Concept Software Systems - Essay Example

Executive Summary Concept Systems Software is a case study set in an IT-service work environment. Christine Hanson, the leader of a software development team goes on extended leave, and a temporary replacement was selected for her in the person of Angela Edwards, the systems analyst of the group. Upon her assumption of the job, Angela was conveyed an email from the company’s directors informing of a defect in the software that was to remain concealed from the clients. The message contains instructions that, if carried out, would have been unfair and unethical to the clients but favourable to the financial gain of the company. The hardcopy of the email was left in a common work area and by chance was read by David. The dilemma is what David should do, because of his knowledge of the matter. Although several unethical situations develop, it is the issue of the confidential email’s contents that is the main problem that calls for a resolution. David is a principled young man raised with strong moral values and a propensity to stand for what is right. However, adverse action on his part may earn him the ire of his superiors and peers and may cost him his job. Furthermore, the manner by which he came upon the email brings to question the validity of his future action on the matter. The ethical behaviour in this case is resolved in favour of bringing the matter to light, in a fair and just manner for all stakeholders concerned. Table of Contents Executive Summary 2 Table of Contents 3 1.0 Introduction 4 1.1 Purpose 4 1.2 Scope 4 1.3 Definitions 4 2.0 Ethical Analysis 6 3.0 Stakeholder Identification 11 4.0 Bommer et. al’s Analysis 13 5.0 Solutions 15 6.0 Reference List 17 1.0 Introduction This report will present the case analysis and discussion of Concept Software Solutions (CSS), which deals with the application of ethical principles and practices in the context of information technology and electronic communication. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of the report is to arrive at a decision as to what action David should take, discussed in the light of the basic ethical theories, and will use the Behaviour Model for Ethical and Unethical Decision Making developed by Bommer et al. 1.2 Scope The report will include an enumeration and discussions of the ethically questionable actions performed by the various characters in the case and their contexts under the various ethical theories. The main issue will be discerned and the primary stakeholders identified. Alternatives will be considered and a course of action shall be decided. 1.3 Definitions Ethics – that branch of Philosophy concerned with morality, that is, the principles by which humans determine right from wrong. Kantianism – the ethical theory developed by Immanuel Kant, which states that what we want do is of no importance, but what is important is what we ought to do. Social Contract – the ethical theory that everybody lives in a civilised society and as such: (1) abides by an established set of moral rules to govern relations among fellow human beings; and (2) owes obedience to a government that is capable of enforcing the said rules. Utilitarianism – the ethical theory that attributes right or wrong to an act based on the extent to which the act increases or decreases the total happiness of the affected parties; stated otherwise, the ethical theory based on the greatest good for the greatest number. Relativism – the ethical theory that asserts that there are no universal moral norms of right and wrong, only that individuals or groups of people perceive right or wrong in the context of their particular situations or cultural orientations The above definitions were sourced from Quinn (2006) and course lecture materials. 2.0 Ethical Analysis 1. The project team are on individual work contracts that do not specify the hours they are required to work. This is unethical, and most likely even illegal in several jurisdictions. Based on the theory of utilitarianism which commands the greatest good for the greatest number, workers should be ensured proper working hours, otherwise this situation is reduced to exploitation for the sake of gain of the employer. However, if in a particular jurisdiction a limited number of hours per day is assured the worker by law, then the theory that applies is the Social Contract theory, because the terms of the social contract (which is the law) is enforceable by the government. 2. Angela feels the extra effort she exert earns her the right to chat online at the workplace. Angela's chatting online is unethical. Based on the Kantian theory, it is immaterial what Angela wants to do; what should govern is what she ought to do. Implicit in her employment contract is Angela's duty to work for the good of her employer within working time and place. Viewed this way, she is also bound by the Social contract theory, because her employment contract has the force of law. She may not use the time and resources according to her own whims. 3. Angela had been informed a week ago of the interviews for acting-PM by Christine over dinner at a local restaurant. This is unethical on the part of Christine. As a head, Christine is duty bound to observe impartiality among her subordinates. This is according to Kantianism (to do what she ought to do), and maybe the social contract theory (employees deserve equal and fair treatment at work, without discrimination) if the discrimination is based on race, color, creed, religion, or physical disability unrelated to work. 4. CSS has decided not to inform their clients about a defect in their product. This is truly unethical, and of all the questionnable acts here, the one with the most profound implications. CSS is bound by law, duty, and the code of ethics of their profession to inform their clients of any defects in their merchandise. Under the law on contracts of sale, they are required to warrant their products against hidden defects, and should any be discovered, they are required to make good the defect or refund the purchase price. Thus, this is unethical based on the Kantian (duty), social contract (legal requisite), and utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number requires the clients to be informed) theories. 5. CSS decided that they will fix the clients' problems as they develop, then charge them for the company's time and effort. Not informing the client is bad enough; but, to benefit from their own mistake is even worse. For this, CSS may be held liable for illegal practices such as misrepresentation or swindling, thus it is unethical based on the social contract. From the point of view of Kantianism, this act is likewise unethical, because it is against the duty of the businessman to maintain candor (or honesty) with his client. Finally, it is unethical from the point of view of utilitarianism, because the final consequence is loss and thus damage on the part of the client, because he has to pay additional for what he has already bought before, which is a properly functioning product. The claim of CSS, is that it does not want the client's perception of CSS products to diminish, is both shallow and deceptive, because the company is intentionally misleading the client to believe a lie. This wil not redound to the good of either client or company. 6. David was working late for his assignment in his Masters class, using company equipment and premises .This may or may not be ethical, depending on individual and cultural relativism. David is studying for his Masters degree in IT, which is related to his job. If he is successful, his accomplishment may benefit his company by way of better service and a higher reputation (that they have highly educated personnel among their staff). In many (corporate and social) cultures, this is allowed. However, it is important that David should have secured the permission of CSS before using company time and resources for his studies. If permission was not given, then culture notwithstanding, David's act is unethical. This is different from Angela's act of chatting during office hours and using office equipment. Angela's online chat can in no way benefit CSS, while David's studies ultimately can. 7. David found a copy of the confidential email that Angela had received from the company's directors, in the printer's output tray. In the first place, Angela is at fault for not observing proper diligence in keeping confidential information in a secure place, such as a locked drawer. Since the email (hardcopy) was in the printer tray, David cannot help but see it without intending to snoop or spy. David did not violate any security to gain access to the paper, so he should not be faulted for finding it and at least giving it a cursory glance, because how could he know it were confidential if he would not read it? That is why it is NOT unethical for David to find the email and glance at what was written, because it was in a place normally accessible to all, and he had no way of knowing its contents. 8. David read the confidential email after ensuring that nobody else was within the premises. However, David did discover that the contents were of a confidential nature, and even was wary enough to see if somebody else can see him. At this point, David could not longer claim he read the letter in good faith, not knowing that there is anything that should stop him from reading it. Knowing it was confidential email, he should have stopped. Unfortunately, this is a very difficult thing to say, because knowing its contents meant he had some idea of the implications of the message. This act should still be viewed as an unethical act under Kantianism, however, it should be considered with great leniency and tolerance. What David has already read, he could no longer unread, and it is likely that he would have gathered enough of the illicit implications of the message that he could NOT do nothing, according to the principle of utilitarianism. 9. The company directors had secretly installed security cameras in the company premises without the knowledge of company personnel. This is an unethical act. According to the precepts of Kantianism, cultural relativism, and social contract, it is against the law, good public policy, and custom to spy on people. Individuals are also entitled to some reasonable level of privacy even at work, so at least they must have been informed that cameras are installed in the premises for security reasons. Knowing this may even discourage certain illegal acts and contribute to the benefit of the employer. Many facilities which install security cameras put up signs to this effect, in order to act as deterrent. 10. David calls Josephine and informs her of his discovery.     This is technically unethical, as it was technically unethical for David to acquire the confidential information, if one were to follow the Kantian theory.  However, there is again consideration to be given here, as David probably tells Josephine in confidence to ask for advice.  The fact that David is faced with a dilemma, his confusion may prompted him to seek counsel on what to do, and apparently he trusts Josephine.  His intention being to take a course of action that would benefit the clients (the greatest good for the greatest number), David's act may not be considered unethical according to the utilitarian view. 3.0 Stakeholder Identification     The major, unresolved, issue in the case is the fact that CSS has a hidden defect in their product of which they are aware; however, they decide to cover it up and charge clients for the repair of their product pertaining to this very defect. David inadvertently discovered the matter, and he is faced with the dilemma if he should act on it or not. David Smith - The main protagonist, David's decision will determine the course of events.  His wholesome background and the fact that he stands up for peoples' rights means he may opt to divulge the matter of the defect, notwithstanding possible repercussions. Josephine Hensley - In case David decides not to expose the defect, Josephine may feel duty bound to do so, but her moral compulsion to do so may not be so strong as David's, because she has not seen the message and knows only about it through hearsay or a third-person's perspective.  It is not a matter of personal knowledge to her. Angela Edwards - responsible for negligence in the safekeeping of confidential communication, Angela is liable for its exposure.  The fact that she knew about it but kept her silence renders her doubly liable, as a party to the conspiracy, having given her implicit consent to keep the misdeed a secret. Craig Marrow - Craig Morrow's role is uncertain, but his unit is involved and on the principle of command responsibility, he is likewise involved.  Craig will decide whether he is to support David or sanction him for his possible expose. The CSS Board of Directors – The Board that made the decision to keep the defect a secret is primarily liable to all parties should the defect be divulged. They tend to lose their credibility and may be voted out by the shareholders if the issue came to a head. 4.0 Bommer et. al’s Analysis In this case, the decision-maker is David.  He has two options:  whether to keep the knowledge of the defect a secret, or whether to divulge it to public knowledge.  It should be noted that at this point, it is useless to consider divulging it to the management since it is something they already know.  David must consider making a public (i.e., to the clients) expose. Social Environment - David was brought up in a religion that teaches honesty and truthfulness, and frowns at deceit.  An active community member and leader, he is one to uphold the righteousness of an act and to put community before self.  On the other hand, the possibility and social stigma of being fired from his job and being reputed to be a squealer and a non-team player may discourage him from divulging the anomaly. Government & Legal Environment - David is duty bound to expose anomalies.  In most modern jurisdictions, there is such a law a the whistleblower's act, that protects employees from exposing the immoral and unethical practices of their employers. Professional Environment - David's profession requires him to uphold the truth and maintain professional integrity, and he should be commended if he exposes the truth.  In reality, however, David will almost surely lose his job at CSS.  Most ethically upright persons undergo this painful task, and it will be difficult for David to easily find a similar job, given the fact that other companies in the same industry may be in the same situation as CSS. Work Environment - If David will be allowed to continue working at CSS, then he may find the workplace a very intolerable environment.  David and the management will be at odds, and management will treat him as an antagonist.  His friends and colleagues will keep their distance for fear of being identified with him and possibly losing their jobs. Personal Environment - David has a strong and wholesome family structure which will definitely provide him support if he were to make the tough decision.  His peer group within the office and in the profession may distance themselves from him, though, for the time being.  In time, they will probably touch bases with him again, because in business and professional practice, there are no permanent enemies, only interests. Individual attributes - David has a balanced lifestyle, with interests in sports, community service, and church activities.  He also has an active interest in "standing up for people's rights" and may be a politician.  This shows some level of commitment to stand up for what is right. 5.0 Solutions Alternative solutions ranked according to preference: 1. David should bring the matter of his knowledge to the attention of the Board of Directors through Mr. Craig. If David does decide to pursue the ethical behaviour, it is his moral duty, based on utilitarianism, Kantianism and the social contract, to right the wrong. However, he must do it in good faith, and in such a way that allows the Board a chance to vindicate itself. Not all members of the Board were in favour of the deceit; it is to their good sense that David should appeal. 2. David should immediately go to the media. This is not a good idea. While David has every reason to expose the scam, he should do it in a fair manner. Immediately going to the customers or the press, for instance, may be due to a desire of David not to right the wrong, but to cause harm to the company or the directors. David must assure himself and others that his motives are ethical and he is not just taking advantage of the situation to cause harm to others. 3. David should just remain quiet. This is also an unethical decision. When an individual discovers an anomaly, he is duty bound to right the wrong, which in this case means protecting the rights of the clientele. By keeping quiet, David participates as an accessory or co-conspirator, and becomes liable for the deceit as if he were one of the directors. Resolution: David should first raise the matter to the Board through Mr. Craig, and inform them of his intention to divulge the matter to the public if they do not come clean with the customers. If not, his recourse is to inform the customers and the public as well as the proper authorities, as this constitutes an unethical and illegal business practice. However, David should not do this without the guidance and support of legal counsel. 6.0 Reference List Bommer M, Gratto C, Gravander J, and Tuttle M (1987) “A Behavioral Model of Ethical and Unethical Decision Making,” Journal of Business Ethics vol. 6, pp. 265-280. Kallman EA and Grillo JP (2004) “Ethical Decision Making and Information Technology: An Introduction with Cases”, Second Edition, McGraw-Hill Quinn M J (2006) “ETHICS for the Information Age”, Second Edition, Addison Wesley, USA. Reynolds G (2006) “Ethics in Information Technology”, Thomson Learning Read More