Comparison and Contrast of Note-Taking Systems

Various ethical standards were violated in this case. Before citing some of the ethical violations in this case it is paramount to site some of the professional obligations that ought to have been considered. First engineers are obliged to discontinue any plans or specifications that tend to be in violation of the engineering standards. Where the employer of the client insists that such unprofessional conduct is appreciated, the involved engineer(s) is required to report to the relevant authorities and withdraw from the project. Secondly, engineers are supposed to advise their clients in cases where they feel or believe that the project at hand will not be successful. Thirdly, engineers are bound by a none disclosure agreement such that they are not supposed to disclose confidential information relating to an existing client.

One of the key ethical violations, in this case, was the instructions issued to Lawson to overlook critical testing details. Such details included overlooking the fact that eh brakes were miscalibrated and being required to pass the brakes regardless of the testing results. Additionally, the technicians were instructed to disregard military standards. As such, the brakes were specifically tested in such a way that they did not fail the temperature test. Essentially, employees were used by the company to ski important testing just to ensure that the contract with LTV remained intact (Wsu.edu, 1972). On top of the technical ethical discrepancies, Lawson and Vandivier were required to lie to LTV stating that Goodrich was not to blame for the technical failure.

b. Role of named individuals

It is important to note that these were the central characters in the wheel and brake plant at Troy which makes them central to the ethical case.

Kermit Vandivier- Vandivier was the whistleblower who by virtue of his actions unveiled the ethical issues the resulted in this case. At the time he was the technical writer at BF Goodrich and he admitted that he and Searle Lawson were forced to falsify the qualification report for the brake test (Wsu.edu, 1972).

Searle Lawson

was a young design engineer. Notably, he had commendable qualifications including an undergraduate degree in astronautical and aeronautical engineering in addition to a certificate in aircraft design. He collaborated Vandivier’s allegations leveled against Goodrich personnel. Eventually, however, he resigned from Goodrich and went to work for LTV.

Russell Van Horn- horn was the immediate supervisor to Searle Lawson, John Warren and Robert Sink (Wsu.edu, 1972). Additionally, he was the manager of the brake design and aircraft wheel section besides being wholly responsible for the proposal and the undertaking of the A7D project.

Russell Line- he was the manager in the Technical Services section and is alleged to have ordered Vandivier to falsify the qualification report.

Robert L. Sink- Sink was a project manager but held no degree to merit the position. Collaboratively with Horn, Sink ordered Lawson to qualify the final brake test by all means necessary.

H.C. (Bud) Sunderman- he was the chief engineer at the wheel and brake plant for Goodrich at Troy, Ohio. Initially, he suggested that someone in the engineering department write the qualification report when Vandivier declined to do so (Wsu.edu, 1972).

c. Could the problem have been raised internally

Essentially, the success of any project or activity within an organization is made possible by the support of the top management. Where such support lacks, the project might not run for long. Additionally, where the top management supports a mischief, attempts to prevent this could be futile. In this case, it appears that all of the members of management, more so those overseeing the wheel and brake plant at Troy Ohio collaborated in falsifying the testing. For starters, Vandivier would not have raised the issue with his immediate supervisor, Russel, considering that he is the one who ordered Vandivier to falsify the report. on the other hand, the issue would not have been raised with the project manager, Robert, considering the fact that he ordered Lawson to qualify the final brake test by all means. Essentially, he required to have the test qualify whether there were flaws or not. Additionally, the issue would not have been raised with Sunderman, the chief engineer at the plant. This was for the reason that he had offered to have someone write the report when Vandivier declined to do so. considering the extent to which the falsification of the report was backed by the top management, raising the issue internally would have been daunting and probably even futile.

Q2.

Compare and contrast these note-taking systems

Communication is quite important in any setup. Needless to mention, effective communication starts by first gathering collect information, arranging it in an orderly manner and disseminating it through appropriate channels. a compromise in either of these processes could easily get in the way of effective communication hence the need to give each processes its due attention. This section compares and contrasts three methods of note taking which are Cornell method, mind mapping method and the outline method. The Cornell method is characterized by having a cue column, a notes column, and a summary column. Essentially, cue column is for the purpose of listing main points such as sentences while the notes section allows for more detailed information about the main points. In case one is delivering a presentation, the cue column allows for easier location of information intended for delivery while the notes column allows for elaboration. The summary column, on the other hand, features a compressed version of the main topics on the cue column and the detailed information in the notes column.

The mind mapping technique is less intricate in comparison to the Cornell method. Basically, the mind mapping technique entails writing the main topic of discussion and then branching off the main topic with subtitles bearing simple topics. Moreover, this method eliminates the need to write long sentences as is the case with Cornell method thus allowing for a much clearer and simple display. The only challenge with this method is that one has to remember the relationship between the small subtitles with the man topic of discussion. This would also require one to remember mnemonics one might have used and the meaning they convey. Essentially, the simplicity of this method means that one has to work their brain quite significantly if this method is to be plausible and applicable. The outline method is considered to be most plausible where the subject of discussion is categorical or hierarchical and where it is easy to isolate main points and analyze them independently. Additionally, the outline method is considered to be used significantly among the college students since it allows for information arrangement in a well-structured and logical manner. The end result is a skeleton of a textbook that allows for easier access to information.

References

Wsu.edu, w. (1972). Case: Goodrich Case. [online] bsyse.wsu.edu. Available at: http://sites.bsyse.wsu.edu/pitts/be120/Handouts/cases/case73.htm [Accessed 13 Apr. 2018].