An elevated corridor is being constructed to reduce traffic congestion in the capital of a particular state. You have been selected as project manager of this prestigious project on your professional competence and experience. The deadline is to complete the project in the next two years by 30 June 2021, since the project is to be inaugurated by the Chief Minister before the elections are announced in the second week of July 2021. While carrying out the surprise inspection by the inspecting team, a minor crack was noticed in one of the piers of the elevated corridor possibly due to poor material used. You immediately informed the chief engineer and stopped further work. It was assessed by you that a minimum of three piers of the elevated corridor have to be demolished and reconstructed. But this process will delay the project minimum by four to six months. But the chief engineer overruled the observation of the inspecting team on the ground that it was a minor crack that will not in any way impact the strength and durability of the bridge. He ordered you to overlook the observation of the inspecting team and continue working with the same speed and tempo. He informed you that the minister does not want any delay as he wants the Chief Minister to inaugurate the elevated corridor before the elections are declared. Also informed you that the contractor is a far relative of the minister and he wants him to finish the project. He also gave you a hint that your further promotion as an additional chief engineer is under consideration by the ministry. However, you strongly felt that the minor crack in the pier in the elevated corridor will adversely affect the health and life of the bridge and therefore it will be very dangerous not to repair the elevated corridor. [2021]

a) As the project manager, some of the options available to you include:

Adhering to the directive of the chief engineer and continuing the project as planned, despite the concerns raised by the inspecting team
Raising the issue with higher authorities or the project sponsor, such as the minister or Chief Minister, to seek their guidance on how to proceed
Seeking a second opinion from a qualified structural engineer or other expert on the potential impact of the minor crack on the strength and durability of the bridge
Refusing to carry out the directive of the chief engineer and halting the project until the issue is properly addressed and resolved

b) The ethical dilemmas being faced by the project manager in this situation include:

The potential for compromising safety and endangering the lives of future users of the bridge, by ignoring the observations raised by the inspecting team
The conflict between upholding professional ethics and adhering to the directives of a superior, who may be motivated by political or personal interests rather than the best interests of the project
The potential for damaging the reputation and credibility of the project manager, if the consequences of overlooking the observation result in negative outcomes

c) The professional challenges likely to be faced by the project manager in this situation include:

Dealing with the potential for conflict or resistance from the chief engineer and other stakeholders who may be opposed to addressing the issue
Managing the impact on the project schedule and budget, if additional time and resources are required to address the issue
Maintaining the trust and confidence of the project team, while navigating the ethical and professional challenges presented by the situation

d) The consequences of overlooking the observation raised by the inspecting team could include:

Increased risk of structural failure or collapse of the bridge, which could lead to injury or loss of life for users of the bridge
Potential legal and financial liabilities, if the issue results in damages or claims
Damage to the reputation and credibility of the project manager and the project team, if the issue becomes public or is discovered at a later stage