Question: Useyour knowledge of IEEElACM Code of Ethics in Chapter 12 and Appendi

Question

Question: Useyour knowledge of IEEElACM Code of Ethics in Chapter 12 and Appendix Cto Evaluate the "Case of Studies" given below. For each Case Study: Mention the relevant Principle(s) (ex. Public) Related to each mentioned Principle, also mention the related clause(s) (ex. 1.01) For each mentioned clause, give reasons forchoosing that specific clause(s) After doing all the above, provide solution to each case study. (Ex. In case study 1, Bob should think of Solution should consist of6 lines at least. Note that therecan be more than one relevant Principles and Clauses for each study Case Study 1: (2 Marks) Bob is an experienced software engineer at a renowned software company. An analyst named Mr John is working on a project for the defense department of his company, testing the software used in an airplane. Bob is the quality control manager for the software. Early simulation testing revealed that under certainconditions instabilities would arise causing plane to crash. The software was debugged and modified accordingly to fix the problems uncovered by the initial tests and hence, the software passed all the simulation tests after the modifications.

Explanation / Answer

Case Study 1

For Case Study 1, following principles and relevant clauses should be applied.

Principle 1: PUBLIC

Clause 1.03:

Statement: Approve software only if they have a well-founded belief that it is safe, meets specifications, passes appropriate tests, and does not diminish quality of life, diminish privacy or harm the environment. The ultimate effect of the work should be to the public good.

Reason: As Bob suspect the software has design flaws, which if true will result in plane crash and hence harm both the environment as well as human life. Hence he is right in applying Clause 1.03 here.

Clause 1.04

Statement: Disclose to appropriate persons or authorities any actual or potential danger to the user, the public, or the environment, that they reasonably believe to be associated with software or related documents.

Reason: As Bob brings to the notice of his supervisor, who is the controlling authority here, about the suspected flaw in the software. Here he is applying Clause 1.04.

Principle 3: PRODUCT

Clause 3.10

Statement: Ensure adequate testing, debugging, and review of software and related documents on which they work.

Reason: As in the initial stage Bob review the software and brings out the flaw in the software design and duly insists on debugging of the software. Further, even after debugging he still not satisfied about the Product and further insists on adequate testing of the product. Here he is applying Clause 3.10.

Principle 5: MANAGEMENT

Clause 5.01

Statement: Ensure good management for any project on which they work, including effective procedures for promotion of quality and reduction of risk.

Reason: Here the management instead of looking into financial gain should focus on quality and risk of the software. Hence Clause 5.01 should be applied.

Clause 5.11

Statement: Not ask a software engineer to do anything inconsistent with this Code.

Reason: In the given Case scenario Bob’s supervisor should not insist him to sign off the software when Bob shows his concern on the same. Further, threating of one’s job whether directly or indirectly is totally unethical. Hence Clause 5.11 should be applied.

Conclusion

In this case study, Bob should not approved on the delivery of the software which he thinks of containing flaws. He should proved his point to his supervisor with all relevant actual data and appropriate documentations; and should convince his supervisor for further testing. If his supervisor still insists he should raise the issue with the higher authority in order.

Case Study 2

For Case Study 2, following principles and relevant clauses should be applied.

Principle 4: JUDGEMENT

Clause 4.05:

Statement: Disclose to all concerned parties those conflicts of interest that cannot reasonably be avoided or escaped.

Reason: Because of Ann’s special skillset, she was hired by the hospital. Hence she should duly report of her ownership of shares in Alpha Tech to hospital management. A such Clause 4.05 should be applicable here.

Conclusion

In the given case scenario, Ann’s action cannot be considered as justifiable as per IEEE/ACM Code of Ethics. Here, Ann’s sincerity towards her employer is not of the central issue. Instead, it is the trust that the Hospital invested in Ann is of prime concern. It is where Ann failed by not disclosing here shares in Alpha Tech. Had she disclosed her shares about Alpha Tech to Hospital management and still they recruit her for the job, it would then be as per Code of Ethics. Ann should first give the Hospital management the chance to judge whether they want to actually hire Ann for the said job despite of her having the share in Alpha Tech (as they are one of the bidder).   

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

---

---

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.