Question: Use your knowledge of IEEE/ACM Code of Ethics in Chapter 12 and Append

Question

Question: Use your knowledge of IEEE/ACM Code of Ethics in Chapter 12 and Appendix C to 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 for choosing 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 of 6 lines at least. Note that there can 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 certain conditions, 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. Despite the above testing and debugging, Bob is still not convinced that the software is safe. He is worried that the software may have a design flaw that can only be fixed using extensive redesigning. Bob is also convinced that the technique applied to fix the initial problems is not up to the mark and it did not actually address the underlying problem. Now, Bob brings this issue to his supervisor who assures Bob that the problem has been resolved. However, the supervisor also tells Bob that any kind of redesigning would waste our efforts and will cause unnecessary delays, resulting in lost of money for the Software company. Bob has to deal with a lot of pressure in order to step back from his opinion and let the software tested on the plane. He has also been notified (rather indirectly) that if he continues to persist in delaying the system, he will be fired. What should Bob do in the current situation?

Case Study 2:

Ann is an IT consultant. Her job is to give advises to small businesses regarding their computer needs. Basically, Ann examines and evaluates company’s operational requirements and suggests the related hardware and software to meet those requirements. Recently, Ann has been hired by a small private hospital interested in upgrading their IT system especially the system for patient records and accounting. Hospital announced the “call for proposals” in order to receive bids (or proposals) and they have received several. Now, Ann has to evaluate these proposals. Being an experienced professional, Ann examined the received proposals carefully judging these on the basis of the systems proposed, the experience of the companies that bid, and the costs and benefits of each proposal. Ann concluded that a company known as Alpha Tech had proposed the best system for the hospital, and therefore, she recommended that the hospital should buy the Alpha Tech system. Ann also gave details explaining on why she thinks the Alpha Tech bid was the best. However, she did not reveal that she has (hidden) ownership shares in Alpha Tech. Was the behavior of Ann ethical? While giving your answers do not forget the point that Ann sincerely evaluated all the proposals as a true professional. She strongly believes that the bid provided by Alpha Tech is the best

Explanation / Answer

Case 1) Bob should prove the short-comings in the software by writing new simulation tests.Intitions or merely saying that "code won't work" has no value. And if the tests show what he is saying is right he should report and be firm about his stand as per the IEEE CS/ACM Code of Ethics and Professional Practice point1: Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest and point3: Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related modifications meet the highest professional standards possible.

Also he should make his colleagues realize that for a short term gain they might leave a long term dent on company's image and future if the software they put in planes proves to be faulty and causes catastrophe.

Case 2 ) Ann although sincerely evaluated the results but it was not ethical on her part to keep the ownership information hidden. Based on the ethical grounds, she should not have accepted this offer. As there is a "conflict of interests" on her being the evaluator for a software where her company is also competing for.Also Ann with not disclosing the information was disingenuous and was breaching the ACM Code 1.3 of Being honest and trustworthy.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse Q
• Subjects

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