Reference no: EM131889283

Question: Starburst Bicycle: A Quality Dilemma John Jamision was just completing his 3rd year as a quality specialist at Starburst Bicycle. Within the next year he expected to be transferred, with a promotion, to a line management position in manufacturing. For the moment, however, his anxieties were growing over the quality problems in the new Comet bicycle about to be placed into production by Starburst. The bicycle just out of engineering design, was being tested by John's group immediately prior to being placed into full scale manufacturing. John had noted during the past few days that the new bicycle apparently had a higher likelihood of brake failure than past modals the company had manufactured. He traced the problem to subcomponents purchased from a new vendor along with a possible deficiency in the metal alloy fastenings being used. John reported his concerns to his boss, Tom Westbrooks, who as less than totally sympathetic: "John we need that bicycle in production in two weeks in order to stay competitive.

Your job, my job, and lots of other jobs were depend on it. As you know, we have been losing money for the past five quarters and we're facing tough competition from several far east. companies. We have to get the unit cost ‘down to $58.00 on this new bicycle or the future of Starburst is in jeopardy. You acknowledge that your reservations about the brake design are not strongly founded based on the data that has been collected. You are the quality professional, but in fact I am responsible for your work. Although there are a few ‘grey' means technically speaking, the bicycle does meet our in-house standards as well as all federal government standards and trade association standards.

As such, I would like you to get the Comet through the tests you and I'll personally assure you that we'll work on the design improvements within two months. Quite frankly, we can make a ‘better safer' bicycle. You know that and I know that. On the other hand, who would bay it? What good does it do to make the best, safest bicycle in the industry if nobody will buy It. We have conducted the cost-benefit analysis on this product and we fool that this ‘quality of design' is most appropriate. We have included the probability of customer injuries and deaths in our cost-benefit calculations. We still come out better with this design. Our lawyers, design engineers and top managers all agree on this point." John was somewhat shocked by Tom's comments but didn't really know what to do. Although agreeing with Tom's factual assessment, John felt that the "grey" areas mentioned by Tom might be rather significant. He didn't feel comfortable with a cost-benefit analysis that acknowledged customers would be injured or killed by the bicycle.

How could such a product be produced by a company - i.e., how could Starburst produce a bicycle knowing that customers could got killed by it and knowing that the customer's lives could be saved through a better design, at a cost increase of no more than 2.50 per bicycle?

How could Starburst put a price on a human life? John was considering making his views known directly to the general production manager. He also thought about "blowing the whistle" to the press or to the U.S. Consumer' Products Safety Commission. Assignment: Write a position either defending or rejecting the company's plan. Support your position. Discuss suggested alternatives for John at this point.