Han 1

Chang Hee Han

Dr. Ananth Dodabalapur
EE 302: Intro to Electrical Engineering
18 September, 2014
Unit C: Ethics and Professional Responsibility
Case I
Numerical and Design Problems:
1. 15000/150 = 100. 100/15000 = 0.667% of the 15000 chips may fail (or about 100)
2. From the perspective of Xanthum, 0.67% is not an acceptable failure rate because the company
does not know that they are getting 100 defective chips per 15000 chips. A defective chip means
a defective device (perhaps a computer) and Xanthum cannot afford to put out 100 defective
computers per 15000 computers for reasons of customer satisfaction and the repair cost. From
the perspective of manufacturer, 0.67% seems like a reasonable failure rate on a pure profit-
based point of view. However, because of the negative effects the defective chips would have
on the customer relation and for ethical reasons (purposefully selling defective chips), the
manufacturer should think twice before releasing the defective chips to its customers.

3. 1. Test and repair each defective chip:
Testing cost: 100,000 * 4 = $400,000
Repair cost: (0.00667 * 100,000) * 2 = $1334

= $401,334

Therefore, net profit is: ((100,000 667) * .25) + (667 * (.25-2.00)) = $23,666

2. Test all, throw away defective chips:
Testing cost: 100,000 * 4 = $400,000
Lost profit on axed chip: 667 * (9 + 4 - .25) = $8504.25 lost
= $408,504.25

Therefore, net profit is: ((100,000 667) *.25) (8504.25) = $16,329

3. No test, replace customer chips as needed:
Testing cost: $0.00
Lost profit from returns: (worst case) = 667 * 9.00 = $6003
Lost profit from returns: (best case) = $0.00

Therefore, net profit is (worst case) : ((100,000 667) * 4.25) 6003 = $416,162.25
Best case: 100000 * 4.25 = $425,000

Han 2

4. Yes, his estimate is reasonable because for the worst case (which assumes all defective chips get
returned) the estimated net profit is $416,162.25. However his assertion that axing chips is
better is wrong because we gain more profit by repairing the defective chips than not selling
them at all.
Questions on Ethics and Professionalism:
1. Robs recommendation is highly unethical because the defective chips, depending on what they
are used for, may have critical, unintended consequences. For example, if a defective chip gets
used in a medical equipment, it is endangering the welfare of the public. Rob is deceiving his
customers and this is an unethical behavior on his behalf.

2. Even though the calculations suggest that the profit will increase by following Robs
recommendation, it is an unethical practice and the cost arising from potential consequences
regarding public safety should outweigh the benefit gained from the profit increase.

3. Shane should present the case in economic terms. It seems like Rob is all about money and does
not care much for consumer relationship. Because of that, Shane needs to cite economic
reasons why it is not a good idea to release the defective chips into the market. One reason he
can cite is the monetary cost of potential outrage from the customers and the impact it would
have on the value of the company. Shane can argue that the negative feedback from customers
will decrease the number of transactions with customers, which will continuously lower the
profit.

Case 2:
This seems like a very difficult situation for the technician. He is stuck between following his
bosss order and following the ethical & professional guidelines. However, no matter what, he should
not violate the guidelines, instead, he should perhaps compromise with his boss, claiming that
installing a software for his client for free is a loss of profit anyway. For this reason, his company should
instead pay for the cost to buy the software (which makes it legal) for his client. In this case, the
company is following the ethical guidelines while still providing the client with the software.

Case 3:
1. I believe the company will win this case because the patient gave the consent to use his cancer
cells for research and the researcher made new drugs based on those cells. There seems to be
nothing in writing that states that the cells may be used only for research purposes. Although
his family argues that the consent was only for research purposes, there is nothing in writing to
back up that claim. Therefore, the company and the researcher will win this case.

2. Now, this is different from who I think SHOULD win. I believe that the family should win
because the company is not following ethical guidelines. They did not acknowledge the
Han 3

patients contributions to the work, therefore violating the IEEE ethics and professionalism
guidelines. Although the writing does not explicitly states that the cells may be used exclusively
for research purposes, it seems to me like the patient was implying that statement. However it
is not written in paper, unfortunately, and the company will probably win this case.