What a creep, next he’ll be saying that they were foreigners too…

However, he said the decision to use the devices was not one made by the company’s board, but by individuals.

Mr Horn said: “My understanding is that it was a couple of software engineers who put these in.”

And

Mr Horn told the panel he was informed about a “possible emissions non-compliance” in the spring of 2014.

“I was informed that EPA [Environmental Protection Agency] regulations included various penalties for non-compliance with the emissions standards and that the agencies can conduct engineering tests which could include ‘defeat device’ testing or analysis,” he said.

But he told the members of the committee: “I had no idea what a defeat device was or that Volkswagen used them.”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-34475408

I reckon poor old Hanns the cleaner at the VW factory will end up getting the blame for this.

Is that “Hans that do dishes…”?

Next they will attempt to blame the tests for discovering the scam. If they did not test, they wouldn’t find out…

Whats the chances that the software engineers will claim “Ve vere only following orders” 😆

Doesn’t surprise me unfortunately. Most often senior management seem to duck responsibility when things go wrong despite taking the pay check. Although nice to see German execs as good at ducking and weaving as GB ones.

There was an interesting programme on R4 on Wednesday evening with John Egan and he said that all the mid level and above engineers and all the management would have known what was going on. VW it would appear were the only company to meet the new U.S. Emissions without using the expensive technology that everyone else was using, and that people would have, at the least, asked how it was being done. He also wasn’t very complimentary about the senior management and the board at VW.

I find it very hard to believe that such a critical piece of software wasn’t fully audited, signed off etc etc, and with upper management fully informed. If it were the entertainment system maybe, but the engine???

Interesting to note that one of the primary shareholders in VW is the government of Lower Saxony ( like a devolved parliament in the UK) and that there are several politicians on the board of directors. By the way, Lower Saxony does rather well out of this deal as it trousers a rather tidy share dividend from VW each year.

Now the thing about being a company director is that you are ultimately responsible from a legal standpoint for the operations of the company. Three guesses what the finance minister of Lower Saxony who is also on the VW board was saying last week….not my fault mate, it was someone else, they should be punished.

If the head of VW US knew this last year ( as reported yesterday) the company reporting structure should mean that the Board knew too…or perhaps they didn’t beacause maybe the company reporting structure is fragmented and this is possibly the tip of the iceberg, who knows?

Squeaky bum time in Wolfsburg.

I bet the engineers and management at BMW, Volvo, Ford, GM and probably all the Japs are rushing to distance themselves from the same technology that they are undoubtedly using.

ninfan – you’re really unpleasant.

I find it very hard to believe that such a critical piece of software wasn’t fully audited, signed off etc etc, and with upper management fully informed. If it were the entertainment system maybe, but the engine???

This. The claim that only a couple of engineers were aware of something that was critical to allow the sale of millions of cars is ridiculous.

In management terms, there’s no dodging the bullet on this. Either he allowed the defeat software to be installed, or he isn’t doing his job properly because rogue software engineers are running around reprogramming his entire fleet.

It’s either a full-blown fraud or a disastrous failure in oversight.

Now the thing about being a company director is that you are ultimately responsible from a legal standpoint for the operations of the company.

I am not sure that this is as clear cut under German governances structure where you have a supervisory board, which is what the politicians will be on, and the managing board.

Lolz at blaming a couple of software guys.

If the design/reviewing/auditing/testing process is so slack at VW such that someone can sneak in such a capability into what *could* be viewed as a safety critical application then they’ve got bigger problems.

what *could* be viewed as a safety critical application

There’s no “could” about it – this is part of the engine management system. Imagine your engine just stopping while you’re doing a ton down the autobahn? Or the power suddenly dropping to “certification” levels while overtaking on a busy A-road?

there was a programme on bunker mentality explaining how in large organisations little sub sections can get away with things without management knowing – look how much work time is waste don here for example!!

One of those its unliklely it was just two engineers who did it but I am not sure it was a board level decision either.

Whats the chances that the software engineers will claim “Ve vere only following orders”

They’ve probably been snapped up by the US or Russian space programmes now.

Having worked with and for German companies I think I can understand how this may have been allowed to happen. We assume that German companies are good at what they do, their products are reliable and nobody makes mistakes. This assumption is only partially correct. Many German companies have a strict management structure, are very process lead and are very respectful of the engineers in the company (they are often in senior management). This in itself is not a bad thing and ought to be replicated in many UK companies, however there are dangers if this then leads to an inability to ask difficult questions of the engineers and management. Many of the senior management team at VW are engineers of some repute within the company (the guy who had to leave was known for stripping down gearboxes on new cars), who is going to question there judgement in that sort of culture? I’d not point any specific blame just yet (other than the head honcho) but I’m sure it’s more than the actions of a couple of guy’s (and some senior engineer/managers) with the added problem of no one thought (felt they could) to question the legals and morals. Given the size of the business and the levels of investment in the decision to go for diesel power, any change would require someone to admit the company strategy was wrong. I’d suggest that the whole companies culture could prevent this.

Of course I could be completely wrong and VW could have be run by a bunch of crooks.

edit spelling

globalti – Member
I bet the engineers and management at BMW, Volvo, Ford, GM and probably all the Japs are rushing to distance themselves from the same technology that they are undoubtedly using.

Me too…

aP – Member
There was an interesting programme on R4 on Wednesday evening with John Egan and he said that all the mid level and above engineers and all the management would have known what was going on. VW it would appear were the only company to meet the new U.S. Emissions without using the expensive technology that everyone else was using, and that people would have, at the least, asked how it was being done. He also wasn’t very complimentary about the senior management and the board at VW.

I’m surprised that other manufacturers didn’t buy up a few cars to dissect and find out how this could be 💡

They did. Well, having been around a car factory I was told that was the first thing they do when a competor releases a car.

“he isn’t doing his job properly because rogue software engineers are running around reprogramming his entire fleet”

Well we all know that this is a major problem in industry, soft engineers going all mental and doing random stuff that has their name against it.
“following orders” is what has happened here. A decision has been made at high level here.

They did. Well, having been around a car factory I was told that was the first thing they do when a competor releases a car.

It depends, some we borrow. Some we buy, thrash the crap out of, then dismantle.

Doesn’t go down too well if you send a borrowed car back in bits.

I can see how senior management might be ignorant to the details of how things are achieved. Not to say they shouldn’t be ultimately held accountable as ignorance is no excuse. However I don’t think for a second that the guy at the top specifically ordered the ‘software engineers’ to introduce a defeat device. I suspect this is a classic case of ‘Emperors New Clothes’. Senior management set the targets, in this case create a car that will meet all the stricter emissions tests and deliver great MPG. Some snivelling senior engineer says its possible, because he’s too scared or too snivelling to say it can’t be done. He passes the orders down to his management team. That trickles down the many many levels of organisation below to the poor sods who actually have to tip tap away at a key board and make things happen. They say it can’t be done. That trickles up several layers of management to a point where someone chickens out of telling the big boss it can’t be done. So he (or she) sends the message back down the organisation to “JFDI”, so the poor sods at the bottom do whatever they can to do what they’re told – i.e. introduce the special piece of software.

So technically the guy at the very top didn’t specifically order it to be introduced, and is probably unaware it was. But ultimately it doesn’t matter as they are ultimately responsible for the culture of their organisation that lead to it being introduced. Classic large organisation behaviour.

In situations like this it’s worth looking at motives and incentives. Who would gain from the software being introduced, who would lose if the emissions targets couldn’t be met? that usually helps to shed light on things.

I suspect wobbliscott is pretty close to the truth on this – I see it all the time at work. I suspect it was also what was behind the 2008 and the imminent financial crash – the people on the ground can see the problems and are trying to warn the senior people, but the message isn’t passed up because someone in the middle is too cowardly – or senior management refuse to listen cos their bonus relies on things carrying on as they are…

His statement is completely at odds with Bosch’s, who designed the device /software for legitimate purposes and told the VW board 2 or possibly 3 times that what they were doing was illegal.

The idea that one rouge engineer / designer misused the test device to circumvent the test and reported to his superiors that he/she had managed to reduce the nitrogen emissions of thier cars by the power of 40 without any new hardware and they still drove and no body checked it laughable really.

Of course this is America, they’ve got form for turning bullshit into fact by applying more bullshit, the same company in Europe confessed almost imeadiately, apologised instantly and started work on a “fix”.

@Brooess

The US sub-prime crash wasn’t caused by anyone cheating – they were immoral as all hell, but they didn’t do anything ‘wrong’ – parcelling different types of financial product based on risk is ‘normal’ – but they played the rules to the very extreme. The US authorities decided some people were deliberately misleading, and worse they lent money knowing that in the balance of probabilities they would default but they’d sell them before they did, but really it was the rules that were wrong – the authorities didn’t understand the products, the buyers didn’t understand the products but they bought them anyway based entirely on previous performance.

But the Sub-prime crash wasn’t big enough to cause the ‘Great Recession’ it was a huge collection of unbalanced financial situations that were unsustainable long before US Sub Prime, if it wasn’t that, the next financial scandal would have brought the whole mess down anyway.

But the Sub-prime crash wasn’t big enough to cause the ‘Great Recession’ it was a huge collection of unbalanced financial situations that were unsustainable long before US Sub Prime, if it wasn’t that, the next financial scandal would have brought the whole mess down anyway.

Agreed. What I meant was that plenty of people knew that the risk wasn’t fully understood – and I’m sure plenty of the risk management people tried to tell the senior people but the message either didn’t get through cos someone in the middle was too intimidated or someone at the top refused to listen cos their bonus and job were more important to them.

For e.g. I’m sure plenty of people saw Glencore’s model was going to end badly at some point but clearly the people at the top have ignored it. There’s also plenty of people who have been warning of the impact of low-interest rates and the credit and asset bubble that’s formed and looking likely to pop pretty soon…

Equally there was a piece yesterday in the FT saying that securitisation is back (as are interest-free mortgages)… ie: the problem of things going wrong is well known but the people at the top ignore the warnings and push ahead anyway… IME anyone who’s worked in the corporate world has seen this plenty of times. I suspect it’s behind a fair few military blunders too

It will be interesting to see what the effect of this is in the US. 🙂

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/new-justice-dept-rules-aimed-at-prosecuting-corporate-executives.html

According to that R4 programme the cost of the additional technology to meet the U.S. emissions was $500 per engine, the unlikelihood of VW be in able to meet the NOX targets without using it would have been clear to everyone.

VW Emissions Scandal: Death Knell for IoT?

what *could* be viewed as a safety critical application
There’s no “could” about it – this is part of the engine management system. Imagine your engine just stopping while you’re doing a ton down the autobahn? Or the power suddenly dropping to “certification” levels while overtaking on a busy A-road?

Dont need to, its happened before, modern ecus fling the car into limp mode at the drop of a hat,often for very good reasons.