[Havoc]

You're making an awful lot of assumptions there.

>those couple of software engineers would have to have a major say over the entire engine design. I call bullshit.

The two people they're mainly talking about are head of R&D group and engine development. Yeah I'd imagine they have major say over engine design.

[dahart]

Having a lot of say in design, and keeping secret an intentional violation of government regulations from your entire international company are two pretty different things.

I'm making assumptions, and I believe this story is pure, unadulterated bullshit from top to bottom.

Is it likely that the heads of R&D and engine development at VW are hands-on and writing code themselves? No, its extremely unlikely. Having worked in several large companies, there are 0 people at that level of management that perform hands-on work.

It is likely that those particular positions benefit and are motivated to cheat on regulations for the benefit of the company? No, the bottom line of the company is affected, and it is far more likely that business people are applying pressure.

Is it likely that they could make those changes in a company that size, without anyone noticing? No, not really. Software in a large organization leaves trails everywhere and requires explanation, they had to interface with other systems, and people had to interface with theirs.

Is it likely that the same narrative structure that our government attempted to use to excuse torture, is something VW is also trying? "Oh, we had no idea, it was one deranged guy who did this." Yes, it is highly likely that prominent executives are scrambling to get out of the way, and highly likely that the company is trying to come up with a story that makes it look less corrupt than it is.

[nhaehnle]

> It is likely that those particular positions benefit and are motivated to cheat on regulations for the benefit of the company? No, the bottom line of the company is affected, and it is far more likely that business people are applying pressure.

I agree with most of your comment, but not with this point. Being the Head of R&D who is able to boast about bringing a "breakthrough" new diesel engine to market is bound to come with some personal perks.

You can re-define this as "business people are applying pressure" if you like, but that does not change the responsibility of those position - and besides, it's kind of a cop-out. With that thinking, you can re-define everything as being down to market pressure.

Somebody made a decision to do this, and I can easily see an unethical head of R&D making that call for personal career reasons - just like unethical researchers cheat by making up data. I'm not saying that that's necessarily how it happened, but it's a definite possibility.

[kuschku]

The thing is, you are currently defending the prominent executives.

We’re talking about the heads of R&D and the head of engine development – both more business people than engineer.

Additionally, 2 CEOs have resigned over this (in just 6 months!)

And it’s known that the first of these CEOs tried to focus on engines without Urea injection – which did get 280mpg, though – because he personally was invested into their development and tried to push the heads of R&D and Engine development to do this.

[XJOKOLAT]

R E S P O N S I B I L I T Y ... find out what it means to me, take care, TCB ... ... sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me, sock it to me ...

[kuschku]

That’s why the CEO originally responsible even resigned before it became public. And why the second CEO resigned: because, despite not believing he himself did it, taking the responsibility for it.

[usrusr]

“Having a lot of say in design, and keeping secret an intentional violation of government regulations from your entire international company are two pretty different things.“

But the difference between intentional benchmark optimization (which the whole industry is doing) and illegal certification manipulation is a rather subtle one. The former would a perfect front for the latter and the intersection of all employees who sufficiently understand the legal situation and those who sufficiently understand the engine could theoretically even be the empty set. (in which case blame would default to those high enough in the org-chart to have members of both groups under them)

[wilsynet]

The two heads who lead the R&D and engine development are not software engineers. But they would certainly require software engineers to help them carry out the deception. I highly doubt that only 2 people are involved.

[celticninja]

perhaps 2 people who were intentionally intending to mislead. the software engineers could have been told the software was for factory testing only and it would have been their job to produce it. The actual program itself was not illegal just the fact that it was used to mislead official testing.

This ain't no 'independent contractors on the Death Star' issue here.