School of Computing and Maths: Development Methodology Ethics Analysis

This assignment analyzes a case study involving a junior software developer who makes changes to a project based on a client's request without consulting their senior or project manager. The case study explores non-ethical issues, such as the project manager's unprofessional behavior towards the junior developer, and ethical issues, including client satisfaction and the junior developer's adherence to client demands. The assignment identifies affected stakeholders, including the junior developer, the company, and the client, and discusses the implications of the ethical issues. It proposes potential solutions, such as seeking extra payment for the changes and improving communication protocols. The best option is identified as the program director encouraging the junior developer. The assignment also includes a detailed analysis using the Doing Ethics Technique, exploring facts, issues, affected parties, ethical considerations, and potential solutions, all supported by relevant academic references.

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
The case study of “Development Methodology” provides a brief description about certain
alterations in a technical project in a particular organization. The client of the software has
demanded the junior developer to make few changes and he also has promised to do the same
(Scenario 2: Development Methodology, 2018). The junior software developer has not asked his
senior for approving the changes. His senior enters into the room and queries about the project.
The overview of this scenario is the changes asked by client in the software. The junior
developer has said to complete the project within provided time with all the changes.
Q2. What are the facts?
The important facts of this case study of “Development Methodology” are as follows:
i) The client has asked for some of the major changes in the software.
ii) The junior developer has promised to make those changes (Ford & Richardson, 2013).
iii) The junior software developer has promised to complete the project within the
provided time.
iv) The junior software developer has not taken the permission of the project manager.
These above mentioned facts clearly depict the entire scenario of the case study.
Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)?
The scenario of “Development Methodology” has some of the most significant non
ethical issues. These non ethical issues help to understand the wrong or the improper ideology of
the case (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). The first non ethical issue of this particular case study is
the query that the project manager is asking the junior developer. The project manager may
enquire to the junior software developer that why he has accepted such phone calls from client
without his permission. He may also ask that why he alone has taken the decision of making
these changes. The project manager shouts at the junior developer and this is extremely non
ethical. He should not behave impolitely with his junior. Due to his scolding, the junior
developer might feel de motivated and cannot complete his work properly. The next non ethical
issue in this scenario is that due to the rude behavior of the project manager, the junior developer
might leave his job and never return to the company (Bell, 2014). Moreover, as the changes are
not done in the software, the client might be dissatisfied with the work and would never involve
with any other projects. This is another non ethical issue in this case study.
Q4. Who is affected?
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
There are many people, who are affected in this case study of “Development
Methodology”. The first the most important person affected in this case study is the junior
software developer (Slade & Prinsloo, 2013). He has promised to make all the changes in the
software, without taking the permission from his senior. Thus, he has got a severe scolding from
his senior. Moreover, the project manager has talked with him rudely. This behavior has moved
the junior developer and he is extremely affected due to this. He might even leave the
organization after his scene. The second affected person in this case study is the company itself.
Personnel are assets for any company and if the junior developer will leave the organization for
the project manager, the company will face loss and they would be affected (Ford & Richardson,
2013). Furthermore, the organization is also losing its valuable time by giving extra time to the
project.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
Although there are some non ethical issues in the case study of “Development
Methodology”, few ethical issues are also present in here (Coghlan & Brannick, 2014). The first
ethical issue that this scenario has is that the client would be extremely happy with the end result.
The most important fact that any organization has is to satisfy their clients. When the client will
not be happy with the result or project, he would be dissatisfied and will never involve with any
other projects with the company. Thus, it is the core responsibility of the organization to fulfill
all the demands of their clients. The second ethical issue in this scenario is that the junior
developer is agreeing to the fact of changing as per client’s demands (Mintz, 2016). It is the duty
of the junior developer to fulfill all the demands of the client and he is absolutely ethical in this
case.
Q6. What can be done about it?
There are few ways to mitigate these issues. The first way is to ask for extra payment
from the client. Since, the changes were not mentioned in the requirement file, the client should
pay extra money for those changes. Without extra payment, changes should not be made (Bell,
2014). The second way for these issues, is to ask the junior developer for forwarding these types
of important calls to his senior and without his permission, no decision should be taken. The
third way for mitigating these issues is to ask for extra man power for the project. If the time
limit is restricted, the changes could be made with the help of extra man power.
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
Q7. What are the options?
The options in this scenario are as follows:
i) The project manager instructs the junior developer or software to forward these types
of calls to him directly for understanding what should be done.
ii) The second option is that the project manager screams at the program director for not
asking him and taking decision regarding changes (Mannay & Morgan, 2015).
iii) The third and the final option is that the program director encourages the ideology of
the developer and thus motivates the junior developer to proceed with his work.
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
The best option in this case study is the program director encouraging the software
developer (Gray, 2016). As, he has the energy and motive of working more and satisfy the client,
the developer can easily take this opportunity. Therefore, the best option in this scenario is the
program director motivating the junior software developer.
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 14 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.
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
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
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
HD: Language features and structures are used to convey meaning
effectively, concisely, unambiguously, and in a tone appropriate to the
Your Name

Development Methodology/Scenario 2
(Value
20%)
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
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