archive-org.com » ORG » C » COMPUTINGCASES.ORG

Total: 197

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Frank Saia’s perspective
    make the production of chips more efficient without losing the quality of the product Chips are manufactured and then tested and this provides two places where the process can bottle up Even though you might have a perfectly fine chip on the floor of the plant it cannot be shipped without testing And since there are several thousand other chips waiting to be tested it can sit in line for a long time Saia devised a method that allowed them to put the important chips the hot parts ahead of the others without disrupting the flow and without losing the chips in the shuffle This let hot parts get through faster and meant they could meet the order volume they needed But Saia was not only concerned with getting parts through quickly When a subordinate suggested they cut a test he had added his reply was It is the worst thing you can do to ship bad parts The test he had added both helped to assure quality parts and to make the testing go more quickly It was called the gross leak test and it could quickly tell if a chip in a sealed container was actually sealed or not Adding this test early in the testing sequence allowed them to not waste time testing chips that would fail a more fine grained leak test later in the sequence Saia was proud of his reputation as a problem solver He had another reputation too one that often worked in his favor but of which he was less proud He had a temper And when the line backed up and parts would be delayed he made sure everyone knew exactly how he felt about it Hughes was a military contractor and they hired many military people Saia ran his section with military strictness and made sure people did their jobs So when he heard that the environmental testing area was behind again he called in Don LaRue to let him know how he felt about it How did he feel He was angry and he was insistent that he would not be embarrassed by late shipments Saia was getting regular calls from Karl Reismueller the director of the Division of Microelectronics at Hughes Reismueller made it clear that the parts had to get out the door In addition Reismueller had given Saia s telephone number to several of the customers for the chips whose own production lines were shut down awaiting the parts that Saia was having trouble delivering His customers were now calling him directly to say we re dying out here for need of parts Don LaRue the general supervisor in charge of the environmental testing area was sure to be unhappy any time that Frank Saia was unhappy They both began to look for ways to speed up the delivery of chips LaRue was already putting hot parts at the front of the line for testing and this was not enough Saia applied more pressure He told

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/support_docs/hughes_case_narr/saia_gets_a_call.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Machado Case Abstract
    at his public college threatening them with phrases like I will personally make it my life s career to hunt you down and kill you and signed by Asian Hater Several of these individuals reported this incident to the Office of Academic Computing OAC One of the recipients was a student employee of the OAC The administrators of the OAC were faced with a decision about how to respond to

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/machado/support_docs/machado_case_narr/Case_Abstract.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Ethical Dissent
    like making sure she knew the procedures and the exceptions in all their detail She might then have proposed a solution that satisfied the need to get chips out the door and need to follow the testing guidelines Keep your arguments on a high professional plane as impersonal and objective as possible avoiding extraneous issues and emotional outbursts If people become defensive they are unlikely to want to change So your arguments should be about procedure and product etc rather than about people In Goodearl s case she clearly became branded as a disgruntled employee and this hurt her influence in the organization and in the later court case Try to catch problems early and keep the argument at the lowest managerial level possible Advice about keeping things at the lowest level is similar to catching things early they both minimize the magnitude of the change Catching problems early is crucial Once the product is already behind schedule or its delivery is publicly announced it is hard to back away from Sometimes you might find it not worth making a fuss about the current product and more worth your time to make sure that the problem does not come up again or is caught early on the next product Before going out on a limb make sure that the issue is sufficiently important By going out on a limb the committee here most clearly means whistleblowing going outside the organization to report wrongdoing Once this happen you will almost certainly have burnt your bridges and will not be able to rest in your position even if you are legally entitled to it Consider the cost here and make a decision about doing the good you can do within the organization versus whistleblowing Sometimes whistleblowing is the right thing but its

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/support_docs/whistleblowing/ethical_dissent.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Going Public: from Ethical Dissent to Whistleblowing
    of your motivation Don t be led astray by motives of pride or revenge Instead concentrate on your duties to your organization to society and to yourself Count the cost Be aware of the significant cost you are likely to run when you become a whistleblower Obtain the necessary background materials and evidence Make sure you have the evidence to back up your claims After you have gone public it may be too late to do this Organize to protect your own interests You will be taking a significant risk by whistleblowing Make sure you are ready to protect yourself Choose the right avenue for your disclosure The media may be the first alternative you think of They may not always be the best Make your disclosure in the right spirit If you become identified as a disgruntled former employee you will have a much harder time making your case Whistleblowers are an extremely valuable resource They are in a key position to bring wrongdoing to the public s attention They possess important technical skills and knowledge that make them aware of possible wrongdoing For obvious reasons only employees Hughes Microelectronics and only those specifically in the Environmental Testing Area

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/support_docs/whistleblowing/going_public.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Goodearl Learning Objective
    primarily focused on the issue of whistleblowing Give students practice in evaluation and decision making Students get a great deal of practice in evaluating ethical decisions here Lead students to actual responsible action This exercise does not go this far but it might be extended by asking students after this exercise what they would do about a case of software piracy they knew about at their school ImpactCS Elements and Skills ES2 1 Ethical claims can and should be discussed rationally ES2 2 Ethical choices cannot be avoided ES2 3 Some easy ethical approaches are questionable ES3 2 Identifying stakeholders in concrete situations ES3 2 Identifying ethical issues in concrete situations ES3 4 Applying ethical codes to concrete situations ES3 5 Identifying and evaluating possible courses of action ES4 2 Power relations are central in all social interaction ImpactCS grid Ethical Issues Quality of Life Use of Power Risk and Reliability Property Rights Privacy Equity and Access Honesty and Deception Levels of Social Analysis Individual Group National Global CC 2002 Social Ethical and Professional Issues SP 2 Social context of computing Gender related issues SP 3 Methods and tools of analysis Making and evaluating ethical arguments Identifying and evaluating ethical

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/exercises/goodear_exercise/goodearl_learn_obj.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Goodearl Instructor Guideline
    asked to evaluate those for 10 minutes Reports are made to the class and then the groups move on to the third and fourth incident Integrating the exercise into a class This is a very flexible exercise Instead of running it as described above you can split the class into 4 or 8 groups and give some groups only the first incident others the first and second others the first three and other all four You might then choose a set of options that would be the same for all groups so that you can compare decisions as Goodearl is further along in her ordeal Alternatively you might have students read one or all of the incidents and come to class with their answers already laid out in the ethics tests grid Or you could assign groups to defend the different answers in a set of options and have them debate their disagreement based on the ethics tests The goals you might have for this exercise can be flexible too Some version of this exercise could be used to cover whistleblowing issues particularly if background reading on whistleblowing is integrated Or it could be used to introduce basic ethical theories based in the ethics tests For this background reading in the ethical theories is important and it is available in most computer ethics texts Or your primary goal might be to help students learn to disagree in which case some reading about ethical dissent in the whistleblowing links below and structured disagreement like being assigned to defend different options would be an appropriate structure To integrate this exercise into a software engineering course or other computer science course it will likely need to be truncated by using only one decision point but this could be the AMRAAM with all the other incidents as background reading done outside of class After decisions are reported and evaluated you might then connect the incidents to the course material in terms of design safety issues given the fallibility of components in a system Time required A very short version of this could be done in 15 minutes of class time if students bring their evaluations already prepared to class For this very short version students might better use De George s criteria for the permissibility or obligation to blow the whistle These require less explanation and background than the ethics tests The full version of the exercise will take at least a one hour class depending on the number of groups reporting but more comfortably an hour and a half class with some room for wrap up at the end If you are using this exercise to teach the ethics tests then you will need to take time to explain these and provide background reading for them In this case you might devote a week to this exercise interspersed with lecture on ethical theory and critique of the proposed solutions based on the theories Introducing the exercise Unless you are using this exercise to

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/exercises/goodear_exercise/goodearl_inst_guide.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Goodearl Exercise Resources
    supervisors but keep it within Hughes This would involve scheduling a meeting with a high level supervisor probably Karl Reismueller the head of the entire Division of Microelectronics Your solution Options for Lisa Lightner Incident What should Goodearl and Lightner do at this point A Evaluate the following alternatives of action using the ethics and feasibility tests She should do nothing more She has already gone above and beyond the call of duty by putting her job in danger and angering her supervisors However if she is concerned about becoming an accomplice to an illegal act she should document what has transpired thoroughly so she can show that she did everything she could short of blowing the whistle She should do what Himmel suggested try to work with LaRue She and Lightner should go to him and try to find alternatives to skipping the chips Maybe the testing process can be accelerated Maybe the girls can offer to work overtime She should not agree to short changing the tests but try to have alternatives to shipping the chips behind schedule If LaRue and Saia want to play hardball then so be it She and Lightner should consult a lawyer and document these incidents of harassment Then they can together go to LaRue and threaten to go public if this nonsense doesn t stop If LaRue gets angry or if Saia gets angry then they should be equally confrontational and say that they have enough documented evidence to sue for harassment She and Lightner should quit It is not worth fighting an organization that won t change and at this point if they don t quit then they become accomplices Your solution B Recall the solution you choose at the earlier decision point Did you make the same decisions as Gooderal

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/exercises/goodear_exercise/goodearl_exec_resource.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Hughes Saia Learning Objectives
    Lead students to actual responsible action This is not a goal of this exercise but the exercise might be extended by a follow up decision with students asked what they would do in a class project if faced with a similar decision Imagine for instance that the person is a team leader in a project group in an advanced class that is designing software that will be used by a real client The end of the semester is approaching and the students decide to forgo testing to meet the deadline What should be done This scenario could be worked up with a little preparation to parallel Saia s decision and to be about both making the decision for oneself and setting the tone for one s organization ImpactCS Elements and Skills ES1 3 Major ethical models ES1 5 Codes of ethics and professional responsibility for computer professionals ES2 1 Ethical claims can and should be discussed rationally ES2 2 Ethical choices cannot be avoided ES2 3 Some easy ethical approaches are questionable ES3 2 Identifying stakeholders in concrete situations ES3 2 Identifying ethical issues in concrete situations ES3 4 Applying ethical codes to concrete situations ES3 5 Identifying and evaluating

    Original URL path: http://computingcases.org/case_materials/hughes/exercises/saia_exercise/hughes_saia_learn_obj.html (2016-04-30)
    Open archived version from archive



  •