To Close or Not to Close?

...

Honkawa, Curtis

86394711

February 4 2011

To close or not to close? – Intel Israel

1. Do you agree with Dov Frohman’s decision in advance of the actual missile attacks to keep Intel up and running? What about after the actual missile attacks began?

Considering the situation, Frohman’s reaction to the crisis decision he had to make was an acceptable response. Given the options given to Frohman, whether to remain in operation or to halt production, the situation is a textbook example of a non-programmed decision. If the business were to continue production, there would be the risk of death or injury as a result of the impending attacks on Israel. The other option, halting plant production, would remove any liability from work related injuries as a result of the impending attacks. However, halting plant production would also decrease the branch’s reputation within Intel, which more than likely result in lesser future investments in Intel Israel.

Before the first attack on Israel had occurred, from a utilitarianism standpoint, the benefits of remaining open outweighed the costs of potential damage. However, it would certainly be unethical to require workers to continue working at the risk of their own safety. Frohman’s decision to allow the workers to decide whether they come to work or not is the most ethical and productive response to the situation. His decision lifts a great deal of responsibility off of the management of Intel Israel and allows the workers to determine whether it is safe to come to work.

After the initial attacks occurred, while the utilitarianism “scales” were tipped by the increased costs of actual missiles it also revealed that the aggressors had not used biological warfare. Given the situation, while it is less advantageous to allow the workers to continue coming in, if the workers continue coming in after being given the options, then they should be allowed to continue working. Also, by this point in time, Frohman was supported by the newly found professional ethics, as he was not strong-handedly deterred from continuing his previous method.

2. Do you agree that Frohman should have made the decision to remain open or close or should the executives at Intel’s corporate headquarters have made it?

Intel corporate executives should have made the final decision on the plant’s status. While Frohman was the decision maker who assumed responsibility for Intel Israel’s actions, the given information provided shows that he did not hold full accountability for his actions. Prior to the attacks, Frohman gave neither an order for workers to continue their jobs or to halt production. Frohman had placed the output of the factory on the workers themselves. Had the workers decided the risk wasn’t worth it, the plant would shutdown. I believe that the executives, by not interfering with Frohman’s decision, were essentially approving of his actions, but allowing him to take responsibility if the plans did not turn out favorably. Despite Frohman stating that “[Intel headquarters] had to trust us”, I’m sure Intel headquarters did not see the arrangement it that way, as they are the ones in power. Under this assumption, if the parent company truly believed Frohman was making a poor decision, they would probably not accept his answer.

3. What criteria would you have considered if you were in Frohman’s position? How would you have weighted these factors?

Had I been in Frohman’s position, I would try to consider many factors not mentioned in the article. I would consider the commute times, as well as the general locations the workers come from. This information can be relevant in determining how much risk the workers will be under during their commute, as their commute would be the most dangerous time for them. I would also have to consider the location of the plant in regards to any major cities or landmarks. If the plant were located in relatively crowded

area, the risk of attacks in the area would increase. The location also takes into account the possibility of a safe escape, in the event of an attack. For example, if the missiles were biological weapons, I would need to have an idea of the air currents in the local area, as they can make the situation even worse. The extra details can be greatly in the favor of shutting down the plant or not at all. The extra factors do nothing to promote the opening of the plant, as safety is the biggest gamble taken in this decision.