5 ms·

>...without the compliance department... In my experience compliance departments make sure you're compliant within reason. They aren't going to go out of their

>...without the compliance department... In my experience compliance departments make sure you're compliant within reason. They aren't going to go out of their way to determine if you're cheating unless they've been mandated to due to prior internal or industry incidents. Even in companies where they have to audit controls because of regulatory obligations they're only going to audit what they're required to. If you find a way to outsmart the controls or checks and balances they're not going to notice until you slip up or you're otherwise caught. >...and all outside verification labs being in cahoots. Does this have to be true? They would only need to apply the cheating behavior for the lab testing the way they did for regulatory testing. And VW suspended nine middle managers. I think it's less about blaming the engineers and more about deflecting blame away from senior management.

jacquesm 11y ago
> They aren't going to go out of their way to determine if you're cheating unless they've been mandated to due to prior internal or industry incidents. This is about limiting the liability the company is exposed to. The number of products sold * the maximum fine per product when found not to be compliant is such that it could be an existential threat even for an entity as large as VW so normally speaking a manufacturer will do everything they can to make sure they are (well) within the law. It's not uncommon at all for a large company to have the compliance department nix a product or send engineers back to the drawing board to fix any issues detected. In a serious automobile manufacturer to have a 40 fold increase in the gas output specifically regulated and subject of serious penalties in the case of a mishap the compliance department should have raised several red flags on this or at a minimum require an internal test more stringent than the external one to create a margin of error. > they're only going to audit what they're required to. Yes, they are required to audit that the company products are legal to sell as advertised.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  Fair points. I do wonder how gradual the 40 fold increase was however. If it was slowly increased over a long enough time period perhaps it could have fooled even the most suspicious person who isn't a trained and experienced engineer.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    It's pretty much a binary affair. Test detected -> engine reprogrammed instantly to comply with the test. The reason for that is that they don't know ahead of time which vehicle the EPA will pull off the line to do their testing on so they had to ship it in all of them.
    - brazzledazzle 11y ago
      I didn't mean during the test, I meant progress towards the goal internally as an organization.
kuschku 11y ago
> And VW suspended nine middle managers. I think it's less about blaming the engineers and more about deflecting blame away from senior management. Well, they also had two CEOs resign over this, one even refusing to take any golden parachute he might have gotten otherwise. It’s more the board that’s scared right now...
- jacquesm 11y ago
  I suspect it is a matter of time now before someone leaks an email to the press indicating that the previous CEO did know about this (they'll be thrown under the bus), and the board will then try to wash their hands of it. It's a classic fall-back action, first sacrifice some lieutenants, General admits ignorance but admits to no wrongdoing and is pensioned off. If the bad weather blows over that's where the story ends. But if it doesn't then sooner or later the eyes will focus on the General again, what he knew and when he knew it and then the inquiry will begin in earnest. There hasn't been anything surprising in this whole affair to date.
  - kuschku 11y ago
    Well, the first CEO, who resigned in April, admitted already to personally pushing the whole issue. It was his personal project (he’s been involved with some engineering for quite some time) to use that specific type of engine, which provides mileage of up to 270mpg in real world usage, but produces NOx in amounts that Satan would be jealous of. So, that’s it.
    - jacquesm 11y ago
      Yes, but he did not admit to actual knowledge of the defeat device.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  Perhaps they are all scared. I'm sure many, if not most, CEOs would gladly hand over a golden parachute to avoid criminal (or even civil liabilities that can interfere with getting another executive position).
caskance 11y ago
That's overly pessimistic. In many heavily regulated industries, businesses run internal audits that are not officially mandated because they realize that changing things at your own pace for your own reasons is a lot easier and looks better to the public than being forced to change something in 3 months because you failed a required audit.
- brazzledazzle 11y ago
  I'd say they run internal audits in nearly all heavily (or even moderately) regulated industries. They may not be a mandatory obligation but it certainly seems to be frowned upon if they go missing. But they do seem to perform mostly the same audits as the official ones–only more frequently. With a primary emphasis on being prepared and in compliance for the next audit. That said, I think you're right. Happy employees always think of new ways to improve things and I'm sure there are plenty of innovative compliance people that are out to do their jobs to the best of their ability.

jacquesm 11y ago

> They aren't going to go out of their way to determine if you're cheating unless they've been mandated to due to prior internal or industry incidents. This is about limiting the liability the company is exposed to. The number of products sold * the maximum fine per product when found not to be compliant is such that it could be an existential threat even for an entity as large as VW so normally speaking a manufacturer will do everything they can to make sure they are (well) within the law. It's not uncommon at all for a large company to have the compliance department nix a product or send engineers back to the drawing board to fix any issues detected. In a serious automobile manufacturer to have a 40 fold increase in the gas output specifically regulated and subject of serious penalties in the case of a mishap the compliance department should have raised several red flags on this or at a minimum require an internal test more stringent than the external one to create a margin of error. > they're only going to audit what they're required to. Yes, they are required to audit that the company products are legal to sell as advertised.

brazzledazzle 11y ago
Fair points. I do wonder how gradual the 40 fold increase was however. If it was slowly increased over a long enough time period perhaps it could have fooled even the most suspicious person who isn't a trained and experienced engineer.
- jacquesm 11y ago
  It's pretty much a binary affair. Test detected -> engine reprogrammed instantly to comply with the test. The reason for that is that they don't know ahead of time which vehicle the EPA will pull off the line to do their testing on so they had to ship it in all of them.
  - brazzledazzle 11y ago
    I didn't mean during the test, I meant progress towards the goal internally as an organization.

kuschku 11y ago

> And VW suspended nine middle managers. I think it's less about blaming the engineers and more about deflecting blame away from senior management. Well, they also had two CEOs resign over this, one even refusing to take any golden parachute he might have gotten otherwise. It’s more the board that’s scared right now...

jacquesm 11y ago
I suspect it is a matter of time now before someone leaks an email to the press indicating that the previous CEO did know about this (they'll be thrown under the bus), and the board will then try to wash their hands of it. It's a classic fall-back action, first sacrifice some lieutenants, General admits ignorance but admits to no wrongdoing and is pensioned off. If the bad weather blows over that's where the story ends. But if it doesn't then sooner or later the eyes will focus on the General again, what he knew and when he knew it and then the inquiry will begin in earnest. There hasn't been anything surprising in this whole affair to date.
- kuschku 11y ago
  Well, the first CEO, who resigned in April, admitted already to personally pushing the whole issue. It was his personal project (he’s been involved with some engineering for quite some time) to use that specific type of engine, which provides mileage of up to 270mpg in real world usage, but produces NOx in amounts that Satan would be jealous of. So, that’s it.
  - jacquesm 11y ago
    Yes, but he did not admit to actual knowledge of the defeat device.
brazzledazzle 11y ago
Perhaps they are all scared. I'm sure many, if not most, CEOs would gladly hand over a golden parachute to avoid criminal (or even civil liabilities that can interfere with getting another executive position).

caskance 11y ago

That's overly pessimistic. In many heavily regulated industries, businesses run internal audits that are not officially mandated because they realize that changing things at your own pace for your own reasons is a lot easier and looks better to the public than being forced to change something in 3 months because you failed a required audit.

brazzledazzle 11y ago
I'd say they run internal audits in nearly all heavily (or even moderately) regulated industries. They may not be a mandatory obligation but it certainly seems to be frowned upon if they go missing. But they do seem to perform mostly the same audits as the official ones–only more frequently. With a primary emphasis on being prepared and in compliance for the next audit. That said, I think you're right. Happy employees always think of new ways to improve things and I'm sure there are plenty of innovative compliance people that are out to do their jobs to the best of their ability.