Case Analysis Module: Hughes Aircraft
Summary: This module, designed for the EAC Toolkit (NSF SES 0551779), will test the Toolkit and Connexion’s ability to network different online and offline sources for ethics across the curriculum. It consists of four components designed to provide students with tools for carrying out an in-depth analysis of the cases found at www.computingcases.org; it also makes substantial references to the draft manuscript of a textbook in computer ethics entitled Good Computing: A Virtue Approach to Computer Ethics under contract with Jones and Bartlett Publishing Company. (This book will consist of the cases displayed at Computing Cases—Therac-25, Machado, and Hughes Aircraft—and 7 additional cases all developed through NSF projects DUE-9972280 and DUE 9980768.) The module presents the case abstract and timeline. It then refers students to computingcases.org where they will find the case narrative, history, and supporting documents that provide background information necessary for analysis. The case abstract and timeline introduce students to the basic outlines of the case. The accompanying decision point taken from the case provides students with the necessary focus to carry out an in-depth analysis. Students respond to the decision-point by working through the four stages: problem specification, solution generation, solution testing, and solution implementation.
Computer Ethics
Case Module Template
By William J. Frey
Module Introduction:
The Hughes case is what Huff and Frey call a thick, historical, evaluative, big news and bad news case. One particularly noteworthy fact about it is the way in which it combines technical issues (the manufacture and testing of integrated circuits) with ethical issues (when is it morally appropriate to blow the whistle and how does one carry this out). Sifting through the case details, documents, and conflicting participant perspectives will both challenge you and hone your skills in moral imagination. Below are frameworks to help you structure the case's ethical and social problems. You will also be provided with decision points that will force you to enter the case as a participant and practice decision-making in the real world. While the timeline presented below changes the names of the key participants, the conclusion of the legal proceedings surrounding this case make it possible for you to learn the real identities of participants in class. This module contains materials to introduce the case. For a complete analysis, you will need to consult www.computingcases.org. These materials were all developed through NSF
projects DUE-9972280 and DUE 9980768.
The module presents the case abstract and
timeline. It then refers you to computingcases.org where you can find the case narrative, history, and supporting documents
that provide background information necessary for analysis. The
case abstract and timeline introduce the basic outlines
of the case. The accompanying decision point taken from the case
provides you with the necessary focus to carry out an in-depth
analysis from the standpoint of one of the case's participants. Your job is to respond to the decision-point by working through
the four stages: problem specification, solution generation,
solution testing, and solution implementation.
Module Activities:
1. Instructor introduces the case based on the
abstract and timeline found at
www.computingcases.org
2. Students read case abstract, timeline,
case decision point, and case analysis exercises.
3. Students do further research into the case
by consulting ComputingCases materials which include narratives,
histories, supporting documents, and ethical analyses.
4. Students carry out the activities outlined
in the accompanying case exercises by (a) specifying the problem
raised in the decision point, (b) generating solutions, (c) testing
solutions using ethics tests, and (d) developing plans for
implementing the solution over situational constraints.
5. Students prepare their case analyses
working in small groups.
6. These groups present their completed
analysis to the class in a case-debriefing session.
7. The instructor concludes by discussing the
problem-solving issues and intermediate moral concepts raised by
the case.
Hughes Microelectronics: Whistleblowing in
the Manufacture of Computer Chips for the Military
Case Abstract:
When computer chips are embedded in expensive
weapons systems, the chips need to be tested to make sure they can
withstand years of exposure to the extreme environmental hazards
they might face (rapid changes in temperature, severe shock,
changes in atmospheric pressure, etc.). These chips are sealed in
metal containers to protect them from the environmental stress. The
seals and the chips need to be tested to make sure they can
withstand the stress. Unfortunately, the need to manufacture and
deliver these chips on time can compete with the desire to test
them thoroughly.
In the mid 1980s, Hughes Microelectronics was
manufacturing what were called hybrid microchips for use in
guidance systems and other military programs. A series of
environmental tests were specified by the government contract. But
pressure to ship chips out on time to customers got in the way of
complete testing. "Hot" chips, those needed right away for shipment
were given preferential treatment by some in charge of the testing
process and shipped without the proper tests being
performed.
This case is about what happened when
employees of Hughes Microelectronics noticed that these tests were
being skipped. The decisions they made to report this make this one
of the classic cases in the history of whistleblowing
Timeline
1. 1979 Nancy Baker (Baker) begins working
for American Aircraft company’s
Microelectronic Circuit Division (American
MCD) in Newport Beach, CA
2. 1981 Claire Paul (Paul) begins working for
American MCD as a
supervisor for assembly on the hybrid
production floor and as a
supervisor in the hybrid engineering
lab
3. 1984 Baker becomes supervisor for hybrid
quality assurance
4. 1985 Paul asks Baker to look at errors in
paperwork,
Baker brings errors to the attention of her
supervisors and was told to keep quiet,
beginning of time period when Paul/Baker
became aware of problems
in hybrid chip testing and paperwork
5. 1986 Paul becomes supervisor for seals
processing in the environmental testing area,
False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729-3733)
becomes False Claims Reform Act of 1986
making it stronger and easier to apply
6. Oct. 1986 Paul/Baker report problems to
American management, and,
after the problems were not fixed, Paul/Baker
reported the
allegations of faulty testing to the United
States Department of Defense
7. Jan. 9, 1987 Earliest date that American
may have stopped neglecting environmental
screening tests
American Timeline
I. Criminal Suit
a. 1998 Baker leaves American feeling that
her job had been stripped of all real responsibility
b. Mar. 1989 Paul is laid off from
American
1995 Paul and her husband are divorced
II. Civil Suit: United States of America v.
American Aircraft Co., and Tim Clark
a. Dec. 13, 1991 after a lengthy
investigation, the U.S. Department of Defense
charges American and Tim A. Clark (Clark)
with a 51-count
indictment accusing it of falsifying tests of
microelectronic circuits (criminal suit)
b. Jun 15, 1992 American found guilty of
conspiring to defraud the U.S.
Government in criminal case, co-defendant
Clark
acquitted following 4-week trial, Paul/Baker
called as
witnesses in trial, American appeals
c. Oct. 29, 1992 American fined $3.5 million
in criminal trial decision
d. Dec. 2, 1993 Appellate court upholds 1992
criminal conviction and sentence,
American appeal fails
Scenario 1:
Frank Saia has worked at Hughes Aircraft for
a long time. Now he is faced with the most difficult decisions of
his career. He has been having problems in the environmental
testing phase of his microchip manufacturing plant; the detailed
nature of these tests has caused Hughes to be consistently late in
delivering the chips to customers.
Because of the time pressure to deliver
chips, Saia has been working to make the production of chips more
efficient without losing the quality of the product. Chips are
manufactured and then tested, and this provides two places where
the process can bottle up. Even though you might have a perfectly
fine chip on the floor of the plant, it cannot be shipped without
testing. And, since there are several thousand other chips waiting
to be tested, it can sit in line for a long time. Saia has devised
a method that allows testers to put the important chips, the “hot
parts,” ahead of the others without disrupting the flow and without
losing the chips in the shuffle. He has also added a “gross leak”
test that quickly tells if a chip in a sealed container is actually
sealed or not. Adding this test early in the testing sequence
allows environmental testing to avoid wasting time by quickly
eliminating chips that would fail a more fine-grained leak test
later in the sequence.
Because environmental testing is still
falling behind, Saia’s supervisors and Hughes customers are getting
angry and have begun to apply pressure. Karl Reismueller, the
director of the Division of Microelectronics at Hughes, has given
Saia’s telephone number to several customers, whose own production
lines were shut down awaiting the parts that Saia has had trouble
delivering. His customers are now calling him directly to say
“we’re dying out here” for need of parts.
Frank Saia has discovered that an employee
under his supervision, Donald LaRue, has been skipping tests on the
computer chips. Since LaRue began this practice, they have
certainly been more on time in their shipments. Besides, both LaRue
and Saia know that many of the “hot” parts are actually for systems
in the testing phase, rather than for ones that will be put into
active use. So testing the chips for long-term durability that go
into these systems seems unnecessary. Still, LaRue was caught by
Quality Control skipping a test, and now Saia needs to make a
decision. Upper management has provided no guidance; they simply
told him to “handle it” and to keep the parts on time.
He can’t let LaRue continue skipping tests,
or at least he shouldn’t let this skipping go unsupervised. LaRue
is a good employee, but he doesn’t have the science background to
know which tests would do the least damage if they were skipped. He
could work with LaRue and help him figure out the best tests to
skip so the least harm is done. But getting directly involved in
skipping the tests would mean violating company policy and federal
law.
Scenario 2:
Margaret Gooderal works in a supervisory
position in the environmental testing group at Hughes Aircraft. Her
supervisor, Donald LaRue, is also the current supervisor for
environmental testing. The group that LaRue and Gooderal together
oversee test the chips that Hughes makes in order to determine that
they would survive under the drastic environmental conditions they
will likely face.
Rigorous testing of the chips is the ideal,
but some chips (the hot chips) get in line ahead of others.
Gooderal has found out that over the last several months, many of
these tests are being skipped. The reason: Hughes has fallen behind
in the production schedule and Hughes upper management and Hughes
customers have been applying pressure to get chip production and
testing back on schedule. Moreover, LaRue and others feel that
skipping certain tests doesn’t matter, since many of these chips
are being used in systems that are in the testing phase, rather
than ones that will be put into active use.
A few months after Margaret Gooderal started
her new position, she was presented with a difficult problem. One
of the “girls” (the women and men in Environmental Testing at
Hughes), Lisa Lightner, came to her desk crying. She was in tears
and trembling because Donald LaRue had forcefully insisted that she
pass a chip that she was sure had failed the test she was
running.
Lightner ran the hermeticity test on the
chips. The chips are enclosed in a metal container, and one of the
questions is whether the seal to that container leaks. From her
test, she is sure that the chip is a “leaker”—the seal is not
airtight so that water and corrosion will seep in over time and
damage the chip. She has come to Gooderal for advice. Should she do
what LaRue wants and pass a chip she knows is a leaker?
Case Analysis Exercises:
1. Identify key components of the STS
| Part/Level of Analysis | Hardware | Software | Physical Surroundings | People, Groups, & Roles | Procedures | Laws & Regulations | Data & Data Structures | |||||||||||||||
2. Specify the problem:
2a. Is the problem a disagreement on facts?
What are the facts? What are cost and time constraints on
uncovering and communicating these facts?
2b. Is the problem a disagreement on a
critical concept? What is the concept? Can agreement be reached by
consulting legal or regulatory information on the concept? (For
example, if the concept in question is safety, can disputants
consult engineering codes, legal precedents, or ethical literature
that helps provide consensus? Can disputants agree on positive and
negative paradigm cases so the concept disagreement can be resolved
through line-drawing methods?
2c. Use the table to identify and locate
value conflicts within the STS. Can the problem be specified as a
mismatch between a technology and the existing STS, a mismatch
within the STS exacerbated by the introduction of the technology,
or by overlooked results?
| STS/Value | Safety (freedom from harm) | Justice (Equity & Access) | Privacy | Property | Free Speech |
| Hardware/software | |||||
| Physical Surroundings | |||||
| People, Groups, & Roles | |||||
| Procedures | |||||
| Laws | |||||
| Data & Data Structures |
3. Develop a general solution strategy and
then brainstorm specific solutions:
| Problem / Solution Strategy | Disagreement | Value Conflict | Situational Constraints | ||
| Factual | Conceptual | Integrate? | Tradeoff? | Resource?Technical?Interest | |
3a. Is problem one of integrating values,
resolving disagreements, or responding to situational
constraints?
3b. If the conflict comes from a value
mismatch, then can it be solved by modifying one or more of the
components of the STS? Which one?
4. Test solutions:
| Alternative / Test | Reversibility | Value: Justice | Value: Responsibility | Value: Respect | Harm | Code |
| A #1 | ||||||
| A #2 | ||||||
| A #3 |
5. Implement solution over feasibility
constraints
| Alternative Constraint | Resource | Interest | Technical | ||||
| Time | Cost | Individual | Organization | Legal/ Social | Available Techno-logy | Manufacturability | |
| #1 | |||||||
| #2 | |||||||
| #3 | |||||||
More about this content: Metadata | Version History | Cite This Content
This work is licensed by William Frey. See the Creative Commons License about permission to reuse this material.
Last edited by William Frey on Aug 10, 2006 3:47 pm GMT-5.