1. Ford & Firestone’s Tire Recall
The Costliest Information Gap in History
Nicole Gibson
Kevin Howe
Melissa Rorison
Nigel Vanderlinden
Ashley Yantzi

2. Issue Identification
The Ford/Firestone crisis occurred as a result of poor information management and the absence of effective database systems.
Ford, Firestone, the NHTSA, and FARS tracked and recorded data independently of each other. Critical data elements were fragmented across these databases – no central repository existed and little to no information sharing occurred.
This resulted in incomplete information, or ‘knowledge gaps’, within each of the participants database systems making it difficult to uncover the source of the problem.

3. Analysis Separation of Databases and Data Elements led to ineffective
management of information:
FARS - Government database used to track defects that cause fatal accidents.
Gaps: Did not track the type/brand of tires on vehicles involved in fatal accidents.
NHTSA - Information regarding complaints, accidents, number of deaths.
GAPs: did not track tires involved in collisions, only the vehicles themselves

4. Analysis
Ford - Collected data about problems in other countries and defects of tires, tracked warranty data on parts of vehicle other than tires
Gaps: lacked the warranty data on tires
Firestone -Tracked data regarding the amount of tires returned under warranty
Gaps: possessed information on warranty data, factory quality test, field research none of which pointed to anything wrong with tread separation
No party had a complete view of the information
Each side blamed each other for the failure
It took too long for the issue to be brought to the public’s attention – more lives lost

5. Alternatives Integrate tire and vehicles warranty data
Ensure that all databases are linked across industry, institutions, and geographic regions
Create a central database housing all critical data elements (Ford, Firestone, government & safety associations)
No tires on vehicles – they are too dangerous 4
Proposed
Solution 1 2 3
Low
High
Level of Integration

6. Evaluation of Alternatives
Pros
Cons
Integrate warranty data
Minimal cost
Defect patterns more readily identified
- Data is still fragmented among industry and government sectors
Link databases
-Enables information sharing among all parties
-Defect and accident patterns more readily identified
Proprietary information exposed
Development may be costly
Central database
-Most comprehensive
-Defect and accident statistics centralized
Who maintains and owns it?
Costly to develop and manage
Difficult to manage
No tires on vehicles
Hovercrafts are COOL
No more tire fires
- Loss of factory jobs

7. Recommendation
Implement an interorganizational system across Ford, Firestone and government agencies.
Integrate defect and accident statistics across regions and institutions and link databases to better identify patterns that would be cause for concern

8. Implementation Key Actions:
Form Implementation Team consisting of management from each party
Standardize information collection among all participants
Integrate database systems to allow for information sharing across regions and institutions
Monitor and evaluate integrated system on a continuous basis

9. Evaluation of Ford’s Proposal
Ford proposed “Early Warning System”
Real-time data included from all geographic regions and manufacturers
Proactive approach to detecting defects
Patterns of problems flagged for further inspection – good idea
Bridgestone not on board with this

10. Conclusion Ford & Firestone had a problem with tire tread,
And a lot of people wound up dead.
Their data bases were incomplete,
Integrating information would have eliminated the heat.
The congress was really mad,
Because they didn’t tell the public about the problems they had.
Separation of info made it hard to find a trend,
So the Ford/Firestone relationship came to an end.

11. Questions?