Re: Pushing the envelope too hard
From the way Samsung is behaving, I'd say it's likely that there are emails/meetings etc. where the engineers raised concerns but were actively denied or rebutted, not just ignored. It's also likely that there are similar records that show the pressure placed on the battery manufacturers to work even further down below the price agreed as part of the contract bidding process.
In all of in these, the Samsung side lost the eye on quality, trusting their suppliers' QA systems to the point where they failed to check the batteries sufficiently well to identify the manufacturing errors early enough.
It reminds me of the Rolls Royce Trent engine problems of a few years ago, which boiled down to sub-contracted parts suppliers producing sub-standard items. The suppliers had assured RR that they had tested the parts at multiple points in the manufacturing process, (IIRC they'd said the items were tested three times before shipping to Royce's), and yet when RR finally realised there was a problem and did their own detailed checks, far too many failed.
The problem seems to come from too much trust in bits of paper and verbal assurances that are based more than a little on hope. How much of those came from the subs, and how much from higher up in Sammy's own structure? Well, given the way they are refusing to follow the usual name'n'shame route points to the answer there.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
