Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
.
8.04 Improve their understanding of the software and related documents on
which they work and of the environment in which they will be used.
By creating his own set of instructional materials, Jean probably developed
an even better understanding of the software package and its capabilities.
There is a good chance he came up with some insights about better ways to
teach others how to use the software. This additional knowledge will make
Jean a more valuable employee of Acme Corporation.
You could argue that Jean is actually helping Acme Corporation. Govern-
ments are dropping the gold level of support because it is simply too expensive,
but phone support and online support aren't enough. If these agencies cannot
find another source of on-site training, they may stop using Acme's software
altogether. By providing East Dakota with affordable on-site training, Jean was
helping ensure that East Dakota would remain a customer of Acme Corporation,
albeit at the silver level.
You could also argue that Jean's work for East Dakota improved his
knowledge of the software package and his ability to teach others how to use
it, making him a more effective phone support person at Acme.
However, it's unlikely upper management at Acme Corporation will be
convinced by these arguments, particularly since Jean did not disclose the offer
from East Dakota before accepting it. Jean's decision is much more likely to cause
management to question his loyalty to his company and his fellow employees. If
the company learns about his consulting work, Jean may well be the next person
laid off.
To conclude our analysis, Jean's actions were wrong and unwise. He violated
clauses 2.08, 4.05, and 6.05 of the Software Engineering Code of Ethics and
Professional Practice, and he may have put his full-time job in jeopardy.
All four case studies presented in the previous section involve the actions of a single in-
dividual. It is easy for us to assign moral responsibility to that person and to discuss
how things might have turned out better if he or she had acted differently. Often, how-
ever, a product or decision is the cumulative result of the work of many people within
a larger organization. Suppose somebody within the organization perceives a danger to
the public but is unable to persuade the rest of the organization to make needed changes
to eliminate that danger. Should that person go outside the organization with the infor-
mation?
A
whistle-blower
is someone who breaks ranks with an organization in order to
make an unauthorized disclosure of information about a harmful situation after at-
tempts to report the concerns through authorized organizational channels have been
ignored or rebuffed [6]. Sometimes employees become whistle-blowers out of fear that
actions taken by their employer may harm the public; other times they have identified
fraudulent use of tax dollars [7].
