Q2. What are the facts?
Q1. What’s going on? (Case Study)
The Project Director of a company is requested by the Chief Information Officer (C.I.O) to deliver a project on under development without the implementation of Encryption of the product, commonly known as Early Launch. The Chief Information Officer says that, he/she has received pressure from the Chief Executive Officer (C.E.O) concerning the product delivery, whereby the client of the product has requested a launch one month earlier of the agreed timeline deadline.
The project director in turn asks the project manager if they can launch the product as requested by the client. However, the project manager considers this decision to be hard because he strongly perceives encryption to be vital for a system reliability. He raises concerns of the possibility of the system being hacked and says it is a shortcut. The project director tries to convince the project manager about the new opportunities that will be an outcome of the project launch, he further affirms that it will be good for the company especially getting the next contract which is more than 3 million, as well as the bonuses that the project team will get after the early launch. Finally, the project director predicts that the chances of the system being hacked are minimal and they can organize a software update with the encryption after the launch.
Doing Ethics Technique presents a series of procedure to analyze and evaluate Ethics Dilemma Scenarios in order to determine the ethical and unethical issues and their implications by looking at the case at hand, the facts presented, the people involved, the options that are at hand and lastly evaluating which option is the best is comparison to the other options.
Q2. What are the facts?
- The product client request an Early Launch of the product one month prior to the project deadline.
- The project manager is supervising a project team developing a product of the client requesting an early launch.
- The Chief Information Officer is receiving pressure from the Chief Executive Officer about the launching of the product.
- The Chief Information Officer says that they can launch the product early without encryption then later on release an update with encryption.
- The early launch will mean a release of the product without the implementation of encryption.
- The project manager considers the decision to be hard, because he perceives encryption to be vital for any system.
- System can hacked without encryption.
- Complying with the early launch will present new opportunities for the company as well as protecting the reputation of the company.
- The early launch will spearhead the possibility of getting the next contract which is more than three million.
- The project team will get huge bonuses if an early launch is done.
- A software update with the encryption can be released after the early launch of the system.
Q3. What are the issues?
- The implication of releasing the early launch to the company.
- Failure to release the system on early launch might ruin the company reputation.
- Securing the next contract is dependent on the outcome of the current project.
- The consequences of the system being launched without encryption both to the client and to the company.
- The balance between huge bonuses and the adhering to the professional code of conduct.
- Possibility of the system being hacked before the release of the software update containing the encryption.
- The degree of importance of encryption to the system compared to the attached consequences.
- Early launch is not considerably a violation of the agreed timeline system delivery deadline.
Q4. Who is affected?
Negatively
- The project manager, if he doesn’t comply to the requests of the Chief Information Officer and so lose his/her job or demotion.
- The company, if an they do not launch the system early and so lose the next contract.
- The company, if the system is released without encryption hence bad reputation when hacked.
- The client, if the system is launched without encryption, hacked and hence the clients data at risk.
- The project team, if they do not comply with the request and so lose their job.
Positively
- The client, if the system is released with encryption and so reliability and performance of the system.
- The company, if the system is released with encryption and so protect company’s reputation.
- The project team, if the released system is fully functional with reliability and security mechanisms and hence appraisal.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
- Mutual understanding between the project team, the executive officers and the client.
- Discovery of the consequences pending the release of the system without encryption.
- Commitment to provide a reliable system that doesn’t pose security risk.
- Integrity in pursuing what is perceivable right for the grater benefit of the company and the client.
Q6. What could have been done about it?
- Discuss with client about the greater risks of launching a system without encryption that may expose a risk to their data, lost sale due to brand damage, forensics investigation, money loss, data breach laws intercepted and many more equivalent risks.
- Discuss with the company executive officer of the negative threats attached to selling a system without encryption which may ruin the company reputation as well being sued in court.
Q7. What are the options?
- The project manager agrees and surrenders to the pressure from the executive officers of the company and launch the system early without the implementation of encryption. This option of the system being hacked after it is being launched which will result into the company being sued which in turn may result the closing of the organization. Therefore, loss of employment to the employees of the company, the clients data being manipulated by the hackers and hence lose future sales.
- The project manager explains the need to have the encryption in the system, the project director listens and understands the project manager. He then make a request to the executive officers of the company to request an extension of the delivery date to the originally agreed delivery date. This option implies that the company reputation is protected since the system will be reliable, secure and functional.
- The project director suggests that the project manager to be detached from the project and hence ignores his/her recommendation of the encryption vitality. This implies the loss of job of the project manager, disciplinary action taken due to not complying with seniors requests and delay of delivery of the project.
- The project manager resigns from the project development in order to protect his virtues and what he perceives to be adhering to the professional code of conduct (Christopher R. Simpson, 2003)
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
The project manager explains the need to have the encryption in the system, the project director listens and understands the project manager. He then make a request to the executive officers of the company to request an extension of the delivery date to the originally agreed delivery date. This option implies that the company reputation is protected since the system will be reliable, secure and functional (Seach, 2003).
According to the Australian Computer Society Code of ethics, it ascertain that it is not about arriving at the final result, rather achieving the solution with integrity, professionalism and satisfaction both to the professionals and to the client without jeopardizing both parties in the functioning of the system (Burmeiste, 2002).
It is the best solution because it does not put the client at risk of being hacked by any malicious attackers hence impair their reputation. It also does not put the company at risk of losing their reputation of releasing system products which are not reliable to the market and thereafter close up the organization, loss of employment to the involved personnel and maybe sued in the court of law.
References
Burmeiste, O. K. (2002). HCI Professionalism: Ethical concerns in Usability Engineering.Hawthorn, Victoria: ResearchGate.
Christopher R. Simpson, L. N. (2003). DOING ETHICS: A UNIVERSAL TECHNIQUE IN AN ACCESSIBILITY CONTEXT.Swinburne University of Technology, Australi, School of Information Technolo.
Seach, G. R. (2003). An explanation of the Doing Ethics Technique. Australian Journal of Information System.
Video link(Video1): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5M7ohdZ6qA
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
