, answers to questions, references and appendices. The report should be word processed.
(v) The exact number of words in the report and in the final section, should be reported on the Title Page.
ENG3003 Engineering management
(vi) Written communication will be assessed in this assignment and will contribute to your overall Communications mark in the course ENG3003 Engineering Management.
(vii) Please note that if plagiarism or cheating is detected in this assignment it will result in no marks for the assignment. Students should ensure they clearly understand the meaning of plagiarism and cheating. In particular, students should understand that while they may collaborate with other students on the conceptual ideas in their assignments, the final written report submitted by each student must be unique, and must not contain the written material of (a) any other student in the course, or (b) any other person without due acknowledgement.
(viii) All sources of information used in the preparation of the report should be adequately referenced, and you will be expected to have consulted works outside the formal study materials. In particular you will need to have consulted (a) AS4000 General Conditions of Contract to discern and discuss the contractual issues, and (b) the Code of Ethics of Engineers Australia to discern and discuss the ethical issues.
(ix) If you reside in Australia you may use a copy of AS2124 (1992) General Conditions of Contract as an alternative to AS4000.
(x) If you reside outside Australia you may use an alternate General Conditions of Contract from your own country. However, the document must be in English, and you must include a copy of the complete General Conditions of Contract document as an appendix in your report. You may not use a General Conditions of Contract document other than AS4000 or one from your own country (e.g. if you reside in Singapore you may not use a General Conditions of Contract document from the U.S.A.).

Engneering manegment
Order Description
Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined
in the course specification:
?
review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
?
evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of
operations and financial control
?
distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability
and professional negligence
?
determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
?
apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific
situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.
ENG3003 Engineering management
Assignment 2
Engineering practice case study
Description Marks out of Wtg(%) Due date Case study 2 Engineering practice 300 30.00 18 Jan 2015
Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined in the course specification:
? review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
? evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of operations and financial control
? distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability and professional negligence
? determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
? apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.
Special Instructions
This assignment is to be electronically submitted via Study desk assignment drop-box.
Please submit as a generated PDF file or Word file. Do not submit zip files or scanned PDF files.
File name for your assignment may follow the following format:- Student surname (in capitals)_first name_ENG3003_ASS 2_S3_2015
For example JONES_Bob_ENG3003_ASS 2_S3_2015
This is not critical but helps in sorting student submissions.
ENG3003 Engineering management
CASE STUDY: ISAAC’S DILEMMA
Isaac King is a qualified civil engineer who graduated from Eastern University three years ago. Isaac was able to secure a job with Grandview Consulting Engineers soon after graduation and has been with the company since graduation. Grandview Consulting Engineers specialise in project management for civil engineering construction projects.
The principals of Grandview are Tom Foster, Glen Drew and Eugene Smogger. Tom is the original founder of Grandview and started the company 47 years ago. Tom is semi-retired and does little professional engineering work in the company anymore. Tom took Glen and Eugene in as equal partners 12 years ago. Glen and Eugene are now responsible for handling most of the affairs of the company.
Glen has been a professional engineer for 18 years. He has worked for the company for 25 years and completed his engineering degree by part time study while working for the company. Eugene joined the company 14 years ago after 3 years with a rival consulting engineering firm. Eugene was brilliant at university and graduated with first class honours and the University Prize.
Isaac’s impression is that Glen and Eugene do not get along particularly well. They each tend to be concerned only with their own projects. When joint strategy and decision making is required for the company they often clash, sometimes quite heatedly. Tom has been able to play the mediator and “father-figure” role in these disputes, but as Tom is getting older (he is now 78 years old) he is less and less involved in day-to-day company affairs.
For most of his time with the company Isaac has worked under the control of Glen Drew. Isaac has been involved in the management of small and medium sized construction projects. He has found Glen to be an extremely conscientious and capable engineer. Glen is meticulous when it comes to details and insists on knowing all details before making a decision. Isaac has sometimes found this to be annoying, particularly in the cut and thrust of construction work where decisions often need to be made quickly and sometimes you inevitably make the wrong decision but learn to live with it. Isaac holds Glen in very high regard however, and feels that he has been the ideal mentor for an engineer in the first years of his career. Isaac has always found Glen to be scrupulously ethical.
Four months ago Isaac was assigned duties to be involved in the project management of an $86 million (Australian) project under the control of Eugene. This is by far the biggest project the company has ever had to manage. Eugene is the Project Manager and is “the Superintendent” as defined under the contract (AS4000). Isaac is the Inspection Engineer and reports to Eugene.
The project is the duplication of a section of the Buxom Highway. The State Highways Department is the constructing authority and the contractor for the job is Buildbig Australia. The job involves construction of a four lane roadway, and includes construction of 5 bridges. The tender was let after public advertising and assessment of bids by the State Highways Department.
ENG3003 Engineering management
The contract is a Schedule of Rates contract (i.e. unit price contract) that uses AS4000 General Conditions of Contract. Grandview Consulting Engineers were appointed project managers for the work by the State Highways Department as the Department did not at that time have the manpower to supervise the contract as well as look after all the other projects they had underway.
After 4 months Isaac has found that Eugene is a very different person from Glen. Eugene is a very strong, forceful character who always wants to get his own way. He is not afraid to trample on other people’s feelings to get things done. He is not averse to making hard decisions and will “cut corners” if it will help his cause. Isaac is of the opinion that Eugene’s ethics are at times a little suspect and that he tends to bend rules to suit his convenience.
John Mangle is the Site Manager for Buildbig. John is an engineer with nine years experience. Two Project Engineers, both relatively inexperienced, assist John in the control of the work.
The project has not been progressing well. Prolonged wet weather and a fairly serious industrial dispute between Buildbig and the Formworker’s Union have delayed progress, particularly on the major Ned’s Gully Bridge.
Ten days ago Isaac arrived at the Ned’s Gully Bridge site to find a large concrete pour was under way on the northern abutment foundation. John Mangle was supposed to have advised Isaac before concrete pouring started so that an inspection of the reinforcing steel placement could be made and signed off before any concrete was poured. Once on site Isaac quickly looked over the steelwork (which seemed to be satisfactory) and then telephoned John Mangle to complain about the incorrect procedure being followed in getting approval for the pour. John told Isaac that he had tried to telephone him the previous day but he was unable to reach him. As a result he claimed to have checked with Eugene who told him to go ahead with the concrete pour. Back in the office, a few hours later, Isaac asked Eugene about the issue. Eugene was evasive and said that “it didn’t really matter anyway as long as the steelwork was okay”. Isaac therefore decided to sign off (i.e. authorise payment to the contractor) on this aspect of the project even though he had not been able to inspect the entire steel placement prior to the concrete pour.
Yesterday Isaac received a telephone call at 4pm from John Mangle to say that the southern abutment foundation was to be poured today starting at 7am, and that Isaac would need to be on the job before this to check the steel. This morning Isaac experienced trouble getting his car started and did not manage to arrive at the site until 8am. When he arrived at the site he found that the concrete pour was almost finished and that it was impossible for him to check that the proper amount of reinforcing steel had been placed in the concrete. He did notice however, that there appeared to be a large amount of reinforcing steel lying about the job. John Mangle arrived on the job soon after Isaac had arrived. When Isaac asked him about the lack of inspection for the steelwork John replied that he had received Eugene’s approval for the pour over the telephone at 6:30am, when Isaac was nowhere to be seen on the job. Eugene arrived on the job about half an hour later and when Isaac asked him if he approved the concrete pour Eugene said “Not really, but don’t worry Buildbig is a good construction company and they do everything according to the specification”.
ENG3003 Engineering management
Eugene also said that Isaac would have to sign off on the work to say that the steel inspection had been done prior to the concrete pour. Isaac said this was not possible as he was not sure that the correct amount of steel had been placed. Eugene said the only other option open to him (Isaac) was for coring and X-ray tests to be carried out on the concrete to check steel locations. However, as the steel inspection should have been carried out by Isaac prior to the concrete pour, the cost of the extra testing would have to be deducted from his salary. Isaac said a few unsavoury words to Eugene and stormed off to check the progress on the curing of the concrete in the northern abutment.
When Isaac inspected the northern abutment he found severe cracking of the concrete had taken place in one corner of the foundation. This seemed to be consistent with a lack of steel reinforcement having been placed in this area of the work. Looking back across Ned’s Gully to the southern abutment Isaac became aware of Eugene and John standing together near John’s car, and John handing a reasonably fat brown envelope to Eugene. Isaac did not think this unusual at the time but a few hours later back at the office Eugene dropped his cigarette lighter on the floor, and when he bent over to pick it up a brown envelope fell from his pocket and spilt its contents on the floor. Isaac noticed the envelope contained a large number of $50 notes that Eugene quickly scooped back up and shoved in his pocket.
Identify and discuss the contractual and ethical issues involved in this case. What course of action would be appropriate for Isaac to follow now?
Notes:
(i) Marks will be allocated in the following way:
Identification and Discussion of Issues: Maximum 50 marks
Identification of course of action: Maximum 150 marks
Written Communication: Maximum 100 marks
Total Maximum 300 marks
(ii) The case should be examined and reported using the guidelines set out in ‘Course assessment – Case study’ section of the Course Content.
(iii) The answer should be no more than 2000 words. The final section of the report should clearly identify the course of action that Isaac should follow. This section will be the major section of the report on which technical content will be judged. The conclusions reached and action recommended, however, will need to be supported by the arguments presented in the previous sections of the report. This final section should be between 200 and 250 words in length.
(iv) Your report should have a formal format with title page, executive summary, contents page, introduction, answers to questions, references and appendices. The report should be word processed.
(v) The exact number of words in the report and in the final section, should be reported on the Title Page.
ENG3003 Engineering management
(vi) Written communication will be assessed in this assignment and will contribute to your overall Communications mark in the course ENG3003 Engineering Management.
(vii) Please note that if plagiarism or cheating is detected in this assignment it will result in no marks for the assignment. Students should ensure they clearly understand the meaning of plagiarism and cheating. In particular, students should understand that while they may collaborate with other students on the conceptual ideas in their assignments, the final written report submitted by each student must be unique, and must not contain the written material of (a) any other student in the course, or (b) any other person without due acknowledgement.
(viii) All sources of information used in the preparation of the report should be adequately referenced, and you will be expected to have consulted works outside the formal study materials. In particular you will need to have consulted (a) AS4000 General Conditions of Contract to discern and discuss the contractual issues, and (b) the Code of Ethics of Engineers Australia to discern and discuss the ethical issues.
(ix) If you reside in Australia you may use a copy of AS2124 (1992) General Conditions of Contract as an alternative to AS4000.
(x) If you reside outside Australia you may use an alternate General Conditions of Contract from your own country. However, the document must be in English, and you must include a copy of the complete General Conditions of Contract document as an appendix in your report. You may not use a General Conditions of Contract document other than AS4000 or one from your own country (e.g. if you reside in Singapore you may not use a General Conditions of Contract document from the U.S.A.).

Engneering manegment
Order Description
Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined
in the course specification:
?
review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
?
evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of
operations and financial control
?
distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability
and professional negligence
?
determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
?
apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific
situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.
ENG3003 Engineering management
Assignment 2
Engineering practice case study
Description Marks out of Wtg(%) Due date Case study 2 Engineering practice 300 30.00 18 Jan 2015
Objectives
This assignment addresses, in part, some of the following objectives for the course as outlined in the course specification:
? review and analyse the role of engineers as managers
? evaluate the characteristics of effective management control, including elements of operations and financial control
? distinguish and discuss the social and legal responsibilities relating to product liability and professional negligence
? determine appropriate methods of protecting intellectual property for specific situations
? apply the concept of ethics, and select and justify suitable ethical guidelines for specific situations, using as a basis the Engineers Australia, Code of Ethics.
Special Instructions
This assignment is to be electronically submitted via Study desk assignment drop-box.
Please submit as a generated PDF file or Word file. Do not submit zip files or scanned PDF files.
File name for your assignment may follow the following format:- Student surname (in capitals)_first name_ENG3003_ASS 2_S3_2015
For example JONES_Bob_ENG3003_ASS 2_S3_2015
This is not critical but helps in sorting student submissions.
ENG3003 Engineering management
CASE STUDY: ISAAC’S DILEMMA
Isaac King is a qualified civil engineer who graduated from Eastern University three years ago. Isaac was able to secure a job with Grandview Consulting Engineers soon after graduation and has been with the company since graduation. Grandview Consulting Engineers specialise in project management for civil engineering construction projects.
The principals of Grandview are Tom Foster, Glen Drew and Eugene Smogger. Tom is the original founder of Grandview and started the company 47 years ago. Tom is semi-retired and does little professional engineering work in the company anymore. Tom took Glen and Eugene in as equal partners 12 years ago. Glen and Eugene are now responsible for handling most of the affairs of the company.
Glen has been a professional engineer for 18 years. He has worked for the company for 25 years and completed his engineering degree by part time study while working for the company. Eugene joined the company 14 years ago after 3 years with a rival consulting engineering firm. Eugene was brilliant at university and graduated with first class honours and the University Prize.
Isaac’s impression is that Glen and Eugene do not get along particularly well. They each tend to be concerned only with their own projects. When joint strategy and decision making is required for the company they often clash, sometimes quite heatedly. Tom has been able to play the mediator and “father-figure” role in these disputes, but as Tom is getting older (he is now 78 years old) he is less and less involved in day-to-day company affairs.
For most of his time with the company Isaac has worked under the control of Glen Drew. Isaac has been involved in the management of small and medium sized construction projects. He has found Glen to be an extremely conscientious and capable engineer. Glen is meticulous when it comes to details and insists on knowing all details before making a decision. Isaac has sometimes found this to be annoying, particularly in the cut and thrust of construction work where decisions often need to be made quickly and sometimes you inevitably make the wrong decision but learn to live with it. Isaac holds Glen in very high regard however, and feels that he has been the ideal mentor for an engineer in the first years of his career. Isaac has always found Glen to be scrupulously ethical.
Four months ago Isaac was assigned duties to be involved in the project management of an $86 million (Australian) project under the control of Eugene. This is by far the biggest project the company has ever had to manage. Eugene is the Project Manager and is “the Superintendent” as defined under the contract (AS4000). Isaac is the Inspection Engineer and reports to Eugene.
The project is the duplication of a section of the Buxom Highway. The State Highways Department is the constructing authority and the contractor for the job is Buildbig Australia. The job involves construction of a four lane roadway, and includes construction of 5 bridges. The tender was let after public advertising and assessment of bids by the State Highways Department.
ENG3003 Engineering management
The contract is a Schedule of Rates contract (i.e. unit price contract) that uses AS4000 General Conditions of Contract. Grandview Consulting Engineers were appointed project managers for the work by the State Highways Department as the Department did not at that time have the manpower to supervise the contract as well as look after all the other projects they had underway.
After 4 months Isaac has found that Eugene is a very different person from Glen. Eugene is a very strong, forceful character who always wants to get his own way. He is not afraid to trample on other people’s feelings to get things done. He is not averse to making hard decisions and will “cut corners” if it will help his cause. Isaac is of the opinion that Eugene’s ethics are at times a little suspect and that he tends to bend rules to suit his convenience.
John Mangle is the Site Manager for Buildbig. John is an engineer with nine years experience. Two Project Engineers, both relatively inexperienced, assist John in the control of the work.
The project has not been progressing well. Prolonged wet weather and a fairly serious industrial dispute between Buildbig and the Formworker’s Union have delayed progress, particularly on the major Ned’s Gully Bridge.
Ten days ago Isaac arrived at the Ned’s Gully Bridge site to find a large concrete pour was under way on the northern abutment foundation. John Mangle was supposed to have advised Isaac before concrete pouring started so that an inspection of the reinforcing steel placement could be made and signed off before any concrete was poured. Once on site Isaac quickly looked over the steelwork (which seemed to be satisfactory) and then telephoned John Mangle to complain about the incorrect procedure being followed in getting approval for the pour. John told Isaac that he had tried to telephone him the previous day but he was unable to reach him. As a result he claimed to have checked with Eugene who told him to go ahead with the concrete pour. Back in the office, a few hours later, Isaac asked Eugene about the issue. Eugene was evasive and said that “it didn’t really matter anyway as long as the steelwork was okay”. Isaac therefore decided to sign off (i.e. authorise payment to the contractor) on this aspect of the project even though he had not been able to inspect the entire steel placement prior to the concrete pour.
Yesterday Isaac received a telephone call at 4pm from John Mangle to say that the southern abutment foundation was to be poured today starting at 7am, and that Isaac would need to be on the job before this to check the steel. This morning Isaac experienced trouble getting his car started and did not manage to arrive at the site until 8am. When he arrived at the site he found that the concrete pour was almost finished and that it was impossible for him to check that the proper amount of reinforcing steel had been placed in the concrete. He did notice however, that there appeared to be a large amount of reinforcing steel lying about the job. John Mangle arrived on the job soon after Isaac had arrived. When Isaac asked him about the lack of inspection for the steelwork John replied that he had received Eugene’s approval for the pour over the telephone at 6:30am, when Isaac was nowhere to be seen on the job. Eugene arrived on the job about half an hour later and when Isaac asked him if he approved the concrete pour Eugene said “Not really, but don’t worry Buildbig is a good construction company and they do everything according to the specification”.
ENG3003 Engineering management
Eugene also said that Isaac would have to sign off on the work to say that the steel inspection had been done prior to the concrete pour. Isaac said this was not possible as he was not sure that the correct amount of steel had been placed. Eugene said the only other option open to him (Isaac) was for coring and X-ray tests to be carried out on the concrete to check steel locations. However, as the steel inspection should have been carried out by Isaac prior to the concrete pour, the cost of the extra testing would have to be deducted from his salary. Isaac said a few unsavoury words to Eugene and stormed off to check the progress on the curing of the concrete in the northern abutment.
When Isaac inspected the northern abutment he found severe cracking of the concrete had taken place in one corner of the foundation. This seemed to be consistent with a lack of steel reinforcement having been placed in this area of the work. Looking back across Ned’s Gully to the southern abutment Isaac became aware of Eugene and John standing together near John’s car, and John handing a reasonably fat brown envelope to Eugene. Isaac did not think this unusual at the time but a few hours later back at the office Eugene dropped his cigarette lighter on the floor, and when he bent over to pick it up a brown envelope fell from his pocket and spilt its contents on the floor. Isaac noticed the envelope contained a large number of $50 notes that Eugene quickly scooped back up and shoved in his pocket.
Identify and discuss the contractual and ethical issues involved in this case. What course of action would be appropriate for Isaac to follow now?
Notes:
(i) Marks will be allocated in the following way:
Identification and Discussion of Issues: Maximum 50 marks
Identification of course of action: Maximum 150 marks
Written Communication: Maximum 100 marks
Total Maximum 300 marks
(ii) The case should be examined and reported using the guidelines set out in ‘Course assessment – Case study’ section of the Course Content.
(iii) The answer should be no more than 2000 words. The final section of the report should clearly identify the course of action that Isaac should follow. This section will be the major section of the report on which technical content will be judged. The conclusions reached and action recommended, however, will need to be supported by the arguments presented in the previous sections of the report. This final section should be between 200 and 250 words in length.
(iv) Your report should have a formal format with title page, executive summary, contents page, introduction, answers to questions, references and appendices. The report should be word processed.
(v) The exact number of words in the report and in the final section, should be reported on the Title Page.
ENG3003 Engineering management
(vi) Written communication will be assessed in this assignment and will contribute to your overall Communications mark in the course ENG3003 Engineering Management.
(vii) Please note that if plagiarism or cheating is detected in this assignment it will result in no marks for the assignment. Students should ensure they clearly understand the meaning of plagiarism and cheating. In particular, students should understand that while they may collaborate with other students on the conceptual ideas in their assignments, the final written report submitted by each student must be unique, and must not contain the written material of (a) any other student in the course, or (b) any other person without due acknowledgement.
(viii) All sources of information used in the preparation of the report should be adequately referenced, and you will be expected to have consulted works outside the formal study materials. In particular you will need to have consulted (a) AS4000 General Conditions of Contract to discern and discuss the contractual issues, and (b) the Code of Ethics of Engineers Australia to discern and discuss the ethical issues.
(ix) If you reside in Australia you may use a copy of AS2124 (1992) General Conditions of Contract as an alternative to AS4000.
(x) If you reside outside Australia you may use an alternate General Conditions of Contract from your own country. However, the document must be in English, and you must include a copy of the complete General Conditions of Contract document as an appendix in your report. You may not use a General Conditions of Contract document other than AS4000 or one from your own country (e.g. if you reside in Singapore you may not use a General Conditions of Contract document from the U.S.A.).