Measuring One 's Self Worth Or The Worth Of Another Person

The customers (drivers of Ford) are the number one stakeholders that lost the most. They might not have lost much money or reputations, but they lost the one thing that you can never get back, their life.

There are many different cases where people have been critically injured or have died from burn-related injuries from the ruptured the Pino gas tank. This case study specifically discusses the 1978 untimely deaths of Lynn Marie Ulrich, Dana Ulrich, and Judy Ann. Between 1971 and 1978, the Pinto was responsible for a number of fire-related deaths. It was the death of these teenagers that lead brought the controversy of the Ford Pinto’s faulty gas tank placement to a climax resulting in criminal homicide charges for the automaker. Ford’s CEO Henry Ford II and Ford’s new president Lee Iacocca were responsible for the launch of the Ford Pinto. To stay ahead of the growing competition, The Pinto was not to weigh over 2,000 pounds and not costs not to exceed $2,000. Ford officials knew that the Pinto represented a serious fire issue when struck from the rear, but were desperate to expedite the vehicle’s release, the Pintos timing was set just under 25 months. Tooling has already been kicked off, so when crash tests revealed a serious defect in the gas tank, it was too late for any design modifications. The tooling was well underway. Therefore, Ford’s president decided it would be too costly to make changes in the Pinto’s gas tank location pushing ahead with the original design which went unchanged for six years. Any changes to the low-cost Ford Pinto would result in an increased price, thus possibly making it less desirable by small car buyers. Iacocca understood that people shopping for compact cars were watching every dollar, One Ford engineer explained, “the process of elasticity on these subcompacts is extremely tight. You can price yourself right out of the market by adding $25 to the production cost of the model”.

Ford executives were under a great deal of pressure to produce a smaller, more gas efficient automobile. Japanese and German automobile sales were rapidly increasing. These competitive forces drove Ford’s executive team to respond by rushing the design process of the Ford Pinto. By 1973, the Pinto was well into production when engineers discovered a flaw in the gas tank, which was located just under the rear bumper. They discovered that if the vehicle suffered a rear-end collision over 20 mph, the gas tank could break and spill gasoline into the passenger compartment, potentially resulting in a fire. The remedy for the flaw was a part that cost $11.00 per vehicle. Executives at Ford knew the company had followed all safety standards and regulations. At that time, automobile safety standards only needed gas tanks to withstand a collision under 20 mph. An internal cost-benefit analysis revealed the costs would be substantially higher to fix the design flaw that the costs associated with any potential damages due to collisions and loss of life. The public remained unaware until Mother Jones journalist, Mark Dowie broke the story in 1977. Fueled by the media, what followed was a frenzy of public outcry and court trials.

In May of 1968, the Ford Motor Company, based upon a recommendation by then vice-president Lee Iacocca, decided to introduce a subcompact car and produce it domestically.  In an effort to gain a large market share, the automobile was designed and developed on an accelerated schedule.  During the first few years sales of the Pinto were excellent, but there was trouble on the horizon.

Ford has argued for over three decades that The Ford Motor Company is not at fault, but rather the other motorists who happened to rear end the Pinto drivers. Many accuse Ford of rushing the Pinto into production without proper testing leaving a faulty

In the late 1960's there was strong competition from VW and several Japanese companies in the small car market. Due to this competition Ford hurried the design of their small car, the Pinto, to market. Since the car was rushed into market and the specifications for the car were that it weigh under 2000 pounds and cost less than $2000, safety was not a major concern in the design of the pinto.1 In

In Pinto Fires and Personal Ethics: A Script Analysis of Missed Opportunities, Dennis Gioia relives the case of the Ford Pinto. Throughout the article Gioia questions his involvement in this highly debated issue, consequently wondering where he fit in ethically. This piece brings together the ideas of technical, social, and political ethics, ultimately showing the importance of an engineer’s decision. Overall, I realize that the remorse or consequence of an ethical decision drives the examination of what is moral.

Every dollar count and safety is not a factor when purchasing. Ford was looking at creating a car with large truck area and easy servicing on fuel tank if needed. They created a car that met all government standards at that time regarding safety. There weren’t any laws in place at the time to force Ford Motor Company to make mandatory changes to its Ford Pinto design (Palmiter). At that time it was normal for cars to have the gas tank between the rear axle and the bumper.

They ignored the consequences of the weakness in fuel tank and focused on their own profits and high competition in the market. 2. They became ignorant of people’s pain and suffering (didn’t focus on maximizing utility by making changes and thinking of benefit of great number of people) caused due of explosions and continued producing new units without modifying the flaws. 3. Besides this, they also tried to delay the implementation of Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 301, rear end provisions, which required making changes in Pinto’s fuel tank.

The concept of ‘rationality’ has been talked through the centuries. According to Grey (2013), rationality is a big question because of this proposition which has the meaning and difficulties seem to be defining of a whole set of issues which have resonated through both organisation theory and practice ever since. And rationality is the basis of a decision, rational decision makers are objective and logical, they reach the goal that maximises the value. Not only rationality is important to organisations, and also it can be identified in various kinds of management theories. This essay will introduce the different aspects of the concept of ‘rationality’ and make explanations that how these are recognised in different management theories.

Ford produced the Pinto automobile from 1971 to 1980. Initially the car sold well, but a defect in the early models made Pintos prone to leaking

Franklin Electronics has a simple understanding of earned value management. They understand how to calculate cost and schedule variance, but they don’t know how to analyze the data that they gave to Spokane Industries. If they understood how to analyze these metrics in depth, they would have understood why the vice president was calling the emergency meeting and would have been

The CBA itself did not force Ford to act unethically, their greed and their sole priority to avoid extra cost even if it meant the loss of a human life drove them to an unethical decision. Ford faced a simple problem, do they fix the Pinto or do they kill innocent people. Sadly, they preferred the money saving option, which was to ignore the defect and to pay compensates to effected families and loved ones. The company defended their decision using the CBA model as if they were legally exonerated from any penalties due to their actions. Fortunately, the jury did not see it as if their decision was justifiable even if the method to evaluate the decision

Applying the utility theory seems a rational choice as it can reflect the decision maker’s attitude toward risk. Still problems arise when the decision is made by more than one person. Based on their experiences within General Motors, Michael W. Kusnic and Daniel Owen have found that when there were more than one decision makers, it was less

Everyone except Ford’s top executives, who in an internal document cited the potential danger. So not only did they know about it, but they calculated that it would be cheaper to pay out possible injury claims then it would be to recall all the vehicles. This ethical dilemma came to a head when three teenage girls were killed in Indiana while in a Ford Pinto. With the bad press and with company officials being indicted with negligence and homicide, Ford was forced to recall all their Pinto vehicles. Ethical issues in the auto industry regarding product safety are dangerous and are linked to human lives. The decisions that Ford executives made had a direct impact on those three teenage girls and the blood was left in their hands. This is just one of many faulty decisions made in automakers history that helped mold the unethical decisions made by Volkswagen in the most recent ethical issue facing the auto industry.