Charles Sturt University: Early Launch Ethical Analysis Assignment

This assignment analyzes the ethical dilemmas presented in the 'Early Launch' scenario, focusing on a conflict between a program director and a project manager. The director pressures the manager to launch software early, compromising quality and security. The assignment follows the 'Doing Ethics Technique,' addressing facts, non-ethical and ethical issues, and affected stakeholders. It explores the implications of the director's actions, including potential harm to the client, the project manager, and the organization's reputation. The analysis considers various options, such as team discussion, termination, and surrender to pressure, ultimately recommending a team discussion as the best approach to resolve the ethical conflicts and ensure a satisfactory outcome. The assignment highlights the importance of ethical decision-making in project management and customer satisfaction.

Early Launch/Scenario 3
Assignment 1: Doing Ethics Technique
Your Name
Student Number
School of computing and maths, charles sturt university
Word Count: 1000
Q1. What's going on?

Early Launch/Scenario 3
The scenario of “Early Launch” majorly depicts about early launching of any particular
software within any specific organization. The director the program has eventually called the
manager of that project and has instructed him for delivering his software to their client a month
earlier than the decided date for launching. The manager of that project is not ready to launch the
product since, he thinks this would affect the product quality and the client would be unhappy
with the end result (Scenario 3: Early Launch, 2018). Furthermore, the manager of the project is
concerned that the product would be delivered a month earlier; the product will not be encrypted.
There remains an extremely higher possibility that the end product would collapse or crash and
the client will not be happy. This type of concern does not affect the director of the program and
thus he instructs the manager of the project to deliver the product at any cost.
Q2. What are the facts?
The very first fact is that respective program director is instructing project manager for
delivering his product a month earlier than the decided date (Peters, 2015). The second fact in the
case study is that manager of the project is not ready to deliver the product since he thinks this
would affect the product quality. The third major fact of this scenario includes program director
instructing project manager for delivering the product without any type encryption (Ciulla,
2014). The fourth fact here is that the director of the program is tempting the manager of the
project so that he could get more money. In spite of this of temptation, the manager of the project
says that he will not submit the product.
Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)?
The very first non ethical problem in this scenario of Early Launch is that program
director is instructing the project manager for submitting his software to client a month earlier
than launching date by compromising with the product quality (Durkheim, 2013). The second
most important and significant non-ethical issue includes program director is instructing his sub
ordinate for submitting product without encryption. The third important unethical issue includes
program director is tempting his sub ordinate with more money. This is extremely
unprofessionalism and is violating the laws of professional and moral ethics for the director of
program. The manager of the project is still not ready to compromise with the product quality
even after being tempted with more money. Hence, the director of the program is threatening the
manager of the project for complaining regarding his denial of his orders (Noddings, 2013). He
is threatening that the manager of the project would be removed forever from this project. Thus,
Your Name

Early Launch/Scenario 3
this could be termed as the next unethical issue. The next unethical issue includes after
consulting with the chief executive officer of the company, the manager of the project is
terminated from any proceedings with this project.
Q4. Who is affected?
The most and vastly affected individual in this particular scenario is client. The client is
paying to the organization for getting good software in return. It is his right to gain good and
exclusive software quality from the company (Trevino & Nelson, 2016). However, since, the
director of the program is providing bad quality of product, he could be termed as the most
affected and most suffered individual in the case study. The next suffered individual here is
manager of the project. He is being terminated from the project for his denial to the unethical
acts. The other sufferer here is the organization itself as it is losing both a good employee and
goodwill.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
The most important ethical issue within this scenario of Early Launch is that manager of
the project wants the delivery of the product with proper encryption and good quality. The
second significant ethical issue includes project manager does not wish to compromise with the
overall quality of the product and thus this implies that he is ethical and professional (Niebuhr,
2013). The third ethical issue within the case study is that he is not taking more money for any
type of unethical act; rather he is focusing on customer satisfaction. This implies that there is a
chance the customer would return to the organization.
Q6. What can be done about it?
There are few options that could be the outcomes of this particular scenario. The director
of the program could discuss with the entire team for solving the problem of early launching. He
should listen what the team members are thinking about this early launch (Durkheim, 2013).
There is another option to terminate the manager of the project from this project and therefore,
delay can take place. Moreover, the program director might surrender to the pressure created by
the manager of the project and his respective team.
Q7. What are the options?
Three distinct options are present. The very first option includes program director o
terminates the service and involvement of the manager from his software project (Crane &
Matten, 2016). Second option here is that the director of program surrenders himself in the
Your Name

Early Launch/Scenario 3
pressure created by the manager and his team. The final option includes program director should
discuss with the entire project and finally come to a decision.
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
The third option can be termed as the perfect option in this case study of Early Launch.
The director of the program should discuss as well listen to his entire team members of the
project so that he could what the team wants (Niebuhr, 2013). As it is the team, who will execute
the project, it is extremely important for him to know what the team wants from the project.
References
Ciulla, J. B. (Ed.). (2014). Ethics, the heart of leadership. ABC-CLIO.
Crane, A., & Matten, D. (2016). Business ethics: Managing corporate citizenship and
sustainability in the age of globalization. Oxford University Press.
Durkheim, E. (2013). Professional ethics and civic morals. Routledge.
Niebuhr, R. (2013). Moral man and immoral society: A study in ethics and politics. Westminster
John Knox Press.
Noddings, N. (2013). Caring: A relational approach to ethics and moral education. Univ of
California Press.
Peters, R. S. (2015). Ethics and Education (Routledge Revivals). Routledge.
Trevino, L. K., & Nelson, K. A. (2016). Managing business ethics: Straight talk about how to do
it right. John Wiley & Sons.
YouTube. (2018). Scenario 3: Early Launch. [online] [Accessed 19 Mar. 2018] Available at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5M7ohdZ6qA
Do not remove the following marking sheet.
Your Name

Early Launch/Scenario 3
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
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.
Your Name

Early Launch/Scenario 3
(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
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

Early Launch/Scenario 3
Your Name