Company Communicating With CEO Over Phone †Myassignmenthelp.Com

Questions: What's Going On? What Are The Facts? What Are The Issues(Non-Ethical)? Who Is Affected? What Are The Ethical Issues And Their Implications? What Can BeDone About It? What Are The Options? Which Option Is The Best And Why? Answers: 1.The scenario in the video shows the project manager of a company communicating with the CEO over phone. He ends the call after the communication is over and informs the tester of the project that the CEO is asking to launch the system live on Monday to which the tester Ken defers strongly. Ken informs that the system is not ready to go live on Monday, as it is not yet tested. However, the manager forces him to launch the system on the scheduled day to safeguard the reputation of the company ("The Un-Tested System/Scenario 4", 2017). 2.The main fact is that the CEO of a company wishes to launch a system on Monday that is not tested. The tester defers with the idea of launching a system live without testing as that may cause numerous problems but the manager forces the tester to comply in order to retain the reputation of the company. The company management overlooks the bigger picture in the heat of maintaining their reputation. They could not perceive the fact that if, after the system goes live and suffers a security breach, which harms the interest of the users, the company will not only lose its reputation but also will be liable to compensate the affected clients for their loss. This will affect the goodwill of the company in the global market much more than it would have if they launched a secure and well-tested system in a rescheduled date (Ford Richardson, 2013). 3.There are certain issues that have been identified in the scenario. First, it is ethically incorrect to provide a system deliberately that has not been tested and corrected. Second, it is wrong to force someone to do anything that is unethical. In the scenario, the manager forces the tester to launch the system without testing it and against the will of the tester, which can hurt the ethical values of the tester (Shaw Barry, 2015). 4.The situation affects the system tester the most. The tester Ken is in a moral dilemma as he believes that the launch of a system without testing it will surely cause lots of issues but launching the same despite knowing the result is crime. However, the pressure from the management to launch the system on Monday will force Ken to skip the testing phase. The launch of an un-tested system will also affect the users of the system gravely as they may run the risk of getting their system compromised by hackers. The company will be affected as well due to such an incident as the affected users will blame their predicament on the company responsible for the launch of the system without properly conducting test for vulnerabilities. This will seriously hamper the reputation of the company and may also cause financial loss to compensate the damage caused to the users due to their system (Hartman, DesJardins MacDonald, 2014) . 5.Launching a system live without conducting sufficient tests for errors and bugs can create grave problems. The security of the system may not be strong enough to protect the system from sophisticated cyber-attack. This may lead to serious security issues and if the system is breached it may compromise the privacy and sensitive information of a lot of users. Such a breach will not only cause potential damage to the users but also harm the reputation of the company responsible for such an incident (Thiel et al., 2012). 6.The best approach in this scenario will be to delay the launching of the system and provide sufficient time to the system tester to test the system. This will allow the tester to find out any bugs and errors that may make the system vulnerable to hacker attacks and make necessary modifications to remove those errors. In this way, a complete and secure system can be delivered which will earn better appraisal for the company(Thiel et al., 2012). 7.There are three options available, which will have three different effects on the scenario. The first situation shows that the system tester surrenders at the face of the pressure from the management and agrees to launch the system live on Monday without conducting any test on the system. The system goes live on the scheduled day and the management is impressed that they managed to achieve their objective. However, as foreseen by the tester the system faces a major security breach within a few days of launch, which compromises a lot of users. The company responsible for the launch of the system loses reputation and in turn the company blames the tester for not testing the system properly before launching it live("Ken lets the system go live", 2017). The second condition sees the resignation of the tester from his job as he could not accept the unethical demand of the management and saw it fit to leave the job rather than agreeing to do such a crime. The tester loses his job and the company launches the system eventually without testing and faces the same problems as in the first situation but now the company could not blame the incident on the tester and the tester even after losing his job stays clear to his conscience("Ken resigns", 2017). In the last option, the tester decides to strongly oppose the decision of the management. He calls the manager over phone who happen to discuss the situation with the CEO of the company at that moment. Ken talks with both the manager and the CEO and explains them clearly the implications of launching the system without testing properly. He also explains them the consequences the company will face if a security breach occurs in the system and compromises the users. The CEO understands the gravity of the situation and asks the tester for suggestion. The tester suggests that he needs a month more before he can complete the test on the system and deliver a secure product. The CEO complies with the suggestion of the tester and reschedules the launch of the system a month later. The tester tests the system and delivers a secure and efficient system a month later and the company launches the system on the rescheduled date. The system launch achieves success and the companys reputation is im proved("Ken fights back", 2017). 8.Analysing and assessing the three different scenarios it can be concluded that the best option is the last one where the tester fights back the decision of the management and explains them the implications of launching the system without conducting proper test. The management understands that their decision will harm the organisation more than it will do good to it. Therefore, they agree to the suggestion of the tester and reschedule the date of the system launch a month later. The tester successfully completes the testing of the system and removes any vulnerability found in the system. He delivers a secure and effective system in the allotted time and the company launches the system on the rescheduled date. The system launches successfully and does not face any system breach. This action although delays the launch of the system but safeguards the reputation of the company, which would have been seriously affected if the management had executed their primary plan("Ken fights back", 2017). References A dilemma in IT: Select action end of video and see its consequence. (2017).YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mugeCY3vbxo Ford, R. C., Richardson, W. D. (2013). Ethical decision making: A review of the empirical literature. In Citation classics from the Journal of Business Ethics (pp. 19-44). Springer Netherlands. Shaw, W. H., Barry, V. (2015). Moral issues in business. Cengage Learning. Hartman, L. P., DesJardins, J. R., MacDonald, C. (2014). Business ethics: Decision making for personal integrity and social responsibility. New York: McGraw-Hill. Thiel, C. E., Bagdasarov, Z., Harkrider, L., Johnson, J. F., Mumford, M. D. (2012). Leader ethical decision-making in organizations: Strategies for sensemaking. Journal of Business Ethics, 107(1), 49-64. Ken lets the system go live. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_1420045589feature=ivsrc_vid=mugeCY3vbxov=MVpQ7OwPmK0 Ken resigns. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2580214863feature=ivsrc_vid=mugeCY3vbxov=TxHeH86HVeY Ken fights back. (2017). YouTube. Retrieved 9 August 2017, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?annotation_id=annotation_2359500709feature=ivsrc_vid=mugeCY3vbxov=EhkoGQNuC