Development Methodology Case Study: Doing Ethics Technique Analysis

This assignment analyzes the "Development Methodology" case study, which presents a scenario involving a junior software developer, a client, and a project manager. The analysis employs the "Doing Ethics Technique" to dissect the ethical dilemmas presented. The student identifies key facts, non-ethical issues (such as the project manager's unprofessional behavior), affected parties (developer, organization owner, and client), and ethical issues like customer satisfaction, project requirements, and proper execution. The document explores potential solutions, including involving senior management, and ultimately proposes that encouraging the developer's actions is the best option, considering the client's demands. The student references relevant literature to support their analysis and conclusions. The assignment is a comprehensive ethical examination of a software development scenario.

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
Assignment 1: Doing Ethics Technique
Your Name
Student Number
School of computing and maths, charles sturt university
Word Count: 900
Q1. What's going on?

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
This particular case study is about a scenario, called “Development Methodology”. The
scenario mainly demonstrates a junior developer of software is talking over phone with his client
(Scenario 2: Development Methodology, 2018). The client wants the company to craft few of the
changes within the software and junior developer of software has agreed to do so. Meanwhile,
the manager of project enters in that room and queries the junior developer about the phone call.
The software developer informs that the client has asked for some changes and he wants the
software within the given time. The project manager is surprised to hear this; however, the junior
developer says that he will be able to do so.
Q2. What are the facts?
The significant facts of the case of “Development Methodology” are given below:
i) The junior developer is an enthusiastic and hard working employee in the organization.
ii) The client of a specific project has said to change the software accordingly to his new
requirements.
iii) The client has not provided extra time for the project and he wants the software within
deadline (Slade & Prinsloo, 2013).
iv) The developer of software has agreed in making all the alterations asked by the client.
v) The junior developer of software has agreed to make all the changes in deadline.
vi) He has not informed his senior, the project manager about all the facts.
Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)?
The first and the foremost unethical issue that this case study comprises of is that the
senior of the developer screams on the junior developer. This is absolutely non ethical as no
senior employee has the right to scream on his sub ordinates even he is making major mistakes in
his work (Ford & Richardson, 2013). Another important unethical issue in the case study is that
the senior employee is not feeling guilty of his crime. Rather, he only oozes out his frustration on
the junior employee. There is a high chance that the junior developer might be feeling low and
negatively motivated.
Q4. Who is affected?
“Development Methodology” case study is extremely important to understand the ethical
or non ethical scenario. Few people are solely affected in the case. The most affected person is
the developer. His senior has screamed upon him or rather has insulted him in front of other
employees (Mannay & Morgan, 2015). The second most affected person in the case is the owner
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
of the organization. He would be losing a sincere and hard working employee if the developer
decides to resign from the company. The third affected person is the client of the project, as he
would not be getting the software according to his requirements.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
The very first moral issue in this case is the customer satisfaction. The junior developer
has decided to satisfy the client by doing all the changes. Moreover, he has decided to complete
the entire work within deadline (Bell, 2014). The second important ethical issue in the case is the
fulfilling all the requirements of the project. When any project is given to an organization, it is
the core responsibility of that organization to meet all the requirements. The third ethical issue
here is the proper execution of the project. The software should run properly and it should not be
erroneous.
Q6. What can be done about it?
The above mentioned issues can be resolved by undertaking few steps. The first option in
this case study is to forward these types of call to the senior manager of project and take proper
guidance before proceeding with such tasks. These types of changes in software usually incur
huge cost, as more resources are needed here (Mintz, 2016). The client should be paying more
money for the demanded changes. Moreover, the project manager should discuss with the
developer about the changes and motivate and guide him to complete with his work. This type of
motivation is extremely important for any employee to excel in his work.
Q7. What are the options?
The very first option here is the requesting of the manager of project to the respective
developer for forwarding these types of calls to him directly and thus take proper guidance for
proceeding with work. The second alternative would be that manager of project screams on the
developer of software. The third important option would be that the project manager is
encouraging the activity of the developer and thus makes the project successful (Gray, 2016).
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
The best or the perfect option from the above mentioned options is the encouragement of
program director about the action of the developer. As the client has demanded for new
requirement just before the product launch, it is his duty to change the software and thus this
would be the best option for this particular case study of “Development Methodology” (Coghlan
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
& Brannick, 2014). Moreover, the junior developer would be motivated with this motivation
from program director and he would be getting from the software for doing all those changes.
References
Bell, J. (2014). Doing Your Research Project: A guide for first-time researchers. McGraw-Hill
Education (UK).
Coghlan, D., & Brannick, T. (2014). Doing action research in your own organization. Sage.
Ford, R. C., & Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical
literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer
Netherlands.
Gray, D. E. (2016). Doing Research in the Business World. SAGE.
Mannay, D., & Morgan, M. (2015). Doing ethnography or applying a qualitative technique?
Reflections from the ‘waiting field’. Qualitative Research, 15(2), 166-182.
Mintz, S. (2016). Giving voice to values: A new approach to accounting ethics education. Global
Perspectives on Accounting Education, 13, 37-50.
Scenario 2: Development Methodology. (2018). YouTube. Retrieved 15 March 2018, from
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0npm9cEJBWY
Slade, S., & Prinsloo, P. (2013). Learning analytics: Ethical issues and dilemmas. American
Behavioral Scientist, 57(10), 1510-1529.
Do not remove the following marking sheet.
Marking Sheet
Criteria Standards
Marks
award
ed
Analysis of
the ethical
dilemma
using the
Doing
Ethics
Technique
(DET)
(Value
70%)
HD: Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-
ethical issues, lists all the stakeholders, identifies all the ethical issues,
evaluates OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from
these and the already given and justifies why this option is the best using
supporting arguments based on the literature.(59.5-70)
DI: Answers all DET questions, lists all the facts, identifies all the non-ethical
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
issues, lists all the stakeholders, lists all the ethical issues and the OTHER
options can resolve them and selects the best option from these and
explains why this option is the best.(52.5-58.8)
CR: Answers all DET questions, lists most of the facts, identifies most of the
non-ethical issues, lists most of the stakeholders, lists most of the ethical
issues and OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option
from these and makes an attempt to explain why this option is the best.
(45.5-51.8)
PS: Answers some of the DET questions, lists a few facts, identifies a few
non-ethical issues, lists a few stakeholders, lists a few ethical issues and
OTHER options can resolve them and selects the best option from these but
without explaining why this option is the best.(35-44.8)
FL: Answers a few DET questions but fails to list important facts, fails to
identify relevant non-ethical issues, fails to list important stakeholders, fails
to identify the ethical issues and evaluates the OTHER options can resolve
them and does not select the best option or does not explain why the option
selected is the best.(0-34.3)
Writing &
structure
(Value
20%)
HD: Language features and structures are used to convey meaning
effectively, concisely, unambiguously, and in a tone appropriate to the
audience and purpose with no spelling, grammatical, or punctuation errors.
(17-20)
DI: Well developed skills in expression & presentation of ideas.Fluent writing
style appropriate to assessment task/document type.Grammar & spelling
accurate.(15-16.8)
CR: Good skills in expression & clear presentation of ideas.Mostly fluent
writing style appropriate to assessment task/document type. Grammar &
spelling contains a few minor errors.(13-14.8)
PS: The text contains frequent errors in spelling, grammar, word choice, and
structure, lacks clarity, and is not concise, but the meaning is apparent to
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
the reader with some effort.(10-12.8)
FL: Rudimentary skills in expression & presentation of ideas.Not all material
is relevant &/or is presented in a disorganised manner.Meaning apparent,
but writing style not fluent or well organised.Grammar & spelling contains
many errors.(0-9.8)
Referencin
g
(Value
10%)
HD: Referencing is comprehensive, demonstrates academic integrity, and
conforms exactly to APA style conventions.(8.5-10)
DI: Very good referencing, including reference list and citations.High quality
references.(7.5-8.4)
CR:Good referencing, including reference list and citations. Good quality
references.(6.5-7.4)
PS:Referencing is comprehensive, mostly accurate according to APA style
conventions, and demonstrates academic integrity. Some minor errors or
omissions in style and formatting choices (e.g. italics, punctuation, etc)
don’t impact on the transparency and traceability of the source, or
demonstration of academic integrity.(5-6.4)
FL: Sub-standard (or no) referencing. Poor quality (or no) references.(0-4.9)
Total
Marks
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
Your Name