Response to case study scenario 1

My response is not to ignore the problem. The reasons for this include both legal and ethical responsibilities to the customer and also the financial damage that could be incurred by the company as a result of producing faulty USB flash drives.

From an ethical point of view, the knowledge in knowing that I have the power and responsibility for the safety of others not only as it is my profession but also as a human being would compel me to make sure that everything that could be done to ensure the safety of the customer is done, even if my actions and liability were protected by law. This is backed up in many codes of conduct, specifically the British Computer Societies Code of Conduct, which states ‘you shall have regard for the public health, safety and environment. So the health and safety of others should be paramount to anything else.’

From the legal point of view, every manufacturing company holds a duty of care for their customers who purchase and use the product, which is simply a formalisation of the ethical views of the individuals within a society. If there is a risk involved with the product then the customer is required to be informed of this. As the first batch has already been dispatched and delivered then this warning is not going to be known to the consumer meaning that the company is in breach of its duty of care, this makes the company liable for damages. Damage comes in many forms. It can be physical, damage to property, financial loss, etc. All of which could be derived from the faulty flash drive.

My personal experience working as a junior system administrator involved laser security branding a couple of laptops. During the test runs the laser performed well but on one occasion it would produce a horizontal line not on the CAD design, as this only happened the once out of the tests I failed to report this to my supervisor who also was completing the task of laser branding. The reason for this line was found later as data being being stored in a buffer incorrectly by the software, but not before a laptop was etched very nearly breaking the screen. From this the importance of not ignoring inconsistent results is clear to me and has further assisted with my decision not to ignore the problem.

The fault of the memory sticks is not a problem that could be resolved by returning it to the purchased store and obtaining a new one. The customer could lose potentially invaluable data or in worst case scenario a fire could be incurred whereby someone could lose a life. From the companies point of view a situation where a serious incident occurred could tarnish the company’s image and the customers trust in producing products. For example Fisher-Price was forced to recall a total of 967,000 toys twice over two weeks this left the makers of Barbie clinging to their credibility and suffered large profit losses because of it.

In the best interest of the consumer, the company and myself I believe doing nothing to be the wrong course of action and that taking a stand, complying with the codes of conduct and sticking with my own ethical guidelines to make sure that the failed tests get the safety review it is due. I would organise a formal meeting with the supervisor and their supervisor/manager with the intent to get the product recalled immediately this way the issue can be addressed at a higher level with my feelings on the situation being noted. As a result of my actions the product will most likely need to be recalled for further testing incurring a cost for the organisation but potentially reducing higher losses from losing customers trust or settling potential damage claims.

Resources: www.cpsc.guv