Essay Please type the essay l dont want plagiarism lll be i

1 of 2 Case S 1- Ford Pinto Report due 9/6/16 In the late 1960s, Ford designed a subcompact, the Pinto, weighed less than 2,000 pounds and sold for less than $ 2,000. Anxious to compete with foreign-made subcompacts, Ford brought the car into production in slightly more than 2 years (compared with the usual 3 % years). Given this shorter time frame, styling preceded much of the engineering, thus restricting engineering design more than usual. As a result, it was decided that the best place for the gas tank was between the rear axle and the bumper. The differential housing had exposed bolt heads that could puncture the gas tank if the tank were driven forward against them upon rear impact. Some Ford engineers urged that a protective buffer should be inserted between the gas tank and protruding bolts. This, they contended, would enable the Pinto to pass a more demanding standard that it was known would won be imposed on newer vehicles. They warned that, without the buffer, the Pinto would fail to satisfy the new standard, a standard that they believed would come much closer to meeting the standard of care enforced in tort law. Ford decided not to put in the buffer and might have been thought that satisfying the current safety standard ensured that courts and their juries would agree that reasonable care was exercised Approximately 117 lawsuits were brought against Ford in connection with rear-end accidents involving the Pinto. The company argued that it met the government safety standard at the time and presented the crash test data with benefits and costs analysis to justify its decision not to recall and retrofit the Pinto. In no more than 3 pages, discuss the following questions: 1. Critique Ford actions from the perspective of NSPE Code of Ethics 2. One well-known ethical theory, utilitarianism, suggest that an act is ethically justified if it results in the greatest good for the greatest number\" when all relevant stake holders are considered. Did Ford\'s cost- benefit analysis validly apply to this theory? What should engineers do when the product they are designing has a potential safety issue and expensive engineering solutions that could increase product costs? Discuss the appropriateness of using the attached data in Ford\'s decision regarding whether or not to make a safety improvement in its engineering design If you believe this is not appropriate, what would you suggest as an alternative? What responsibilities do you think engineers have in situations like this? What would you do if you were the Ford Pinto engineer? 3. 4. S. 6. 7.

Solution

Answer 1
We will analyse Ford’s actions against individual Fundamental professional duties as an Engineer:

-The basic priniciple ask an engineer to hold paramount the safety, health, and welfare of the public: The action of Ford to bring in the model into production as soon as possible and consequently reducing the design time for bolstering the profit of the company was not justified. There were compromises made on engineering aspect and focus was on styling to increase its saleability. Hence this principle was not adhered.

Engineers shall act as faithful agents and trustees of society for any employer:
This principle demands an engineer to be faithful to community as whole and act as trustees rather than confidante of their clients. They should bring into cognizance all the potentially conflicting areas and not approve any disputed point under pressure of organization or for financial gains. Here barring few engineers who were apprehensive of the design and warned the company of potential hazard of the design all were found not to adhere to this principle. The design could not have passed if not approved by senior engineers, but they were keener on bringing the model to production and make benefits out of it rather than acting as trustees of society.

Engineers should Conduct themselves honorably, responsibly, ethically, and lawfully so as to enhance the honor, reputation, and usefulness of the profession.
The mere incident of carrying out cost benefit analysis and presenting it to the court of law to prove the suitability of their design was morally and ethically not justified as human lives can’t be compared to material goods and estimate given by NHTSA might be useful for statistic conclusion but basing an action which could potentially lead to loss of human lives is not justified. This must have reduced the honour, reputation and usefulness of the profession.

Answer 2
The theory of ‘Utilitarianism’ states that an act would be ethically justified if it results in greater good for greatest numbers.
Let us analyse this action in two parts:
Greater Good: The action of fast tracking design procedure and including a life threatening design error just in order to save 11$ per model and reduce the cost of vehicle to less than 2000$ to provide mobility solutions to a large mass is not a ‘good’ that is greater than the safety of human lives. The fact that vehicle wouldn’t be safe would even undermine the sales of the model and thus the objective of providing mobility solutions to a large mass at cheap price would not be fulfilled.

Greater number: This action would not be beneficial to large masses but only for the company, Ford. This would increase their revenues and help them make profit and would finally make the lives of Ford employees better on account of increased incentives and profit sharing. But in bigger picture it would be a safety risk for millions of user of the vehicle which are the biggest stakeholders of this decision.

Moreover if the market judges the vehicle to be risk prone and not safe the estimated sales data would prove to be wrong and all the profits would dwindle down. So the cost analysis chart dosen’t prove the requisite point of utilitarianism.

Answer 3

Engineers should keep in their mind the fundamental duties as an engineer and their responsibility towards the society. But here we will discuss a methodical approach to decide an action for such a situation. First step to be followed here is to make a risk severity chart or determining Risk priority number for the design.
The grade (1-10) is assigned to each of these parameters namely:
Severity
Occurrence
Detection of occurrence

The product of all these three graded in (1-10) is taken. If the value is less than 400 ( lets assume as it depends upon standards of the company) then it will be of less severity and decision can be taken on cost benefit analysis. But if the RPN number is more than 400 whatever the cost it may incur, a solution has to be found out.

Here the engineers could use a better technical cost effective solution or use the existing solution for the same. And this is where the society expects an engineer to come out with their ingenious ideas to for cost effective solutions.

Answer 4
1. Ford used only cost analysis for deciding whether to make safety improvements in the engineering design in the vehicle. This is very narrow approach of decision making. Just considering the cost factor where safety of the rider is involved is threatening to the society as well as future of the company.

2. The cost analysis report estimates the sales number of vehicles which is quite erratic. This is dependent on the response of customers and if the vehicle is not safe the sales figure would go down drastically and all the data would become less useful.

3 The cost component estimated for life of an individual is also very unreliable as estimating the future productivity value and estimating life expectancy and other social factors don’t have proper sources.

Answer 5
According to me the getting to decision making should have a proper SOP and it should be followed uniformly across the institutions. In this case the method of using RPN for assessing the severity of the impacts of decision should be used. This would eliminate the chances of negligence on any front and result in proper analysis of all the facets of the situation and help us make an accountable decision. The RPN method is already elucidated in answer no.3.

Answer 6

An engineer has professional obligations and in this particular case the responsibilities include:
1. Bring into cognizance of the authorities regarding the severity of the design errors and how all the tests have been failing with this design strategy.

2. Maintain high moral standards and not bend in front of higher authorities or mould the opinion regarding the issue under their influence and let the faulty design being passed on to the community.

3. Think for a better solution or adopt the best available solution in the market and imply the same in the vehicle so that there could be an optimization in the cost and risk management.

Answer 7
In this situation I would surely go for inclusion of protective buffer between the bolts and the gas tank. But I would not certainly restrict myself to the only option but try to explore various other possibilities and try to use my engineering skills to find a cost optimised solution. In case there is no alternative solution and risk factor for this situation is high, then I would have to go with the available solution but never compromise with the safety of the passengers.
Building of a brand takes a long time and numerous successful events but ruining takes only one. So keeping this in my mind I would not take the risk of jeopardising my the future of the company and safety of the society.