Response to case study scenario 1

My position
I would demand that the product is recalled. My morals are important to me and the risk of loosing my job to make a stand for public safety is insignificant, when compared to the sacrifices people make every day. For example Nelson Mandela and Mohamed Ali spent years in prison for standing up for their beliefs. These Drives will not only be used in home or work but also in schools. I would happily lose my job if it prevented a fire or even a death.

From a Business point of view.
Having done the job of a Risk Assessor the fundamental equation we use is, the rate of occurrence multiplied by the impact of the event equals the risk. In this situation the rate of occurrence is 1.5% and the impact is safety critical with the potential to cause injury or death or at least damage to other devices. As shown here the risk is extremely high giving rise to an ethical obligation to remove the risk to consumers on this basis.

Relevent Facts
On a financial basis the company must relate this to a worst case scenario and assume responsibility if injury or death occurs as a result of known faulty products. From the Electronic Times November 8 1999 “Toshiba reached a $1.2bn out-of-court settlement with five plaintiffs who had alleged serious damage was caused by a faulty floppy disk drive controller chip.” In comparison the cost to the company to recall the product is low.

Analysis
At the moment only one weeks worth of USB drives need to be recalled from one client. If there is a delay then the recall costs will multiply with the need to trace units to consumers or issue warnings in the press. This will affect the Company’s reputation with the knock on effect of reduced customer confidence and reduced sales.

Personal experience
As an engineer I have been faced with a similar situation. On investigating a lamp flickering on a high power system a fault was discover in a power distribution panel. One of the ceramic connector blocks was severely blackened. Initially I found that a screw had vibrated loose causing arcing. I could have taken no further action after this discovery but on removal I discovered that due to modifications on the system the connector block no longer had an adequate current rating. I also discovered that this was the case on all ships in the fleet with this system. The course of action decided upon was to switch off the systems where possible until the new blocks were fitted and the systems that for operational reasons could not be switched off had to be monitored hourly. Had I chosen to ignore the problem the potential cost was £Millions for one system alone and possible injury or death to crew had a fire occurred.

My actions
I would imediatley highlight potential costs, financially, legally and ethically to the supervisor to allow him the opportunity to change his decision. If I was not satisfied with the decision, I would use the company management hierarchy and present the situation to them and warn them that I would be willing to take matters further as there is a real danger to the public. This could be as simple as informing the client of the danger or a press release. The recall costs do not over ride public safety.