Ford Motor Company and Complete Product Safety
Courtney Svendson
MGMT 525
Case 1 – Ford/Firestone
September 4, 2014
1. Can a firm guarantee complete product safety? Discuss.
Although a firm can assure that a product is safe through design, a firm cannot guarantee complete product safety to the consumer. For example, Conair, a producer of electric hair dryers, includes illustrated tags warning the user not to use the product near water. However, it is possible that a product goes out the door with bad wiring and causes an electric shock to the user. A firm can and should take every precaution and effort to ensure product safety from design through production to consumer, and should be prepared to be liable for product malfunctions. With large companies, like Ford and Firestone, it can be difficult to have complete visibility of production and monitor every product going out the door for safety issues. However, user error does not make product safety invalid. For example, a can of hairspray is safe to use as long as it is not near open flames and/or punctured. However, should a user disregard product safety warnings, the product can become unsafe and potentially deadly. Because of the always-present possibility for user error or a lack of quality or safety assurance on the assembly line, a firm cannot fully guarantee complete product safety.
2. Based on the information presented, which company do you think was the most to blame for the deaths and injuries? What led to your conclusion?
Although there is some shared blame, Ford should carry most of the weight for these deaths and injuries. It was Ford’s responsibility to select a tire that would be durable enough to withstand the purpose of the vehicle. Ford chose to select a Grade C Firestone tire that, in most cases, could not withstand the multiple factors that affected the tire due to the vehicle’s use and environment. As the case stated, the Ford Explorer was widely used as a sports utility and travel vehicle, usually carrying a maximum
MGMT 525
Case 1 – Ford/Firestone
September 4, 2014
1. Can a firm guarantee complete product safety? Discuss.
Although a firm can assure that a product is safe through design, a firm cannot guarantee complete product safety to the consumer. For example, Conair, a producer of electric hair dryers, includes illustrated tags warning the user not to use the product near water. However, it is possible that a product goes out the door with bad wiring and causes an electric shock to the user. A firm can and should take every precaution and effort to ensure product safety from design through production to consumer, and should be prepared to be liable for product malfunctions. With large companies, like Ford and Firestone, it can be difficult to have complete visibility of production and monitor every product going out the door for safety issues. However, user error does not make product safety invalid. For example, a can of hairspray is safe to use as long as it is not near open flames and/or punctured. However, should a user disregard product safety warnings, the product can become unsafe and potentially deadly. Because of the always-present possibility for user error or a lack of quality or safety assurance on the assembly line, a firm cannot fully guarantee complete product safety.
2. Based on the information presented, which company do you think was the most to blame for the deaths and injuries? What led to your conclusion?
Although there is some shared blame, Ford should carry most of the weight for these deaths and injuries. It was Ford’s responsibility to select a tire that would be durable enough to withstand the purpose of the vehicle. Ford chose to select a Grade C Firestone tire that, in most cases, could not withstand the multiple factors that affected the tire due to the vehicle’s use and environment. As the case stated, the Ford Explorer was widely used as a sports utility and travel vehicle, usually carrying a maximum