5 ms·

However plausible it may be, it is still not excusable. The company should have processes in place that can verify the claims it makes. Plausible deniability i

However plausible it may be, it is still not excusable. The company should have processes in place that can verify the claims it makes. Plausible deniability is really just a claim of neglect. Edit: I'm being rate-limited, so I'll respond to the points below right here: >What processes should be in place, exactly, to do what? How about driving a vehicle in the manner most of their customer's do and examining the emissions? >Quarterly polygraph tests performed by all engineering managers How would that help exactly? Polygraph is demonstrably unreliable. >to assure top management they haven't broken any laws? It's mostly irrelevant how assured top management is about anything. What matters, in this case, is how far out of spec the vehicles Volkswagon produced are. That is what needed to be verified: specs vs. facts.

johansch 11y ago
What do you mean? Let's assume the individial he is talking about is a manager of a group of hundreds of engineers working in this area. This means this guy's direct manager most likely would not be in a position to inspect the work of people 2-3 levels down for any irregularities. What processes should be in place, exactly, to do what? Quarterly polygraph tests performed by all engineering managers to assure top management they haven't broken any laws?
- Retric 11y ago
  For something like this an open door policy where someone can send issues up the chain would have work over the 6+ years this policy was in place.
- s73v3r 11y ago
  At the end of the day, that manager is still responsible for everything that happens under them. That's the justification for giving them the big paychecks, isn't it?
  - johansch 11y ago
    I thought the justification for their big paychecks was the value they brought.
- sheepmullet 11y ago
  > What do you mean? All you need are strong whistleblowing protections and mandatory independent investigation of any claims made. Do you really think of the dozens of people who had to be aware of it none of them would have thought "this is really dodgy" and wanted to push it up the chain?

johansch 11y ago

What do you mean? Let's assume the individial he is talking about is a manager of a group of hundreds of engineers working in this area. This means this guy's direct manager most likely would not be in a position to inspect the work of people 2-3 levels down for any irregularities. What processes should be in place, exactly, to do what? Quarterly polygraph tests performed by all engineering managers to assure top management they haven't broken any laws?

Retric 11y ago
For something like this an open door policy where someone can send issues up the chain would have work over the 6+ years this policy was in place.
s73v3r 11y ago
At the end of the day, that manager is still responsible for everything that happens under them. That's the justification for giving them the big paychecks, isn't it?
- johansch 11y ago
  I thought the justification for their big paychecks was the value they brought.
sheepmullet 11y ago
> What do you mean? All you need are strong whistleblowing protections and mandatory independent investigation of any claims made. Do you really think of the dozens of people who had to be aware of it none of them would have thought "this is really dodgy" and wanted to push it up the chain?