Many of Intel’s customers were not satisfied by this answer, and started wanting their chips replaced. Intel initially only replaced peoples chips if they could prove they actually needed it replaced, but after an outcry from the public, they started replacing chips for anyone that needed it replaced. I don’t think Intel handled the situation correctly from the start. They should have acknowledged their mistake and quickly tried to fix it, instead of denying there was one and trying to brush it off as not an issue. They also should have replaced anyone’s flawed chip to begin with, instead of only replacing certain people’s flawed chips.
1. Identify and discuss the key factors that led to the breakdown of industrial relations at HMSI. Although HMSI have good HR policies taking place, management failed to implement such HR polices creating a breakdown of industrial relations at HMSI. There were several incidents, according to the case study, that created a gap between workers and management such as the gift that employees rejected and was later directly transferred to their bank accounts. Management’s implementation of the movement sheet and strict leave policy, denying leaves even for some serious and emergency situation, as well favoritism and constant threat of termination when requesting shift changes contributed to the collapse of industrial relations.
The OSHA investigation concluded that if these regulations were followed, the tragic event could have been avoided. The legal issue is whether or not the courts and the construction company itself should up hold the violations of specific OSHA standards. Explain what the employer did or failed to do that violated the OSH Act. Williams Construction failed to do four very important procedures in regards to the regulations of OSHA. The first violation was the failure to provide training to employees and their managers about how to recognize and avoid unsafe working conditions.
was a care home registered to Castlebeck Care Ltd a report by CQC had found that they had failed to ensure that people living at Winterbourne View were adequately protected from risk, including the risks of unsafe practices by its own staff. The report shows in several areas where the system failed these were •The managers did not ensure that major incidents were reported to the Care Quality Commission as required. • Planning and delivery of care did not meet people's individual needs. • They did not have robust systems to assess and monitor the quality of services. • They did not identify, and manage, risks relating to the health, welfare and safety of patients.
The Leadership standard also was not met due to staffing insufficiencies. 3.a. There is a link between the amount of staff and their experience with the kind of care and how safe that care is being provided to patients. The organization has failed to respond to the need for more medical staff which in turn has led to the demise of the conditions of the working
WINTERBOURNE VIEW The review found that there was a systemic failure to protect people or to investigate allegations of abuse. The provider had failed in its duty to notify the C.Q.C(Quality Care Commission) of serious incidents involving injuries to patients, or occasions when they had gone missing. Inspectors said that staff did not appear to understand the needs of the people in their care, adults with learning disabilities , complex needs and challenging behaviour. Staff who had no background in care services had been recruited, references were not always checked and staff were not trained or supervised properly. Some staff were too ready to use methods of restraint without considering alternatives.
The breach of duty was the failure to amputate the correct limb. Foreseeability was ignored when the one’s in the operating room did not perform a time out. Causation was ignored because the correct limb was not properly marked and the limb not to be amputated may not have been marked with a big X. Injury was caused because the wrong limb was amputated, which caused the patient unnecessary suffering and to have to undergo another surgery to amputate the correct limb. Damages are suffered because the trauma of adjusting to what was supposed to one amputation turning into two.
The clinical outcome in this situation was clearly that Mr. B was over-sedated leading to a very dangerous situation. Hypoxia during sedation is a common side affect, which is treated by giving the patient O2 or reversing the sedation. However in this situation the staff was not aware that he was hypoxic, and why weren’t they? The answer a nurse had silenced the alarm but had not done an assessment nor alerted anyone else of the situation. Why did the nurse choose to silence the alarm with no further action?
Packard Electrical had previously experienced excellent results in the United States based on their traditional operational processes but had failed to impress in the overseas market, serving a different type of customer. This is due to a number of systemic problems in the customer serving processes inherent in the Rio Bravo plant operations. These problems are highlighted in the report and are: • A lack of proper planning led to the mismatch of resources, which includes human talent, infrastructure; • • • • Careless planning and poor execution of processes; A lack of customer focus; Poor communication across the supply chain; Misalignment in philosophies and value systems between Packard Electrical and NUMMI; • • Lack of a change management system and A dearth of continuous improvement The primary causes of the above stated problems were a lack of lack of proper strategic planning on behalf of Packard Electric’s management team. There was also a lack of planning in the design and development of the plant taking into account the demanding customer requirements. There are also appeared to be a lack of understanding of the exact customer requirements and how to deliver the exepcted quality.
Inventory, quality, vendors, management, and the workforce were all inefficient in the current operations. Various improvements were needed to create a lean operation, starting with buy-in from the managers. Henry Malone, manager of shop operations for thermocouple manufacturing, did not have a positive view of JIT. The facility did not have an integrated system to track inventory and viewed the shop’s floors a “no man’s land” due to goods disappearing after leaving the stockroom. Other issues included setup times and incentive programs.