Case: Defective Sensors

Defective Sensors

Charlie Long is an electrical engineer working for a major automobile company in the year 2010. He works in the automatic sensors department, and his job is to design and test electronic sensors for use in different parts of cars.

The latest version of the Lightning-100 was recently launched into the national market, equipped with an electronic sensor crucial to an innovative safety feature of the vehicle. This sensor was designed and tested by Charlie’s department. The Lightning-100's major competitor equipped its comparable model (the Bolt-80) with a somewhat similar sensor two years before, and it apparently was effective in reducing the number of fatalities in head-on collisions.

Convinced that they could quickly come up with a design for an electronic sensor to match the Bolt-80's, Charlie’s department committed to preparing one in time for the 2010 Lightning-100 model. Unfortunately, the design challenge proved to be more formidable than they expected, and they fell behind schedule. At the same time, they were under pressure to have something ready for the 2010 model. This, they were told by management and marketing strategists, could be the key to competing successfully with the Bolt-80.

So, time was short, and Charlie’s department could delay its recommendation no longer. Although the prototype was not subjected to as rigorous testing as usual, Charlie’s department recommended a go-ahead. Charlie was uncomfortable with this decision. He objected that more testing was needed on sensors that served an important safety function. But he was overruled, and he pressed the issue no further.

Several months after the Lightning-100 was on the road, a disturbing set of data emerged. An unusually high percentage of collisions resulted in the serious injury or death of passengers in the Lightning-100, much higher than similar collisions involving the Bolt-80.

As Charlie thought about this, he realized that the problem could lie in the new electronic sensor. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) decided to do a detailed study of the Lightning-100. Although it could not determine the precise nature of the problem, NHTSA found that, for some reason, the new electronic sensor was not functioning according to the design. All the new Lightning-100s would have to be recalled as soon as possible in order to correct the problem.

Charlie reexamined the design. Suddenly he realized that there was a very specific design flaw. He was not sure why this realization had come to him--it would not be obvious, not even to experienced electrical engineers. But there it was, staring him in the face. Further testing might have revealed this earlier, but there had not been time for that.

Meanwhile, many expensive lawsuits are being filed against Charlie’s company. With whom, if anyone, should Charlie share what he has learned? Discuss.

| BACK TO TOP |