Is There a Place for Ethics in IT?

Discuss how a CIO might handle Schrages scenarios using the virtue ethics
approach, the fairness approach, the utilitarian approach, and the common good
approach.

Using the virtue ethics approach in dealing with the first scenario, CIOs should take
the information into the concerned party's awareness. This is the right thing to do
because telling the truth and not withholding the true information is a moral act and
a sign of good virtue. Though knowing in advance the probable lay-offs that might
happen may eventually affect the completion of the CRM project or the performance
of the programmers, disclosure would free-up CIOs from unpredictable and more
severe complications that may arise. But before full disclosure of the maintenance
outsourcing, careful planning and contingency plans have to be in place to address
possible implications or complications. It may just be one of the application of the
maxim the truth will set you free, freeing the CIOs from problems to some extent
brought about by unpredictable consequences. The second scenario regarding a
meddling boss would be just as Schrage deem it to be but with some additions.
Dewey, Gupta and others are right in upholding a virtue ethics approach a wellplanned, well-presented disclosure is indispensable. A carefully crafted exposition of
relevant information is effective in lessening negative reactions, calms down
emotions, relieves tension, and assures and builds-up confidence.

Fairness approach might require somewhat a broader perspective. This entails

considering all concerned parties to be treated the same. Such consideration might
include the yearning of the programmers for job retention being the ones who
developed the CRM system as understood in the first scenario. Also, in line with the
project is CIOs utmost desire of protecting its interests in the development and
utilization of the software. It may now become not simple in selecting which of these
two conflicting interests would need greater weight disregarding personal bias.
When insisting to consider fairness for the decision with system maintenance
outsourcing remaining in place, information disclosure coupled with reasonably
remunerations upon project completion with opportunities for rehire can be assuring.
Rewards and letting the concerned parties well-informed on the early phase of their
plight and not being caught empty-handed is a fair assessment of their contribution
and justification of their effort in the project. The other scenario, on the other hand
would require information disclosure even to a meddling superior in a timely,
appropriate, and well-balanced manner. A well-balanced disclosure contains equal
treatment of the affected parties (programmers and the company) presented in a
non-provoking manner.

Utilitarian approach ensures that the outcome of the decision provides for the best
over-all benefit of all those involved in the CRM project. In scenario one as
exemplified by Schrage, non-disclosure of possible personnel retrenchments
resulting from system maintenance outsourcing could be the ethical move.
Considering that timely completion of the CRM system is the main objective of the
project, any activity or happening that may hamper this goal is undesirable. Aside
from the possible loss of focus among programmers resulting from their awareness
of possibly being laid-off, an atmosphere of distrust may arise jeopardizing
productive project activities. Even though work tenure or eventually loss of paycheck
benefits would ensue as two thirds of the professional programmers would lost their
jobs, the company is still assured of its continuity of operation thereby warranting
jobs and income for the new set of workers. The other scenario should compel
disclosure of information even to a counter-productively intervening boss. The
reason here is that though his or her meddling may disrupt present project
development activities, it is always the boss' prerogative of ensuring that the group's
efforts are productive. He or she is responsible for the over-all productivity of the
development team such that actions aimed for the company or the entire group's
benefit is expected. Withholding even a trivial information may have some huge
undesirable outcome if undisclosed and not addressed earlier, with those hiding it
could well be subjected to tough punitive actions.

When the common good approach is applied for choosing which decision to hand
out, the first scenario by Schrage would necessitate revealing of the personnel
outsourcing that would eventually result to two-thirds work force lay-off. It may seem
irresponsible with such an action, looking at the figure of those who will eventually
lose their jobs, those who would be financially and emotionally affected, but looking
at a greater perspective, the other side could be all but bright. First considering CIOs
achieving their plan means continued corporate operation based on the company's
goal or target, that is, maintenance of the CRM system outsourced. This implies that
their company could still continue services as planned, being able to provide income
to those new people that will be hired as the CRM runs and serves into operation.
Though much more than half lost their jobs due to this outsourcing, they may not
have lost they final paycheck due them, and to the most, they would never lost in
them the expertise, experiences, and knowledge gained up-to the project
completion. This is the notion of the common good some may have lost few
opportunities, while others gain them, with the finale that the majority has benefited
from the same source. The same argument follows for the other scenario. Full
disclosure is inevitable despite the possible counterproductive nature that may
result. People might lose jobs but there are always replacements that take-over the
responsibilities who logically reap the benefits inherent to the work.