Issues

In our scenario we are presented with Jeff Lebowski who is an engineer at Nagelbett. He is tasked to supervise the installation of equipment for another company over the course of a few days. The installation is scheduled to be finished by the 12th but the equipment is delayed and thus the installation as well.

This leads to two scenarios with their own issues to address, but commonly one of the main issues they share is safety and liability.
Both scenarios involve Jeff leaving his post, arguing that the engineer from the other company is more than capable to oversee the installation of the remaining equipment. If something goes wrong with the installation or at any point throughout the lifespan of the equipement (which could be years) then we have to ask, who is to blame? Jeff himself for not being there? Jeff’s supervisor for not being assertive enough to make sure he stays in his post and does his job?

Even if there were to not be any problem with the equipment and all works properly, there is the liability that we are presented with in Scenario B where the other engineer needs to sign a form that states that Jeff was present on the installation. Here not only was it not true that Jeff was present for the installation, which is lying to both companies, but if anything does end up going wrong, the form clears Jeff of any liability and shifts the blame on the other company.

In scenario A, the main issue that arises is that of liability. It is Jeff’s responsibility to make sure that every unit was properly installed due to a recent strings of poorly installed units causing damage. If Jeff were to leave early without ensuring that those last two units get installed properly, then he would be violating company policy by not staying to oversee the units be installed properly. The policy of having a Nagelbett engineer present was put in place to prevent improper installations that could lead to catastrophic events. If the installation of any of the two units that Jeff did not supervise did not go smoothly then the effect could be extremely costly for Nagelbett and Jeff would be to blame due to company policy.

Another issue that needs to be addressed in scenario B is safety. The most important thing in any engineering project should always be safety which is why Nagelbett made it a requirement for Jeff to be on the job site to make sure that all installations go smoothly. If Jeff does not fulfill his duties and does not ensure proper installation then it is possible for a Treehorn engineer to make an error during installation which could lead to a total system failure and to Nagelbett losing money and a valued customer. Not only that, lives could also be lost as a result of faulty installation which it is why it is necessary for a certified Nagelbett engineer to be present during unit installations

In scenario B, similar issues regarding safety and liability arise, but there is an additional legal issue that also needs to be addressed. In scenario B, Jeff is required to sign documents that ensure that he personally supervised the installation of every unit which would legally require him to be present at the time of installation for each unit. Jeff suggested that he could leave early and come back the last week just to check a few of the units installed, without actually being there. In the event that a faulty installation proved to cause a major system failure, then Jeff and Nagelbett could be in serious legal troubles.