Jean's Ethical Dilemma in Software Development

This assignment examines an ethical dilemma faced by a software developer named Jean. Jean is accused of plagiarism and misrepresentation by claiming 100% originality for her statistical software while using code from a professional journal without permission or attribution. The analysis utilizes the Doing Ethics technique and the Australian Computer Society's Code of Professional Conduct to evaluate Jean's actions, highlighting her failures in professionalism, integrity, and respect for intellectual property rights.

UNIVERSITY NAME
Student’s name
Student’s ID
Professional Practice

Title: Statistical program
Ethics can be defined as a set of principles and values that govern the way an individual behaves
and lead his or her life for the common good of everyone in the society. There are laws and
regulations which have put in place to act as ethical-compass that all the concerned parties need
to be acquaint themselves and adhere to them. Information and Communication Technology
(ICT), being a relatively new phenomenon across the globe has also faced challenges on ethical
fronts relating to professionals in this sector breaching their professional code of conduct and
ethics while carrying out their duties. This paper will seek to discuss ethical issues arising form a
case study in ICT field titled Statistical program. The case study is about a statistical database
programmer named Jean, who in her line of duty used other parties work to complete hers
without following due process by acknowledging the respective sources. The paper will address
or analyze this issue following a technique known as “Doing Ethics Technique” and also in
terms of breach of Australian Computer Society (ACS) code of conduct.
Analysis of the situation using the Doing Ethics Technique
First and foremost under this particular ethics analysis tool, is answering the question what is
going on? It was observed that Jean was undertaking development of a statistical program
needed by her company. Stuck and coming under pressure by her boss at work to complete the
project within the stipulated time, Jean decided to use certain areas of code from a program
developed by her colleague at work and another one commercially developed by a different
company to fix the problem her program was facing. She did this without acknowledging the
sources of the codes she took form the two parties either verbally or capturing it in her write up
for the statistical program. (Kizza, 2007)
The facts concerning the case are that; Indeed Jean used codes from different parties in her work.
This is evidenced by the fact that she had been stuck but after checking the codes from her
colleagues work and another form a different company other than hers she quickly inserted the
newly found area codes to beat the deadline set by her supervisor. Another fact concerning this
case is that Jean did not acknowledge any source in her report meaning she attributed all the
work in the statistical program she developed to her own efforts and knowledge. It is also
possible that jean intended to access the algorithms with a selfish agenda and not to learn for the
purpose of obtaining knowledge only. (Ficarrotta, 2011) Considering the fact that Jean was under

pressure to deliver the work form her boss at the company and also considering the possibility
that jean never wanted to look incompetent before her boss, she could have decided to fix her
problem with the boss before time elapses and deal with the rest of the issue latter. If she had
decided to follow the right procedure of studying the algorithms from the two foreign parties and
using the knowledge gained to develop her own original area codes then she could have ran out
of time and be in trouble with her boss at work. On the other hand, if she had decided use the
area codes the way they were at their sources and acknowledge this in her write up, then she
could have feared that her boss may deem her incompetent. Thus the two scenarios supports the
notion that Jean used someone’s or some entity’s intellectual property for the purposes of beating
the deadline and ensuring her boss believe in her work by claiming 100% originality of the
statistical software she developed. In the contrary is also possible that Jean upon gaining
knowledge from the algorithms she studied from her colleague work developed the codes and co-
incidentally came up with the same areas of codes as contained in the two sets of work she
studied. (Mendina & Britz, 2011)
There are a number of issues that arises from the case study under discussion.
(a) Ownership – Jean did not acknowledge the sources she used in her work. Some of the
area codes she used belonged to her colleague at work while other codes were owned by
a different company from what she was working for. Therefore, by not mentioning them
Jean failed the ethical issue of attributing the knowledge she used to its owners.
(Manning and Stroud, 2008)
(b) Integrity issue – Jean failed the integrity issue by giving false information regarding her
work to her company. She ought to have mentioned in her report that she used other
parties’ knowledge to come up with her program, instead she attributed all the work of
her statistical software to her own effort which was misrepresentation of facts an integrity
issue. (Manning and Stroud, 2008)
(c) Transparency – Jean ought to have told her supervisor that indeed she can not push
through something she thinks she has it all but still not being able to come up with the
solution on her own. She should have frank with her boss about her inability to continue
unless she uses someone work to fix her problem or take more time than what was
available to be able to crack the challenge she was facing. (Manning and Stroud, 2008)

(d) Commercial – some of the area codes Jean used came form commercially produced
software from a different company from what she was working for. This software was
made with intentions to be sold to other users. Since Jean had used part of it she ought to
have informed its owners and ask for the amount of compensation she would pay through
her company. (Manning and Stroud, 2008)
(e) Lack of team spirit – Jean should have also informed her colleague that she is going to
use his work the way her colleague informed her about the sources she used. She should
have appreciated her colleague let him know that his reference assisted her to solve the
problem she was facing with her statistical program. (Manning and Stroud, 2008)
Therefore the above five issues identified are a mix of issues ranging from ethical to
commercial perspectives. (Higgins & Packard, 2012)
There are a number of stakeholders which are affected in our case study under discussion. The
stakeholders are listed as follows.
(a) Jean’s Company – This particular stakeholder was affected both positively and
negatively. On the positive front the company benefited from a complete statistical
program as they had requested their employee, Jean. The company could further benefit
from this by producing the same commercially and earning reputation from its peers in
the industry for being able to develop and come up with such as big statistical program.
On the negative side, the program has a potential to tarnish the name of the company and
attract possible legal suits from the company whose Jean took some area codes without
seeking permission or acknowledging them. (Hartman, DesJardins and MacDonald,
2012)
(b) Jean is also another primary stakeholder involved in the case. She completed her work in
time as expected by her boss courtesy of other parties work. This therefore helped her
achieve her own goals. She also tarnished her reputation in the eyes of her colleagues and
all the third parties including the greater public for being someone who can not
acknowledge the sources of her work. This effect has the potential of legal suits form
interested parties such as owners of the commercially produced program where she
obtained some codes.

(c) Jean’s colleague at work- He was affected in such a way that he did not receive due
acknowledgement from his workmate having used his work to complete hers. He doesn’t
have any positive effect from this scenario.
(d) The company that produced the commercial software – This company was also affected
in such a way that it did not receive due request form Jean to use part of its intellectual
property to complete her own. The company did not also receive due compensation and
acknowledgement from Jean having used some of its area codes.
(e) The professional journal – Jean should have also mentioned where the knowledge was
published. The professional journal where she obtained the area codes she used to
complete her work was affected by fact that it was not mentioned in Jeans report of the
project thereby suffering reputation that it would have otherwise received.
(f) Australian computer society- This body being the public trustee of the greater people of
Australia and a professional body representing all those in ICT filed in Australia suffered
integrity issue that one of its members did not have courtesy to acknowledge the sources
of her information.
Looking at the ethical issues arising from our case study under discussion and its
implications, the following are realized.
(a) Transparency – From the utilitarianism perspective of the classical theory we find the
best output is the greater good of the stakeholders involved. Jean lack of transparency
denied the stakeholders in the case both commercial and social gains in terms of repute.
This implies that all the stakeholders did not get was due to them after putting efforts in
their work. To greater public suffered too in the sense that the all the ACS members
would likely receive some more scrutiny in all their work even if they may have
complied fully with all the requirements needed. (Yahalom, 2011)
(b) Integrity issue – From the perspective of virtue ethics in classical theory we realize that
ethical behavior stems from the persons character. This situation therefore put Jean in a
position whereby her character is questionable in eyes of all the stakeholders involved
and greater public in General. (Yahalom, 2011)
(c) Lack of team spirit on the part of Jean- From mutualism point of view the best ethical
behavior is one that benefits all the concerned parties. Jean being a member of ACS
should have been more of a team player right from her company where she was working

to the association where all those in ICT industry in Australia converge. The implication
is that this issue will likely lead to disharmony in the ICT sector in Australia negatively
affecting the existing goodwill in the industry which in turn may deny the public new
innovations that could have been realized if goodwill among ICT parties in Australia
would have remained intact as it was before jeans incident. (Yahalom, 2011)
There are a number of remedies that can be done to resolve this case. First the issue can be
resolved in court where a judge will hear the case out and hand the judgment. The issue can also
be discussed by all the concerned parties to see if they can reach an agreement. An
administrative action can also be taken on Jean by her company. (Integrity in scientific research,
2011)
The options available are as follows;
(a) Legal suits –This entails the commercial company whose jean obtained some area
codes suing Jean and her company for breach of intellectual property rights. This will
see the accuser receive compensation as per the court determination. The defendant is
likely to suffer reputational damage as well as monetary losses in compensation.
(b) Arbitration through ACS – This entails the professional body as an association of ICT
in Australia examining extend of the damage done and determining what is good for
the benefit of all the members of the society. The association can mediate between the
concerned parties and offer lenient terms that ensure both the team spirit among its
membership is enhanced while the same time punishing the mistake.
(c) Company – company agreement – Here both companies can decide to agree on the
way forward in terms of taking administrative actions and compensating the affected
in a fair manner to both parties.
The best solution is the arbitration through ACS. This is because all the issues arising will be
dealt with a party that understands the whole situation well in terms of knowledge and has the
industries best interest to ensure future collaboration that could lead to more innovations for the
benefit of the larger public.

Analysis of the situation using ACS Code of Ethics
Analyzing the situation using ACS code of ethics reveals the following outcomes;
Breach of primary of the public interest- Jeans actions did not endeavor to protect the integrity
of the ICT professionals in Australia as directed by the body’s code of conduct. She also did not
respect the intellectual property of other parties as she did not acknowledge them when she used
their work to complete hers. (ACS Code of Professional Conduct, 2014)
Failed to enhance the quality life – Code stipulate that as an ICT professional and member of
ACS, Jean should have endeavored to increase the feeling of personal satisfaction and
competence of those affected by Jeans work, in other words Jeans ought to have made all the
concerned parties especially her colleague at work and the owners of the commercially produced
software to feel proud of their work and competence by letting them know that their work
contributed to hers and she completed her work in time because of their work. (ACS Code of
Professional Conduct, 2014)
Failed honesty test - The code stipulate that every member of the association must give credit
for work done by others. And no member should try to enhance her or his reputation at the
expense of others within the ICT sector in Australia. Jean failed this test because neither she give
credit for work done by others nor barred herself from enhancing her own reputation at the
expense of others. These honesty attributes as contained in the code where not adhered as
expected by the association thus jean failed this test. (ACS Code of Professional Conduct, 2014)
Failed competence test – Jean was bound by the code to ensure that she does not misrepresents
her skills or knowledge and also respect and protect the stakeholders proprietary interest. This
basically means that Jean lied about her skills and knowledge by claiming 100% originality of
her statistical software or program and through accessing the codes via the professional journal
Jean ought to have ensured that the proprietary interest of all the stakeholders should have been
taken care of by not using codes as contained in the program meant for commercial purpose or
compensating the same company if she had to use the codes. (ACS Code of Professional
Conduct, 2014)
Failed professionalism test – Jean ought to have refrained from conduct that would put the ICT
professional body in Australia in a bad light or tarnish its reputation and image. By using the
codes and not acknowledging the source jean, tarnished the image of the association she
belonged. (ACS Code of Professional Conduct, 2014)

In conclusion, it is evident jean failed the ethical test as shown by the results obtained from
carrying out the ethical test as per the Doing ethics technique and the code of conduct as
stipulated by Australia Computer Society. The test cut across a number of platforms that
informed extend the test would be carried out in order to come up with a fair and all-round
assessment of the ethical issues arising from the case study under discussion.
References
ACS Code of Professional Conduct. (2014). Australian Computer Society, [online] 2.1(1), pp.1-
8. Available at: https://www.acs.org.au/content/dam/acs/rules-and-regulations/Code-of-
Professional-Conduct_v2.1.pdf [Accessed 4 Oct. 2017].

Brown, M. (2007). Corporate integrity. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ. Press.
Ficarrotta, J. (2011). The Leader's Imperative. 1st ed. Mumbai: Jaico Pub. House, pp.1-7.
Hartman, L., DesJardins, J. and MacDonald, C. (2012). Business ethics. 1st ed. pp.1-7.
Higgins, S. and Packard, N. (2012). Meeting the standards in primary ICT. 1st ed. London:
RoutledgeFalmer, pp.2-9.
Hudson, W. (2010). New studies in ethics. 1st ed. London: Macmillan, pp.4-21.
Integrity in scientific research. (2011). 1st ed. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press,
pp.4-9.
Kizza, J. (2007). Ethical and social issues in the information age. London: Springer-Verlag.
Manning, R. and Stroud, S. (2008). A practical guide to ethics. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press.
Mendina, T. and Britz, J. (2011). Information ethics in the electronic age. Jefferson, NC:
McFarland & Co.
Weckert, J. and Lucas, R. (2013). Professionalism in the information and communication
technology industry. 1st ed. pp.4-11.
Yahalom, A. (2011). Advances in classical field theory. [S.l.]: Bentham Science Publishers.