Sec 500 - Discussion Board Assignment No 1 - Instructions

Question # 40073
  • Writing
    11 months ago
    $25
    11 months ago

    student5397


    MGT 200, § 500 SPRING 2016
    1 2/3/2016
    DISCUSSION BOARD ASSIGNMENT NO. 1
    Instructions
    To receive full credit on this assignment, you must do the following:
    1) Read this document;
    2) Answer the three questions below by posting them in the Discussion
    Board, which can be accessed below these instructions in the folder for
    this assignment; and; and
    3) Respond to answers posted by two of your classmates by hitting “REPLY”
    and state why you agree or disagree with each and every one of their
    responses. Answers such as “I agree” or “I disagree” without any further
    explanation are insufficient, and you will not receive any credit. You are
    strongly encouraged to number each of your replies to your
    classmate’s answers. If it is not clear that you answered each
    question and you responded to each answer to each of the
    questions posted by two of your classmates, you will not receive
    full credit.
    NOTE: You will not see any of your classmates’ answers until you have posted your
    own. When you have correctly completed this assignment, you should have posted only
    three times: (1) your answers; (2) responses to “Classmate No. 1”; and (3) responses to
    “Classmate No. 2.” Please do not post a separate message for your response to each of
    the questions answered by a classmate.
    In responding to your classmates’ answers, you should explain in detail why you agree
    or disagree. If appropriate, explain what you believe he or she failed to consider in
    answering the question(s). Most importantly—be constructive and respectful of other
    persons’ opinions. Reasonable men and women can have different opinions about these
    issues.
    It should be easy for everyone to receive 10 points (5 points for your answers; 2½ points
    for each response to your classmates’ answers) on this assignment if you follow these
    instructions carefully, offer thoughtful, clear, and intelligent responses to the questions
    below, and provide constructive responses to your classmates’ answers.
    ALL ANSWERS AND RESPONSES MUST BE POSTED ON BLACKBOARD BY
    11:59 P.M. ON WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 17, 2016—NO EXCEPTIONS. IF YOU
    HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS ASSIGNMENT, PLEASE CONTACT ME.
    MGT 200, § 500 SPRING 2016
    2 2/3/2016
    The Ford Pinto Memo:
    A Lapse in Ethics or a Calculated Business Decision?
    In May 1968, Ford Motor Company began designing and developing a subcompact car,
    which it ultimately named the Ford Pinto. Because Ford wanted to gain a large market
    share, the entire design and development process was accelerated.
    On August 10, 1978, three Indiana teenage girls in a Ford Pinto were killed in a rearend
    collision with a van. Two of the passengers were burned to death in the car, and
    the other was ejected from the vehicle and later died. During the course of the
    investigation, law enforcement discovered drugs and alcohol in the van that rear-ended
    the car.
    Following an investigation, the prosecutor took the unusual step of pursuing criminal
    charges against Ford. The charges related to specific design elements of the vehicle.
    The Ford Pinto was unusual because the fuel tank was located behind the rear axle
    instead of above it, and the distance between the rear axle and the fuel tank was only
    nine inches. The fuel tank was also prone to puncture in a rear-end collision because of
    the placement of bolts. Finally, the fuel filler pipe design made it more likely that it
    would disconnect from the tank in the event of an accident, which increased the
    likelihood of fuel spills.
    Even prior to the death of the teenage girls, Ford had been aware of the Ford Pinto
    susceptibility to fire in rear-end collisions. In 1973, Ford conducted an internal
    analysis of the costs and benefits of retrofitting existing vehicles and altering the design
    for the production of new vehicles. In addition, Ford considered the option of doing
    MGT 200, § 500 SPRING 2016
    3 2/3/2016
    nothing. The cost-benefit analysis was presented to senior management, and the
    memorandum outlining the analysis later became public.
    The following figures are from that memorandum and compare the two options: (i)
    repairing existing vehicles and modifying the design of vehicles to be built; and (ii)
    doing nothing.
    Expected Cost of Repair/Modification:
    Cost per unit: $11.00
    Number of units: 12.5 million
    Total cost: $137.5 million
    Expected Costs of Accident Results (assuming out-of-court
    settlements to pay the victims and their families):1
    Burn deaths: 180 x $200,000 per person
    Serious burn injuries: 180 x $67,000 per person
    Burned-out vehicles: 2100 x $700 per vehicle
    Total costs: $49.53 million
    Final Analysis:
    Cost of Repair/Modification: $137.50 million
    Less Cost of Accident Results: $ 49.53 million
    Difference/Savings: $ 71.47 million
    1 The figures for burn deaths and serious burn injuries were not figures developed by
    Ford; rather, these figures were based upon the average value of a lost or injured adult
    life as determined by the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. For
    example, the $200,000 amount assessed per death was based upon the estimated costs
    of the deceased adult’s direct earnings during his or her lifetime, and indirect costs
    including hospital and insurance costs, legal and court costs, victim pain and suffering,
    funeral costs, and property damage. This approach is still used today in wrongful death
    cases to calculate the “value” of a human life.
    MGT 200, § 500 SPRING 2016
    4 2/3/2016
    Based upon its analysis, Ford decided not to repair existing vehicles or modify the
    design for vehicles it was producing. Instead, it elected to pay the victims and their
    families, which was estimated to produce a cost savings to the company of over $70
    million dollars.
    It is unclear exactly how this information was utilized by Ford management, and even
    today, controversy remains about how early senior managers became aware of the
    problem of crash-induced fires in the Ford Pinto.
    Questions
    Using the discussion board feature on Blackboard, discuss your answers to the
    following questions in detail:
    1) Is it ethical for a company, such as Ford, to perform a cost-benefit analysis
    when human lives are involved? Why or why not?
    2) Assume that the Ford Pinto met all of the safety requirements imposed by
    law at the time. Did Ford have a higher obligation because it knew of the
    gas tank issues but the general public did not? Why or why not?
    3) Fast forward to the year 2016. If a situation like this arose in 2016, would
    a company address it in the same way as Ford did in the 1970s? Why or
    why not?
    YOU ARE STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO NUMBER YOUR ANSWERS AND
    EACH OF YOUR RESPONSES TO YOUR TWO CLASSMATES.

    Attachments:

    Answer Available Rating

    Original Work

    Sec 500 - Discussion Board Assignment No  1 - Instructions
    payment options

    Similar Questions