[Subscribe to Daily Digest] |
 | [Main General Bulletin Board | BBFAQ |
Prev by Date | Next by Date | Post Followup ]
Member Login / Signup - Members see fewer ads. - Latest Member Gallery Photos
Re: how do you Posted by Snowmobile [Email]  (#686)  [Profile/Gallery]
(more from Snowmobile) on Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:59:18
In Reply to: Re: how do you, Justin VanAbrahams  [Profile/Gallery]
, Mon, 9 Jun 2014 11:11:14
Members do not see ads below this line. - Help Keep This Site Online - Signup
|
Thanks dtech for the link.
Yeah, something is fishy. As one of them pointed out (not sure if it was "Mike"), he was a design authority, but not even a manager. There is no way that a design authority alone should be signing off on a part, and that should be enough to go into the system. There are always *multiple* signoffs in any good company!
Even so, he did do a revision in 2006 to fix other stuff and introduced these changes along with the other stuff. There is nothing wrong with that (from a documentation control perspective). Any change on any drawing, even a spelling mistake, requires an uprev of the drawing. And you normally can make any number of changes to any number of things on a single uprev. Obviously if you make massive changes, some level of qualification may be expected. One normally works within the bounds of one's manager's directives (perhaps finance constrained), but the documentation system doesn't care about that!
That they claim the 2006 changes are invisible speaks to a complete breakdown of the GM document system and design process and is very troubling. If he was approved to make other changes, and if those changes went into the system and new parts were ordered and there wasn't an uprev, it is a massive failure on GM's part.
I'm not saying what the engineer did was necessarily good, especially if he was trying to cover up an error he had made previously... I'm just saying that from what I read, GM is broken... but we probably already knew that...
I won't significantly get into the engineering law and ethics element of this, as it may be slightly different in the US - but in Canada, he would have a positive obligation wrt the design: if he knowingly signed off on a flawed design, he could lose his license to practice. Same if he was not immediately upfront wrt an honest mistake that went into the system (and a high level of care is required prior to signoff). As a business, that would have been the time for GM to fire him. If he was upfront back then, GM should be in very deep doo doo now! And if he goes along with some scheme from GM to pay him out to hide this, he would also lose his license (which at 61 with a golden handshake, might not matter to him, though ethically it should).
I'm doing a Trifecta tune on my lawnmower... even though it's an electric. It's going to kick a$$!
, Thu, 5 Jun 2014 12:38:55, Mon, 9 Jun 2014 08:42:03, Sun, 8 Jun 2014 17:20:34, Mon, 9 Jun 2014 06:31:47, Mon, 9 Jun 2014 10:05:49, Mon, 9 Jun 2014 11:11:14, Tue, 10 Jun 2014 06:59:18 <-- Viewing This Message
, Thu, 5 Jun 2014 14:37:33
No Site Registration is Required to Post - Site Membership is optional (Member Features List), but helps to keep the site online
for all Saabers. If the site helps you, please consider helping the site by becoming a member.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
