Dissent About Quality
originally titled: Larom
This case is inspired by two brief
case studies presented by Roy V. Hughson and Philip M. Kohn in
Chemical Engineer, May 5, 1980: "The Falsified Data" and "The
Falsified Data Strike Back." These are two of several brief
case studies that they present. You might enjoy looking at the
others. They are on pp. 100-107 of that issue.
I
A recent graduate of Engineering Tech, Bernie Reston has
been employed in the Research and Development (R&D)
Chemical Engineering Division of Larom, Inc. for the past
several months. Bernie was recommended to Larom as the top
Engineering Tech graduate in chemical engineering.
Alex Smith, the head of Bernie's unit, showed immediate
interest in Bernie's research on processes using a particular
catalyst (call it B). However, until last week, his work
assignments at Larom were in other areas.
A meeting of engineers in Bernie's unit is called by Alex.
He announces that the unit must make a recommendation within
the next two days on what catalyst should be used by Larom in
processing a major product. It is clear to everyone that Alex
is anticipating a brief, decisive meeting. One of the senior
engineers volunteers, "We've been working on projects like this
for years, and catalyst A seems to be the obvious choice."
Several others immediately concur. Alex looks around the room
and, hearing no further comments, says, "Well, it looks like
we're in accord on this. Do we have consensus?"
So far Bernie has said nothing. He is not sure what further
testing will show, but the testing he has been doing for the
past week provides preliminary evidence that catalyst B may
actually be best for this process. This is also in line with
what his research at Engineering Tech suggested with somewhat
similar processes. If catalyst B should turn out to be
preferable, a great deal of money will be saved; and, in the
long run, a fair amount of time will be saved as well. Should
he mention his findings at this time, or should he simply defer
to the senior engineers, who seem as determined as Alex to
bring matters to closure?
II
Bernie somewhat hesitantly raises his hand. He briefly
explains his test results and the advantages catalyst B might
provide. Then he suggests that the unit might want to delay its
recommendation for another two weeks so that he can conduct
further tests.
Alex replies, "We don't have two weeks. We have two days."
He then asks Bernie to write up the report, leaving out the
preliminary data he has gathered about catalyst B. He says, "It
would be nice to do some more testing, but we just don't have
the time. Besides, I doubt if anything would show up in the
next two weeks to change our minds. This is one of those times
we have to be decisive--and we have to look decisive and quit
beating around the bush. They're really getting impatient on
this one. Anyway, we've had a lot of experience in this
area."
Bernie replies that, even if the data on B is left out, the
data on A is hardly conclusive. Alex replies, "Look you're a
bright person. You can make the numbers look good without much
difficulty--do the math backwards if you have to. Just get the
report done in the next two days!"
Bernie likes working for Larom, and he feels lucky to have
landed such a good job right out of Engineering Tech. He is
also due for a significant pay raise soon if he plays his cards
right.
What do you think Bernie should do? Explain your choice.
- Write up the report as Alex says.
- Refuse to write up the report, saying he will have no
part in falsifying a report.
- Other.
III
[Following II. 1.]
Bernie decides to write up the report. When he is finished,
Alex asks him to sign it. Bernie now has second thoughts. He
wonders if he should sign his name to a report that omits his
preliminary research on catalyst B. Should he sign it?
IV
Bernie has now had more time to do research on catalyst B.
After several weeks his research quite decisively indicates
that, contrary to the expectations of Alex and the other more
experienced engineers in the unit, catalyst B really would have
been, far and away, the better choice. What should Bernie do
now?
- Keep the data to himself--don't make trouble.
- Tell Alex and let him decide what, if anything, to
do.
- Other.
V
Bernie decides to say nothing. Although Larom has lost a lot
of money by investing in an inferior catalyst, it is quite
possible that this is the end of the matter for Bernie. The
customer never complains, and no one outside at Larom raises
any questions. However, it might go otherwise. Suppose a Larom
competitor discovers that catalyst B is better for this type of
work and it begins receiving contracts that Larom would
normally be awarded. Further, what if Alex's superior then
makes an inquiry into why his unit has missed out on this
development?
VI
[Following II. 3.]
Bernie tries to convince Alex that a straightforward report
should be submitted. Since there is a virtual consensus in the
unit that catalyst A is best, A can be recommended. But the
preliminary evidence about B can also be mentioned. After all,
Bernie suggests, if the entire unit is convinced that A is best
despite the preliminary evidence about B, why wouldn't those
outside the unit be persuaded by the received wisdom of the
unit? If they aren't persuaded, perhaps they will grant the
unit more time to continue the research on B.
Somewhat to his surprise, Bernie finds Alex and the others
receptive to his suggestion. The preliminary evidence about
catalyst B is included in the report, even though A is
recommended.
Unfortunately, Alex's superiors are very upset with the
recommendation. They are unwilling to go ahead with the project
without further testing, but they bitterly complain that the
further delay will be very costly. Alex is severely criticised
for not having a more convincing set of data. He, in turn,
blames his staff, especially Bernie, the new specialist in this
area. Bernie, Alex tells his superiors, failed to complete the
necessary testing in a timely fashion. Alex tells his superiors
that he should have supervised Bernie's work more closely, and
he assures them that he will not let matters get out of control
again. Although Bernie is not fired, he is not promoted and his
salary is frozen for another year. What should he do?
- Nothing. No good will come from complaining.
- Confront Alex, telling him what you think of what he has
done, but carrying it no further.
- Other.
VII
Bernie decides he has nothing to gain from complaining to
Alex or anyone else about becoming the "scapegoat" of the
project. So, he keeps quiet. Sometime later, Alex is being
considered for promotion to another division. Members of
Bernie's unit are privately interviewed about his performance
in the unit. Bernie is told that his comments will be kept
confidential. What should he say in his interview?
VIII
Bernie says nothing negative about Alex in the interview.
None of the others in the unit do either. Alex is promoted to
another division. However, a year later it is discovered that
he has directed someone in his new division to falsify data for
reasons very similar to those in Bernie's original situation.
The new person does what Alex asks. The result is a significant
loss of money to Larom--only this time there is an expensive
product-liability lawsuit relating to an unsafe Larom product.
An inquiry takes place. The person who has falsified the report
says that Alex has often requested that data be falsified--and
that he typically has gotten young engineers to do the "dirty
work" for him. So, it comes back to Bernie. He is asked why he
didn't report Alex's orders to falsify data when the matter
first came up. Bernie is accused of being partly responsible
for allowing Alex to be promoted--with the resulting harm to
others and loss of money and reputation to Larom.