Ford Motor Company was knowingly making cheap Pinto cars that exploded upon rear end collisions. More than 180 people burned to death after the gas tank exploded and still Ford did not want to make any modifications to the Pinto. Ford’s current Mission statement reads, “Improve product and services to meet the customer needs, allowing the business to prosper and to provide a reasonable return for stockholders” (Ford’s Statement of Mission, Values and Guiding Principles). They believe that people are the source of strength, improvement, and teamwork are the core human values, and that products are the results of efforts and should be the best to serve customers worldwide. Profits are often the ultimate measure of how efficient we provide customer with the best products for her or his needs.
Should the punitive damages be affirmed? What are the obligations of a corporation when it knows one of its products may be dangerous? Is an automobile company ethically obligated to make a totally safe car? Should we require a manufacturer to improve the safety of its cars if doing so will make them too expensive for many drivers? What would you do if you were a mid-level executive and saw evidence that your company was endangering the lives of consumers to save money?
Without the trust of the hierarchy of Ford managers the project wouldn’t have been delivered or achieved in the manner it was. Trust in suppliers was a risky decision because it was the ford mentality to “force suppliers to adapt their technology to Fords specifications”. This showed a level of confidence and belief that the suppliers could use their knowledge and skill and produce results for the new diesel engine. It was a complete change in the tradition of product development or the “norm” associated with Ford headquarters. The systematic developed environment was removed to allow Alex and the team to meet the deadline and deliver the new and improved diesel engine within thirty six months.
Taking into thought the long run of the company instead of the losses that the company would inquire in the short-term. By taking appropriate steps to continue the consumer’s trust in the company; first, correcting the items not properly working within the cars’ equipment; second, recalling the automobiles that had been already purchased by the public. Once the consumers would have noticed that the company is doing something to improve their past mistakes, those investments would have helped them with the future of the company as well as the growth of the Pinto model. At the time I believe that the investors of the company made a bad business decision by selling the remaining cars with their defects and everything at a
When my family and I first bought our family car I was very excited; I imagined it would bring us great joy. The purchase actually turned out to be one of the greatest buys of my life, the car proved to be extremely useful, almost as if it was a necessity. I do recall another purchase that I thought would bring me great joy but really did not; this was when we bought our home. Initially the happiness I imagined I would receive was great but in reality the purchase turned out to bring about a lot of pressure. All in all I realized buying the material you dream of does not necessarily guarantee happiness; sometimes the happiness you imagine turns out to merely be an illusion.
The Efficiency of Cars Nikeisha S. Sandy SCI207: Dependence of Man on the Environment (ABL1146J) Instructor: Walter Lambert December 12, 2011 The efficiency of cars is a major issue. There are several reasons why cars should be more efficient, however, there are many reasons why they should not. The efficiency of a car can affect both the economy and the atmosphere. While cars should not be more efficient, cars should be more efficient because the cost to the consumer may decrease, more efficient cars can save money on taxes, and cars are a necessity. At one point, the idea of using a car that was electric powered may have seemed outrageous.
(Davis) Relevant Factual Information about the Problem or Decision the Organization Faced The collapse in industry profitability in 2007–2009 and the bankruptcies of General Motors and Chrysler were not simply consequences of the financial crisis. They also reflected the massive structural problems of the industry—most notably, too many firms with too much capacity chasing too little demand. The catastrophic decline in industry revenues and profits in 2008 promised a major industry restructuring. (Grant) Explanation of Relevant Concepts, Theories and Applications Derived from Course Materials A SWOT analysis can work to generate effective solution for Ford and the auto industry: Strengths Strong position in US market. Ford is the second largest automaker in US, the second largest vehicle market in the world.
In McKibben’s essay, he opens with how he recently traded in his Civic for a new hybrid vehicle from the same company (617). McKibben becomes infuriated at how the easily available energy efficient technology is being neglected at the hands of the American consumer. He considers several points about how people could conserve energy, including: “simple tweaks like better windows and bulkier insulation could save 30 or 50 percent more energy,” or having a post September 11 campaign selling gas-guzzling SUVs (618). McKibben even goes in great lengths about how other continents; including Europe and Asia have introduced plans for energy reduction, while the U.S. remains left without a plan (620). McKibben persuades readers to think about the massive consumption of energy that could slowly be reduced with simple tweaks in everyday society.
Many people do not consider the fact that jobs such as taxi-driving could be completely idle or the fact that many accidents can still occur. Jamie Lincoln Kitman, who is the author of the article, “Let’s Put The Brakes on Driverless Cars,” (document B) elaborates on how having driverless vehicles can risk the freight transportation and taxi drivers, which could have a big impact on the economy. What Jamie said is right. Thousands would be looking for new jobs that most of them do not have any experience on. Imagine a parent coming home to tell his or her child that he or she is unemployed.
Ford steadily lost market share to GM and Chrysler, as these and other domestic and foreign competitors began offering fresher automobiles with more innovative features and luxury options. GM had a range of models from relatively cheap to luxury, tapping all price points in the spectrum, while less wealthy people purchased used Model Ts. The competitors also opened up new markets by extending credit for purchases, so consumers could buy these expensive automobiles with monthly payments. Ford initially resisted this approach, insisting such debts would ultimately hurt the consumer and the general economy. Ford eventually relented and started offering the same terms in December 1927,when Ford unveiled the redesigned Model A, and retired the Model T after producing15 million units.