Ethics and Professionalism Case Study: Programmer's Dilemma

This case study examines the ethical dilemma faced by John, a statistical database programmer, who incorporates code from a co-worker and a commercial software package into his own program without attribution. The analysis highlights violations of the ACS Code of Ethics, specifically concerning honesty, professional development, and professionalism. John's actions contravene principles related to misrepresentation of skills and respecting proprietary information. The study applies the Thomas White methodology to analyze the situation and recommends that John should have acknowledged the source of the code, sought permission if necessary, and adhered to the ACS Code of Professional Conduct. The case underscores the importance of ethical behavior, intellectual property rights, and professional integrity in the field of programming. The analysis provides references to relevant literature on ethics in ICT and software development.

Running head: ETHICS PROFESSIONALISM AND GOVERNANCE
ETHICS PROFESSIONALISM AND GOVERNANCE
Name of the Student
Name of the University
Author Note

ETHICS PROFESSIONALISM AND GOVERNANCE 1
Introduction:
John, who is a programmer of statistical database, is trying to create a huge statistical
code that is required by his company. All of the programmers of his organization have been
encouraged for creating the own code of them as well as they have to publish the algorithms
of them in the professional journals.
The Thomas white methodology:
After giving, a lot of efforts on the program for months John found that he could not
be able to complete the code by himself. However, John remembered that one of his co
workers has given him the source of other company that says how to solve the code. As the
manager of the organization wants that the program need to be finished within the next few
days. John realises that the segments of the code of that company can be used in his own
program. As he thought, he implemented this process in his program but without telling
anything to anyone.
ACS Code of ethics:
The above scenario violates three aspects considering the ACS code of ethics out of its six
principles.
The first principle to be violated is Honesty. This principle makes the worker to be
honest throughout the course of his/her work regarding “the representation of skills,
knowledge, services and products”. In the above case, Jon not only claimed someone else’s
work to be his own but also did not informed any of the officials of higher authority about
this mess that he made. He copied a segment of other’s work and used it for his personal
benefits.

2ETHICS PROFESSIONALISM AND GOVERNANCE
The second principle that was violated in the ACS code of ethics is regarding the
statement of Professional development that states that a worker is expected to enhance his
own work along with his/her colleagues. The unethical task that Jon performed by copying
other’s work not only did put his work under legal threats but also brings down the reputation
of his colleagues’ work resulting in the overall bringing down of the organisation’s reputation
and honour. Such unethical work results the entire group of employees to be blamed for one’s
irresponsible work. This casual approach from Jon can result to his termination along with
any other employees who helped him, willingly or unwillingly.
The third principle that was violated of the code of ethics is regarding the statement
made for professionalism. The principle states that an employee is bound to enhance the
“integration of the society and respect for its members for each other”. The casual and
irresponsible behaviour from Jon not only disrespected the work but also did the same
towards the employee whose work Jon copied and claimed to be his own creation. The trust
between the sections of employees is hampered and an unnecessary doubtfulness is created
among the workers of different organisation.
ACS code of professional conduct:
Under the 4.3 section in the code of ethics, it is said within 4.3.3 that the employee
will always be honest in the representation of skills of him”. The principles of 4.7.2 discuss
about “not misrepresenting skill of someone” and the section of 4.7.6 is all about “giving the
credits to the others that are due” both of these John have been violated. Not giving the credit
to the commercial software and the co workers of him, which was protected or copyrighted
by law, the professional ethics has been violated by John. In addition, John has violated the
principles of 4.6.4 that is about to respect the proprietary nature of information of some other

3ETHICS PROFESSIONALISM AND GOVERNANCE
person. John had to check that if his organisation gave him permission for utilizing the source
code.
Australian legalization:
The major act needs the NQBQ integrated IT for taking the steps that are responsible
for protecting the sensitive information. If John had sought, merely the source programs for
taking the ideas and after that, he written his own program completely as well as he would
have acknowledged the co workers of him in the part of documentation. The judgements are
obviously called for if the contribution that is intellectual and that is from the other co
workers had a nature that is trivial then there should not require for acknowledging that.

4ETHICS PROFESSIONALISM AND GOVERNANCE
References:
Al-Saggaf, Y., Burmeister, O.K. and Schwartz, M., 2017. Qualifications and ethics
education: the views of ICT professionals. Australasian Journal of Information Systems, 21.
Burmeister, O.K., 2013. Achieving the goal of a global computing code of ethics through an
international-localisation hybrid. Ethical Space, 10(4), pp.25-32.
Kovac, J., 2015. Ethics in science: The unique consequences of chemistry. Accountability in
research, 22(6), pp.312-329.
McDermid, D., 2015. Ethics in ICT: an Australian perspective. Pearson Higher Education
AU.
Namm, J.P., Siegler, M., Brander, C., Kim, T.Y., Lowe, C. and Angelos, P., 2014. History
and evolution of surgical ethics: John Gregory to the twenty-first century. World journal of
surgery, 38(7), pp.1568-1573.