Case study overview:
The “Department of Communications, Information Technology and the Arts” or DCITA is a department of the Australian government which has been charged with the responsibility to communicate cultural affairs, programs and policies. However, various ethical dilemmas have been arising in the department. The ethical with the non-ethical issues with the major affected individuals and areas are discussed here. Lastly, implications of strategies with various remedies are identified and the best method from it is chosen to do away with the dilemmas.
Q1. What's going on?
The operational functions of DCITA according to the “Administrative Arrangements Order” have been:
- Their programs and policies have been for telecommunications and postal purposes.
- They have been possessing content policies related to information economy.
- DCITA also comprises of the “Spectrum policy management” as its operational function.
- It also has the policy issues at the national level related to digital economy.
- At first the estimate in the late nineties for the rehabilitation of the website of DCITA was six hundred thousand dollars.
- Now, the latest price has been over four million dollars.
Despite all these, the department has been suffering from various ethical dilemmas (McMaster et al., 2016).
Q2. What are the facts?
The facts regarding the happenings in the department have been:
- This department has been giving several excuses regarding expectations getting over-ambitious.
- The latest technologies of the content management were been understood in an immature manner.
- The opportunities for the projects were changing. No allowances were created to back up the present web site while the project was been under execution.
- Further, the tendering processes are having no allowances.
- Moreover, the department has not been acquiring enough skills to develop at the periphery of the process (Buchanan et al., 2016).
Q3. What are the issues?
- The ethical issues rising in DCITA are regarding its lack of:
- public Interest
- professional development
- The non-ethical issues that might create problem in DCITA are:
- The misusing of the company’s time
- Abusive behaviour among the members
- Various extortions from the employee’s sides
- Moreover, the lying to the employees (Buchanan et al., 2016).
Q4. Who is affected?
The major particulars affected due to the malpractices conducted by DCITA are the following:
- First of all the portfolio agencies has been suffering.
- The international organisations and industries are also getting harmed from that.
- It also includes the government stakeholders.
- Communities generating innovative advices have been facing various obstacles due to the issues arising at DCITA.
- Above all, the research institutions are highly affected by the problems (Smith, 2016).
Q5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
The ethical issues are discussed hereafter along with their implications.
- Endeavouring to sustain the security, integrity, utility and continuity:
The undertaking of the “information and communication technologies” has been done for public interests. Here, misleading of a client unknowingly is been noticed. This is done according to suitability of a particular service or product. There have been differentiations among the professional or personal advices and opinions. Estimates that are realistic in nature for the projects under control are not conducted. Qualifying of professional view points based on restricted experience or knowledge is not noticed (Andrade & Doolin, 2016). There should be endeavour to give services and products matching the financial and operational and requirements of the stakeholder.
- Misinterpretation of knowledge and skills:
Further, there has been misrepresenting of the knowledge and skills. The responsibility for work is not been accepted. When required, the respect and seeking the professional expertise in their region of competence are not done. For the professional Development continuation to upgrade the skills and knowledge are not performed. The awareness regarding professions and its relation with public has been reducing. Encouraging staffs, colleagues and the students for continuing their individual development in profession are absent (Caron et al., 2016). Supporting of education and training with professional development of information and communication technology is to be performed. It has been reflecting the wide requirements of professionals with different career paths.
- False pride in professionalism:
There has been pride in profession without protecting and promoting the professionalism. Besides this the trustworthiness in information and communication technology has decreased. For the professionalism refraining from any behaviour or action and reaction in professional role has to be undertaken. This should tarnish the overall role of the profession (Andrade & Doolin, 2016).
Q6. What could have been done about it?
The factors that could be undertaken about the issues are:
- The Australian Computer Society or ACS member must uphold and perform advancement of the dignity, honour and effectiveness of becoming professional.
- Additionally, to become a perfect citizen and act under the law, some values of ACS are needed to be considered.
- The interests and choices of public should be placed above the sectional, personal and business interests. The improvement of quality of the life should be contended for those affecting the work (Caron et al., 2016).
- There shall be honesty in representation of skills, knowledge, services and products. Work must be done competently for the stakeholders. It must be also and diligent.
- The individuals must focus on their professional development. Also the development of the colleagues and other staff should be considered.
- The integrity of Australian Computer Society must be enhanced.
- Respect should be developed for everyone (Vitak, Shilton & Ashktorab, 2016).
Q7. What are the options?
To resolve the issues the primary option should be providing
- Importance tothe interest of public.
- The improvement in the quality of the life should also be noticed.
- Maintaining honesty and competence must be done. The professional developments must be undertaken further.
- Lastly, the professionalism should be maintained properly (Raina & Roebuck, 2016).
Q8. Which option is the best and why?
In the situation where values have been conflicting, the “Primacy of the Public Interest” is the most important factor there. Its functionalities are as follows:
- The aim of “Code of Professional Conduct” has been focused particularly on the individual practitioner (Clarke, 2016).
- It is also intended as a guiding rule for acceptable and professional conduct.
- It can be applied to every member of the Australian Computer Society.
- It does not depend upon the role in the information and communication industry.
- It is also independent on any particular area of any expertise of the industry (Dastjerdi, 2016). In the context of section 1.2.1 of the ACS values dealing with the “The primacy of the public interest”, obstacles coming against public choices must be solved first.
- It should be given importance over private, sectional and personal interests. Then the, choices of recent stakeholders could be done in the tasks (Du Plessis, 2016).
- However, by implication of this, there should be no clash with it regarding the loyalty and duty for the public.
- The interests of public are considered in terms of their security, environment and health.
So it the best option to opt for in DCITA. Applying this, in the case of DCITA attempts could be taken to sustain the safety, utility, continuity and integrity of the information and communication technology.
Andrade, A. D., & Doolin, B. (2016). Information and communication technology and the social inclusion of refugees. Mis Quarterly, 40(2), 405-416.
Buchanan, J., Collard, L., Cumming, I., Palmer, D., Scott, K., & Hartley, J. (2016). Bulla djandanginy–Challenges and tensions. Cultural Science Journal, 9(1), 140-157.).
Caron, X., Bosua, R., Maynard, S. B., & Ahmad, A. (2016). The Internet of Things (IoT) and its impact on individual privacy: An Australian perspective. Computer Law & Security Review, 32(1), 4-15.
Clarke, R. (2016). Big data, big risks. Information Systems Journal, 26(1), 77-90.
Dastjerdi, N. B. (2016). Analyzing the opportunities and challenges to use of information and communication technology tools in teaching-learning process. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, 9(6).
Du Plessis, J. J. (2016). Corporate Governance, Corporate Responsibility and Law: Shareholder Primacy and Other Stakeholder Interests. Browser Download This Paper.
McMaster, T., Mumford, E., Swanson, E. B., Warboys, B., & Wastell, D. (Eds.). (2016). Facilitating technology transfer through partnership. Springer.
Raina, R., & Roebuck, D. B. (2016). Exploring cultural influence on managerial communication in relationship to job satisfaction, organizational commitment, and the employees’ propensity to leave in the insurance sector of India. International Journal of Business Communication, 53(1), 97-130.
Smith, R. F. I. (2016). Improving governance and services: can e-government help?. Chinese Public Administration Review, 3(3/4), 62-70.
Vitak, J., Shilton, K., & Ashktorab, Z. (2016). Beyond the belmont principles: Ethical challenges, practices, and beliefs in the online data research community. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (pp. 941-953). ACM.