Response to case study scenario 1

The institution of Electronic and Electrical Engineers' (IEEE) code of Ethics states that 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;" If a company was aware of a fault and did not take action that could have prevented damage to property or injury to customers, then it can be shown to be in breach of a duty of care to its customers. This could have legal consequences for the company should the devices malfunction and cause any damage to property or customers.

A fire risk can mean there is the potential to cause serious damage to property or people, or even death, in which case units with a risk of this failure should not make it to the customer and should be recalled. However, if a fire hazard suggests that components in the drive may burn out or the drive may fail before it's quoted lifetime then it may not be financially viable to recall the drives, as the warranty cost to replace failed drives would be much less than the cost of recalling a large order.

Even as a junior engineer I am required to comply with my employer’s procedure. I must ensure that I do so as quickly as possible. If I believe my supervisor has not acted properly in accordance with the company procedure, I should suggest that he seeks confirmation from his line manager. I must also document my report and record all actions in a diary to show that I have acted in an ethical and responsible manner.

I am concerned that the report was not reviewed until after the order was dispatched, and that devices that failed the test were not repaired or replaced before the order was sent out. If testing is undertaken, but not reviewed, the testing adds no value to the product and does not improve quality.

The supervisor may have a great deal of experience with the company and its products, however, saying it is acceptable to ignore the problem because it is only a small number of units is not a valid reason as a "small percentage" is subjective and therefore suggests that quality could vary depending on the supervisor’s interpretation of what makes a large enough percentage to cause a problem. I would expect a company to have operating guidelines or procedures to quantify what is an acceptable fault rate and what action to take in the event of a test failure or exceeding the agreed rate. Many companies are seeking to Implement 6 Sigma culture, which targets 3 in 1,000,000 defects (99.9997% Quality). In this case the defect rate is 3 in 200 (98.5% Quality).

Taking no action in the event of tests being failed does not address the cause of failure. I would assume a specialist USB manufacturer would produce more than 200 units a week, suggesting that the 200 tested would be a sample. The 3 failures could be the only ones displaying this fault that week, but may represent a larger number which could all be faulty. An investigation should be undertaken to determine the root cause of the failures, and any link between the devices that failed the testing, such as using the components from a particular batch, or being produced by a particular machine. This information may then be used to identify other devices that may be affected and to resolve the issue, preventing future problems.

During my industrial placement I worked on several new product innovation (NPI) programs for a successful vehicle manufacturer. When introducing new products, each component and system, along with manufacturing processes and suppliers, must undergo Failure Mode Effects Analysis (FMEAs) which examine the potential failure modes, the likelihood of the failure occurring, the severity of each failure mode and the likelihood of detecting a possible failure. Each item is given in a score (1-9) for each criterion, which are then multiplied together. The company policy is that if a score is 100 or greater then action must be taken to reduce the score before the product can be released. This ensures that faults are kept to a minimum and that overall product quality is at a high standard. In addition, whilst on my placement I was awarded the Six Sigma Green Belt award. Six Sigma is a business management strategy that seeks to improve product quality through defined methodology and tools. During my placement year I was involved in and led a number of Six Sigma projects, which enabled me to isolate and resolve the root cause of issues in my projects.

In considering my answer, I have made the following assumptions;
1. The test report was not reviewed before the order was sent out.
2. The company does not have clearly defined procedures for acceptable risk and does not have a process for taking action to investigate the potential cause of failures and their effects.
3. A "fire hazard" is the possibility that the device could fail, resulting in the device to ignite and destroy itself and possibly it's immediate environment.

In this situation I do not feel it is appropriate to "ignore the problem" as suggested by my supervisor, and would take the following steps;

1. Examine the report and determine the risk to the customer. If it is not possible to determine the risk, or there is perceived to be risk to the customer then the products in question should be recalled, along with any others that may possibly be affected. Recalling of products need not necessarily be seen as a bad thing, if presented correctly it can be used to highlight the company's dedication to quality and safety. Should I not be able to reach an agreement with my supervisor in this manner I would take the matter to his superior, clearly indicating my findings, my recommendation and the response of my supervisor.

2. Implement a quantifiable system for dealing with failed product tests, clearly defining the action to be taken in the event of testing failures and ensuring that tests must be undertaken and reviewed before products are distributed to customers. This system would also involve provision for the testing equipment to be inspected and calibrated at regular intervals to ensure accurate and consistent testing.

3. Instigate an investigation using the Six Sigma tools, or similar, to isolate and resolve the issue causing the failures so as to improve product quality in the future. This would involve myself as a member of the safety testing group, and depending on the size of the company may involve several other engineers or departments to isolate and rectify the issue.

4. Introduce a system to identify and examine potential failure modes of the product, its components and manufacturing processes. Each failure mode should be examined and if necessary action should be taken to reduce the impact or likelihood of the fault occurring.

5. Document any action (or inaction) resulting from this issue. This report would include the findings of the original safety test report, along with my recommendation to my superiors and their response, so as to ensure a record should the situation reoccur, or any legal issues arise from this instance.

Furthermore, as an engineer I seek to make the best quality products I can, and so seeing an opportunity to improve the quality of the product I would seek to make improvements where possible. This would also serve to distinguish myself from my colleagues, which may enhance my career prospects.