TroubleinTrussConstructionCompany

Trouble in Truss Construction Company
Name
Institution

Trouble in Truss Construction Company
Trouble in the Truss Construction Shop Two weeks ago, during a QA truss load test, the truss being tested fragmented along a horizontal axis, causing a large piece of the truss to break part and fall on a hoist operator supporting the test. The hoist operator sustained head injuries and remains in an induced coma in a local hospital. This accident sent shock waves through the Truss Construction Department because the company has heavily invested in a new engineering and manufacturing process to produce a cost-effective truss that has been touted to be on the “cutting edge” of construction technology, especially for low cost housing in overseas markets.
A report by the Safety Officer, QA manager, and engineer verified that the test being conducted pushed the load testing slightly beyond the high threshold of acceptable load-bearing, though the extra load was not expected to cause the truss to fail. In fact, the trusses were advertised to meet “commercial-high” load requirements.
Employees in the engineering shop have been asking if the manufacturing or engineering process is flawed and if the trusses being produced could fail under load.
Company memos have focused on production and more testing at lower thresholds, and members of management are encouraging employees to continue the current production schedule to meet orders for the trusses.
Analysis of alternative view points
The Sales department is highly concerned that if there is any delay in shipping, customers will pull their orders, which would have a disastrous result on revenues.

Faruch Habib, a production line worker, leaked the details of the accident and test thresholds to the press. Two weeks later, he was terminated for documented poor performance, according to managers.
The company Public Relations department has issued a general statement that the company has taken all action to ensure that this type of workplace accident would not be repeated.
The truss company should be investigated for terminating a contract of one of their employees who leaked the information to the press. In reality, the report should have been publicist since the machine was going to be used for shipping purposes. A defective machine which fails during load test implies that the machine is not of the right quality to the engineering standards (Khan & Abbasi, 1999). The Truss Company may be trying to hide a weakness that they understand will interfere with a corporate image. Sometimes it is necessary to avoid instances that tarnish a company image. Faruch Habib’s termination I think could be having other associated facts about the company operations. Maybe the employee works in a vital department and being that he is transparent and can unleash further information to the press.
Excellent image of a company is essential in winning customer loyalty thus satisfaction. Truss Construction Company already has a fear of delays in shipping services and the probable outcome would be that customers might switch their interest to other companies (McFarlane, 1984). Within the construction company, there are other companies which are competing effectively to dominate the industry. The firing of the employee was not a diligent solution but the company should teach ethics to employees. Ethics and moral values will enhance employee loyalty to company principles and adhere to the stipulations.
The construction company should also do an investigation and find out the legality of the equipment manufactured. Before using the equipment, they should be validated through recognized engineering boards (Perrow, 2011). The validation process will enable the company to understand the principles of operation of the equipment they are using. Mr. Faruch should be absorbed back into the job and be advised to always act in line with the established company cultures to avoid further mistakes. When his contract is not considered, he can continue tarnishing the company image which will lead to losing customers.

References
Khan, F. I., & Abbasi, S. A. (1999). Major accidents in process industries and an analysis of causes and consequences. Journal of Loss Prevention in the process Industries, 12(5), 361-378.
McFarlane, F. W. (1984). Information technology changes the way you compete (pp. 98-109). Harvard Business Review, Reprint Service.
Perrow, C. (2011). Normal accidents: Living with high risk technologies. Princeton university press.