BACKGROUND OF CASE 1: “Suppressed Data”

An Engineering Tech is employed in the R & D Chemical Engineering Division of

Larom, Inc. The company is having a major product and they want to know what
Catalyst should be used in processing the major project. Usually Catalyst A is the best
for the job, but the Engineering Tech who’s conducting a research about the catalyst
says that Catalyst B is more reliable, more efficient, and considerably less costly, but he
need a month for more evidence can be found in his research. The company is running
out of time and can only give 2 days, that’s why they come up to use the Catalyst A.
Engineering tech is feeling uncomfortable about leaving the preliminary data out of the
report. He doesn’t want to challenge his colleagues, but only to give him more time to
work on Catalyst B.

 ANALYSIS OF CASE
- Identifying Key Issues/Goals
1. The most suitable Catalyst that must be used in processing the
major project of the company.
2. Giving more time for the Engineering Tech to give more evidence
that Catalyst B is better than Catalyst A.
- Comparing the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternatives
1. The advantage of choosing the Catalyst A is they can finish the
project on time while the disadvantage it’s possible that there will
be no improvement in doing the project while using the Catalyst A.
2. The advantage of choosing Catalyst B, the project of the company
is possibly more efficient, reliable, and less costly while the
disadvantage it’s possible that they will lose the project because of
delaying a month to find more evidence.
  DECISION CRITERIA
As a recent graduate of Engineering Tech and have been employed for
several months, I will respect the decision of my Supervisor, but I will not stop in
doing my research because I know that it can help the company to develop and
level up the projects when my research will be implemented also when the time
come and there will be another major project I am ready to present the research
that I’ve conducted.
I come up with this decision because I believe I need to learn more about
the company since I am newly hired.

 ASSUMPTIONS
1. Newly hired in the company and need more experience in doing task like
most especially when it is a major projects.
2. The management will cancel the major project because of the delay.

CONCLUSION

In every workplace we should widen our understanding and respect the decisions
of the higher position or even other colleagues. Be honest in what we are doing. Thou
we feel uncomfortable if we are rejected don’t lose confidence in doing the great job.
We do our best and everything will follow.

REFERENCES
 http://ethics.tamu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/7/2017/04/ethics.tamu_.edu_pritchar_larom.pdf
BACKGROUND OF CASE 2: “Machine Failure”

R&M Machinery supply the XYZ Inc. with sophisticated equipment and reliable
repair service. XYZ Inc. returned a failed piece of equipment. A meeting was conducted
about the issue of failed piece of equipment. Walt Winters one of the representative of
R&M Company says that the problem has to be R&M’s. He suspects that the equipment
was not properly tested out by R&M, and that it failed because of an internal problem
inside the meeting Walt state about it.

 ANALYSIS OF CASE
- Identifying Key Issues/Goals
1. R&M engineer Walt Winters understands that failure of a part was
the fault of R&M, probably due to insufficient testing.
2. What is left on the table is that R&M, through Norm, has asserted
that the equipment is fine; which it isn't.
- Comparing the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternatives
1. The advantage of acknowledging that its R&Ms fault about the
failure of a part is the customer will understand the situation and
customer relationship will be preserved through honest
communication. While the disadvantage of telling the truth is might
embarrass them and cost them money and customer confidence.

 DECISION CRITERIA
One should not talk about internal company problems in the presence of the
customer. Call a recess, or wait. Walt's insight is confidential to R&M, so after they
discuss their insight, face the customer and explain what is the reason behind of
receiving a failed piece of equipment.

 ASSUMPTIONS
1. XYZ Company can understand the fault of the R&M Manufacturing
in receiving failure piece of equipment.
CONCLUSION
In this case to solve the problem honesty is needed. R&M Manufacturing should
examine the returned equipment, meet the customer to review the findings and present
the proposed solution based on the findings. The failure that is an engineering problem
should be handled and acknowledge. If XYZ has been such a good customer, then
R&M must be a good and honest supplier.

REFERENCESS
 http://ethics.tamu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/7/2017/04/ethics.tamu_.edu_pritchar_failure.pdf
BACKGROUND OF CASE 3: “Fabricated Data”

Project leader Bruce Barton was being sorely pressed to complete the
development of several engineering prototypes for a field test of a new appliance model
for the XYZ Company. He ask for help to Tom Mason, manager of the Material Science
Department, was willing to assist because he knew how critical completion of the
development was to XYZ's future appliance plans. However, this was also a busy time
for Tom's department. Tom assigned the test work to Jack Jacobs, an engineering co-
op student from the State University who was completing his second work session at
XYZ. Jack completed the tests on schedule and turned in a report to Tom indicating the
component had successfully passed the stress tests. Upon completion of the test report
Jack returned to the university for his next school session. A few weeks later, Bruce
rushed into Tom's office to tell him that most of the prototypes were out of operation
because of a catastrophic failure of the component that had been tested in Tom's lab.
After review Tom said they have been faked! At best, Jack probably took a few points
and 'extrapolated' the rest. But according to Dr. Thompson, Coordinator of State
University. All lab courses emphasized the need for accuracy in data taking. Dr.
Thompson added that he found it hard to believe that a co-op student would "fake" data!

 ANALYSIS OF CASE
- Identifying Key Issues/Goals
1. Bruce Barton intrusted his confidential data for his prototypes for a
field test of a new appliance model for the XYZ Company.
2. Jack Jacobs probably took few points and extrapolated the rest.
The measurements are in error or they have been faked.
 - Comparing the Advantages and Disadvantages of the Alternatives
1. The advantage of finding help for the prototyping is to make Bruce
work easy and accomplish his task in time but the disadvantage of
intrusting his work to someone else and doesn’t know the views of
that person may lead into copying his data or faked it since Jack is
an engineering co-op student from the State University who was
completing his second work session at XYZ. Jack was familiar with
the test equipment and previously had done similar test work.

 DECISION CRITERIA
The aspect of this case that should produce the most concern is the
apparent and immediate conclusion by Tom that Jack "faked" data without any
concern about the results of his action. This is equivalent to a "guilty until proven
innocent" approach to justice. The first action taken by Tom when he learned that
the results of the stress test were suspect should have been to bring Jack into
the discussion, either by telephone or, in view of the seriousness of the situation,
by paying Jack's expenses to return to the laboratory to discuss the tests. If Jack
has a valid explanation for the results he obtained, the failure to bring this
explanation into consideration could place an irreparable blight on Jack's career
because of the hasty accusation. This contact with Jack should also have
occurred before the University co-op coordinator was contacted with the fear that
Jack had falsified data.

 ASSUMPTIONS
1. Co-op student Jack Jacobs falsify the test data.
2. Tom Mason is with Jack Jacobs since they know each other.
3. Jack has a self-interest in the data that he faked.
CONCLUSION
There are many areas in which a course in professional ethics might sensitize
students to issues that they haven't thought about. Surely, Jack knew that he should not
falsify data. All lab courses emphasize the need for accuracy in data taking. But he
might not have been sufficiently sensitive to what the consequences of short-cuts in
testing might be. If that is the issue, and if that is the ethics of the case, then ethical
instruction needs to include such sensitivity to consequences, not just rules of honesty.

REFERENCES
 http://ethics.tamu.edu/wp-
content/uploads/sites/7/2017/04/ethics.tamu_.edu_pritchar_co-op.pdf