The first analyzed that there was no direct feedback from the customers. How is Ford creating a desirable product for customers when they have no feedback from them? Instead, they are creating vehicles that they are pushing out onto their customer base. Second, Ford is managing a huge supplier network. Having such a large network has made them more vulnerable to the bullwhip effect.
However, as a result, the Pinto did not undergo all necessary safety tests before it was released. According to a Ford engineer, “Safety wasn't a popular subject around Ford in those days. Whenever a problem was raised that meant a delay on the Pinto, Lee would chomp on his cigar, look out the window and say 'Read the product objectives and get back to work’.” (Engineer). When Ford finally tested the car for rear-end impact it was determined that the car was dangerous in that the fuel tank was not strong enough to be at the back bumper. Collisions at speeds as low as 20 miles per hour could puncture the fuel tank and cause fires.
PRINCIPLES OF RESPONSIBLE COMMERCE (COMM 101) TUTORIAL PREPARATION WEEK 3 NAME: Chang Yee How UOW NUMBER: 4387296 Case Study: Ford Pinto 1. What moral issues does the Pinto case raise? The Pinto case brought up issue of abusing human rights and behaved unethically in business. Ford had the design to reduce the possibility of Ford Pinto from exploding. However, the company refused to implement it, although it can prevent 180 deaths from happening at a cost of $11 per car according to the cost-benefit analysis.
Lee Iacocca, who was in charge of the development of the Pinto, had specifications for the design of the car that were uncompromisable. These specifications were that "the Pinto was not to weigh an ounce over 2,000 pounds and not cost a cent over $2,000." Any modifications, even if it did provided extra safety for the customer that brought the car closer to the Iacocca’s limits were rejected. A report was prepared for NHTSA by consultant; Eugene Trisko entitled "A National Survey of Motor Vehicle Fires." His report indicates that the Ford Motor Company makes 24 percent of the cars on the American road, yet these cars account for 42 percent of the collision-ruptured fuel tanks.
Obviously, they caused many injuries and deaths. A cost-benefit analysis as well as another analysis depicting a utilitarian approach will further explain the case. Cost-Benefit analysis Upon the conception of the car design, the product objectives did not include safety. In fact, Ford president, Lee Iacocca, had a saying: “safety does not sell”. Some Ford engineers had real concerns about the tank safety problems.
The lack of teamwork within GM was one obstacle in pursuing the project. Many managers felt that the company had already invested billions in developing fuel cells and didn’t want to switch gears all of a sudden. Also, lack of trust and other managers were scared of another failure of an electric car. A lack of commitment from the start of the project was also an issue. If Lutz and Burns had the managers on the same page and assured them of the potential success of the volt, there would have been less hesitation.
Are they people who have driven it or been inside one? Also, are the comments mostly negative or positive? The campaign does not appear to be under control. With the primary focus of this campaign on social media, some control has to be given up from Ford to execute the campaign. However, the problem with this approach Ford could not control what the Agents did with the Fiesta.
And just like the article about the jury in the O.J. Simpson case, some of the jury said that there is no way he murdered anybody because he was such a great football player. This just suggest how it is impossible to judge someone because of a quality they have, like good football playing. The reason is that anybody can be good at something like playing football, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t able to murder someone. The example of O.J.
The EV 1 was also fairly pricey so many people were not interested. Another killer of the electric car was the car companies. General Motors only made a certain amount because of the Zero Emissions Mandate (ZEM) was born. It required 2% of new vehicles sold in California to be emission-free by 1998, 10% by 2003. General Motors knew that this mandate would not last long, and they were more interested in selling gasoline cars.
The characters from both plays are indirectly compared, for instance the two youngest sons, Cory and Biff. Cory and Biff were compared through football and their father's, the contrast between the boys were where they went in life and the relationship they had with their father's. Football was a passion for both Cory and Biff, neither of the boys played football past high school, but they were both good players. Cory was very driven to play football even when his father constantly disapproved. Biff didn't have the same drive that Cory had but he still loved the game, it was a lot easier for him to be more interested in football when he had the support from his father.