1 It's Not Your Responsibility. A Senior Engineer from Advanced Manufacturing Engineering committed to spending two...
Question:
1 – It's Not Your Responsibility.
A Senior Engineer from Advanced Manufacturing Engineering committed to spending two years in a particular job. The first year he would spend in Design Engineering learning the overall system for a very complex piece of office equipment. This product was in the final stage of development with production start-up at the end of the year. His second year would be spent on the manufacturing floor solving performance problems. In the past, manufacturing had experienced great difficulty determining the cause of the final test failures. During his training, a basic performance assumption that was explained to him bothered him. He challenged it and was told in no uncertain terms that particular challenge was outside the scope of his responsibilities, that he was wrong, and that he should just accept it as a known fact. Should he drop the question?
Case no. 2 – Technical Production Problems for a Critical Part.
A critical part is essential to the acceptable performance of a new, state-of-the-art product that has very low production yields. If start-up product sales equal marketing forecasts, sufficient parts could not be produced to meet both production and field service requirements. The supplier cannot expand production capability fast enough to meet the proposed production at current and forecasted yields. Should Program Management be informed that they must either delay product introduction or reduce the launch production rates? There is another part with similar problems and the group responsible for the part has informed program management. They are now spending untold hours in status meetings.
Case no. 3 – Forgotten Commitment.
The manager of a test equipment development group decided to take the calculated risk that a foreign division program would be canceled and never started a funded requirement to develop a major piece of equipment. He also failed to inform his successor of this requirement and course of action. This equipment would normally require a year of design and a year of debugging. The foreign division asked for a status one year from the delivery date. After finding out what had occurred, should the Manager of the Test Equipment Group confess the real status to the foreign division?
Case no 4 – Sharing of Cash Award.
A technical design that pushed the state-of-the-art was entered in an annual Aluminum Association Competition. The development involved "early supplier involvement." The supplier suggested the entry. They had been involved with a winning entry the previous year. They warned that determination at who would share the cash award in event of winning should be determined prior to submit the entry. The subassembly that was to be entered had involved over a year of development by many design and manufacturing personnel. The individual level of involvement varied from a few hours of work to several man-months. How is a cash award properly handled in such a situation? Should it be split 50/50 between the lead Design Engineer and the lead Advanced Manufacturing Engineer? Should it be divided to all involved in proportion to hours spent? Only the lead engineers are involved in preparing, submitting, and presenting the entry.
Case no. 5 – Suggestion Awards.
A young engineer, on active duty in the military, tries to eliminate a base that is purchased with every gyroscope. The base allows for quick disconnect/connect. The gyroscope is used in three different aircraft, the base is used in only one of the three. That one aircraft is no longer in production so bases are no longer needed. The other two airframe manufacturers just store them. They can neither dispose of them nor return them to the government. The "system" will not allow the engineer to delete the base from the specification. He then submits a "suggestion" through the formal Suggestion System. The engineer receives a call from a staff member in the office that handles suggestions. Military suggestors cannot receive monetary awards, so the staff member suggests that the officer add a civil service engineer to the suggestion with the arrangement that the civil service engineer split the monetary award to which he is entitled to with the officer. The annual savings for suggestion amounted to $100,000 per year in 1963 dollars. The top award the officer can receive is dinner for two at the officers’ club. What should the officer do?
Case no. 6 – False Trip Report.
A Senior Design Engineer and a Senior Fabrication Engineer scheduled a trip to review a very complex tool for an injection molded part at the supplier's plant They had been there on previous occasions over a span of many months. This complex long lead part was being developed with early supplier involvement. The Senior Design Engineer was first to turn in his trip report, and his manager noticed that the hotel bill was for a double room. He called the manager of the other engineer to see if he also charged for a room and to see if it was for the same room. Both were known to enjoy their time in bars and the thought was that they might have shared a room and double-billed it to work around the daily expense limit on food. When the other expense report came in, it was for a different room number. It was also for a double room. The design manager then called the supplier to ask a technical question about the tool related to the trip report in an attempt to see if the supplier might make some remark that would shed some light on the issue. To his surprise, the supplier stated there had been no review of the tool. He stated that two weeks prior to the trip he asked the two engineers to reschedule the tool inspection since a competitor company was in-plant of a tool tryout. He further stated that the only contact was a brief status meeting in the hotel coffee shop. The design manager then confronted his engineer with the information he had gathered and asked for an explanation. The engineer immediately broke down and stated they had made plans to visit with some women they met on a previous trip and therefore did not change the date of the visit as requested by the supplier. He resigned on the spot. Since he was married, he did not want an investigation. What should the Advanced Manufacturing Engineering organization do about their Senior Manufacturing Engineer? Consider and discuss the ethical actions of the two engineers and management. Consider the ethics associated with the false trip report, and charging the company for the double room. Where should a company draw the line on technical versus personal moral issues versus business issues? As a point of information, the Fabrication Engineer was married. Should this fact be of any concern to the manager?
Engineering Economy
ISBN: 978-0132554909
15th edition
Authors: William G. Sullivan, Elin M. Wicks, C. Patrick Koelling