Response to case study scenario 1

As a junior engineer working in the safety testing group I have an obligation to the company and also a duty of care to consumers to provide a level of service seen fit by both parties. This scenario raises both legal and moral issues which must be addressed.

My concerns are that 3 tests out of 200 resulted in a power consumption failure and a potential fire hazard, this is a failure rate of 1.5% which is simply too high for a distributor to ignore in my opinion. With reference to liability the company could be compared to a restaurant; if the food is not cooked correctly the chef is held accountable but the restaurant is held liable. Similarly a network engineer is held accountable for their work, but if they produce a fault the company is liable for damages to the customer. In this scenario although the developer created the usb flash drives the company is responsible for its distribution and therefore legally responsible, this can be categorised under “strict liability”. If the company was to not recall the products they are in direct violation of the “BCS Code of conduct” section 1, the “Sale of Goods Act 1979” and the “Consumer Protection Act 1987”.

From the companies’ point of view one of their key critical business objectives is to increase revenue; therefore we must consider how this scenario will impact this objective. If I were to ignore the problem it is possible that the batch sent out to the client could cause zero fire hazard issues with the company incurring no charges or embarrassment related to the recall of the products.
However should the client encounter the fire hazard issue stated this will tarnish the reputation of the company and also those individually associated with the testing of the product, as quality standards will be seen as inadequate. The consumer may then end the business relationship resulting in a drop in sales and further losses due to brand damage should the issue be publicised by the media.

If the products were recalled there may be some initial embarrassment as it shows that their product testing practices were inadequate, possibly putting some doubt in the consumers mind as to whether they can trust the supplier to provide products at an appropriate standard. However the identification of the problem by the developer may also demonstrate to the consumer that they are forthcoming with issues and willing to rectify them accordingly creating an increased level of trust.

Two prior case studies that can be utilised to establish a precedent for this scenario are that of the “Lexar jump drive” [1] and the “Lenovo battery” [2] recalls both due to potential fire hazards.

Working previously as a network engineer I was in constant contact with clients, meeting their requirements and needs. Keeping the customer happy was the primary focus; if the customer is unhappy they may take their business elsewhere and voice their disproval to other customers discrediting your company’s reputation. In one situation an item was incorrectly quoted by an inexperienced member of staff which did not meet the clients’ requirements, the company rectified this by providing clear explanations, apologies and furthermore a price discount.

Word of mouth is integral to your reputation but also as an advertising tool emphasising the importance of being forthcoming and transparent with your clients during problematic times. It is well known that on average a satisfied customer will relay the information to four people and an unhappy customer to twelve people.

From a business perspective the batch should not be recalled as this would incur additional costs and negatively affect profits, however from an ethical perspective I believe that the problem should not be ignored as it could potentially cause injury or damage. My own personal ethics would not allow me to ignore the situation as I feel empathetic towards the client and would not expect that a product purchased could knowingly (by the supplier) create health and safety issues. It is my ethical duty ensure the client is informed, if not I would be breaking several codes of conduct and breaching my duty of care to the general public.

My decision is that I will approach my manager in a staff meeting and inform them of the problems associated with ignoring the issue as outlined above in addition to suggesting more thorough product testing is implemented. Should this not be taken seriously and the product not recalled I will approach a more senior individual in the company ensuring that my opinions are noted and my objection documented accordingly. I have made this decision as I believe that ignoring the issue would be irresponsible and it would reflect badly both on the company and myself as an engineer. Due to my position in the Safety Testing Group my opinions regarding product safety issues should be taken into consideration, however it is possible that my strong opinion may be seen as a character flaw and superseding my manager a direct defiance of company hierarchy resulting in me potentially losing my position with the company.


References
[1] http://www.everythingusb.com/lexar_jumpdrive_firefly_1gb.html
[2] http://www.techshout.com/hardware/2007/02/lenovo-thinkpad-sanyo-made-battery-packs-recalled-due-to-fire-hazard/