REGULATORY
Reviewing the Work Products of Fellow Professionals: Communicate Clearly, Act Ethically, Set Aside Competitive Motivations
BY MATTHEW OLIVER, CD, P.ENG. APEGA Deputy Registrar & Chief Regulatory Officer
Engineers and geoscientists are sometimes requested to conduct third-party reviews of work products created by other licensed professionals. This is becoming particularly commonplace in contracts with municipal and other government organizations, because they need to ensure they’ve performed full due diligence before letting a contract. Third-party reviews alleged to have been carried out unprofessionally are also a trend in disciplinary com- plaints we’re receiving. The onus to perform their duties professionally is, in all cases, on the individual licensed professional and the permit holder. They must ensure that all work is conducted in a manner that embodies in- tegrity, honesty, fairness, and objectivity, thereby uphold- ing the honour, dignity, and reputation of the professions. Because of all this activity, APEGA decided a summary—the one you’re reading now—would be helpful for members. If reviews like these are likely to come up in your job, saving this article for future reference is a good idea. It could save you some professional inconvenience or, worse, some real grief in the form of discipline findings against you. There is nothing intrinsically unethical about performing a third-party review of the work of another licensed professional or permit holder. If it is done in a manner consistent with APEGA’s Code of Ethics, these reviews can add rigour to the final technical product— in essence providing a further check and balance in our service to the public interest. However, if done in a manner inconsistent with the Code of Ethics , third-party reviews can have far-reaching implications for the reviewer and the original creator of the professional work product.
Conflict of interest and bias can subvert a purely technical review of another’s work, transforming it into something destructive. The third-party reviewer is usually a competitor in the practice area and may view critical comment as a great way to gain a business advantage. If the review is not done with full knowledge of all the background work—which is not always included in the final product—the reviewer may be providing an opinion on only part of the story. A super-critical review provided to a client can undermine the originator, damaging his or her reputation. Even if the original creator of the work product achieves resolution through an APEGA investigation, the reputational damage may already have been done. Vindication months or years later is thin relief when a client has been lost for good. The third-party reviewer may also be exposed to harm. If the review work does not consider all the original designer’s preparatory work, the reviewer may face a ruling of unskilled practice . Unskilled practice can exist when a professional fails to consider all relevant details and produces a critical report that only reflects part of the narrative. Additionally, if the reviewer performs that role in a manner that violates the APEGA Code of Ethics , this may result in disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct. How so? The Code of Ethics is legally binding on all APEGA licensed professionals and members-in-training. Rules of Conduct 1, 3, and 5 are relevant to this question: 1. Professional engineers and geoscientists shall, in their areas of practice, hold paramount the health, safety and welfare of the public and have regard for the environment.
44 | PEG SPRING 2019
Made with FlippingBook flipbook maker