Charles Sturt University: Ethics Assignment - Scenario 2 Analysis

This assignment analyzes an ethical scenario presented in a video (Scenario 2: Development Methodology) using the Doing Ethics technique. The scenario involves a junior developer accepting client requests for software changes without consulting the project manager. The analysis identifies the facts, non-ethical and ethical issues, affected stakeholders (client, project manager, organization, and junior developer), and the implications of the junior developer's actions. The assignment applies deontological and utilitarian ethics theories to evaluate the ethicality of the junior developer's actions, concluding that the actions were unethical because they violated the organizational communication process. The assignment suggests potential solutions, including the project manager addressing the junior developer's mistake and consulting with the project director and client before making changes. The best option is to minimize the negative consequences of the unethical actions while maintaining relationships.

Running head: SCENARIO 2: DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY 0
SCHOOL OF COMPUTING AND MATHS, CHARLES STURT UNIVERSITY
Topics in Information
Technology Ethics
Assignment 1: Doing Ethics Technique
Your Name
Student Number
Word Count:

SCENARIO 2: DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY 1
Q1. What is going on?
This paper will evaluate the ethical issues provided in Video 2 (Scenario 2:
Development methodology) (Al-Saggaf, 2016) by using Doing ethics technique (DET). The
Doing ethics technique assists in evaluating ethical and unethical issues in a specific scenario
by giving answers to simple questions which are relating to the scenario (Franck, 2017). In
this video, a junior developer receives calls directly from the client. The client requested on
the call regarding making new changes to the software. The junior manager confirms the
client that the company will make such changes in order to make him happy. The junior
developer also confirms that the software will be delivered by the corporation within the set
deadline after making new changes.
Q2. What are the facts?
 The client directly calls the junior developer in order to suggest some new changes to
the software.
 The junior developer confirms such changes to the client without consulting or taking
permission from the project manager.
 The junior developer also confirms to the client that the company will make such
changes to the software and deliver with within the set deadline.
Q3. What are the issues (non-ethical)?
 The key issue in the case is that the junior developer approves new changes requested
by the client without consulting them with the project manager.
 It is unethical that the junior manager overrode the organisational hierarchy without
confirming with the project manager.
 The project manager violated the communication process by directly dealing with the
client regarding changes made to the contract. He acts over his authority by accepting
the changes requested by the client without forwarding them to the client.
Q4. Who is affected?
The stakeholders in this scenario include the client, project manager, organisation, and
junior developer. In case the company is unable to deliver the software with requested

SCENARIO 2: DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY 2
changes, the client will be dissatisfied with the company and might face negative
consequences if the software is not delivered on time. The reputation of the software
developing company will also be negatively affected if they are unable to deliver the software
with new changes within the deadline. The project manager will be held responsible if the
company is not able to deliver the software with new changes within the deadline and without
increasing the budget. The junior developer can lose his job because of breaking the
communication chain and overridden his positive hierarchy.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
The Deontological ethics theory assesses the morality of a situation or scenario by
evaluating the rightness of actions rather than morality of their consequences (Mehri &
Dirbaz, 2010). The Utilitarianism ethics theory assesses the morality of a situation by
evaluating its consequences rather than actions (Vessel, 2010). In this scenario, the junior
developer breaks the organisational communication process in order to make the client
happy. The consequence of his action might be fruitful for the company, but his actions were
unethical since he overrides the organisational hierarchy. Therefore, based on the principles
of deontological ethics theory, actions of the junior manager are unethical (Bisel,
Messersmith & Kelley, 2012). The negative implications of actions can affect different
stakeholders such as client, software developing company, project manager and junior
developer himself. The project manager and junior developer can lose their jobs, and the
software developing company can lose its market reputation and clients. The client will also
suffer if the company is not able to deliver the software on time.
Q6. What can be done about it?
In this scenario, the project manager can make junior developer realise his mistake,
and he can make sure that in the future he forward such calls to the project manager. It is
necessary that the project manager take this matter to the project director and discuss the
issue with him. The project manager can also contact the client to understand why new
changes have been requested and do such changes require modifications in the service
contract. The project manager is also required to ensure that such changes did not increase the
overall budget and deadline for the project.

SCENARIO 2: DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY 3
Q7. What are the options?
1. The project manager can scream and curse at the junior developer for not complying
with the organisational communication process and for overriding position hierarchy.
It can discourage junior developer, and he might quit his job.
2. The project manager can ensure that the junior manager understands his mistake, and
he understands his position in the organisational hierarchy. He can request the
developer to deliver such calls to him in the future. He also requires consulting with
the project director and the client for making new changes to the software.
3. The project manager can take no actions against the junior developer and encourage
his actions in order to make the client happy. It can result in increasing overall budget
for the software and company might not be able to deliver it within the deadline.
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
The second option is the best because in this option the implications of unethical
actions taken by the junior developer are minimised. In this option, the junior manager
realises his mistake and understand the provision of hierarchy and communication chain. The
project manager should consult with project director before dealing with the client to ensure
that implementing such changes will not increase overall budget and deadline. However, the
consequences of this option might result in stopping the software development process, and it
might require changes in the service contract. Although in this option, the relationship
between the client and the corporation is maintained along with the relationship between
junior developer and project manager.

SCENARIO 2: DEVELOPMENT METHODOLOGY 4
References
Al-Saggaf, Y. (2016, October 31). Scenario 2: Development Methodology. [Video File].
Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0npm9cEJBWY
Bisel, R. S., Messersmith, A. S., & Kelley, K. M. (2012). Supervisor-subordinate
communication: Hierarchical mum effect meets organizational learning. The Journal
of Business Communication (1973), 49(2), 128-147.
Franck, O. (2017). Varieties of conceptions of ethical competence and the search for
strategies for assessment in ethics education: A critical analysis. In Assessment in
Ethics Education (pp. 13-50). Springer, Cham.
Mehri, H., & Dirbaz, A. (2010). The Relation between Theory of Justice of John Rawls by
Kant's Ethics and Hegel's philosophy of Right. Comparative Theology, 1(4), 53-72.
Vessel, J. P. (2010). Supererogation for utilitarianism. American Philosophical
Quarterly, 47(4), 299-319.