7101ICT Professional Issues: In-Depth Ethical Case Study Analysis

This case study examines the ethical dilemmas faced by Luke Jackson, a test analyst, focusing on a performance review of incompetent analysts and the subsequent repercussions. It utilizes David Tuffley's ethical decision model to analyze legal, professional, employment, social, personal, and intrinsic factors influencing Luke's decisions. The analysis prioritizes these factors, leading to a decision-making process that emphasizes public interest and legal considerations. The study reveals issues such as favoritism, damage to reputation, character assassination, and breaches of the ACS Code of Professional Conduct. Ultimately, it highlights the importance of ethical conduct, professional development, and responsible decision-making in the IT profession, emphasizing the need for organizations to equip employees with the knowledge to handle ethical challenges and ensure fair employment practices. The reflection section covers technology ethics, the role of the ethical technologist, habits of effective technologists, the ACS Code, ethical issues in the information age, and the implications of AI.

Student Name
Student No.
7101ICT
Trimester n, 201n
Professional Issues Assignment: Part 2

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Analysis 4
2.1. Legal factors...............................................................................4
2.1.1. Factor 1 – Favouritism..........................................................4
2.1.2. Factor 2 – Damage of reputation.........................................4
2.1.3. Factor 3 - Character assassination......................................4
2.2. Professional factors....................................................................5
2.2.1. Factor 1 – Competence........................................................5
2.2.2. Factor 2 - Professional Development...................................5
2.2.3. Factor 3 – Resigning without Explanation............................5
2.2.4. Factor 4 – Judgemental Opinions........................................5
2.2.5. Factor 5 – Missing the Project deadline...............................5
2.2.6. Factor 6 - Preservation of Reputation..................................5
2.2.7. Factor 7 - Competence of an ethical technologist................5
2.2.8. Factor 8 – Pressure Management........................................5
2.2.9. Factor 9 - Late Delivery........................................................6
2.2.10. Factor 10 – Personal Interest.............................................6
2.3. Employment and Social factors..................................................6
2.3.1. Factor 1 - Dismissal without notice......................................6
2.3.2. Factor 2 - Negligence in employment..................................6
2.3.3. Factor 3 - Favour reciprocation............................................6
2.3.4. Factor 4 - Raising issues and concerns...............................6
2.3.5. Factor 5 – Setup...................................................................6
2.3.6. Factor 6 – Employment of immigrants.................................7
2.3.7. Factor 7- Performance Review.............................................7
2.3.8. Factor 8 - Passive tolerance of evil through inaction...........7
2.3.9. Factor 9 - Lack of Communication.......................................7
2.4. Personal factors..........................................................................7
2.4.1. Factor 1 - Retaliation............................................................7
2.4.2. Factor 2 – Dehumanisation..................................................7
2.5. Intrinsic factors............................................................................8
2.5.1. Factor 1 - Experience...........................................................8
2.6. Prioritisation................................................................................8
2.7. Decision....................................................................................10
3. Discussion 11
4. Conclusions on Analysis 11
5. What I have learned from this course 12
5.1. Technology Ethics....................................................................15
5.2. The Ethical Technologist..........................................................15
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 1

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
5.3. Habits of the Effective Technologist.........................................16
5.4. ACS Code of Professional Conduct.........................................16
5.5. Ethical Issues of the Information Age.......................................16
5.6. Thinking Machines....................................................................17
5.7. The Common Denominator......................................................18
5.8. AI and Human Potential............................................................18
6. References 19
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 2

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
1. Introduction
This written case study presents an Ethical decision model as explained by
David Tuffley (2012) to illustrate the turn of events in Luke Jackson’s career.
Luke Jackson is a well-respected test analyst who works with a team of two
incompetent analysts that were employed by his manager, Bernard Spillsbury
who later resigns.
This presented report analyses the ethical based decision making process
that Luke undertook to conduct a performance review to legitimize the
dismissal of the two useless analysts. He refuses to withdraw the performance
review when he was asked by the manager, Bernard who hired the
incompetent analysts.
The refusal of the withdrawal of the performance review leads to a turn of
events when the project was immediately suspended and an internal audit
was conducted to investigate the project scope. These turn of events leads to
the two analysts unemployed but more to Luke when he realise it was a set
up to damaged his reputation and job altogether.
The core focus of these findings are the unethical determination of Bernard to
punish Luke when his interview with a promising job was cancel without
explanation after six months of unemployment only to realize that his ex-
manager was into shady dealings with the HR.
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 3

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
2. Analysis
2.1. Legal factors
2.1.1. Factor 1 – Favouritism
Bernard employs one of the analyst because he was employee of the vendor
that supplied the ERP system. Bernard is in breach of U.S code & 3110 of
Employment, “a member, in whom is vested the authority by law, or to whom
the authority has been delegated, to appoint individuals for appointment,
employment, promotion…” (Gpo.gov, 2018).
2.1.2. Factor 2 – Damage of reputation
Luke releases that he had been set up to fail and out of job with a damaged
reputation. Bernard is in breach of the Australian Government legal obligation
of, “...not acting in a way that may seriously damage an employee's reputation
or cause mental distress or humiliation” (Business.gov.au, 2017).
2.1.3. Factor 3 - Character assassination
Bernard is determined to destroy Luke reputation by setting up a plan for the
suspension of the project and plotting it to fail which leads to losing of his job.
Thus in breach of, “…an attack intended to ruin someone's reputation
assassination, defamation…” (Laws-lois.justice.gc.ca, 2018).
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 4

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
2.2. Professional factors
2.2.1. Factor 1 – Competence
The two analysts were actually competent to perform the work and difficulty
comprehending the requirements and functional specifications. The analysts
broke the ACS Code of Professional Conduct that states “…You will work
competently and diligently for your stakeholders” (ACS, 2014).
2.2.2. Factor 2 - Professional Development
Luke had put the two analysts through training to get them up to speed hence
could not advance their capabilities and take on assigned responsibilities.
2.2.3. Factor 3 – Resigning without Explanation
Bernard, the manager of Luke suddenly resigns without explanation or notice
in the middle of a project scope.
2.2.4. Factor 4 – Judgemental Opinions
In Luke’s his own opinion, he considered the incompetent analyst as highly
unprofessional.
2.2.5. Factor 5 – Missing the Project deadline
After the project suspension, the project scope crept in and delivery of the
project by the required date was impossible.
2.2.6. Factor 6 - Preservation of Reputation
Bernard said he might want to re-hire the analyst for future projects and did not want
the analyst’s reputation to be damaged.
2.2.7. Factor 7 - Competence of an ethical technologist
There had been some problems with the new system and the team had the task of
tracking this and other problems down and fixing them.
2.2.8. Factor 8 – Pressure Management
Luke found himself under increasing pressure from senior management to get
back on schedule.
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 5

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
2.2.9. Factor 9 - Late Delivery
Late delivery of project to the end user is a sign of unprofessionalism which is
against the ACS Code of Professionalism Conduct.
2.2.10. Factor 10 – Personal Interest
Luke decided to conduct an immediate performance review of the analyst in order to
legitimise his dismissal instead of considering the interest of the other analysts.
2.3. Employment and Social factors
2.3.1. Factor 1 - Dismissal without notice
Both Luke and the other two analysts were let go and another team was brought in.
The whole process of dismissal of employees was done without a formal written
notice of dismissal.
2.3.2. Factor 2 - Negligence in employment
After Luke had done a previous testing experience, he found that one of the
analysts had only two years of experience while the other had only one year
of experience hence negligence in the duty of the hiring personnel.
2.3.3. Factor 3 - Favour reciprocation
Bernard had been calling favour with the HR that resulted to the cancellation
of the interview in retaliation for firing of his analyst.
2.3.4. Factor 4 - Raising issues and concerns
Luke did not report the issue to the management when he was asked by Bernard to
withdraw the request for a performance review.
2.3.5. Factor 5 – Setup
Luke realised he had been set up to fail and found himself out of a job with a
damaged reputation.
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 6

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
2.3.6. Factor 6 – Employment of immigrants
The immigrant had only one years’ relevant experience hence background
check-up in consideration for the employment of immigrants.
2.3.7. Factor 7- Performance Review
Luke decided to conduct a performance review of the analyst to evaluate their
performance.
2.3.8. Factor 8 - Passive tolerance of evil through
inaction
Luke realises that Bernard has set up his miseries in two situations but does
not take any action.
2.3.9. Factor 9 - Lack of Communication
On the morning of the interview, the meeting was cancelled, no explanation
given.
2.4. Personal factors
2.4.1. Factor 1 - Retaliation
Bernard does all in his power to revenge the actions of Luke. He is
determined to go to great lengths to get his way and punish those who stood
in his way.
2.4.2. Factor 2 – Dehumanisation
Bernard was into some shady dealings and was prepared to go to great
lengths to get his way and punish those who stood in his way.
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 7

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
2.5. Intrinsic factors
2.5.1. Factor 1 - Experience
Luke Jackson was employed to be the project lead of the ERP system
because he was experienced in test analysis.
2.6. Prioritisation
Priority Factor Area Related Issue
1. Legal Favouritism Bernard employs an analyst on
loan from the ERP vendor
2. Legal Damage of
reputation
Luke found himself out of a job
with a damaged reputation.
3. Legal Character
assassination
Luke has his reputation
damaged.
4. Professional Competence The two analysts were not
competent to perform the work.
5. Professional Professional
Development
Luke had put the analysts
through training.
6. Professional Resigning without
explanation
Bernard without explanation
resigned
7. Professional Judgemental
Opinions
The analyst became
belligerent in Luke’s opinion
8. Professional Missing the Project
deadline
Delivery by the required date
would be impossible
9. Professional Preservation of
Reputation
Bernard did not want the
analyst’s reputation to be
damaged.
10. Professional Competence of an
ethical technologist
There had been some
problems with the new system.
11. Professional Pressure
management
Luke had increasing pressure
from senior management.
12. Professional Late Delivery Late delivery of project to the
end user
13. Professional Personal Interest Luke conducted performance
review to legitimise his
dismissal
14. Employment Negligence in The two analysts had few
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 8

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
employment years of experience.
15. Employment Dismissal without
notice
The two test analysts were
also let go.
16. Employment Raising issues and
concerns
Luke did not report the issues
to the management.
17. Employment Employment of
immigrants
The immigrant had only one
years’ relevant experience.
18. Employment Performance Review Luke conducted a performance
review of the analyst
19. Employment Lack of
Communication
The interview was cancelled,
no explanation given.
20. Social Favour reciprocation Bernard calling in a favour with
his mate in HR.
21. Social Setup Luke realised he had been set
up to fail.
22. Social Passive tolerance of
evil through inaction
Luke realises does not take
any action of the set-ups.
23. Personal Retaliation Bernard calling in favour in
retaliation for the firing of his
analyst.
24. Personal Dehumanisation Bernard was into dealings to
punish his nemesis.
25. Intrinsic Experience Luke Jackson, an experienced
and well-respected test analyst
Table 1: Priority List
2.7. Decision
The decision must be done in consideration of the interest of the public first
before any other interests. The legal factors usually take precision over other
factors in order of consequential significance. Favouritism has preceded the
other legal factors mainly because Bernard has not only employed
incompetent personnel. The organization took a decision of suspending him
but should take further actions of ensuring that he does not influence other
business action. Organizations should therefore take a responsibility to equip
their employees with knowledge to both handle character assassination and
report such cases to the relevant legal officials. Firms should design
appropriate measures to train its employees.
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 9

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
Appropriate measures should be laid to safeguard the interest of the
organization through passage of knowledge from the predecessor to the
successor of the responsibilities. The management should question the
decision and prior to that make a combined managerial decision.
A clear and well defined guidelines in the employment procedural process
should be outlined. Employees have a right to proper dismissal, therefore, the
Human resource department should set terms and conditions in their
employment contract which should include reasons for immediate suspension
of contract and serving of notice whenever such a case occurs.
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 10

Professional Issues Assignment What I have learned from this course
3. Discussion
The favouritism vice of Bernard led to the unfortunate turn of Luke’s career.
His unprofessional behaviour that resulted into the employment of the
incompetent analysts is the root cause of his own suspension, Luke and his
team’s suspension and the project missing the deadline.
The organization was having loopholes in its employee’s management
process and procedures. It lacks proper mechanism of ensuring that
competent personnel are contracted without favouritism, nepotism or as a
result of influence of its employees and operations. The management must
lay in place clear and well defined procedures of dismissal of its employees.
Combination of several factors has made Bernard involve himself in shady
dealings and was prepared to go to great lengths to get his way and punish
those who stood in his way irrespective of the time difference. The act of
retaliation makes him jeopardize the employment of an experience and a well-
respected analyst through favour reciprocation of his network and mates.
4. Conclusions on Analysis
The Ethical Decision Model is a vital tool in analysing and evaluating ethical
dilemma by presenting the factors that affect a certain scenario and providing
necessary prioritisation mechanism. It provides ways of evaluating the
presented facts and identifying weakness in the given context clearly. It does
not neglect one party in favour of another but rather, it provides rectification
procedures to enhance the efficiency and workability of integrated current
systems.
7101ICT Professional Practice IT – Semester 1 2018 Page 11