This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Education Saudi Electronic University ??????? ???????
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University
??????? ??????? ????????
????? ???????
??????? ???????? ???????????
College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
Assignment 2 MGT101 (1st Term 2021-2022)
Case Study
Deadline: 20/11/2021 @ 23:59
Course Name: Principles of Management
Student’s Name:
Course Code: MGT101
Student’s ID Number:
Semester: 1st
CRN:
Academic Year: 1442/1443 H, 1st Term
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name: Suliman Alazzaz
Students’ Grade: /5
Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
This assignment is an individual assignment.
Due date for Assignment 2 is by the end of Week 11.(20/11/2020)
The Assignment must be submitted only in WORD format via allocated folder.
Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Assignment Purposes/Learning Outcomes:
After completion of Assignment-2 students will able to understand the
1. Examine management issues and practices in motivation; organizational culture, structure, and behavior; team dynamics; and communication.
2. Relate motivational theories to motivating and demotivating factors.
3. Know and discuss manager’s role in motivating employees.
Assignment-2
Case Study
In September 2018, Mohammed Salim joined KAAF Software Solutions (KAFF) as a Senior Programmer, with a handsome pay. Prior to this job, he worked successfully as an Assistant Programmer in Gant Computers (Gant). Salim felt that working for KAFF, there are better career prospects, as it was growing much faster than Gant, which was a relatively small company.
Although Salim had enjoyed working there (at Gant), he realized that to grow further in his field, he would have to join a bigger company, and preferable one that handled international projects. He was sure he would excel in his position at KAFF, just as he had done in his old job at Gant.
KAFF had international operations and there was more than a slim chance that he would be sent to USA or the UK on a project. Knowing that this would give him a lot of exposure, besides looking good on his resume, Salim was quite excited about his new job.
Salim joined Mrs. Zeenat’s five-member team at KAFF. He had met Mrs. Zeenat during the orientation sessions, and was looking forward to working under her. His team members seemed warm and friendly, and comfortable with their work. He introduced himself to the team members and got to know more about each of them.
Wanting to know more about his boss, he casually asked one of the team members, about Mrs Zeenat. He was told that Mrs. Zeenat does not interfere with our work. Salim was surprised to know this and thought that probably Mrs. Zeenat was leaving them alone to do their work without any guidance, in order to allow them to realize their full potential.
At Gant, Salim had worked under Abdulrahman and had looked up to him as a guide and mentor – always guiding, but never interfering. Abdulrahman had let Salim make his own mistakes and learn from them. He had always encouraged individual ideas, and let the team discover the flaws, if any, through discussion and experience. He rarely held an individual member of his team responsible if the team as a whole failed to deliver – for him the responsibility for any failure was collective. Salim remembered telling his colleagues at Gant that the ideal boss would be someone who did not interfere with his/her subordinate’s work. Salim wanted to believe that Mrs. Zeenat too was the non-interfering type. If that was the case, surely her non-interference would only help him to grow.
In his first week at work, Salim found the atmosphere at the office a bit dull. However, he was quite excited. His team had been assigned a new project and was facing a few glitches with the new software. He had thought about the problem till late in the night and had come up with several possible solutions. He could not wait to discuss them with his team and Mrs. Zeenat. He smiled to himself when he thought of how Mrs. Zeenat would react when he will tell her that he had come up with several possible solutions to the problem. He was sure she would be happy with his having put in so much effort into the project, right from day one.
He was daydreaming about all the praise that he was going to get when Mrs. Zeenat walked into the office. Salim waited for her to go into her cabin, and after five minutes, called her up, asking to see her. She asked him to come in after tem minutes. When he went in, she looked at him blankly and asked, “Yes?” Not sure whether she had recognized him, Salim introduced himself. She said, “Ok, but why did you want to meet me?” He started to tell her about the problems they were having with the software. But before he could even finish, she told him that she was busy with other things, and that she would send an email with the solution to all the members of the team by the end of the day, and that they could then implement it immediately. Salim was somewhat taken aback. However, ever the optimist, he thought that she had perhaps already discussed the matter with the team.
Salim came out of Mrs. Zeenat’s cabin and went straight to where his team members sat. He thought it would still be nice to bounce ideas off them and also to see what solutions others might come up with. He told them of all the solutions he had in mind. He waited for the others to come up with their suggestions but not one of them spoke up. He was surprised, and asked them point-blank why they were so disinterested.
Faisal, one of the team members, said, “What is the point in our discussing these things? Mrs. Zeenat is not going to have time to listen to us on discuss anything. She will just give us the solution she thinks is best, and we will just do what she tells us to do; why waste everyone’s time?”
Salim felt his heart sink. Was this the way things worked over here? However, he refused to lose heart and thought that maybe, he could change things a little. But as the days went by, Salim realized that Mrs. Zeenat was the complete opposite of his old boss.
While she was efficient at what she did and extremely intelligent, she had neither the time nor the inclination to groom her subordinates. Her solutions to problem were always correct, but she was not willing to discuss or debate the merits of any other ideas that her team might have. She did not hold the team down to their deadlines not did she ever interfere. In fact, she rarely said anything at all. If work did not get finished on time, she would just blame her team, and totally disassociate herself from them.
Time and again, Salim found himself thinking of Abdulrahman his old boss, and of how he had been such a positive influence. Mrs. Zeenat, on the other hand, even without actively doing anything, had managed to significantly lower his motivation levels.
Salim gradually began to lose interest in his work – it had become too mechanical for his taste. He didn’t really need to think; his boss had all the answers. He was learning nothing new, and he felt his career was going nowhere. As he became more and more discouraged, his performance suffered. From being someone with immense promise and potential Salim was now in danger of becoming just another mediocre techie.
Questions:
Q1. What, according to you, were the reasons for Salim’s disillusionment? Answer the question using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. (2.5 marks)
Q2. What should Salim do to resolve his situation? (1.25 marks)
Q3. What should a team leader do, to ensure high levels of motivation among his/her team members? (1.25 Marks)
Answers:
1.
2.
3.
Page 1 of 4[supanova_question]
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia Ministry of Education Saudi Electronic University ??????? ???????
Writing Assignment Help Kingdom of Saudi Arabia
Ministry of Education
Saudi Electronic University
??????? ??????? ????????
????? ???????
??????? ???????? ???????????
College of Administrative and Financial Sciences
Assignment 2 MGT101 (1st Term 2021-2022)
Case Study
Deadline: 20/11/2021 @ 23:59
Course Name: Principles of Management
Student’s Name:
Course Code: MGT101
Student’s ID Number:
Semester: 1st
CRN:
Academic Year: 1442/1443 H, 1st Term
For Instructor’s Use only
Instructor’s Name: Suliman Alazzaz
Students’ Grade: /5
Level of Marks: High/Middle/Low
Instructions – PLEASE READ THEM CAREFULLY
This assignment is an individual assignment.
Due date for Assignment 2 is by the end of Week 11.(20/11/2020)
The Assignment must be submitted only in WORD format via allocated folder.
Assignments submitted through email will not be accepted.
Students are advised to make their work clear and well presented, marks may be reduced for poor presentation. This includes filling your information on the cover page.
Students must mention question number clearly in their answer.
Late submission will NOT be accepted.
Avoid plagiarism, the work should be in your own words, copying from students or other resources without proper referencing will result in ZERO marks. No exceptions.
All answered must be typed using Times New Roman (size 12, double-spaced) font. No pictures containing text will be accepted and will be considered plagiarism).
Submissions without this cover page will NOT be accepted.
Assignment Purposes/Learning Outcomes:
After completion of Assignment-2 students will able to understand the
1. Examine management issues and practices in motivation; organizational culture, structure, and behavior; team dynamics; and communication.
2. Relate motivational theories to motivating and demotivating factors.
3. Know and discuss manager’s role in motivating employees.
Assignment-2
Case Study
In September 2018, Mohammed Salim joined KAAF Software Solutions (KAFF) as a Senior Programmer, with a handsome pay. Prior to this job, he worked successfully as an Assistant Programmer in Gant Computers (Gant). Salim felt that working for KAFF, there are better career prospects, as it was growing much faster than Gant, which was a relatively small company.
Although Salim had enjoyed working there (at Gant), he realized that to grow further in his field, he would have to join a bigger company, and preferable one that handled international projects. He was sure he would excel in his position at KAFF, just as he had done in his old job at Gant.
KAFF had international operations and there was more than a slim chance that he would be sent to USA or the UK on a project. Knowing that this would give him a lot of exposure, besides looking good on his resume, Salim was quite excited about his new job.
Salim joined Mrs. Zeenat’s five-member team at KAFF. He had met Mrs. Zeenat during the orientation sessions, and was looking forward to working under her. His team members seemed warm and friendly, and comfortable with their work. He introduced himself to the team members and got to know more about each of them.
Wanting to know more about his boss, he casually asked one of the team members, about Mrs Zeenat. He was told that Mrs. Zeenat does not interfere with our work. Salim was surprised to know this and thought that probably Mrs. Zeenat was leaving them alone to do their work without any guidance, in order to allow them to realize their full potential.
At Gant, Salim had worked under Abdulrahman and had looked up to him as a guide and mentor – always guiding, but never interfering. Abdulrahman had let Salim make his own mistakes and learn from them. He had always encouraged individual ideas, and let the team discover the flaws, if any, through discussion and experience. He rarely held an individual member of his team responsible if the team as a whole failed to deliver – for him the responsibility for any failure was collective. Salim remembered telling his colleagues at Gant that the ideal boss would be someone who did not interfere with his/her subordinate’s work. Salim wanted to believe that Mrs. Zeenat too was the non-interfering type. If that was the case, surely her non-interference would only help him to grow.
In his first week at work, Salim found the atmosphere at the office a bit dull. However, he was quite excited. His team had been assigned a new project and was facing a few glitches with the new software. He had thought about the problem till late in the night and had come up with several possible solutions. He could not wait to discuss them with his team and Mrs. Zeenat. He smiled to himself when he thought of how Mrs. Zeenat would react when he will tell her that he had come up with several possible solutions to the problem. He was sure she would be happy with his having put in so much effort into the project, right from day one.
He was daydreaming about all the praise that he was going to get when Mrs. Zeenat walked into the office. Salim waited for her to go into her cabin, and after five minutes, called her up, asking to see her. She asked him to come in after tem minutes. When he went in, she looked at him blankly and asked, “Yes?” Not sure whether she had recognized him, Salim introduced himself. She said, “Ok, but why did you want to meet me?” He started to tell her about the problems they were having with the software. But before he could even finish, she told him that she was busy with other things, and that she would send an email with the solution to all the members of the team by the end of the day, and that they could then implement it immediately. Salim was somewhat taken aback. However, ever the optimist, he thought that she had perhaps already discussed the matter with the team.
Salim came out of Mrs. Zeenat’s cabin and went straight to where his team members sat. He thought it would still be nice to bounce ideas off them and also to see what solutions others might come up with. He told them of all the solutions he had in mind. He waited for the others to come up with their suggestions but not one of them spoke up. He was surprised, and asked them point-blank why they were so disinterested.
Faisal, one of the team members, said, “What is the point in our discussing these things? Mrs. Zeenat is not going to have time to listen to us on discuss anything. She will just give us the solution she thinks is best, and we will just do what she tells us to do; why waste everyone’s time?”
Salim felt his heart sink. Was this the way things worked over here? However, he refused to lose heart and thought that maybe, he could change things a little. But as the days went by, Salim realized that Mrs. Zeenat was the complete opposite of his old boss.
While she was efficient at what she did and extremely intelligent, she had neither the time nor the inclination to groom her subordinates. Her solutions to problem were always correct, but she was not willing to discuss or debate the merits of any other ideas that her team might have. She did not hold the team down to their deadlines not did she ever interfere. In fact, she rarely said anything at all. If work did not get finished on time, she would just blame her team, and totally disassociate herself from them.
Time and again, Salim found himself thinking of Abdulrahman his old boss, and of how he had been such a positive influence. Mrs. Zeenat, on the other hand, even without actively doing anything, had managed to significantly lower his motivation levels.
Salim gradually began to lose interest in his work – it had become too mechanical for his taste. He didn’t really need to think; his boss had all the answers. He was learning nothing new, and he felt his career was going nowhere. As he became more and more discouraged, his performance suffered. From being someone with immense promise and potential Salim was now in danger of becoming just another mediocre techie.
Questions:
Q1. What, according to you, were the reasons for Salim’s disillusionment? Answer the question using Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. (2.5 marks)
Q2. What should Salim do to resolve his situation? (1.25 marks)
Q3. What should a team leader do, to ensure high levels of motivation among his/her team members? (1.25 Marks)
Answers:
1.
2.
3.
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back This semester,
IME 4020 Case Analysis (Group Paper): Looking Forward, Looking Back
This semester, we have been studying the ethical decision-making process, which will culminate in the examination of a case study. Your group should begin by searching through the literature for a case in technology or engineering. It should involve a clear moral issue and have taken place within the past ten years (as far back as 2011). If the issue is too easily resolved, chances are it’s not really much of an issue. (For example, do we really need to do any analysis to determine whether or not we should exercise caution when dealing with nuclear energy?) My hope is that you will take this as an opportunity to explore a case of interest and see how moral theories may be applied. Some previously submitted paper topics include the following:
BP Oil Spill
BP Refinery Explosion
Columbia Space Shuttle
Crane Collapse Cases (New York)
Exide Technology (Toxic Battery Disposal)
Flint Michigan (Contaminated Water)
GM Ignition
I-35 Bridge Collapse
Large Hadron Collider (LHC)
New Orleans Levee System (Katrina)
Apple/Foxconn Work Conditions
Boeing 737 MAX
Toyota Acceleration Problem
PG&E Explosion
Hydraulic Fracturing Cases
Sriracha factory
TSA Body Scanner
VW Emissions Case
You will examine a single case (a specific instance, not a general issue) from the perspective of a decision-making person or entity (e.g., an engineer or company). In doing so, you should do your best to neutrally focus on the information available to the decision maker and avoid drawing premature conclusions about what is right or wrong—conclusions should be based on the application of moral theory.
As we learn moral theories, we will work towards developing decision procedures so that they may be more easily applied to cases. It is these decision procedures which will help us determine the morally permissible or morally correct course of action. Sometimes multiple moral theories may yield the same results; other times, they will diverge and force us to develop a reasoned consensus within a group.
Once you have determined the appropriate course of action, based on moral theories (i.e., the looking forward as the decision-maker), you will then step back and revisit the entire history of the case. Failure is often what allows engineers to become more innovative. So, as you look back [with hindsight], you might see if there is anything engineers should learn from the case. Were there any impediments to responsible action? It is also worthwhile to ask how well your moral decision making went. Would it have resulted in what would historically seem a mistake? If so, how do you account for that? (Mistake in application of moral theory, bad moral theory, or just unhappy consequences)
Finally, each group must select a different case. These cases with then be presented in Prof. Yazdy’s or Prof. Rodriguez’s module.
A discussion forum will be set up to allow you to see what others are doing and announce the case you’ve chosen.
REQUIREMENTS:
Papers must be typed and double-spaced, using standard fonts and margins (e.g., 1-inch margins, Arial 12) and should be roughly 16-25 pages in length for groups of 4 (roughly 4-5 pages per person). Be sure to cite your sources, whether using direct quotes or paraphrase. You should also include page numbers as part of your in-text citation (regardless of the citation style used).
Students should identify their contributions to the paper. Please create a table of contents and clearly label and detail who wrote/contributed to what section. In addition, use headings and subheadings throughout the paper which clearly indicate authorship.
ONE team member should be designated to submit the assignment via Canvas/Turnitin. That person and only that person should submit your work.
This paper is intended to be completed in stages, where earlier stages MUST be complete so the next stage may be undertaken. So, any student who fails to complete his or her contribution within the group’s deadline may be subject to penalty, including a failing assignment grade (and therefore failing course grade). NOTE: In order to effectively write a paper in stages, each stage must be complete when it’s submitted. This means that you may not go back to an earlier stage and make changes, as this would undermine your analysis. Any student who fails to complete his or her contribution by the course deadline will receive a FAILING course grade.
In addition to writing and submitting each stage of the case analysis, the group should review the similarity report and remove any plagiarized material. The previously designated team member will be responsible for resubmitting the corrected version of each stage of the paper.
Group review of each stage of the paper is NOT OPTIONAL. It will help ensure that you have properly cited your sources and give you a final opportunity to remove plagiarized material. So, submitting your paper without this review isn’t only imprudent, it’s a kind of academic fraud.
Remember, failing to cite sources is plagiarism. This and *any* kind of cheating is grounds for failing the course. This means that ALL members of the group will fail the course if a paper is submitted with plagiarized content. NO EXCEPTIONS.
As noted in the syllabus, failure to complete this culminating course project will result in a failing course grade.
NO late papers will be accepted.
CASE ANALYSIS – Section Breakdown
I. Introduction: Provide overview of case, state the moral tests that will be used to determine the morally appropriate action, and what that action is. [Hint: write this last]
II. Provide relevant details of case: Identify the person or entity who is the decision-maker; what obligations does this person or entity have? Explain.
Identify factual, conceptual, application, and moral issues. Select the central moral issue, which will then be the focus of the rest of the paper.
Identify and discuss any impediments to morally responsible actions AND blind spots. Remember, you’re still looking forward, so look for anything that would constitute an impediment to morally responsible judgment making. (If you prefer, you can instead include this section near the end of the paper. Your task, in that case, would be to use hindsight to determine if some impediment or blind spots led to poor decisions.)
**Each person must contribute research to this section, using a different source. No more than one person may cite Wikipedia. This is to make sure you’re in agreement as to the basic facts of the case. As a group, you should then integrate your research together, creating one cohesive, non-repetitive section.**
III. Test by Moral Theories: Select moral theories to be used. [Note: If a moral theory has multiple tests, you are expected to apply all tests associated with that theory.]
Remember, your goal is to put yourself in the place of the decision-maker and then use the moral theories (from the decision making procedures handout) to make a decision. In other words, the decision should be made without the benefit of hindsight.
Explain the moral theory being applied in your OWN words (e.g., what is utilitarianism and what tests may be derived from the theory). Your goal is to show that you understand the material. Then, explain the application of the theory and results.
ALL group members must apply a different moral theory from the list below, beginning with theories i, ii, and iii. All groups should apply theories i-iii, regardless of group size. Additional members should look to iv-vi for their theories to apply. Remember, your group members should not apply the same theories.
Available Moral Theories
Consequentialism: Utilitarianism
Deontology: Kantian Ethics (or Respect for Persons)
Virtue Ethics
Professional Codes of Ethics
Existentialist Ethics
Creative Middle Ways
**When explaining moral theories (i-iii), you must make reference to our text, A Concise Introduction to Ethics or The Fundamentals of Ethics, by the same author. You’ll need to use other sources to explain the other theories.**
IV. Interpretation of Results: Now that three or more tests have been applied, what may be decided? Do all the theories point to the same solution? If they differ, the group must decide how to handle the conflicting results. Doing so requires a reasoned argument which shows why it is reasonable, preferable, etc., to act as you decided. To do this, please note:
A. Each person in the group should provide a reasoned analysis of the results and draw a conclusion (i.e., based on what everyone has said, what should be done & why).
B. Then, as a group, you must review the individual analyses/interpretations and come to some agreement as to what ought to be done. All should contribute to interpreting the results of the analysis as well as the final editing and smoothing out of the entire paper. The paper should read seamlessly and not appear choppy (with the exception of the individual analyses).
V. Hindsight/Conclusion: You should not only recap the results of your analysis… you should also now use your understanding of the history of the case (what the decision-maker decided and what happened after the decision was made) to explain what you have learned and what other engineers should learn from the case. Was there a difference between the “want” and “should” self in this case? Would application of moral theory have averted the incident or avoided the problem? If not, any thoughts on how we need to modify our decision-making so as to avoid problems like this in the future.
Tasks to Complete Case Analysis
Stage One: DUE November 5
Group Selection/Assignment
Selection of Moral Theories each group member will apply
Case Analysis Topic Selection
Case Analysis Research
Moral Issue Selection
Complete Case Analysis Sections I-III
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE
Stage Two: DUE November 19
Addition of Individual Analyses / Group Interpretation
Formulate Conclusion
Reflections: Hindsight
Complete Case Analysis Sections IV-V
Review Similarity Report and Revise.
ONCE THE DEADLINE HAS PASSED, NO EDITS ARE PERMITTED TO STAGE[supanova_question]