Response to case study scenario 1

Course of Action

It is my duty to ensure a course of action is taken to make supervisors and managers aware of the potential fire hazard, and to have the flash drives recalled. I will immediately speak to my supervisor's manager to express my initial concerns and arrange a meeting between him/her, my supervisor and I.

I will take the action into my own hands and speak directly to the customer that received the flash drives. This will be done instantly, preferably by phone or face-to-face to ensure that the customer is aware of a problem with the flash drives and that they should not be sold on or used.

Immediately preventing the use or reselling of the flash drives in this way will avoid the possibility of a disaster. If the problem was explained on the phone, I would record the conversation to act as evidence, proving my company strongly advised against using or reselling that batch. If I spoke to the customer face-to-face I would require them to sign a document to prove they received the advice.

I will write a letter documenting my discovery and my suggestion of initiating a recall, and then ask my supervisor to sign it. This will be presented at the meeting and will cover myself and show that I have acted accordingly.

During the meeting I will explain that the faulty drives should not have been allowed to reach customers, and propose an investigation into whether previous batches could be hazardous. If it turns out that tests have failed on previous batches and have also been ignored, I will want a recall of those flash drives too.

If my supervisor's manager fails to act on my findings and suggestions, I will appeal to the IET for their assistance in the case.

Reflection

As an employee of this company, it is in my interest to contribute to the success of it. This is why my chosen decision is the safest and most cost effective course of action.

The motivation behind my decision is not simply to avoid the consequences of not carrying out the actions, but as a Junior Engineer adhering to the ethical standards of The British Computer Society, it is morally correct to do so. As described in Stanford's Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, this case of consequentialism was a significant factor towards making my decision, as the use of the hazardous drives could result in a number of disasters. The most significant disaster would be harm to the users of the drives. If a user was harmed, a legal case could be taken up against my company, which could result in the harm of the company's brand, and require a large fee as compensation.

However tempting it may have been to follow the instructions given by my supervisor and ignore the problem, doing so could be seen as an attempt on my part to cover up the issue, therefore making me accountable for disasters that could result from the use of the drives. The IET's Rules of Conduct states that, "Members shall accept personal responsibility for all work done by them or under their supervision or direction," so following my supervisor's instructions would make us both responsible.

If I had decided to ignore the problems, one case of a drive becoming a fire hazard would be enough to cause a severe impact on my company's brand and the perceived quality of our products. Customers would lose trust in us and therefore looking elsewhere to purchase devices in the future. Ignoring this poor quality would be ethically incorrect, as told in The Association for Computing Machinery with, “The computing professional must strive to achieve quality and to be cognizant of the serious negative consequences that may result from poor quality in a system," and as a professional, I would adhere to this.

By making the problems known and initiating a recall, I could personally experience a negative consequence - my supervisor could lose his/her trust in me and therefore discriminate against me in the future. This is a small risk (which I am willing to take) on my part, compared to the guilt that I would feel if someone was harmed by using one of the faulty flash drives.

In 2006, some Sony batteries were found to be fire hazards. Sony were forced to recall the batteries, costing them £228 million. Their brand image was harmed and legal action was taken by their resellers. My decision will cost my company significantly less than if we ignore the problem and wait for disasters, damage to our brand, and legal action to be taken against us.

Conclusion

The number of known faults in this batch was relatively small, but the fact that they were initially tolerated and the drives made their way to customers is not acceptable. The action I decided to take, as described in the first section, will prompt the management to reconsider their approach to quality control and avoid the recurrence of this incident.

The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the price is forgotten.