Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

GM Names Names, Suspends Two Engineers Over Ignition-Switch Safety

Posted by timothy on from the laying-blame dept.

cartechboy (2660665) writes "GM said it has placed two engineers on paid leave in connection with its massive recall probe of 2 million vehicles. Now, GM is asking NASA to advise on whether those cars are safe to drive even with the ignition key alone. Significantly, individual engineers now have their names in print and face a raft of inquiries what they did or didn't know, did or didn't do, and when. A vulnerability for GM: One engineer may have tried to re-engineer the faulty ignition switch without changing the part number—an unheard-of practice in the industry. Is it a good thing that people who engineer for a living can now get their names on national news for parts designed 10 years ago? The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?"

29 of 236 comments (clear)

  1. Hero ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    What follows is my baseless personal opinion based only on what I see at similar businesses ---
    The engineer that changed the part without changing the part number and without management knowing intentionally did it behind their back because management wouldn't let him make the change. Everyone knew about the problem. Management knew changing the part was akin to admitting the fault. The engineer did it on his own to save lives - company be damned. And he kept the part number the same so that no one would know.

    1. Re:Hero ? by gnoshi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Changing part without changing part number is something which the engineer shouldn't have done. Sure, management wouldn't let him make the change and that is bad. However, by making a change without following the basic accepted procedures meant that sleuth work needed to be done to even identify that a change had been made. The engineer clearly did something wrong. That in no way reduces the responsibility of management for their decisions and the consequences of those decisions.

      That said, naming names of an engineer is a really bad precedent. What is the goal GM is trying to achieve here. Do they want people to go break the guy's windows? Burn down his house? Call him in the middle of the night or deliver pizza? Apart from potentially removing the guy's livelihood for the remainder of his life because no-one wants to hire 'that guy' ever again, and a lot of abuse being targeted his way, what will this achieve?

      If he did something criminal, then he should be charged. If he did something extremely incompetent then maybe membership of the engineering body should be revoked, but it isn't the place of GM to throw their engineers to the wolves.

    2. Re:Hero ? by wiredlogic · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Somebody in management had to sign off on the change and a whole lot of work had to be done to revise the tooling and approve the expenditures. This wasn't an invisible modification done by a sneaky engineer unbeknownst to higher levels of management. There is always a bottom to every hill and the shit stops rolling once it gets there.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    3. Re:Hero ? by countach · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I disagree. Assuming this hypothesis, it was better he make the change and save lives... management, convention and rules be damned.

      Of course we don't really know if that what really happened.

    4. Re:Hero ? by thegarbz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not a hero. An engineer has a responsibility to act ethically. It's part of what makes the profession ... err professional. A cover up to save face of management is not something that should have been done under any circumstance.

    5. Re:Hero ? by TubeSteak · · Score: 3, Informative

      That said, naming names of an engineer is a really bad precedent. What is the goal GM is trying to achieve here. Do they want people to go break the guy's windows? Burn down his house? Call him in the middle of the night or deliver pizza? Apart from potentially removing the guy's livelihood for the remainder of his life because no-one wants to hire 'that guy' ever again, and a lot of abuse being targeted his way, what will this achieve?

      Why exactly is it a bad precedent?
      The names of everyone involved are going to come out anyways, with all the possible consequences you described.
      Our judicial system is usually exceedingly unwilling to pierce the corporate veil and directly hold bad actors responsible for their choices.
      So I'm perfectly happy with a society that aggressively shuns those people, regardless of judicial outcomes.

      I'm *guessing* GM's goal is to scapegoat a few responsible parties as early as possible,
      so that when the management failures are unmasked, there won't be as much heat and vitriol.

      --
      [Fuck Beta]
      o0t!
    6. Re:Hero ? by khallow · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What is the goal GM is trying to achieve here.

      Create a scapegoat and deep six the visibility of the problem in the media. I don't buy at all that this problem can be narrowed down to two misbehaving engineers especially given what appears to be collusion on the regulatory government side (perhaps over both Obama and G. W. Bush's terms) to ignore the problem.

    7. Re:Hero ? by quarterbuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      As usual the Slashdot summary is incomplete on the verge of being incorrect.
      Reuters has a longer story that explains the background. Digrigio testified in the Senate that he did not know of the issue. Later senate dug up documents implying the opposite.Altman did something similar (but not nearly as bad) in front of a Jury.

      --
      http://slashdot.org/submission/1062723/Cheap-mobile-data-plan?art_pos=2
    8. Re:Hero ? by pla · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Sure, management wouldn't let him make the change and that is bad.

      With this going so high that congress dragged the CEO in to lie to them that this involved anything more than "cheaper to let you die", by naming these two engineers, GM has just given them the power to completely ruin the company.

      "We tried to do the right thing and management thwarted us at every turn". Done in one, the CEO just perjured herself before congress, and the class action liability suits put GM (back) into bankruptcy (where they belong).

      Unfortunately in this case, engineers tend to have too strong of a "boyscout" streak in them, and the ones implicated here will probably just do their best to ignore the fact that GM just threw them under the bus for following orders.

      Or put another way - I don't work in an industry that seriously puts people's lives in danger, and legal would goose-step me out of the goddamned building before they let me do something like GM claims these two engineers did "on their own". So an entire multinational supply and manufacturing chain of command just quietly went along with the whims of two peons that massively violated protocol? Bullshit.

    9. Re:Hero ? by Webcommando · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Why exactly is it a bad precedent?

      So I'm perfectly happy with a society that aggressively shuns those people, regardless of judicial outcomes.

      IMHO, engineers have a hard job. They constantly need to manage trade-offs, complex concepts, and scope/schedule trade-offs. Sometimes they make mistakes. I've worked in design of automation equipment, enterprise software, and medical devices and in all cases there were the occasional mistakes. People forget to update a requirements document, a change order is approved but not implemented, a drawing rev number isn't updated before sending to vendor, a critical bug is mistakenly set to low, a vendor changes a part and someone uses the old data sheet, etc.. There are recalls all the time on products through honest mistakes people make. Should we call out each of these people individually?

      We would need to have a Google size site just to publish the name of every software engineer who introduced a bug into some software package. Everyone better step-up if we want to do that. I want the world to shun the individual who made a bad trade for my 401K, every person on a road crew who didn't finish a road project on time -- well, there are countless people who make mistakes who are nameless part of a bigger organization.

      --
      I love the sound of distortion in the morning -- webcommando
    10. Re:Hero ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      As a Sr. Engineer, I can state that very few certified technical lead Engineers I have known would ever consent to such a modification without changing either the part number or revision number. However, there have been a number of times when hardware managers will not listen, since such a change has ramifications affecting a product's BOM, certifications, and various procurement/logistical processes.

      If there are liability consequences, my company will comply with the overhead. However, that is not the case with all companies.

    11. Re:Hero ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      As a professionally licensed design engineer, we have a responsibility to the public in general. These two engineers, once the problem had been identified and middle management was preventing the fix from being implemented, should have sent an email to the CEO and copied the entire company mailing list highlighting the potential liability and risk of death and great bodily harm. I guarantee it would have been fixed, and a bunch of jackass middle management would have been out on their asses. If the warning was still ignored, the next stop is the press. They may or may not have lost their jobs, or they may have gotten a promotion, but either is far better than where they are now.

      Engineers in general are very conscientious as we have one of very few professions where our work makes us personally liable under the law and that liability cannot be transferred to a corporation (although the corporation may also be liable, and typically have deeper pockets.) This is one reason why, although spectacular (i.e. the Challenger shuttle explosion) it is very rare that middle management succeeds in hushing any serious safety flaws known to the engineers. As an engineer I would much rather be out of a job than on the hook for wrongful death, legally or morally. As for my next employer, if they are worth working for, they know the laws and know that engineers work for them but have a greater responsibility to society.

    12. Re:Hero ? by inasity_rules · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, the ethical course is to blow the whistle. Sure you will loose your job and probably never work again, but .... Yeah, there are no up-sides to this one...

      --
      I have determined that my sig is indeterminate.
    13. Re:Hero ? by drinkypoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If you can't say NO to the people who are paying you then you have absolutely no business being a professional engineer.

      If you can't feed your children otherwise, you can't say no.

      If you fail economically, our society tells you that you are a failure. Ethics don't pay the bills.

      Maybe this guy is just feeding himself, I don't know. But society punishes the kind of ethics you're talking about. We clearly don't actually hold that value.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  2. More Impressed by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'll be more impressed when they suspend/fire the managers/executives that did not pass along the information or made the decision it would cost less to pay off victims than fix it.

    --
    When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
  3. Comparison to code bugs a bit flawed by zooblethorpe · · Score: 4, Informative

    The fine article submission asks:

    Is it a good thing that people who engineer for a living can now get their names on national news for parts designed 10 years ago? The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?

    One key difference here is that the engineer(s) responsible for redesigning the switch and not changing the part number were not just implementing an everyday change that happened to be buggy. By not changing the part number, their actions are more akin to trying to fix a known bug that has exposed the company to huge potential liabilities, and then hacking the version control system to make it look like the bug was never there, in full intentional pursuit of obfuscation and ass-covering.

    Cheers,

    --
    "What in the name of Fats Waller is that?"
    "A four-foot prune."
    1. Re:Comparison to code bugs a bit flawed by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And following on that I fully expect software engineers to be held to account in a similar way. If the Heartbleed bug was silently fixed and then historical logs messed with to make it look like it never existed in the first place then the person responsible should have their name in lights.

      Professional Engineers have an obligation to act ethically, not an obligation to be right all the time. Software engineers and other professionals in the IT industry should be held to the same account.

  4. I used to work at GM. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Specifically, OnStar.

    I can remember one of the development groups there "discovering" Agile, and immediately trying to patent the crap out of every process they could. Specifically, they were patenting how they made "new" processes to make Agile work with their awful SDP-21 development process (waterfall)..... by putting multiple sprints inside of the waterfall.

    The place was soul sucking, conformity was desperately sought in all people, and management was desperate to throw underlings under the bus in order to save their own $160,000/year jobs (the talent for which they never really possessed).

    You know... sort of like what is happening to these two engineers.

  5. Why not? by hawguy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The next time your mail goes down, should we know the name of the guy whose code flaw may have caused that?"

    Why not let software engineers take responsibility for their work just like "real" engineers do when they sign off on a project?

    The developer responsible for the Heartbleed bug that put the privacy of millions of users at risk stood up and took responsibility for his mistake.

    If you know that the world is going to hear about it if you screw up, then maybe you'll take a little more time to vet your work before you sign off on it.

    1. Re:Why not? by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That's why software developers shouldn't insist on using the title Engineer. This kind of accountability is expected of an engineer, it's not an anomaly. When programming matures to the point where bugs are rare, then we will deserve the title.

      I write software for a living and I'm well aware that if we were to compare computer science to medical science, the current era is roughly equivalent to the blood letting and leeches era. I can't wait for our penicillin to come around.

    2. Re:Why not? by thegarbz · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The world doesn't need to hear about screw-ups, it does however need to hear about cover-ups.

  6. changing part without changing number is common by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm not saying that it's good, and this case is an example of exactly why it can be a bad idea to do this, but changing part numbers has a lot of overhead (inventory management of multiple part numbers, all the manuals that now refer to the wrong number, etc)

    If it's expected that the new part is significantly different than the old one, then it's worth all the pain, but if it's not expected to be significantly different (just cheaper to build, or more reliable when nobody expects series reliability problems with the old one, etc) its not completely insane to just change the design and keep the same part number.

    If you want to be really paranoid, you track each batch of parts produced as a separate item, because minor things like the temprature that day could theoretically affect something. In medical and aerospace industries, this sort of tracking is done (which is one of the reasons why 'simple' things are so expensive in those industries)

    but in the automotive industry that level of tracking is just not done, and it's very common for parts to be substatuted with no notice.

    In the computer industry, it's unfortuantly common for some manufacturers to make what many people consider major changes (like changing chipsets) without changing the part number.

    David Lang

    1. Re:changing part without changing number is common by confused+one · · Score: 5, Informative

      Since I work for an automotive OEM.... When this is done, there is an Engineering Change Order documenting the change and why it was implemented. We don't change anything without first getting the approval of the customer; and, invariably they will want all the relevant DV and PV testing redone. Huge effort and pain. All of this is well documented and nothing ships until we have final approval from the customer.

      The part number may not change; but, the part revision level will. PN 123456 RevA will become PN 123456 RevB. We treat it as the "same" part number but will only ship the latest revision once we have customer approval. As for tracking, I don't know how our customers tracks the change internally; but, I can tell you which batch, serial number, and date code the new revision started shipping.

    2. Re:changing part without changing number is common by pipingguy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I've seen cock-ups like this happen before. Detailed fabrication drawings are auto-generated paper documents (paper, because each one must be signed and stamped by the stress engineer and signed by the checker and because paper is easier to handle by the fabrication shop and remains the copy of record). Sometimes, but rarely, a minor change is made in the 3D model and a new physical drawing is not printed and sent through the document process. In this case, the 3D model is correct but the detailed drawing is not. Or the reverse can happen; the detailed drawing is manually edited (say, under pressure to meet a deadline, with the intent to update the model as soon as the rush is over - then someone forgets) leaving the model incorrect.

    3. Re:changing part without changing number is common by mixed_signal · · Score: 3, Informative

      The document linked in the article shows several revisions to the switch assembly without changing GM p/n (revs A, B, C1, C2, C3 and D).

  7. Professional responsibility by Sir_Sri · · Score: 4, Informative

    Engineers are professionally certified with professional responsibility, if they aren't doing their job it's criminal and names need to be named. Just as a physician working for a hospital is named for accusations of negligence.

    It's not obvious if that's relevant here, but if someone tried to pass themselves off as a professional engineer and aren't that's a problem, if someone who is a professional engineering violated the ethical principles that's a problem too.

  8. Re:Whew! by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Better yet, these people get to be super rich AND immune from any consequences for their mistakes and misdeeds, however the engineers working for them, who make middle-class salaries at best (and far less than doctors), are somehow expected to have "ethical standards" and are the first to be blamed when something goes wrong that was really because of a management decision.

  9. This could start a precedent... or some lawsuits by sigmabody · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I could see two potential outcomes, if blaming engineers for product flaws becomes commonplace...

    First, engineers will (or should) demand an indemnity clause as part of their employment contract, where the company agrees not to blame them publicly for any product flaws, and/or take any action which would identify them. Depending on the repercussions for the test cases, this might become a necessity for employees.

    Second, I could see some significant lawsuits for slander, since the company is causing real (and substantial, and more importantly provable) financial loss for the engineers they blame for product deficiencies. Unless they have a pretty solid intentional negligence defense, they could (and absolutely should) find themselves paying out a few million more to each engineer they throw under the metaphorical bus.

    Companies are responsible for their products, not the people they employ to make/provide them. Companies reap the rewards when they work, and bear the responsibility when they don't. Absent malicious negligence, naming/blaming individual employees is irresponsible at best, and should absolutely expose the company to civil liability.

  10. Re:Did they name the director? by SeaFox · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He doesn't believe in rank and file employees having power to enact this level of change at their workplace.