Firestone and Ford

5496 Words22 Pages
Case Study Name: Firestone and Ford: The Tire Tread Separation Tragedy I. The Pre-Analysis: A. Perspective: 1. Describe the perspective of the author(s) of the case study and the possible biases that might result from that perspective: The author, Archie B. Carroll is professor at University of Georgia. He may neither work for any company nor be a significant decision-maker in a company. Therefore, he analysis and perspective may different from perspective of important decision-makers. Since he is a professor, he may not know much about car and tire and the difference impact of different tires on different car. He may be a loyal customer of Ford, so he may bias toward Ford and give favorable information and perspective for Ford. 2. My perspective as the analyst: Ford is one of my favorite brands because of its bold image. Therefore, I may be more interested in favorable facts and deny negative numbers of Ford. I don’t know much about automobiles, so I may not understand the consequences of tire tread separation when driving. B. State what you are bracketing: They would do bad things to lower the costs of tire which led to tire tread separation. They would have blamed each other and their customers for their own fault. They would keep all customers’ complaint and lawsuit private from public. They would continue to use low quality tires. II. The Situation: C. List the facts relevant to the issue(s) identified: * The first lawsuit against Firestone was in 1991. * Lori Lazarus was trapped in her car and rescued later because of roll-over * Jessica LeAnn Taylor died because of tire tread separation. * Victor Borriguez’s son was died because the tire tread shredded off. * Randy Robert filed a lawsuit against Firestone for its tire issue * By 1997, State Farm

More about Firestone and Ford

Open Document