SMU MBA ASSIGNMENTS

Sikkim manipal Solved MBA Assignments, SMU MBA, Solved assignments, 1st sem, 2nd sem, 3rd sem, 4th sem, SMU MBA PROJECTS

Email Us

case study

Dear Students, 
SMU MBA Summer  2014  Assignments are available. For Booking ,Kindly mail us on kvsude@gmail.com OR call us to +91 9995105420  or S M S your “ Email ID ” us in the following Format  “  On +91 9995105420 we will reach back you with in 24H ”

 

Consider again the plant described in Case Study I.
The head engineer at the plant wants to ensure that the
plant provides a safe and healthy environment. So, she
decides to ask an engineering health and safety
consulting company to do a health and safety audit of
the plant. The report provided by the consulting
company lists the following safety problems:
a) An expert on fires and explosions notes that the
extensive use of natural gas in the plant could lead
to an explosion in the plant in some
circumstances. The force of such an explosion
could lead to severe injuries or deaths of workers
and, possibly, cause the building to be damaged or
to collapse. The potential for an explosion could
develop if a sufficient natural gas leak occurs or
the plant ventilation system fails to perform
properly or certain controls or sensors fail. But,
the expert further notes, there is insufficient
information available on the concentration of
natural gas in the plant air, as only one natural gas
sensor is in place at the plant, but it is not located
in the main area where an accumulation of natural
gas is likely to occur. Thus, the potential for an
explosion could exist, yet not be detected or acted
upon. In addition, the expert is concerned because
the natural gas sensor is connected neither to an
automated shut-off system for the natural gas
supply nor to an alarm, thus increasing the
likelihood of an incident and its potential severity.
b) Although maintenance is supposed to be done
quarterly on the natural gas lines and equipment,
no evidence is found that maintenance has ever
been performed since they were first installed four
years ago. Such maintenance typically involves
checking for and fixing gas leaks. Also, no
training has been provided to workers on either
understanding the potential for explosion, or the
steps to take to avoid an explosion. In fact, most
workers did not even realize the potential for an
explosion existed. Furthermore, no written
procedures relating explosions exist within the
plant.
c) The plant contains toxic materials that can harm
people and animals. The way this material is
stored in the plant, it could, in the event of a plant
explosion, be released and impact an area within

one kilometer of the plant. Such an incident could
lead to illnesses or deaths among members of the
public and could harm animals in the
environment.
Questions:
a) What are the unsafe conditions and acts in the
plant?
b) What are some steps can be taken to rectify the
noted safety concerns?
c) From point c) in the consulting company report, it
is clear that the problem affects not just worker
safety, but also the safety of the public and the
environment. Should the difference in who or
what is affected cause head engineer to modify
her actions in addressing the problem? If so, how?
d) Can the head engineer choose to ignore or not act
fully upon the safety concerns raised by the
consulting company? If yes, in what instances and
under what conditions?
e) If the head engineer at the plant decides that
measures must be taken to protect health and
safety, but the plant manager refuses to approve
the measures, what are the obligations of the head
engineer?
f) Do any of the problems cited demonstrate that it
is best to address health and safety
comprehensively in the early stages of an
engineering activity, preferably within the design
process and not as an afterthought? For instance,
can you indicate some measures that will likely be
more expensive to implement to fix the problem
compared to the cost that would have been
incurred during the design process to resolve the
problem then?

 

 

 

Case Study III


Consider again the plant described in Case Studies
I and II. The head engineer at the plant realizes that
the company has a similar plant operating in a
developing country with different — and usually less
stringent — occupational health and safety
requirements, standards and codes than Canada. The
head engineer is certain that the same problems that
have been identified in Case Studies I and II for the
Canadian plant also exist in the company’s foreign
plant. The head engineer recommends to company
management that the problems be fixed at the foreign
plant, like they were for the Canadian plant. Company
management refuses to authorize the work required to
fix the safety problems in the foreign plant, and gives
the following reasons:

a) The regulations and laws in the foreign country do
not require the problems identified at the
Canadian plant, should they exist in the foreign
plant, to be rectified. The head engineer checks
and learns that this is so, even though in Canada,
where the company’s headquarters are located and
where the head engineer is licensed, the company
has an obligation to rectify the situation.
b) The work required would not be economically
feasible in the foreign plant.
c) Even if one agrees that the company should be
obliged by the foreign country to rectify the safety
issues in that plant, the problem is associated with
the country’s laws and regulations, and not the
company’s policies or decisions.
Questions:
a) As a licensed engineer in a Canadian province,
the head engineer is obliged to adhere to the code
of ethics for engineers in her province. Mindful of
this obligation, what actions should she take — if
any — regarding the companies refusal to fix the
safety problems in the foreign plant?
b) Select a province or territory in Canada. What are
the relevant clauses in the engineering code of
ethics of that province or territory that provide
guidance on how the head engineer should deal
with the dilemma she faces?
c) Are all of the reasons cited by the company for
not fixing the safety problems in the foreign plant
valid? For instance, can you give a scenario in
which doing the required work might be
economic?

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.