The Misleading Feasibility Study
You are a civil engineer working for a consulting firm that specializes in infrastructure projects. Your firm has been hired by a regional government to prepare a feasibility study for a new bridge. The study will be used to secure funding from a higher level of government. During your analysis, you discover that the projected traffic volumes used by the client are overly optimistic and that the bridge may not generate enough toll revenue to cover its operating costs. You also find that the geological conditions at the proposed site are more complex than initially indicated, which would significantly increase construction costs. Your project manager suggests that you 'present the best-case scenario' because the study is just a 'conceptual document' and that 'the detailed design will sort out the issues.' You are concerned that if you present the optimistic scenario, the government may commit to a project that is not financially viable. The deadline for the study is in two weeks.
1. What are your ethical obligations regarding the feasibility study? How should you handle the pressure to present an optimistic scenario?
Read the worked answer
Ethical obligations: As an engineer, you have a duty to be honest and accurate in your professional reports. A feasibility study is a critical document that informs major public investment decisions. Presenting overly optimistic projections would be misleading and could lead to significant financial losses for the government and taxpayers. You must report the findings truthfully, even if they are inconvenient.
Handling pressure:
- Discuss with the project manager: Explain the technical basis for your concerns and the potential consequences of misrepresentation. Provide evidence from your analysis. Suggest that the study include a range of scenarios (best case, worst case, most likely) rather than a single optimistic one.
- Escalate if necessary: If the project manager insists on a misleading presentation, escalate to a higher authority in your firm. If the firm continues to pressure you, you may need to refuse to sign the study and report the matter to your professional association.
- Document your concerns: Keep a record of your analysis and the discussions. This protects you and provides a paper trail.
Key principle: Your stamp is a mark of integrity. You cannot certify a document you know to be misleading.
2. How should you structure the feasibility study to communicate the risks clearly while still providing useful information to the client?
Read the worked answer
Structure:
- Executive summary: Clearly state the key findings, including the risks and uncertainties. Do not bury bad news.
- Methodology: Explain the sources of data and the assumptions used. Be transparent about the traffic projections and geological data.
- Sensitivity analysis: Present multiple scenarios (e.g., low, medium, high traffic) and show how they affect financial viability. Include a break-even analysis.
- Risk assessment: Discuss the geological risks and their potential cost impacts. Recommend further geotechnical investigations before final design.
- Conclusions and recommendations: State whether the project is feasible under the current assumptions. If not, recommend alternatives (e.g., different alignment, smaller bridge, or further study).
- Limitations: Acknowledge the limitations of the study and the need for more detailed analysis.
Communication: Use clear, non-technical language where possible. Provide a briefing to the client to walk them through the findings. Be prepared to answer questions and defend your analysis. The goal is to give the client the information they need to make an informed decision, not to tell them what they want to hear.