There weren’t too many difficulties in progressing with this project. The only one was trying to find times where all of us could meet and unfortunately, not all of us were able to match up with our times but we still made it work. We communicated through a Slack channel which proved to be very effective. We had very productive meetings, assigning equal roles to everyone.

One possible course of action is that Jeff doesn’t go on his vacation, and the outcome would be that he does his job like he is supposed to even if it was postponed, and as a result, the supervision of the equipment would run under him and no one else would have to be involved and everything would run smoothly for the company as well.

Another possible course of action is that Jeff finds a way for someone else to take over for him even though it was his job. This could result in committing a potential fraud or the loss of a customer. In this situation, the best option for him to take would be to talk to an executive or a higher up official because his other job is also work related and he cannot be at two places at the same time. If there is no help there, the most ethical choice would be to stay on his current assignment and get the equipment set up under his supervision.

At this point in the project, our group has agreed that leaving the job early in both scenarios would ultimately be the wrong thing to do.

When applying a pragmatic approach to scenario A, it is easy to see that the means in this scenarios do not justify the ends. In this scenario, it is evident that Jeff may be able to get away with not being there for the instillation of every unit. In scenario B,  Nagelbett engineers are not required by law nor by company policy to oversee these installations, however it was Jeff’s assigned role to go Germany and make sure the units were installed properly. In this case , we dont believe that the ends justify the means because if Jeff did end up leaving early, he would be ignoring his assigned work duties in favor of enjoying his vacation. This would be a selfish act that could jeopardize the reputation of his company and could possible result in his termination of something goes wrong with the instillation of any unit. Therefore, the most ethical course of action to do in this scenario is to actually stay the extra two days to make sure that everything goes smoothly so that Nagelbett doesn’t lose any money or business and also to ensure job security.

In scenario B, however, the ethical choice seems to be a little less obvious. In this case, Jeff wants to leave not because he wants to enjoy his vacation, but because he has another project that requires him to start on time. He would have to leave early from the Treehorn to fulfill another obligation in a promptly manner, not because of a selfish reason such as wanting to spend a full week skiing. Due to the fact that Nagelbett provides very detailed instructions that any Treehorn engineer would follow, the cost benefit analysis would help us determine that leaving this job in the hands of a trusted Treehorn employee to go work on an other equally important project seems like an acceptable course of action. However, there is one factor that completely changes the scenario an that is that Jeff has a legal responsibility to supervise the installations of the units. There is a legal document that Jeff has to sign in order to verify that he did his job and if it turned out that one of the units was not installed properly then the consequences would be much more severe. It is for that reason that we can’t justify Jeff leaving the job early. Putting Nagelbett in major legal trouble would most likely result in Jeff being terminated would not be worth the risk of leaving early and falsifying documents. The course of action that we suggest for this scenario would for Jeff to stay for the entirety of the job and try speaking to the project leader at his next project and explain to them that he has a legal obligation to his current project.

On Wednesday, February 20th we met up as a group to read over our given scenario. This was helpful because it helped clarify any ambiguity in the text and come to a basis for what is occuring in both of the scenarios we are provided.

After the group reading was finished we summarized the events happening in Scenario A and discussed the following topics: the nature of the ethical dilemmas brought up, the responsibilities and liabilities each character in the scenario is currently assigned or needs to address in the future if they continue their current course of action, and the various resources presented to them in the scenario that can help them address the problems.

The same course of action was repeated for Scenario B.

Once both scenarios were discussed, each group member was assigned to write down their thoughts on the outcomes and their course of action in a Google Doc that was to be completed later on in the week. Along with that, team members were assigned to make seperate Google docs or on the same one where they address the information that is required in the blog posts.

These multiple Google Docs were put on a shared folder where the other team members can see their peers’ responses and comment on them. Once a Google Doc was discussed or no other comments were remaining they were put on the team blog.

On March 6th team members met to discuss the state of progress with the project. We set deadlines for each other on when parts of the project should be finished. For example, all Google Docs must be finished by March 7th so they can be reviewed, discussed and put on the blog by the deadline. Following the deadlines, we split our team into pairs to tackle the remaining aspects of the project. Our current plan looks something like this:

Deadlines:

Friday (3/8) – Finish all questions and post on blog

Sunday Night (3/10) – Report should be done and turned into TA

Tuesday (3/12) – Powerpoint presentation is done

Wednesday (3/13) – Meet up to split up parts for who covers what on the powerpoint

Nikki & Durva: Will do the report

Manuel & Victor: Remaining Questions

Deni & Rafa: Powerpoint

It could be argued that the common good approach could be applied here. One of the dilemmas that Jeff was facing was that he knew that the consequences of his actions could lead to putting the company under loss. Perhaps if the installations weren’t complete, it could lead to other repercussions and affect the consumers who wanted to have the product installed. Perhaps Jeff could think about the common good of the company and push back or cancel his vacation, or he could take the egoistic approach and consider the fact that losing his trip would be a loss of money and good times.

Another dilemma here is the option of who to put in charge as a substitute for Jeff, which more specifically plays on how careful he needs to be on who to pick. The ultimate goal would be to approve all the installations. Jeff was very confident in trusting Walt to look after all of them so he is definitely taking a more pragmatic approach since his reasoning to pick Walk would be ethical on his terms.

In our scenario we are presented with Jeff Lebowski who is an engineer at Nagelbett. He is tasked to supervise the installation of equipment for another company over the course of a few days. The installation is scheduled to be finished by the 12th but the equipment is delayed and thus the installation as well.

This leads to two scenarios with their own issues to address, but commonly one of the main issues they share is safety and liability.
Both scenarios involve Jeff leaving his post, arguing that the engineer from the other company is more than capable to oversee the installation of the remaining equipment. If something goes wrong with the installation or at any point throughout the lifespan of the equipement (which could be years) then we have to ask, who is to blame? Jeff himself for not being there? Jeff’s supervisor for not being assertive enough to make sure he stays in his post and does his job?

Even if there were to not be any problem with the equipment and all works properly, there is the liability that we are presented with in Scenario B where the other engineer needs to sign a form that states that Jeff was present on the installation. Here not only was it not true that Jeff was present for the installation, which is lying to both companies, but if anything does end up going wrong, the form clears Jeff of any liability and shifts the blame on the other company.

In scenario A, the main issue that arises is that of liability. It is Jeff’s responsibility to make sure that every unit was properly installed due to a recent strings of poorly installed units causing damage. If Jeff were to leave early without ensuring that those last two units get installed properly, then he would be violating company policy by not staying to oversee the units be installed properly. The policy of having a Nagelbett engineer present was put in place to prevent improper installations that could lead to catastrophic events. If the installation of any of the two units that Jeff did not supervise did not go smoothly then the effect could be extremely costly for Nagelbett and Jeff would be to blame due to company policy.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in scenario B is safety. The most important thing in any engineering project should always be safety which is why Nagelbett made it a requirement for Jeff to be on the job site to make sure that all installations go smoothly. If Jeff does not fulfill his duties and does not ensure proper installation then it is possible for a Treehorn engineer to make an error during installation which could lead to a total system failure and to Nagelbett losing money and a valued customer. Not only that, lives could also be lost as a result of faulty installation which it is why it is necessary for a certified Nagelbett engineer to be present during unit installations

In scenario B, similar issues regarding safety and liability arise, but there is an additional legal issue that also needs to be addressed. In scenario B, Jeff is required to sign documents that ensure that he personally supervised the installation of every unit which would legally require him to be present at the time of installation for each unit. Jeff suggested that he could leave early and come back the last week just to check a few of the units installed, without actually being there. In the event that a faulty installation proved to cause a major system failure, then Jeff and Nagelbett could be in serious legal troubles.

Overall:

Jeff is an engineer at Nagelbett and was assigned to install equipment at Treehorn, so he planned a week long vacation with his friends at a ski resort near the place of his assignment. However, some of the equipment was late, so he would be stuck installing the last couple units an extra couple days, overlapping with his vacation time. Treehorn engineer Walter had been watching Jeff install everything, so he offered to install the remaining units after they come in since he felt comfortable installing them. Jeff felt that Walter could install the rest but knew that Nagelbett wanted every installation monitored by one of their own engineers to minimize the number of accidents due to improper installation. Jeff is stuck between his company’s policy and his vacation.

Scenario A (call with boss):

Torn with this decision, Jeff calls his office and speaks to chief engineer Donny who says he cannot officially let Jeff leave early. The conversation with Donny seems to put emphasis on the job simply getting done, and Donny doesn’t care about details and hypotheticals, a point he repeats a few times. Donny seems to put this decision on Jeff and shrugs off the responsibility for this decision. Jeff very much believes that Walter is capable enough to install the rest and really wants to go on the vacation he already paid for. He thinks that the instructions are easy enough to follow, especially for people like Walter, and that his company sending their own engineers as not even necessary. Furthermore, there would be no legal implications on Jeff or the company if he did leave, since his supervision isn’t required by law or their contract. Jeff is clearly leaning toward leaving for his vacation since he would not be caught unless something went wrong, which he believe will not happen, and even if it did, Nagelbett technically did not do anything wrong. For Jeff, the worst case may only affect his job and not the company, but it also could be risking people getting hurt due to the improper installing. His decision will be choosing between his duty and the safety of others, and his own pleasures with minimum personal consequences.

Scenario B (next assignment instead of vacation):

In scenario B, however, Jeff’s reason for having to decide whether or not to leave early is the fact that he could be late for his next work assignment if he doesn’t leave early. If this is the case, his delay will cause him to fail to meet a deadline for a major customer (who insists on having the assignment done on time).

He decides to deal with this by telling Walter that he will stop by the company just for a quick, overall inspection of the final installation. With this final check, Jeff plans to sign the papers indicating that he has truly supervised all the installations fully.

In this scenario, the nature of the excuse is more serious than a vacation. That is, part of the company could be put at risk as a result of failing to meet a deadline. The legality of the situation is also heightened. By signing the “papers”, Jeff is making a legal promise that he has done what he is supposed to and supervised the installation as necessary. If he doesn’t actually live up to this promise, however, there is a risk that by signing the papers anyway, he may put his job in danger. By lying on a legal document, if anything goes wrong with the equipment down the line, fingers will point to him for blame. In fact, lying on such a document is a serious offense and can have legal consequences in addition to his employment risks.

Rafael Santiago Carranza: Project leader

Nikki Tyagi: Organizing secretary

Manuel Partida: Presentation leader

Deni Stoyanova: Researcher

Victor Sanchez: Report assembler

Durva Kapadne: Blog master