• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Ford and Firestone's Tire Recall
 

Ford and Firestone's Tire Recall

on

  • 3,178 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
3,178
Views on SlideShare
3,178
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
54
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    Ford and Firestone's Tire Recall Ford and Firestone's Tire Recall Presentation Transcript

    • Ford and Firestone’s Tire Recall: The Costliest Information Gap in History Chapter 7 Case Study Brian Kaufman James Grant Neng Xiong Steve Witucke Tom Dattulo
    • Problems and Major Issues
      • Federal investigation of 46 deaths and more than 300 incidents
      • March 1999: Confidential memo from Firestone to Ford: everything’s fine
      • August 1999: Ford recall in 16 countries but not in US and NHTSA not notified
      • August 2000:
        • Disagreement about tire inflation pressure (Ford 26 psi; Firestone 30 psi)
        • report that Firestone plant was “rife with quality-control”
    • Problems and Major Issues
      • September 2000:
        • Firestone memo from 3/99: “major reservations” about a plan to replace tires overseas
        • Ford said it was under no obligation to report overseas recalls
        • Ford did not have warranty data on tire recalls
        • Firestone’s damage claims moved to Nashville; warrenty adjustments in Ohio
    • Problems and Major Issues
      • September 2000 (continued):
        • Trend identified after-the-fact by the New York Times
        • Department of Transportation doesn’t have funding to track all data
        • NHTSA: “our testing is clearly outdated”
      • President of Bridestone said the lack of quality control was management’s fault
      • Group of personal industry lawyers identified a trend in 1996, but did not report to NHTSA until 2000.
    • MIS Application
      • Why was this a crisis in information management?
        • The information was available, but it was not easy to get at and it was not shared.
      • What role did databases and data mgt play?
        • There were several isolated databases
        • There were no easy ways to detect trends
        • There were no ways to share data (Ford had to “pry” information from Firestone)
        • Not all data collected
    • What took so long?
      • Individuals hid information (lawyers and executives)
      • Data not stored (lack of funding)
      • No obligation to report overseas actions
      • Didn’t have a tool to detect trends easily
    • The Players and the Data
      • Firestone
        • Nashville: Damage claims
        • Ohio: Warranty adjustments
      • Ford
        • Warranty info. for non-tire issues
        • Did not have warranty information for tires
      • Department of Transportation
        • Fatality data with vehicle type
        • Not storing actual causes of failure (i.e. from tires)
        • No data from non-fatal accidents
      • NHTSA
        • Complaints, crashes, and injuries/deaths
      • Lawyers
        • Pattern of failures recorded
    • SELECT * FROM ?
      • What questions from DBs were needed:
        • Better trend analysis
        • How many warranty issues from each tire type
        • Relate issues to manufacturing source
        • Need to be PROACTIVE not reactive!
    • Will you be my friend?
      • Relationship of organizations prohibited a rapid solution
        • Ford and Firestone had a long relationship (100 years), but did not communicate on issues
        • Ford and Firestone did not report data to the government if it might cost them
        • Legal community hid information from government for 4 years to protect their lawsuit
    • Conclusions
      • There was not an environment of information sharing
      • Not all parties were collecting the correct data
      • No one was proactive about looking into problems