replace the computer systems used by offices of the Social Security Administration (SSA).
Should access central database
Should be off-the-shelf Should work 98% of the time. Pre-award demo of the system not a prototype Pass on site visit by an inspector from SSA to determine capability.
The Paradyne Case - II
Problems occurred immediately: Computers
failed acceptance testing
After delivery: Field offices reported repeated
malfunctions
After 21 months of operation, headaches, wasted
time and money, system worked to 98%!
The Paradyne Case - III
Investigation results: 1.
2. 3.
4.
5.
6.
Paradyne never had the proposed system in stock or
developed yet. The operating system was still under development. The computer demonstrated was not Paradyne but based on a similar processor and re-labeled. Paradyne was the only bidder assessed for capabilities with no site visit. Paradyne main business was building modems not computers. Paradyne hired a former SSA employee who (while working for SSA) helped making the proposal and setup the team evaluating the bids. SSA were informed of the hiring but approved it.
The Paradyne Case Discussion
1. 2.
3.
4.
Was this a clear-cut unethical case by Paradyne?
Point out the unethical actions by Paradyne. The initial requirements to qualify the machines were relaxed to let Paradyne machines pass. Was this ethical at the SSA part? Was it ethical for a former SSA employee to take a job with Paradyne negotiating contracts with the SSA? Even if the SSA said it is OK? Is it ethical for Paradyne to hire this employee? (Ethical theories??)
Application to a case
Paradyne Computers case.
Factual issues:
Request for proposals (RFP) stated clearly that only
existing systems would be considered. Paradyne never had any such product and did not even test the Operating System on it. Employment of a former SSA employee was a clear attempt by Paradyne to help lobby SSA for the contract.
So, there is no controversy on the factual issues.
Paradyne case II
Conceptual issues:
RFP stated clearly that only existing systems would be
considered. Is bidding to provide the required product, when the actual product is still in the planning stage lying, or an acceptable business practice? Is placing Paradyne label over a real manufacturer label deceptive? Does lobbying your former employer on behalf of your new employer constitute a conflict of interest?
So, Conceptual issues are more controversial.
Paradyne case III
Paradyne said they have done nothing wrong and
were conducting common business practices.
The conflict of interest issue is so hard to decide!
Actually, laws are now enacted preventing former
government employees from lobbying their former employee for a specific period of time.
Paradyne case IV
The moral / application issues:
Answer is obvious:
Is lying an acceptable business practice?
Is it right to be deceptive so your company can get a contract?
Lying and deceit are no more acceptable in your
business life than in your personal life!
The Key is:
If we can conceptually decide that Paradyne practices
were deceptive; Then our analysis indicates that their actions were unethical!
Assignment # 3
Read the case The disaster at Bhopal and submit the
answers to the following questions: Use the ethical theories previously covered to analyze the Bhopal case. Topics to be considered should be: The placing of a hazardous plant in a populated area, decisions to defer maintenance on essential safety systems, etc. Use your previously selected organization code of ethics to analyze what a process engineer working in this plant should have done. What are the responsibilities of the engineers who designed the plant and the engineers responsible for making maintenance decisions? Submitted by next class. This is an academic exercise, not a business activity. Therefore the written report does not have to be in memo or letter format. It must be professional, and should refer to concepts covered in class. You must provide a cover memo with this summary document.