Decision Regarding Faulty Flashdrives

To answer the question “Will you ignore the problem?” my answer is without a doubt “NO”. In matters where safety to the consumer is a concern there should be no question of a total product recall. I base this decision on my 11 years as an engineer, I also consulted referances [3][4] to back up my decision.

My main concern lies with the attitude of the Supervisor. For a serious fault, 3 out of 200 is not a small percentage. If it were not a fault that may cause fire and injury there could be some justification. Two examples follow to illustrate my point. The first example is of a serious fault. In 2006 a seven year old boy died after being electrocuted by a counterfeit charger, bought while on holiday in Thailand [1]. After investigation by Trading Standards Officers the devices were found to be available in the UK via the Internet. The devices were not subject to EU regulations. After investigation by the Trading Standards Authority it was found that 7 out of 21 similar items failed safety tests. All such items were recalled by UK sellers. The second example is of a fault which would not cause injury. When Microsoft launched the X-Box 360 they were allegedly aware of a fault that caused damage to gaming discs [2]. After investigation there were three recommendations by the engineers, however, two of the solutions would have hampered performance and the other had large financial costs (i.e. recall). Microsoft’s eventual solution was to replace damaged gaming discs because the fault only occurred if the console was moved during operation.

In the above example, while Microsoft may have slightly damaged their reputation for a few of their customers, the fault would not have caused injury and did not warrant the financial penalties of a total product recall. The first unfortunate example shows the reason for thorough testing in the first place. If someone could be injured or killed there should be no doubt in an engineer’s mind about a complete recall, regardless of damage to the company’s reputation or the importance of a client [3]. It is better for the company to admit a fault rather than let the Trading Standards Authority conduct an investigation after an incident or injury. The latter would surely be worse for the company in the long run.

To address my concerns with the Supervisor I would look at certain areas: 1) Was he under pressure to achieve the order and made the decision without due consideration? 2) Has he been at the company a long time? If so, has complacency set in? 3) Has he made similar decisions before? If either of the last two were true I would take the issue to higher management. The Head of Safety Testing should not allow dangerous products onto the market. If the first were true I would suggest the supervisor should instigate the recall.

My next concern is for the company. If the order was for an important client this usually suggests a lot of business. The loss of that business could mean closure of the company, especially in the current economic climate. In this case the product was delivered over the weekend and is quite possibly not on the shelf yet. A recall at this stage would have no public airing in the media, just an inconvenience to the client.

References:
Consumer Direct Website [1]
www.indosourcecode.blogspot.com [2]
The Royal Academy of Engineering – Statement of Ethical Principles [3]
Guide to the Consumer Protection Act 1987 [4]
LawyerShop.com/Product Liability