The matters of ethics 3

[TheRambler]

I began my present job back in 1999 because of Y2K problem. The billing system of this company was developed in 1989 using Clipper, then in 1993 it was modified to be used as a multiuser system. It was developed by a third party from another city, who were not available anymore in 1999 when they contacted me.

After studying the source code for some time I was able to compile the system in FoxPro for MS-DOS, and the users didn’t notice much changes in their software. Originally the system was conceived for only one service, despite the fact that the tables were not in normalized form it was working without problems. Also, in 1999 regulation laws changed and the company offered a new service which had to be billed using the same system, so, being short of time, I used the same tables to hold the data of the new service. I knew the design was not optimal, but I didn’t want to build a new application using Visual Fox (for example) because it meant a lot of work which I didn’t know if I could finish by the end of 1999.

While I was refactoring my co-workers took care of rehosting, they moved from NetWare 3.11 to WinNT, all this work was done successfully and the users didn’t complain much. The next move was to buy a new integrated system using Oracle as the back-end, so my system and others were to be replaced after all.

After Y2K part of the board of directors changed and they changed the manager (my first boss was also changed eventually). They had other ideas and thought Oracle was too expensive and suspended that project. But new services were still offered and I had to support them with my poor designed legacy. I complained to my second boss that I had to put too much effort just to add a new service, I said things could be done better with a new system or a new design, if we were not going to buy a new system then it would be good if I started to develop a convergent billing system with Visual Fox at least.

My boss answer was: “don’t write a single line of code anymore, when the managers ask for a new service, report, or whatever, say you can’t do it” I told him I couldn’t say that, I could say I don’t have enough time or repeat the “poor design” story which they don’t understand. Since then I didn’t participate in meetings, I let my boss do the lying and arguing to buy a whole new system. After some time not paying attention to their requirements they accepted the need of a new system and bought a good one with our approval, and some time next year it will be deployed.

So what troubles me was my boss attitude, ethical or not, he got what the company needed while looking after me. If I kept saying the truth: “yes, I can do it” I would still be overloaded with work. Now I have time to spend in this forum and learn from other people, which is good to me. What do you think? Was my boss right? Is it good to act like that when managers or directors don’t understand technical reasons?

 

[TheRambler]

Hi CajunCenturion,

I can read you loud and clear. Sorry, I didn't mean to 'twist' your question into sentence, I respect too much your opinion to do that.

Maybe I should explain a little more about the organization of my workplace. This is a services cooperative, most of the clients are also shareholders, who as such, have the right to become part of the board of directors if they get elected. We would be lucky if the directors were all masters in the field of the services we provide, but no, being a democracy, we have teachers, lawyers, politicians, journalist, etc among the members of the board. And they have to make technical decisions based on our recommendations, but sometimes they ignore the technicians opinion and that's were problems begin. Trust, as you said, seems to be the keyword and GwyndionM brought it up:

The trouble is, ordinary people persuing ordinary goals then get more and more into lying, and are no longer trusted when they are telling the truth. This is a deterioration of business culture, and of culture in general.

Below the board of directors there is a General Manager, and then the other managers (administrative, technical, financial, etc). We have an IT department but my boss doesn't have a manager level, I think he should be a manager but he is not right now. So when I talk about managers I don't mean my boss.

I hope this clarifies the context a little. Thanks.

 

[Spirit]

This one could go on for a while but I would love to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth the whole time. Sometimes everyone has to make a decision or justify something which sometimes you cannot justify in terms of the question.

If someone asks why do we need "x" what do they mean?

A product spec (i.e. what the brouchure says on the Front Page)?
A Technical Spec (what the brouchure says on the Back page)?
Possible advantages?
Real Improvements it will give?
Why IT wants it?
Why IT needs it?
Why the company as a whole will benefit?

I guess I am just reiterating the point of "means justifying the end" but what question do you answer to justify it? Also isn't justification just a matter of opinion?

Look at SemperFiDownUnda situation his laptop grinds to a halt but compared to a celeron 500 with 128meg of RAM it would fly? Again the question of relativity.

Cajun:
"I do not -- repeat not -- consider lying, cheating, and stealing" obviously not working for the public sector nor a outsourcing firm then? Sorry just kidding. Awaiting the commical results of the NHS IT "improvements"

Och, I think I am just destined to burn in hell for eternity...... Wonder if I can justify a T1 connection down there to continue with this discussion?

Perhaps a career move into sales will save my soul?

 

[TheRambler]

Hmmm... there must be many people down there, I think you could get your T1 doubtlessly.

What more can I say?
Keep up the good spirits and Merry Christmas to all!
(relativists and absolutists as well)

 

[edfair]

If your previous posts are really true Spirit, it is quite obvious that you are prime sales material.

Ed Fair
Give the wrong symptoms, get the wrong solutions.

 

[SemperFiDownUnda]

I'll add that I agree with CC that lying in most cases is bad.

The case of saying "We can not do that" is technically lying if left by itself in most cases. It is the context around it that makes it better or worse.

Do we place ourselves above the management because we know what is better? We shouldn't. We should put our cases before them in a manner they can understand. This might be as easy as a trusted manager going to the board of directors and saying "It is no longer viable to support this item and need to investigate other alternatives" or it might take a bit more convincing with something like a risk analysis with a properly writen executive statement. Tricking them is not what I would deem ethical. I would put forth a "Proof of Concept" to show the potential danger along with data to back up the risk of that danger being realised. This at the end of the day does a few things.

It shows that you/your department are proactive
It demonstrates professionalism
It leaves the actual decision in the hand of those that should make the decision and the decision is being done for the right reason.

Where fooling them into doing something has a number of pitfalls
If it is found out or even suspected your integrity is shot
It makes you/your department seem that it a reactive not proactive unit
If not actually done proper can actually have a larger effect then you originally intended.

"So we were "hit" by a mass mailing "virus" which was actually from a phantom account that my boss created we sent it round every few minutes and ran about with our sleeves rolled up looking worried."

what would happen if something happened to an important email indirectly due to the spam email. Maybe some sales manager accidently deleted it with some of the spam email and this caused them to loose a sale to a competitor. Not saying this could happen in your case but something that you did not concider might happen because of your action.

Just food for thought. If you spent as much energy doing a "proof of concept" as you did the fake spam you probably would have been looked upon by those above you as compitent and in control instead of "looking worried" while running around seemingly in a panic.