Georgina is contracted by a Web design consultancy company to interview their staff to ascertain…

Georgina is contracted by a Web design consultancy company to interview their staff to ascertain their current knowledge. The aim of the study is to inform the company about the type of training courses they need to implement. The aim of the study therefore is to highlight areas of overall weakness as opposed to individual shortcomings. Despite this, the type of data collected will be able to identify individual weaknesses. Georgina advised all interviewees that all information gathered from interviewees would remain private. Following the study, the Senior Vice President of the company,
»Georgina is contracted by a Web design consultancy company to interview their staff to ascertain their current knowledge. The aim of the study is to inform the company about the type of training courses they need to implement. The aim of the study therefore is to highlight areas of overall weakness as opposed to individual shortcomings. Despite this, the type of data collected will be able to identify individual weaknesses. Georgina advised all interviewees that all information gathered from interviewees would remain private. Following the study, the Senior Vice President of the company, Gopal approaches Georgina and asks: “Who did well and who didn’t in this study?” Georgina refuses to answer Gopal’s question on privacy grounds. In his response, Gopal implies that Georgina won’t get another contract with the company if she continues to “hold out on him”. What professional ethical dilemmas are Georgina and Gopal dealing with here? (e.g. Should we allow or sanction Georgina or Gopal’s behaviour? Is there a public interest question raised by this scenario? What actions do everyone involved need to take to ensure that this kind of situation does not occur again?) Section 1 – The White Framework Student Instructions:Fill in the Table below using short sentences or dot points to make a list in each section. You must fill out all three table cells under Issues/Results prior to marking it as complete. You should input 350-500 words into this section. Case Study
Name & Number: Step Process/Step Issues/Results Step 1: Analyze – The Consequences Step 2: Analyze – The Actions Step 3: Make A Decision Section 2 – The Governance and Regulatory Environment Part 1 – ACS Code of Professional Conduct Analysis Identify the appropriate ACS Code of Professional Conduct values along with the relevant sub-paragraph topics by number and sub-paragraph (e.g. 1.2.6 (g) – endeavour to extend public knowledge and understanding of ICT). Group each by value and appropriate corresponding sub-paragraphs relevant to your case study. Case Study: (Name & Number) ACS Code of Professional Conduct Value & Section: 1.2.? ACS Code of Professional Conduct Section:1.2.? ACS Code of Professional Conduct Section:1.2.? ACS Code of Professional Conduct Section:1.2.? Section 2 – The Governance and Regulatory Environment Part 2 – Legislative and International Standards Analysis Identify the appropriate Australian Legislation (e.g. Fair Work Act; Privacy Act). Identify and list relevant Australian/International Organization for Standardization/International Electrotechnical Commission (AS ISO/IEC) (e.g. AS ISO/IEC 38500:2016). Provide at least four items in each category in the boxes below. Case Study: Australian Legislation AS/ISO/IEC Standards Section 3 – Justifying a Decision and Recommending Appropriate Action Make short text responses to the five (5) questions in the spaces provided. Each response should be between 50 – 80 words (Total not to exceed 400 words). 1. What were the most important professional ethics issues/dilemmas for you in your scenario? (Reference at least two core issues) 2. What do you believe are the most appropriate decisions to be made here for management, organisation and employees? 3. Who is responsible for taking what action here and why? (Name names!) 4. What can be done, or what strategies can be implemented to ensure that a similar situation does not occur again? 5. What did you learn from reading this scenario?

»