1. What is going on?
The scenario explains that the organisation for which a system is being developed raised a request to the software farm in order to get their software/system one month prior to the date of delivery that was scheduled earlier ("Scenario 3: Early Launch", 2017). Therefore, after receiving such escalation from the client, CEO of the Software developing farm contacted their Program Director who is responsible for assigning and handling the projects, asking him to make the project ready to deliver even if it lacks some important modules. This is because to deliver the project one month earlier than the original date of delivery. Then the program director called the project manager and explained this thing. However, He is not willing to deliver the incomplete project as it lacks some important features.
2. What are the facts?
The development of the project is going on. Most of the important modules are already developed. However, the encryption system is not yet ready. It will take time to develop and will be ready before the final date of delivery (Babar & Lescher, 2014). Therefore, delivering the project one month prior is very less time for the development of the encryption methodology. If they deliver the project one month prior to the date of delivery, they will get upcoming projects from the respective organisation that worth in millions. It will be huge beneficial for the software farm to increase their turnover. It is also possible to provide with a software update or patch to install the encryption method after a few weeks of the delivery of the system.
3. What are the issues?
Although, the idea of providing a software patch with the encryption module sounds good, however it is against the ethics of a developer to provide a system that lacks hugely in the field of security (Blau, 2014). The project manager who is handling the whole team of developers, who are working on the project, clearly warns the program director regarding delivery of an unsecure system. The program director who is the officer in charge for the handling the projects stuck in between the CEO of the software farm wanting to deliver as early as possible and on the other hand, the project manager who is not willing to compromise with the security of the system. Apart from that developing, a separate patch update will also increase the workload on the project.
4. Who is affected?
The escalation raised by the respective organisation for the early delivery of the software directly affected the project manager handling the project. It is his responsibility to deal with every aspect of the project. In addition, maintaining the system with providing support for it (Moe et al., 2015). The timeline that was scheduled for the development of the project has to be compromised for the purpose of early delivery and it will also affect other projects that the project manager is handling. The developers have to invest more time for the purpose to integrate all the modules soon and for developing a software update for future for the encryption method (Vasantrao & Desai, 2015). On the other hand, the CEO of the organisation is also in dilemma regarding the delivery of the project because of which the organisation may also lose its business from the particular client.
5. What are the ethical issues and their implications?
The project manager could not compromise with the security of the project. Without encryption if they provide the client a system, lacking in security it is more dangerous than anything can ever happen. The concept of providing security update for the system later on is not acceptable ethically (Tavani, 2015). Providing the client an unencrypted system means it will easily reveal all the information even if it is a minor threat. This will be a huge threat for the confidentiality of the information. In addition, if any criminal activity take place, that will harm the image of the software farm. Therefore, it is not ethically right to go with the concept of providing an unreliable system with taking a huge risk that might destroy the trust of other clients too.
6. What could have been done about it?
The client is asking for the system to be delivered prior to one month and as of the schedule of the project, it is not possible for the project manager to complete the total project with the current team of developers (Shah, Harrold & Sinha, 2014). It is clear that the system cannot be delivered without the encryption method installed. Therefore, to speed up the project development the organisation will require hiring more software developers. The more priority is to be given to that project and with a multiple times of workforce, the duration of the project can be reduced. Even if it requires a few days more to integrate the system, the CEO of the organisation should discuss the matter with the respective client.
7. What are the options?
There are only a few options left to deal with the condition. Those are:
- The project manager is required to include more workforces to speed up the completion of the project.
- They agree with the CEO’s idea of delivering the system without providing encryption module in the system and providing a system update later on for adding the encryption module.
- The organisation is required to change the project manager who will be able to take risks and work under pressure to meet the currently assigned deadline or to complete the project as soon as possible.
8. Which option is the best and why?
Among the options mentioned above the first option is the best way to deal with the situation. In this option the project manager, take up the challenge to complete the project as early as possible to meet the new deadline provided by the client. It will require hiring more developers, to speed up the development of the project (Rashid et al., 2015). On the other hand, the project that will be delivered will include security feature and will maintain the confidentiality of the data. Unlike the suggestion given where the project was requiring taking shortcuts to maintain the new time limit, there will be no compromise with the security for the same. If the organisation succeeds to provide a reliable system even if, it takes some more time and requires discussion about the earliest time for delivery. It will be the best way in this scenario.
References:
Babar, M. A., & Lescher, C. (2014). Global software engineering: Identifying challenges is important and providing solutions is even better. Information and Software Technology, 56(1), 1-5.
Blau, T. H. (2014). Psychotherapy Tradecraft: The Technique and Style of Doing: the Technique & Style of Doing Therapy. Routledge.
Moe, N. B., Cruzes, D., Dybå, T., & Mikkelsen, E. (2015, July). Continuous software testing in a globally distributed project. In Global Software Engineering (ICGSE), 2015 IEEE 10th International Conference on (pp. 130-134). IEEE.
Rashid, A., Moore, K., May-Chahal, C., & Chitchyan, R. (2015, May). Managing emergent ethical concerns for software engineering in society. In Software Engineering (ICSE), 2015 IEEE/ACM 37th IEEE International Conference on (Vol. 2, pp. 523-526). IEEE.
Scenario 3: Early Launch. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 5 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v5M7ohdZ6qA
Shah, H., Harrold, M. J., & Sinha, S. (2014). Global software testing under deadline pressure: Vendor-side experiences. Information and Software Technology, 56(1), 6-19.
Tavani, H. T. (2015). Levels of Trust in the Context of Machine Ethics. Philosophy & Technology, 28(1), 75-90.
Vasantrao, K. V., & Desai, C. G. (2015, March). Uncertainty is not dilemma in software project development process. In Electrical, Computer and Communication Technologies (ICECCT), 2015 IEEE International Conference on (pp. 1-7). IEEE.
