Doing Ethics Technique: WRITE AN OVERALL CONCLUSION THAT JUSTIFIES YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN YOUR ESSAY

• Post Date 2020-04-23T07:13:04+00:00
• Post Category Assignment Queries

Order Details

Doing Ethics Technique: WRITE AN OVERALL CONCLUSION THAT JUSTIFIES YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS MADE IN YOUR ESSAY

In this paper, you are asked to write an essay. You are to present an overall conclusion that justifies your recommendations. Analyse the case from the perspective of four classical ethical theories including utilitarianism, deontology, virtue and contract. You must present well reasoned arguments for your assessment and recommendations.

Doing Ethics Technique

Q1. What`s going on?

Q2. What are the facts?
Q3. What are the issues?

Q4. Who is affected?

Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?

Q6. What could have been done about it?

Q7. What are the options?

Q8. Which option is the best and why?

Applying Ethical Theory

• Analyse the article/case study from the perspective of four classical ethical theories including utilitarianism, deontology, virtue and contract. Present well reasoned arguments for your assessments and recommendations. 
• Write an overall conclusion that justifies your recommendations made in your essay.

Case Study

Use Doing Ethics Technique and Ethical Theory for all 3 cases below (maximum 1000 words for each case):

• In December 1999, IBM-GSA was one of three tenderers for the IT outsourcing contract for the Departments of Health, Aged Care and the Health Insurance Commission (the Health Group), along with CSC and EDS. During the tender process, IBM-GSA was supplied with computer disks containing critical information relating to final pricing of their rival tenderers. IBM-GSA subsequently revised its tender after the due deadline and the minister announced they were the successful bidder.

At the time, the Office of Asset Sales and Information Technology Outsourcing (OASITO) described giving IBM-GSA details of their rival’s bids as an ‘inadvertent error’. The minister dismissed the Opposition`s call for an immediate halt to the tender process. Three years later, the minister, now retired, admitted that the $350 million tender should have been cancelled. He told the Audit Office in September 2002:

“When the disc containing all three bids was delivered to IBM GSA in error my reaction on being informed directly by OASITO was to cancel the tender. I could not see that a tender process with integrity could continue. At the conclusion of the tender I was both disappointed and annoyed at the limited role of the Probity Auditor and the absence of a separate report on the issue.”

Not only did the tender continue, with IBM-GSA being awarded the contract, but the minister`s claim that the Probity Auditor’s role was limited was contradicted by evidence provided by OASITO to a Senate Estimates hearing on 8 February 2000. OASITO representatives told Senate Estimates that the management of the tender:

“…was conducted in accordance with the advice from both the probity auditor and our legal advisers engaged for the initiative. All parties concurred at the time that the process could continue unchanged [OASITO] briefed the probity auditor in person [who] immediately came back to us with a proposed course of action…We engaged the probity auditor to participate in all of our discussions to make sure that he fully witnessed the nature of the discussions…and he was happy that we had delivered the messages in accordance with his proposed course of action.”

• Jean, a statistical database programmer, is trying to write a large statistical program needed by her company. Programmers in this company are encouraged to write about their work and to publish their algorithms in professional journals. After months of tedious programming, Jean has found herself stuck on several parts of the program. Her manager, not recognising the complexity of the problem, wants the job completed within the next few days. Not knowing how to solve the problems, Jean remembers that a co-worker had given her source listings from his current work and from an early version of a commercial software package developed at another company. On studying these programs, she sees two areas of code which could be directly incorporated into her own program. She uses segments of code from both her co-worker and the commercial software, but does not tell anyone or mention it in the documentation. She completes the project and turns it in a day ahead of time.

• Andrew, a highly qualified and experienced software developer, has just started work with a government health department on a project that has been underway for about 9 months. He is replacing a novice developer who has decided to move on to a new project with another organisation. Even though the current system is incomplete, it has is being used with `live` data. On analysing what`s been done so far, Andrew discovers that the system is poorly designed and is riddled with bugs due to the former developer`s lack of expertise, and that the choice of technologies are incompatible with the department`s infrastructure, leading to corruptions and loss of financial data on a daily basis. In fact, much of Andrew`s time is initially spent unsuccessfully attempting to recover corrupted data. His vast experience leads him to the conclusion that the system is so unstable that it will eventually corrupt beyond repair and that all its data will become unrecoverable. He therefore advises the supervisor of his findings and recommends that the system be redeveloped using appropriate technologies and quality control measures. He indicates that the entire redevelopment effort will take less than 6 weeks. The supervisor rejects Andrew`s recommendation, stating that their IT Department will not agree to a change in technology, and directs Andrew to complete the project using the existing technologies. What should Andrew do?