Case Studies - OHT2

Case Study 1: Suppressed Data
Part 1
A recent graduate of Engineering Technology, you have been employed in
Chemical Engineering Division of M/s FMC, Inc. for the past several months. A
meeting of your division is called by your supervisor, Saqib Rizvi. He
announces that your unit must make a recommendation within the next two
days which type of sulphur should be used by FMC in processing its product
Biflex - a weedicide. The overwhelming consensus of the engineers in your
unit, based on many years of experience, is that rhomboclinic sulphur is best
for the job. But the research you have been conducting on the data collected
so far at FMC provides preliminary evidence that sulphur isotope
S32 might
16
be more reliable, more efficient, and considerably less costly. So, you ask if
the recommendation can be delayed another month to see if a more firm
evidence can be found for using sulphur isotope
S32. Saqib replies, "We
16
don't have a month. We have two days." He then asks you to write up the
report, leaving out the preliminary data you have gathered about sulphur
S32. He says, "It might be nice to do some more research on sulphur
isotope
16
isotope
16
S32 but we have already taken too much time on this project. This is
one of those times we have to be decisive. Management is really getting

impatient.
You like working for FMC, and you feel fortunate to have landed such a good
job. You have no desire to challenge your colleagues. Besides, you do not
disagree with them that rhomboclinic sulphur is best for the job. Still, you
wish you had been given more time to work on sulphur isotope
16
S32, and you
feel uncomfortable about leaving the preliminary data about sulphur isotope
16
S32 in the report.
Question:
The report is required immediately. What should you do?

1. Write up and sign the report as instructed.
2. Write up the report as instructed, but refuse to sign it.
3. Refuse to write up the report, threatening to go to the next higher officer
of Saqib and inform him that a fully accurate report is not being prepared.
4. Other.
Class Discussion
ANALYSIS:
Engineering students may respond to cases like this in a variety of ways. A
rather large percentage of students select the first option, indicating that
they really have no choice if they are to keep their jobs. Some insist that,
since they would only be following orders, they would not really be
responsible if something goes wrong. A few immediately select the third
option, adding that they might make sure they have another job offer first.
What is surprising is how few select "Other." Yet, a sensible alternative seems
to be to suggest that rhomboclinic sulphur be recommended, but that the
data about sulphur isotope
S32 be included. If the engineers in the unit have
16
not experienced serious doubts about sulphur isotope
16
S32
why should they
fear that management would not agree with this option?

Part 2
You write the report as instructed, and FMC proceeds with rhomboclinic
sulphur. Two months later, Mr. Amjad, Vice-President for Research at FMC
learns that ENGRO Inc. (a major competitor of FMC) has just begun using
sulphur isotope
S32 in a similar process for their product Coopex. Its
16
engineers discovered that sulphur isotope
S32 is ideal for this process. It is
16
more reliable, more efficient, and much less expensive.

Vice-President Amjad is very upset that FMC "missed the boat." He
personally meets the entire unit to make his irritation known. He complains,
"FMC has invested a lot of money in this process. But it is now falling behind
a major competitor, ENGRO. It is going to cost us time and money to convert
the process for using sulphur isotope
S32 at this stage; and we will lose a
16
few customers as well."

Question:
What would you suggest to Mr. Amjad, Vice President (Research) at FMC?
Discussion
There are two options:
a.
FMC should continue with rhomboclinic sulphur.
b.
FMC should convert to sulphur isotope
S32 as soon as possible.
16
Conclusion
Option b is lesser evil. So FMC should go by Option b.
FMC should also take some mild action against Saqib whose hasty decision
has caused loss to the Company.
Case Study 2: Machine Failure

Part 1
R&M Machinery have been providing sophisticated equipment and reliable
repair service to Philips Inc. for many years without any complaint.
Last month, Philips Inc. returned to R&M Spectrophotometer, a failed piece
of equipment.
A meeting was held which included:
1. Mr. Ibrar, a representative from Philips Inc.
2. Mr. Kaleem, R&M Stores Manager
3. Mr. Mansoor, an R&M Engineer
Mr. Kaleem, Stores Manager informed Mr. Ibrar, the representative from
Philips Inc. that the spectrophotometer supplied to them is all right.
However, during the course of the meeting it becomes apparent to Mr.
Mansoor, R&M Engineer that there has been some problem on R&M's side.
He suspects that the spectrophotometer was not properly tested out by R&M.
That is why it failed.
Question:
Should Mansoor, R&M Engineer say anything about this in the presence of
the customer, or should he wait until after the meeting to discuss this with
Mr. Kaleem?
Class Discussion
Part 2
Mansoor keeps silent during the meeting. After the meeting he talks with
Kaleem about his diagnosis. He suggests: We should tell Philips Inc. that the
problem has occurred due to our fault, and that we will replace the defective
spectrophotometer. Kaleem replies, "I don't think it is wise to acknowledge
that it is our fault. It will shatter Philips Inc.'s confidence in the quality of our
work. He says a 'good will' gesture to replace the spectrophotometer should
suffice."
So R&M management decides to tell Philips Inc. that they will replace the
spectrophotometer "because you have been such a good customer all these
years." Thus R&M replaces the spectrophotometer at its own expense,
without telling Philips Inc. the real nature of the problem.
Question:
Should R&M's way of handling the problem be of any concern to Engineer
Mansoor at this point, or is it basically a "management problem"?
Class Discussion .
Analysis
The fundamental moral concept of honesty is at stake in this case study. Mr.
Kaleem, representing the position of management, has made the decision to
conceal the facts from Philips Inc., ignoring the technical opinion given by Mr.
Mansoor, one of the firm's engineers.
Mansoors silence is probably appropriate in the first meeting with the client.
His position is one of technical support, not public relations. But he is correct
in raising his objections directly with Kaleem after the meeting.
Kaleems reaction is unfortunate. Mr. Mansoor should be distressed by this
reaction. He should press Kaleem to deal honestly with the client.
Mansoor should also keep an eye on other moral deficiencies in his

organization. The expression that this is merely a "management problem" of
little concern to technical staff can lead to serious consequences. If
management decisions overrule factual technical information, it will lead the
organization to moral disaster.
Kalims argument that admitting our fault will shatter the confidence of
Philips in our service and will destroy our old relations is not a strong
argument. The fact is that an honest admission of equipment failure will not
damage such relationship. Confidence is built, not destroyed, by
honesty and integrity. If facts are concealed in this case, the client is left
with unanswered questions: Is this an equipment deficiency? Is it an
installation problem? Has the breakdown occurred due to operators error or
improper maintenance? These unanswered questions may lead to suspicions.
Unanswered questions are far more likely to damage the clients confidence
than an honest admission of defects.
Kalim can argue that there is very little economic cost involved in replacing
the spectrophotometer in this case. So why damage our relations with
Philips. But remember, if honesty can be compromised in a small matter, it is
likely to be compromised more in big deals. When the stakes are high, surely
it will be easier to dismiss moral commitments.
CONCLUSION
Technical professionals and product manufacturers have a clear
ethical responsibility to communicate honestly about failures, thus
contributing to the safety and reliability of products and the advancement of
engineering design practice.

Case Studies - OHT2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies - OHT2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Studies - OHT2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study 1: Suppressed Data

S32. Saqib replies, "We

one of those times we have to be decisive. Management is really getting

S32, and you

S32 in the report.

The report is required immediately. What should you do?

S32 be included. If the engineers in the unit have

not experienced serious doubts about sulphur isotope

why should they

fear that management would not agree with this option?

S32 in a similar process for their product Coopex. Its

engineers discovered that sulphur isotope

S32 is ideal for this process. It is

more reliable, more efficient, and much less expensive.

S32 at this stage; and we will lose a

few customers as well."

FMC should continue with rhomboclinic sulphur.

FMC should convert to sulphur isotope

S32 as soon as possible.

Case Study 2: Machine Failure

Mansoor should also keep an eye on other moral deficiencies in his

You might also like