Bursic 2:00
L03
UNSUFFICIENT TESTING LEADS TO FATAL DEFECT IN SAMSUNG
GALAXY SX
Alexander Houriet (ach75@pitt.edu)
THE DEVICE IN QUESTION
Samsung’s newest smartphone, the Galaxy SX is set to
release in one month. I was the head engineer for the project
at Kelly materials Inc. which designed the screen that has
been implemented in this new phone. It is state-of-the-art
technology using graphene to replace indium tin oxide in the
screens. Using graphene has made the screen 40% lighter and
80% stronger. This new touchscreen technology coupled with
Samsung’s new stripe batteries, which are batteries that
flexible [1]. These new stripe batteries have fostered a flexible
phone. It does not quite have the power of the Galaxy S9, but
is powerful and fast enough to handle everyday use, we
thought.
Development of the breakthrough touchscreen was set
back many times. The process my team and I used for
synthesizing graphene was chemical vapor deposition with
copper substrates. This process was very effective in
producing large quantities of graphene for a relatively small
price. However, this process was not fully optimized prior to
being dialed up to full scale production. The team of Ibrahim,
Akhtar, Atieh, Karnik, and Laoui at the King Fahd University
of Petroleum & Minerals found that the inability to perfectly
purify the copper substrates led to pockets of “amorphous or
turbostatic graphene regions” [2]. These are regions of lower
quality graphene. In our initial lab tests, these impurities were
not a problem. The touchscreen worked very well. With
Samsung’s desired deadline for the design of the touchscreen
approaching and our budget running low, I was pressured by
my supervisors to go with what we had even though only
minimal testing had been completed. The deadline had
already been extended too many times. This design was sent
to the Samsung and after Samsung ran a few simple tests, final
production of the phone began.
THE DISCOVERED PROBLEM
I had been assigned to my next project at Kelly Materials
Inc., but on the side I continued testing the touchscreen with
a few other engineers from the team. Within about three
weeks, in a sample of 10 touchscreens, four had begun to
develop “dead zones,” regions of the screen where if tapped,
the phone would not respond. Two of the phones’ screens had
become completely unresponsive. The other four screens
were still performing fine. Upon closer observation of the
touchscreen, the dead regions were the areas with impure
graphene. The impurities in the graphene had decreased
electrostatic properties, causing the screens to breakdown and
stop working after just three weeks of mild use. This is due to
University of Pittsburgh, Swanson School of Engineering
2015-11-03
the large amounts of energy running through the screen. The
screens that were lucky enough to not have any impurities
performed perfectly.
Production Method Used for Graphene
Our graphene was produced with two minor flaws. The
first of which were the impurities created by the impurities in
the copper substrates. It is nearly impossible to create perfect
substrates through current purification methods. Graphene is
a single layer compound, incredibly small. Modern
technology cannot perfectly smooth copper on an atomic
level, which is what would be needed to synthesize optimal
graphene without the above mentioned flaws in the
morphology. According to a recent article in Science
Advances, when removing the grown graphene from the
copper substrates, the chemical washes necessary caused a
degradation in the electronic properties of the graphene,
meaning it could also perform better if a better transferring
method was found [3]. This has not proved to be the cause of
any problems, however, it certainly is not an ideal scenario.
Even though perfect graphene can be produced using
mechanical exfoliation, it is much more expensive and yields
much smaller quantities than batches produced through
chemical vapor deposition. It is not economically feasible to
produce graphene for millions of phones using mechanical
exfoliation. It would have raised the cost of the phone by
$200-$300, making an already expensive phone completely
unreasonably priced.
THE DILEMMA
If Samsung Were to Delay Release
The dilemma is that my lab approved this design. That
means it is on me that this design does not work. Revealing
this defect will destroy my reputation within the scientific
community, even if there was pressure on me from the
company executives to approve this design. Also, millions of
units of the Samsung Galaxy SX have already been produced
and there is no telling how many have the defect without
checking each, already packaged phone, individually under a
microscope to inspect the screen for impurities. There are
hundreds of millions worth of parts in these phones, which are
set to retail at $899.99. This phone has been created with so
much new technology that not all of it has been optimized
cost-efficiency wise. Especially the new screen and battery
are each ten times more expensive to produce than the
previous versions of each in the Galaxy S9. If Samsung is
informed about the defect, and choose to halt production,
1
Alexander Houriet
delay the release, and scrap the already made phones, even if
they recycle as much of the phone as possible, Samsung is
still looking at a large waste of money because of my error.
Even with the massive price tag attached to this phone, the
preorders sold out within one day of being announced and the
waiting list is so long that the most recent people to preorder
will be waiting about two to three months to receive their
phone. That means it is anticipated that this phone will not
even be seen on the shelf until about three and a half to four
months after it is released. If Samsung announces the defect
and delays the release date they are almost definitely looking
at a consumer-backlash and disappointment. People may
cancel preorders and lose interest in the phone. Samsung will
have to spend more money on advertising due to the delayed
release date to maintain consumer interest, which will cost
several millions extra that was not anticipated in the initial
budgeting of the project.
obliged to acknowledge and communicate the error I found in
my work under section III, rule 1a-b. Allowing the defective
phones to be released breaches the tenet of informing my
client that a project will fail or perform sub-optimally [5].
Approving the design also violated section II, rule 3a.
Technically, this approval claimed this design to be ready for
production, omitting the lack of thorough testing [5].
Engineers hold themselves to very high standards of
integrity, honesty, and respect. That is what is outlined in the
National Society of Professional Engineers code of ethics. It
basically just unites all thoughts into one common place for
everyone to reference in ethical conundrums. It is very useful
because it is a basic code for everyone to follow. Any ethical
decision, when looked at from a purely intellectual point of
view, can be decided using this code.
If Samsung Continues with Anticipated Release Date
As a member of the American Institute of Chemical
Engineers, I must take responsibility for my actions and
conduct myself in an honorable manner [6].
The American Institute of Chemical Engineers is a very
large body and it is a privilege to be part of it. The institute
has helped me progress my career and I have met many
colleagues and friends through them. I owe it to the American
Institute of Chemical Engineers to abide by their code of
ethics after all they have given me. I take the tenets of their
code very seriously and will act accordingly.
It is possible that when Samsung’s producers began
making the screens with my team’s design they used a slightly
different type of copper. It could have been anything from a
different initial purity of copper or a different order of steps
in preparation of the copper, which could have led to graphene
without impurities and everything would be fine with the
release. However, in my side-project testing, after running
five rounds of ten phone sample tests, I found the failure rate
to be about 45%. If this rate holds true for the United States
release of the Galaxy SX, Samsung will have to offer
replacement phones to almost half of the phone-owners, and
until a replacement screen using perfect graphene can be
developed, there is a good chance that replacement phones
will become unresponsive and have to be replaced again. This
debacle could lead to a massive decrease in Samsung’s stock
prices and could lead to people losing trust in Samsung,
degrading their reputation. In other research I found that in
two other major recalls, the General Motors ignition switch
recall and the Johnson & Johnson DePuy ASR hip
replacement recall, a public relations nightmare ensued.
However, stock prices were not very affected by the recalls,
even though each of those recalls cost their companies’ about
$4 billion each [4]. This means that even though the general
public was outraged at both companies, the long term effects
were rather minimal.
ETHICAL STANDARDS
National Society of Engineers Code of Ethics
I am bound by the National Society of Professional
Engineers to communicate the flaws to my superiors within
Kelly Materials Inc. and Samsung. I should not have approved
a non-fully-tested design. It was a breach of section II, rule 5
of the code. “Engineers shall avoid deceptive acts” [5]. I am
American Institute of Chemical Engineers Code of Ethics
CONNECTIONS TO OTHER RECALLS
Fortunately, Samsung will not face lawsuits close to the
fallout of Johnson & Johnson’s DePuy ASR hip replacement,
which cost them over $4 billion in lawsuits [4]. If I were to
inform Samsung of the defect and they were to continue with
the release but later down the road information was released
that they knew of the error, that would relate this case to the
General Motors ignition switch debacle, however, phones will
not kill anyone, it will merely hurt the image of Samsung and
people will lose faith in them. These recalls become a public
relations nightmare in the short term, but in the long term,
there is not much effect in stock prices and consumer trust
will eventually return. However, it means that expectations
will be high on the next phone because a company must show
that they are still relevant and that the recall was just a onetime mistake. Samsung is one of the most popular producers
of phones, so they will not just fade away after one mistake,
just like Johnson & Johnson and General Motors recovered
from their errors.
COLLEAGUES INPUT
When struggling with this dilemma I have consulted many
people close to me, including my colleagues Tyler Pastorok
and Nicholas Houriet, both of whom are engineers in other
2
Alexander Houriet
fields. Dr. Houriet is one of the top biomedical engineers in
the field of prosthetics and Mr. Pastorok has been published
many times in some of the top mechanical engineering
journals and is very respected within his field. One of the most
important aspects of being a professional engineer is integrity.
The job of engineers is to solve previously unsolved
problems. Problems that seem like they have no solution. By
breaking the code of ethics set by the National Society of
Professional Engineers, all of my work becomes pointless. By
lying and covering up my problems, I am not solving the
previously unsolved, I am merely guiding people down a false
path. If anything, it sets technology research back instead of
moving it forward. Technology builds on itself. In order to
make the next innovation possible, people must apply the
previously discovered or created technology to it. Researchers
attempting to use a similar design to my inappropriately
approved touchscreen will be wasting precious time in the lab
using a faulty technology. By not making my findings public
I may preserve my reputation in the scientific community, but
I am doing a disservice to that very community. My
colleagues reinforced these thoughts I had and agreed that my
decision on this matter is correct. They are highly respected
within their industries and are close acquaintances of mine.
Dr. Houriet has been a figure I looked up to as long as I can
remember and I worked alongside Mr. Pastorok throughout
college, graduate school, and a brief stint in industry before
we specialized in different fields. There are few people I trust
and respect more than these two, so their opinions mean a
great deal to me.
MY DECISION
I am going to alert both Kelly Materials Inc. and my
Samsung advisors of the fault in the touchscreen. It is not right
for the Samsung Galaxy SX to be released before it is ready.
It will hurt the company more to release the faulty phone and
deal with the fallout of faulty phones and angry customers
than to push back the release date until a more reliable screen
can be developed. The consumers will be disappointed, but
not furious like they would be if they got their phone on time,
but it did not work. When I was pressured to approve the
design when initial tests yielded promising results, I should
have maintained my integrity as an engineer and more closely
followed the code of ethics set by the National Society of
Professional Engineers.
Advice for Engineers in Similar Situations
Other engineers put in a similar situation to mine should
resist management pressure. Taking extra time in the research
and development phase will create better products and
actually save time in the long run. Even if my team’s design
for this touchscreen worked at first, we did not test it enough
and did not find all the flaws in it. Because of that, the phone
moved on to the next phase, and thousands of hours of time
and energy were spent designing the rest of the phone around
a faulty technology. Now the process must start all over again
and a new screen must be designed. Then it will be sent to the
next phase where, depending on the how different the screen
is, it will have to be redesigned around that new screen. A lot
of hours spent on the first design are wasted, completely
useless. It hurts the reputation of one’s company more by
failing a project and causing problems for the client than
having the company ask for an extension and more money. In
the long run, clients want the best possible product, even if it
takes longer and costs more than anyone initially expected.
By cutting corners, you are doing a disservice to you, your
company, and your client.
REFERENCES
[1] M. Moon. (2015, October 25). “Samsung’s latest batteries
make unusual wearables possible.” Engadget.com. (online
article).
http://www.engadget.com/2015/10/25/samsungstripe-and-band-batteries/
[2] A. Ibrahim, S. Akhtar, M. Atieh, R. Karnik, T. Laoui.
(November 2015). “Effects of annealing on copper substrate
surface morphology and graphene growth by chemical vapor
deposition.” Carbon. (print article). Vol. 94, pp.369-377.
[3] L. Banszerus, M. Schmitz, S. Engels, J. Dauber, M.
Oellers, F. Haupt, K. Wantanabe, T. Taniguchi, B. Beschoten,
C. Stampfer. (2015, July 31). “Ultrahigh-mobility graphene
devices from chemical vapor deposition on reusable copper.”
Science
Advances.
(online
article).
DOI:
10.1126/sciadv.1500222
[4] (2015, September 4). “DePuy ASR Hip Recall
Information.”
Drugwatch.com.
(online
article).
http://www.drugwatch.com/depuy-hip/recall.php
[5] (July 2007). “NSPE Code of Ethics for Engineers.”
National Society of Professional Engineers. (online article).
http://www.nspe.org/resources/ethics/code-ethics
[6] “Code of Ethics.” American Institute of Chemical
Engineers. (online article). http://www.aiche.org/about/codeethics
ADDITIONAL SOURCES
(2006, June 7). “Case Study 1: Overly Ambitious Researchers
– Fabricating Data.” Online Ethics Center. (online article).
http://www.onlineethics.org/Education/precollege/sciencecla
ss/sectone/chapt4/cs1/28734.aspx
B. Chappell. (2014, June 5). “GM Review Found ‘History of
Failures’ In Ignition Switch Debacle, CEO Says.” Npr.org.
(online
article).
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwoway/2014/06/05/319064286/gm-ceo-says-review-foundhistory-of-failures-in-ignition-switch-debacle
“The Cost of Integrity.” webGURU. (online article).
http://www.webguru.neu.edu/professionalism/casestudies/cost-integrity
3
Alexander Houriet
N. Houriet. (2015, October 30). Phone Conversation
T. Pastorok. (2015, November 1). Email
(2014, April 30). “Public Health and Safety—Delay in
Addressing Fire Code Violations.” National Society of
Professional
Engineers.
(online
article).
http://www.nspe.org/sites/default/files/BER%20Case%20No
%2013-11-FINAL.pdf
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my team of engineers on this project,
especially those who stayed late at work with no overtime to
continue testing. I would also like to thank Samsung and
Kelly Materials Inc. for providing me with the resources to
work on the breakthroughs of tomorrow. Thank you to
everyone who offered advice to me during this time,
especially Tyler Pastorok and Nicholas Houriet for taking
time out of their busy schedules to help me.
4