January 11, 2016 at 9:26 am
Jeff Moden (1/11/2016)
Ed Wagner (1/11/2016)
Eric M Russell (1/8/2016)
Matt Miller (#4) (1/8/2016)
Eric M Russell (1/7/2016)
... I saw was of a press conference where the upper management of VW seems to indicate that the software developers on the project decided to alter the software...
There are two different engineering teams; the one that works on the components of the catalytic converter system and then the one that works on the software that interfaces between the catalytic converter and the diagnostic output. If what they're saying is that the software team unilaterally decided to implement coding that fakes the performance of the exhaust system, then that's preposterous. What could possibly be the motive, unless they were somehow inventivised by executive management on the down low?
The "team" involved to me sounds like the components team, which couldn't come up with a component design which didn't affect the performance of the car. So - the converter that met the new compliance standard must have taken away a few effective horsepowers, etc... so the car would be less performant, etc.... The fact that they managed to convince the monitoring team to go long with faking the results is something of a mystery (that's a straightforward case of misconduct).
It is a bit of a mystery when you consider how hard is normally is to get marketing, QA, and engineering to all be on the same page about something.
It almost takes an act of congress to get them on the same page.
The whole situation reminds me of a quote I heard once:
There are two types of people in this world: Those that do the work and those that take the credit. I prefer to be in the first group - there's a lot less competition.
When things go right, top brass takes the credit. When things go wrong, it's always the fault of someone else. There's always blame to be assigned and fall guys to take the hit. It's sad, but that's the way some people work.
Now you know why people want to do everything via email... admissible evidence. 🙂
Yeah, I know. You're right, of course. It's a shame it's necessary, though. And I still don't have to like it. 😉
January 12, 2016 at 11:52 am
Today, you shouldn't communicate anything in an email that you wouldn't want posted publicly on Facebook. Plausible deniability is why a lot of confidential conversations take place on the golf course. No digital evidence, few third party witnesses, and if the meeting is later called into question, you can claim it was nothing more than a chance encounter that turned into a social game of golf.
"Do not seek to follow in the footsteps of the wise. Instead, seek what they sought." - Matsuo Basho
January 13, 2016 at 6:16 am
Rod at work (1/7/2016)
...However, it isn't always profit related. I've mentioned here in the last few months that I've got a new job working for a state agency...but I was told not to...Since this is a state agency, I don't think profit factors into why I was told not to make necessary improvements. There must be other considerations that I'm not privy to...
Money. Maybe not profits but definitely money. For non-profit organisations budgets are the equivalent of profits.
Gaz
-- Stop your grinnin' and drop your linen...they're everywhere!!!
Viewing 3 posts - 31 through 32 (of 32 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply