Within a few months of receiving my Bachelor of Science Degree in Engineering from the University of Pittsburgh, I was fortunate to be offered a position as a licensed engineer with the Triforce Group, a small firm based in Seattle that specializes in sustainable energy. I was placed at their branch office in Portland with the intention of pursuing a Master’s degree after saving a portion of my yearly income for three years to fund my continued education. The Triforce Group supported my plans and offered to provide me with a job both before and after receiving an advanced degree. The firm had plans to promote me to a project manager position with increased pay and benefits after I received my degree.
It has been two years and three months …show more content…
As the project manager, Greg stands to benefit greatly if this project is successful. If the carbon sequestration module runs effectively, efficiently, and begins to make financial returns for the local plant over the next few years, other power plants who are currently showing curiosity in the sequestration project are likely to come to Triforce Group to build their own modules. If Greg successfully leads this project, he will likely be chosen to manage similar projects for other power …show more content…
As I read over the report, I was concerned to find that the efficiency estimates were significantly greater than the numbers I had given Greg a few days before. I initially thought this to be an honest mistake and made note to approach Greg about the error later on. When I did meet with Greg, however, he told me that he found no error when completing his report with the numbers I had given me and he advised me to keep the occurrence of the “mistake” quiet. The next day, when the finalized report was sent out after Greg had met with the client, I found that the erroneous numbers remained unchanged. Greg’s report greatly overstated the average rate of fuel production that the sequestration module was capable of, presenting a number much closer to the ideal production rate during maximum sunlight exposure, which is a rare occurrence in Portland with its usually rainy days, instead of the production rate calculated with Portland’s average sun exposure in mind. This so-called “mistake”, left unfixed despite my warnings, presented to the client a result that was higher than the sequestration technology could achieve, giving a false view of both the carbon dioxide they could remove from the atmosphere and the fuel that the module could produce. As I considered the error further, I decided to consult my coworkers to
It has been two years and three months …show more content…
As the project manager, Greg stands to benefit greatly if this project is successful. If the carbon sequestration module runs effectively, efficiently, and begins to make financial returns for the local plant over the next few years, other power plants who are currently showing curiosity in the sequestration project are likely to come to Triforce Group to build their own modules. If Greg successfully leads this project, he will likely be chosen to manage similar projects for other power …show more content…
As I read over the report, I was concerned to find that the efficiency estimates were significantly greater than the numbers I had given Greg a few days before. I initially thought this to be an honest mistake and made note to approach Greg about the error later on. When I did meet with Greg, however, he told me that he found no error when completing his report with the numbers I had given me and he advised me to keep the occurrence of the “mistake” quiet. The next day, when the finalized report was sent out after Greg had met with the client, I found that the erroneous numbers remained unchanged. Greg’s report greatly overstated the average rate of fuel production that the sequestration module was capable of, presenting a number much closer to the ideal production rate during maximum sunlight exposure, which is a rare occurrence in Portland with its usually rainy days, instead of the production rate calculated with Portland’s average sun exposure in mind. This so-called “mistake”, left unfixed despite my warnings, presented to the client a result that was higher than the sequestration technology could achieve, giving a false view of both the carbon dioxide they could remove from the atmosphere and the fuel that the module could produce. As I considered the error further, I decided to consult my coworkers to