Wednesday, August 21, 2019
The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier Essay Example for Free
The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier Essay With advances in technology always come skepticism, fears, and doubts. But when the new technology in question is designed to address a very sensitive issueâ€â€like human lifeâ€â€it becomes even more of a challenge. However, the challenge is not the development of the technology itself, but in the ethics that surround it. As it would become today, the pacemaker is a true gift to those whose hearts cannot function properly on their own, and it allows people suffering from such a condition to enjoy life a little more. But problems arise when complications and deaths due to failures become apparent. However, it absolutely does not qualify as a reason to stop supporting pacemaker manufacturers altogether.            There are two problems to be addressed. First, as mentioned in the case, most members of the board of the transistor-making company outsourced by the pacemaker company want to pull out, because they are afraid to be recipients of blame if more deaths occur due to the pacemakers. This is a classic example of conflict of interestâ€â€the board, rather than help the development of the pacemaker, wishes instead to wash their hands of any future mishaps that might occur due to faulty products. Without even going into the problem of the technology itself, this action is already an ethical violation when it comes to business.            Another problem is that the members of the board fail to realize that by not helping the pacemaker company, one of two things can happen: either pacemaker production grinds to a haltâ€â€at the expense of people who need themâ€â€or the pacemaker company, in desperation, might hire a sub-par company to manufacture transistors, or they start manufacturing it themselves; either decision will not improve the quality of the pacemakers.            Since the answer to the question of â€Å"what would you do?†is a definite â€Å"yes†, the chairman should look at all the possible, yet ethical and just, options. The case mentions that the chairman himself feels that the specs being used by the pacemaker company to test the transistors is faulty. It would be a good start to let the pacemaker company know about this, so that they may do something about it. If they improve the speculations and become able to properly test the transistors, then the board might start worrying less about failure rates.            The chairman could also try to persuade the pacemaker company to invest in further research and development, citing the failures that have occurred in the past, before making the devices available to the public. It might cost more for the pacemaker company, but it will be beneficial in the long run for both companies and for patients. Once the pacemaker company perfects their product, the transistor company can supply them once again with the necessary part.            The above suggestions, however, are not guaranteed ways to solve the situation. If all else fails and the transistor company’s board wishes to continue serving their own best interests first, then the chair should leave the company as a last resort, on the grounds of bad business ethics, if he wishes to remain in good moral standing. Then, if he wishes, he can create a new company, one whose members are willing to contribute to the progress of technology without doubts. Otherwise, he can join the pacemaker company, hire new employees, and produce transistors from within the pacemaker company itself.            Life-sustaining and sensitive technologies, such as the pacemaker, may present some difficulties during its infant years, but everyone has to learn from mistakes. The pacemaker company has been irresponsible for using such low specs, and the transistor company’s board is being selfish and cowardly. This is why the chairman should not stop producing transistors for the pacemaker company, but he must do so while addressing the issues of both companies using the suggestions stated above. References â€Å"The Case of the Sole Remaining Supplier.â€
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.