Q1. What's going on?
In this video, it can be seen that the project manager was speaking to CEO of a company. At that time the Project director get in the room. The Project Manager saw him, asked him to sit and then he started a discussion with him about the weather project (Anderson & Anderson, 2014). All of a sudden the Project Director looked tensed. The Project Manager asked him whether everything is all right, is he facing any issues with regards to weather project or not. The Project manager told him to deliver the software product without encryption as told by CEO company, he also added that delivering the software within a month would help them to take a contract of three million dollars. He told that the CEO of the company needed the software urgently and he agreed to deliver it, so he was under pressure as well as the company (Hayden, 2014). The Project Manager asked the Director to agree with him to deliver it as per the CEO’s wish. He also gave an opinion to work on the encryption later during updating the software. Thus the Project Director faced an ethical dilemma whether to deliver the software or ignore the opinion s made by the Project Manager.
Q2. What are the facts?
The Project Manager told the Project Director to deliver the software inside one month with no encryption. The Project Director was never willing to deliver with no encryption. According to the senior developer, it is absolutely necessary for encrypting the software to secure the project. There is every possibility of the software being getting hacked if not properly secured (Lunagariya et al., 2016). The Project Manager suggested to work on the encryption later during the update, however, within this time frame there is a potential chance of the software being getting hacked. It is great to get such a big project, but at the same time, it is quite hard to develop the project without encryption within a given stipulated time.
Q3. What are the issues?
The primary issue is that the project should be made secure from all kinds of malware attacks, for this reason, the software product should be encrypted. However, the Project Manager asked to submit it inside one month with no encryption, so this is the primary issue or concern with regards to the project (Sulzgruber et al., 2017). The Project Director being not satisfied with the suggestions made by the Project Manager strictly opposed although the Project director, as well as the company, could earn huge economic benefits from this project. The Project director knew that he and his team will be criticised heavily if the software got compromised (Scenario 3: Early Launch, 2017).
Q4. Who is affected?
From the above scenario, it can be concluded that the Project director would hold the responsibility for all the mishaps if the software got compromised. The Project Director took all the vital decisions with respect to the project (Lunagariya et al., 2016). Therefore, if he took the decision to submit the software without encryption, then he would make a compromise with the software product (Themistocleous, Smith & Wagner, 2014). The malware attack is definitely a big issue as it may lead to the disaster, the Project Manager, the Project Director and the whole development team would have to face severe criticism for that. Not only the Project Manager would be affected but also his entire team would be penalised for the mishaps caused due to the unencrypted project submission. The reputation of the company would also be hampered.
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
The ethical problems here depict some options with regards to the scenario, the Project director had left with three options to the given scenario (Lunagariya et al., 2016). The Project Director could agree with the Manager, could disagree with him, or even made him understood the possible risks of not encrypting (Auken, 2016). If the project is not encrypted, the safety will be compromised. Similarly, in this case, the customers’ safety would be compromised if their personal information got leaked by the intruders. This would have affected both the clients’ company as well as the developer company.
Q6. What could have been done about it?
The software must be developed using encryption, and for the Project director, it is his duty to deliver the software successfully without any faulty issues (Sulzgruber et al., 2017). If any software gets compromised there is a possibility that he can get sacked. Similarly, in this case, for this software, he should not have compromised with the quality and security of the software (Riaz, Bal, & Wise?Draper, 2016). Though there was a chance of getting sacked, he should remain stick to the decision of not delivering the product without encryption.
Q7. What are the options?
The Project Director has three options to choose from.
In the first option, the Project Director was seeming to be pressurised by the Project Manager and the Project director surrendered, he agreed to deliver it without encryption, though he decided to encrypt it later, it could happen that the public information got compromised (Auken, 2016).
In the second case he decided to disagree with the Project Manager and decided to stick to his own decision, in this scenario, the Manager would sack him and would replace him with a new Director (Walker, 2017).
The Project Director in the third video seemed to assure the Manager the potential risks and threats if the software got released without encryption (Sulzgruber et al., 2017). The Manager seemed to be convinced and called the CEO of the organisation that the software could not be released before the stipulated time.
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
The third alternate is the best amongst the three, the Project Director tries to convince the Manager and make him acknowledge the risks and threats of the unencrypted software and also the importance of the encryption. He successfully convinces the Project Manager to fulfil the company’s objective as well as the client company’s demand. This can certainly avoid the disaster (Auken, 2016).
Anderson, M., & Anderson, S. L. (2014, July). GenEth: A General Ethical Dilemma Analyzer. In AAAI (pp. 253-261).
Hayden, E. C. (2014). Ethical dilemma for Ebola trials. Nature, 515(7526), 177-8.
Lee, M. J., Maheshwari, A., & Clark, P. A. (2016). Ethical Dilemma for a Medical Resident: A Case Study Analysis.
Lunagariya, A., Patel, A., Grayson, J., & Heilman, K. (2016). Ethical Dilemma: A National Perspective on Utilization of Do-Not-Resuscitate Orders in Status Epilepticus (P1. 355). Neurology, 86(16 Supplement), P1-355.
Riaz, M. K., Bal, S., & Wise?Draper, T. (2016). The impending financial healthcare burden and ethical dilemma of systemic therapy in metastatic cancer. Journal of surgical oncology, 114(3), 323-328.
Scenario 3: Early Launch. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 2 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5M7ohdZ6qA
Sulzgruber, P., Sterz, F., Poppe, M., Schober, A., Lobmeyr, E., Datler, P., ... & Stratil, P. (2017). Age-specific prognostication after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest–The ethical dilemma between ‘life-sustaining treatment’and ‘the right to die’in the elderly. European Heart Journal: Acute Cardiovascular Care, 6(2), 112-120.
Themistocleous, C., Smith, A., & Wagner, C. (2014, May). The ethical dilemma of implicit vs explicit data collection: Examining the factors that influence the voluntary disclosure of information by consumers to commercial organizations. In Ethics in Science, Technology and Engineering, 2014 IEEE International Symposium on (pp. 1-6). IEEE.
Van Auken, S. (2016). Assessing the role of business faculty values and background in the recognition of an ethical dilemma. Journal of Education for Business, 91(4), 211-218.
Walker, R. M. (2017). Mandatory Reporting of Intimate Partner Violence: An Ethical Dilemma for Forensic Nurses. Journal of Forensic Nursing.