| Level | Master |
| Programme | MCIS |
| Semester | Fall |
| Year | 2014 |
| Course | Ethical and Professional Issues in IT |
| Full Marks | 100 |
| Pass Marks | 60 |
| Time | 4 hrs |
Candidates are required to give their answers in their own words as far as practicable. The figures in the margin indicate full marks.
Attempt all the questions.
1. What are the decision making models in the organization. Explain the various rational decision making models. (10)
2. What do you mean by IT professional? Explain the various relationships with IT professional. (10)
3. How do you define the professional code of ethics? Discuss the statement on the basis of codes of ethics of ACM. (10)
4. Describe the main objectives of IT policy of NEpal 2067? Explain strategies to accomplish the objectives of rapid development and expansion of information technology in a fair and competitive environment.
5. What do you mean by tort? Describe the essential of valid contract offers. What are the major challenges in the contract law in Nepal? (10)
6. What does the famous symbol © mean? Write the difference between trademark and copyright. What do you know about international copyrights?
7. What do you mean by conflict in organization? How can you reduce the conflict in the organization? Describe ethical issues in conflict.
8. Describe the main features of trade union act. What are the significances of Environment protection act? (10)
9. Read the following paragraph and answer the questions at the end.
Case Study
THE BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT (BART) SYSTEM
In the late 1940’s the foundation for a regional mass transit system for the San Francisco Bay area was laid, leading eventually to construction of the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system. As envisioned, BART was to be a high-tech rail system serving many of the communities along San Francisco Bay and would incorporate new technology, including fully automated control systems for all trains. The automatic train-control (ATC) system designed for BART was an innovative method for controlling train speed and access to stations. In most mass transit systems, this function is performed by human drivers who read trackside signals signals and/or receive instructions via radio from dispatchers. Instead, BART relied on a series of onboard sensors to determine a train’s position, and data from a control center to indicate the location of other trains and information on allowed speeds. None of the control technologies that were being designed had been previously tested in a commuter rail system. The contract to design and build the ATC was awarded to Westinghouse in 1967 the key players in this case were three BART engineers working on various aspects of the ATC. These engineers became concerned about the lack of testing of some of the components of the ATC, the lack of oversight of Westinghouse by BART, and the quality of the documentation that Wasting house was providing. Unable to get their concerns acted upon by BART management, the three engineers contacted a member of the BART board of directors indicating that their concerns were not being taken seriously by management. This action was in direct conflict with the general manager of BART, whose policy was to only allow himself and a few others to deal directly with the board. The engineers were confronted by management about whether they were the sources of the leaks about the problems at BART, and all denied their involvement. After it became clear that they were the source of the information given to the board, all three of the engineers were offered the choice of resignation or dismissal. All refused to resign, and were subsequently dismissed on the grounds of insubordination, lying to management, and failing to follow organizational procedures. None were able to find work for a number of months, and all suffered financial and emotional problems as a result. In the course of the legal proceedings, the IEEE attempted to assist the three engineers by filing an amicus curiae brief in their support. The IEEE asserted that each of the engineers had a professional duty to keep the safety of the public paramount, and that their actions were therefore justified. Based on the IEEE code of ethics, the brief stated that engineers must “notify the proper authority of any observed conditions which endanger public safety and health.” The brief interpreted this to mean that in the case of public employment, the proper authority is the public itself.
- What are the ethical considerations regarding documentation of work?
- Was it necessary to blow the whistle by the engineers?
- What level of supervision should an organization have over its contractors? Is it sufficient to assume that contractors are professional and will do a good job?
- What responsibility does an engineering organization have after the design is complete?