Response to case study scenario 1
As a junior engineer within the safety testing group I will organize a meeting with all group members, including my supervisor/manager to make it clear that the client needs to be informed of the problem immediately. During this meeting I will ask for support/feedback from fellow engineers in my position that might not have spoken up about their views for fear of their jobs. This would either lead to a complete product recall if the client is assumed to be a distributer, where the public would be purchasing the drives or a batch recall if the client is an organization such as Charles Stanley stockbrokers for example, where the employees would using the drives in a place of work. Further testing of the batch can then be carried out to determine if it is generic problem with the product.
Normally such a small percentage of failures would be ignored, as they could be caused randomly by OEM components failing rather than due to bad design and would therefore not affect the whole batch. In these circumstances it is not beneficial to notify the client and/or recall all products, this being time consuming and relatively expensive considering that not all drives are faulty. Faulty drives would either be wasted by the client or returned under some form of warranty.
Having worked on a number of projects within in the defence industry, any risk of endangering life cannot be overshadowed. So when it is noted that there is a potential for fire hazard it raises issues of personal safety, not only for the end-user but others within the same environment as the USB drives, this in my mind cannot be ignored. Ignoring the problem feels ethically wrong, contradicts professional codes of conduct and infringes consumer protection laws.
The IEEE code of ethics states that its members should “…accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health and welfare of the public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;”. Although one could argue that the code also states, “…to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;” supporting the manager's decision that problem should be ignored due to the small percentage of faults, for the amount of tests undertaken.
The General Product Safety Directive requires producers and distributers to share and report information concerning risk, and to take appropriate action to manage such risk, including if appropriate, recalling the products [1]. The penalties for not conforming can result in a fine of up to £5000 for each offence, and/or a term of imprisonment of up to 3 months [2]. It must be noted that this does not apply to products used in the workplace by workers. The Consumer Protection Act 1987 on the other hand aims to help safeguard the consumers from products that do not reach a reasonable level of safety and imposes strict liability on producers for harm caused by defective products. The act applies to all consumer products and products used at a place of work [3]. Any person who suffers damage, caused by a defective product can make a claim against the producer, importer, own-brander and anyone else in the supply chain that cannot identify where the product came from.
[1]
http://www.legalweek.com/Company/453/Navigation/18/Articles/1107844/Consumer+Products+Safety+first.html
[2]
http://www.berr.gov.uk/whatwedo/consumers/fact-sheets/page38252.html
[3]
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file22866.pdf
