Identified Ethical Breaches

This project undertakes a deep delved research in order to identify and analyse the ethical breaches in the course of the proceedings described in the case study. Identifying the potential ethical breaches, this report focuses at analysing the possible consequences that could have followed these unethical footsteps. The next part of the report is based on the research conducted to identify the articles from the code of ethics of the Project Management Institute. This report also makes possible recommendations regarding how Wayne and Deborah, the persons mostly concerned for this unethical practice as described in the case study should have actually acted in order to align their activities with business ethics.

Identification of the Ethical Issues 

The first ethical issue identified from the case study is the “low balling” by means of which the company sanctioned the order. By doing this they took potential business risk that could affect the major stakeholders of the company including the business shareholders and the employees who are engaged in lifetime employment in the company. Underfunding and understaffing are other ethical issues of the case study. The company received the order for this prototype is provided by the government and the outcome of this project is significant towards the air traffic control system. Hence the prototype should be technically bug-less. Glitches in programming might have led to big hazards. However the major ethical issue have been the non-adhering to the exact outcomes of the simulation test which identified that the software of the prototype failed to track few of the aircrafts when many of them were on the radar of the system (McFarland, 2018). The collision avoidance signal could not be sent because few crafts would simply disappear. In this context, Deborah Shepherd planned that since the government deadline for the submission of the prototype in full working condition was in three days, they would submit the software with the bug. Later the government might want some change in designs, and by the time allocated to make the change, Wayne and team would fix the bug. This is a big ethical issue. 

If the government had not requested for any changes and adapted the software (testing in a small airport would not have identified the bug), some havoc dangers would be impending. Moreover, in case if anything such happened, the company would be blacklisted and not only employees, rather the whole organisations would have lost business in such circumstances. Hence, submission of a faulty program is not acceptable at all. This is not an ethical way of saving the back of the company. The company, since the advent of the project and bidding, had not considered the significance of the project and the consequences if they failed to deliver the software properly. They were concerned with the progress of their own business only.

Consequences for Stakeholders

Identification of the Potential Consequences to the stakeholders

There are chances of two potential consequences to the stakeholders. The first stakeholder who have to undergo the consequences are the internal stakeholders of the Occidental Engineering Company. Influenced from Eskerod, Huemann & Savage (2015), it can be opined that the company had already taken a big risk by underfunding and understaffing the project. The company, because of its shaky economic position could not afford to invest in the project properly. Hence the project was underfunded. Besides, the company was forced to make the limited number of workforce work for 18 hours per day to provide the work within deadline. As per Cicmil et al. (2016), this has been the reason for excessive workplace stress and this is possibly why the project was completed with one major glitch in the system. The basic part of the software was the detection of the air vehicles and the links to the other features followed. The glitch in the basic process like detecting the sir crafts made the other features (their availability and usage prospects) insignificant.

The government was supposed to conduct an integration test of the software on a small airport. The company had taken a big risk by submitting the faulty software to the government. This software was a stereotype that would be implemented in every air station by the FAA. In case if the software had not worked properly in the test period, it would have led to a terrible disaster. It could have led to live losses and huge destruction of property causing massive financial losses. Another fact is that if the FAA would have accepted the first model of the program and not resent for some designing changes, as Deborah had assumed, the software could have been the reason of plane crash or any other similar disaster. During the flight, the pilots need to consult the air station regarding various flight conditions, and if the software failed to track any air craft on an odd day, it could result in to disaster (McFarland, 2018). 

It should also be considered what could have happened if the glitch in the software would have been detected in the integration test of the FAA. The company could have possible been blacklisted and the employees involved in the organisation would have found it difficult to get any alternative employment because of their association with any blacklisted company. Besides the company would have had to incur severe financial penalisation. In fact, Wayne was the only person who was concerned about the major ethical breach he was conducting by giving sanction to the software even after it failed in the simulation test. This project went exactly in the way that it should have and the company got the opportunity to fix the bug. However, what Wayne had done seemed unethical to him and he could not adjust himself with the organisation anymore and quitted his job. 

Violations of Code of Ethics of Project Management Institute

Identification of the Potential Breaches to the PMI ethical standards

Influenced from the findings of Khan & Rasheed (2015), it can be opined that the company had primarily violated the Article 1d of the Ethics guideline of the Project Management Institute. The Article 1d describes that any organisations should maintain the prestige associated with the profession by implementing dignified organisational practices. In the two cases namely “low balling” for gaining the bid. Secondly, the company violated the ideals of this article by submitting a project with glitch that could have caused a disaster. The article 2b is also violated by the company. The article prescribes that the company should invest proper resources and undertake any business project in planned and co-ordinated manner. The company violated this prospect when they underfunded and understaffed the project. As highlighted by Kerzner (2018), another article which do not conform to the project activities is 3a. The companies taking contracts from parent companies should remain faithful and loyally deliver the requisite to the company they have contract with. However the company did not consider the consequences of submitting a project with a bug. For similar reasons they have also violated the Article 3e. 

Deborah is more liable for the unethical move of the company. In the initial place the company should have calculated their potential beforehand before bidding for the project. The company had taken a big strategic risk in undertaking a government project where they do not have the adequate financial capital or the human capital to handle the project. Following the article 2e, Deborah should make renovations in the company so that the company can make itself competent to handle such projects comprehensively without having to take unethical steps. Deborah also violated ethics when she applied unethical steps to know how the integration test is going to be conducted from her internal connections. Wayne was also not supposed to give positive reports after the simulation check. He left the company after the completion of this project. However a more ethical footstep would have been standing up against Deborah’s unethical business management and make the company’s professionals understand the value of ethics.

Conclusion 

In the course of this report, it is evident that by underfunding and understaffing, the Occidental Engineering Company have made big violation of business ethics. However, the company also forced the employees to deliver extra labour for the cause of the organisation. Analysing the footsteps of Deborah and Wayne, it can be evidently concluded that the company stood a major chance of being blacklisted.  Besides, after analysing the possible consequences of this breach of ethics, it can be concluded that if the FAA had not referred for interface change, the software with the glitch would have been accepted by the FAA and would have ben commercially implemented.   

References

Cicmil, S., Williams, T., Thomas, J., & Hodgson, D. (2016). Rethinking project management: researching the actuality of projects. International journal of project management, 24(8), 675-686.

Eskerod, P., Huemann, M., & Savage, G. (2015). Project stakeholder management—Past and present. Project Management Journal, 46(6), 6-14.

Fleming, Q. W., & Koppelman, J. M. (2016, December). Earned value project management. Project Management Institute, 14(3), 1-12.

Heagney, J. (2016). Fundamentals of project management. Amacom.

Kerzner, H. (2018). Project management best practices: Achieving global excellence. John Wiley & Sons.

Khan, A. S., & Rasheed, F. (2015). Human resource management practices and project success, a moderating role of Islamic Work Ethics in Pakistani project-based organizations. International Journal of Project Management, 33(2), 435-445.

Lee, L., Reinicke, B., Sarkar, R., & Anderson, R. (2015). Learning through interactions: improving project management through communities of practice. Project Management Journal, 46(1), 40-52.

Nicholas, J. M., & Steyn, H. (2017). Project management for engineering, business and technology. Routledge.

McFarland, M. (2018). OEC – Occidental Engineering. Retrieved from https://www.onlineethics.org/Resources/Cases/OccidentalEng.aspx