Response to case study scenario 1

DECISION:
I do not ingore the problem arised. I enforce a series of measures that the company must take to ensure the circulation of a safe product in the market and uphold their commercial reputation. A 1.5% rate of device faulty behaviour in power consumption is dangerous for public health and safety.

ACTION:
I am convinced that through the aid of the arguments further down I will manage to convince the company that, based to what I have found, both the client and the company run a risk and I propose some ways to solve the problem which are listed below:

1. to immediately withdraw from the client any devices of this particular lot. Should any of these devices be already sold, the company will proceed to product recall announcements through mass-media to meet the corporate social responsibility as a company. This action is similar to the one taken by Sharp Electronics Corporation on May 2007 as a result of risk evaluation on a defective lot of LCD monitors. and the action taken by Cooper Lighting Inc., of Peachtree City, Ga regarding defective emergency/exit lights.
2. to apologise to the client (i.e retailer) who received the faulty devices and replace the lot delivered to him with an error-free lot at a discounted price due to the delay of the error-free product delivery, aiming at keeping him as their client.
3. to offer the client and his potential customers (as an incentive to return this lot’s devices) a one-year additional replacement warranty for the new error-free product as a proof of the replacement product quality. Hence, to restore the company's reputation and keep the important client satisfied.

GENERAL ASSUMPTIONS:
1) The amount of devices with faulty behaviour in power consumption is considerably higher compared to those produced by the company for a similar project.
2) The faulty behaviour issue arised can be easily resolved at low manufacturing cost and low non-recurring engineering cost.
3) The lot sold to the company’s client was relatively small and very few pieces reached individual customers at the time of decision making.

GENERAL CONSIDERATIONS:
Since testing has become one of the most important parts in hardware manufacturing, companies have made it part of the design instead of placing it in the end of the process. Actually, the approach is to be able to design while being able to test which is something that I learned through my five - year personal experience in hardware design study in universities.
Based on this logic, testing results should be available and double-checked before any authorisation is given to release the product to clients.
Since power consumption is one of the most important metrics in hardware design, my first step is to examine similar projects of the company and check if a rate of 1.5% of device faulty behaviour in power consumption is acceptable. Moreover, I check the relevant legal and ethic issues should faulty devices be sent to customers.

RESEARCH RESULTS:
Through this examination, the conclusions I draw are that in case of a fire hazard, potential consequences for the user could be loss of data, property damage or even injury and for the company loss of clients, commercial defamation or even legal action taken against them for property loss or personal injury. The amount of devices with faulty behaviour in power consumption is considerably higher compared to those produced by the company for a similar project.
Moreover, potential consequences from the use of a defective device could be easily used by competitors to increase defamation of the brand.
I am aware that a big company might not take my personal concern in consideration which might result in their losing money; for that reason I will find a way to convince them.

LAWS:
Following my research, the laws violated by the company in this case are listed below:
In our case the violation regards awareness of the manufacturer of potential data damage / loss as a result of a burned USB flash memory drive and/or computer to which the USB flash memory drive is attached.
In our case the violation regards manufacturer’s failure to ensure public health and safety due to a fire hazard caused from a defective USB flash memory drive.
In our case, the violations consist in failure to make every necessary quality control tests before releasing the product into the market. As a result the company’s inadequate quality control testing adversely affects the good standing of the Profession.
In our case the company shows irresponsible behaviour towards public safety and fail to inform public of factors that might raise the risk of an accident.
In our case the violation of the code consist in the fact that the company should have invested hours of work in detecting and resolving a potential problem.

CONCLUSION:
Despite the company's apparent loss my proposal prevents further defamation.
Through my initiative I fulfil my duty to the company, safeguard public health and safety and contribute to the protection of private property.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:
1) Sharp recalls faulty LCD TVs 28 May 2007 03:56PM. Retrieved Feb 17, 2009 from http://www.crn.com.au/News/53016,sharp-recalls-faulty-lcd-tvs.aspx
2) Cooper Lighting Recalls Emergency and Exit Lights; Could Fail to Stay
Illuminated in an Emergency, Retrieved from http://www.cooperlighting.com/home/quickLinks/ProductSafetyNotice.pdf
3)Computer Misuse Act 1990, Retrieved from http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1990/UKpga_19900018_en_1.htm
4) British Computer Society Code of Conduct, Retrieved from http://www.ccsr.cse.dmu.ac.uk/resources/professionalism/codes/Bcs.html
5) Code of Ethics IEEE, Retrieved from http://www.ieee.org/portal/pages/iportals/aboutus/ethics/code.html