Ford Pinto Executive Summary
Ford Pinto Executive Summary
Your Name
University of Phoenix
MGT/216
Teacher
Date
Ford Pinto Executive Summary The Ford Pinto case is a classic example of ethics versus money. Ford decided to make a decision that was unethical in order to save time and money. The questions that come about when determining how unethical it all was are: What solutions would be recommended to make it better? How did external social pressures influence the decisions? Through the period eye would the decision made have been the same today as in 1971?
Recommended Solutions Fords argument to the government was, “It would be cheaper in the long run to just let their customer’s burn!” How can this even be a dilemma or a problem? If that statement could be made, the vehicle is not the problem, the person in charge is. I have learned that in my attempts to save one dollar, in most cases the result is losing more. Although the text stated that Ford Pinto lost more than 50 million dollars in lawsuits and bad publicity, other text found on Engineering.com and Time.com states that Ford saved money by not correcting the problems. A summary table from Engineering.com states:
Summary Table
BENEFITS
Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle.
Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million.
COSTS
Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks.
Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck.
Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million.
Time.com, 2007: quoted a Ford Pinto memo, which ruthlessly calculates the cost of reinforcing the rear end ($121 million) versus the potential payout to victims ($50 million). The Pinto Ford, I believe went wrong from conception. I would not have let the car be designed and produced in 25 months instead of the normal 43 months, unless it could be done properly. With the short
Your Name
University of Phoenix
MGT/216
Teacher
Date
Ford Pinto Executive Summary The Ford Pinto case is a classic example of ethics versus money. Ford decided to make a decision that was unethical in order to save time and money. The questions that come about when determining how unethical it all was are: What solutions would be recommended to make it better? How did external social pressures influence the decisions? Through the period eye would the decision made have been the same today as in 1971?
Recommended Solutions Fords argument to the government was, “It would be cheaper in the long run to just let their customer’s burn!” How can this even be a dilemma or a problem? If that statement could be made, the vehicle is not the problem, the person in charge is. I have learned that in my attempts to save one dollar, in most cases the result is losing more. Although the text stated that Ford Pinto lost more than 50 million dollars in lawsuits and bad publicity, other text found on Engineering.com and Time.com states that Ford saved money by not correcting the problems. A summary table from Engineering.com states:
Summary Table
BENEFITS
Savings: 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, 2,100 burned vehicles. Unit Cost: $200,000 per death, $67,000 per injury, $700 per vehicle.
Total Benefit: 180 X ($200,000) + 180 X ($67,000) + $2,100 X ($700) = $49.5 million.
COSTS
Sales: 11 million cars, 1.5 million light trucks.
Unit Cost: $11 per car, $11 per truck.
Total Cost: 11,000,000 X ($11) + 1,500,000 X ($11) = $137 million.
Time.com, 2007: quoted a Ford Pinto memo, which ruthlessly calculates the cost of reinforcing the rear end ($121 million) versus the potential payout to victims ($50 million). The Pinto Ford, I believe went wrong from conception. I would not have let the car be designed and produced in 25 months instead of the normal 43 months, unless it could be done properly. With the short
References: Helms, M.M., & Hutchins, B.A. (1992). Poor quality products: Is their production unethical? Management Decision, 30(5), 35-46. Retrieved on June 6, 2010, from ProQuest database. Newton, L.H., & Ford, M.M. (2008). Taking sides: Clashing views in business ethics and society. (10th ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill. Time. (2007). Times.com. Retrieved from: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1658545_1658498_1657866,00.html#ixzz0pl1hC0By Engineering.com. (2010). Engineering.com the engineer 's ultimate resource. Retrieved from: http://www.engineering.com/Library/ArticlesPage/tabid/85/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/166/Ford-Pinto.aspx