3. Is There a Place for Ethics in I

3. Is There a Place for Ethics in IT?
On March 15, 2005, Michael Schrage published an article in CIO magazine entitled “Ethics, Schmethics,” which stirred up a great deal of controversy in the IT community. In the article, Schrage proposed that CIOs (chief information officers) “should stop trying to do the ‘right thing’ when implementing IT and focus instead on getting their implementations right.” Schrage argued that ethics had become a buzzword, just like quality in the 1980s; he asserted that the demand for ethical behavior interferes with business efficiency.
In the article, Schrage provided a few scenarios to back up his opinion. In one such example, a company is developing a customer relationship management (CRM) system, and the staff is working very hard to meet the deadline. The company plans to outsource the maintenance and support of the CRM system once it is developed, meaning that there is a good chance that two-thirds of the IT staff will be laid off. Would you disclose this information? Schrage answered, “I don’t think so.”
In another scenario, Schrage asked readers if they would consider deliberately withholding important information from their boss if they knew that its disclosure would provoke his or her immediate counterproductive
intervention in an important project. Schrage said he would withhold it. Business involves competing values, he argued, and trade-offs must be made to keep business operations from becoming paralyzed.70
Schrage was hit with a barrage of responses accusing him of being dishonorable, shortsighted, and lazy. Other feedback provided new perspectives on his scenarios that Schrage had not considered in his article. For
example, an IT manager at Boise State University argued that doing the right thing is good for business. Not disclosing layoffs, she argued, is a trick that only works once. Remaining employees will no longer trust the company and may pursue jobs where they can feel more secure. New job applicants will think twice before joining a company with a reputation for exploiting employees. Other readers responded to that scenario by suggesting that the company could try to maintain loyalty by offering incentives for those who stayed or by providing jobplacement services to departing employees.
Addressing the second scenario, another reader, Dewey, suggested that not giving the boss important information could backfire on the employee: “What if your boss finds out the truth? What if you were wrong and the boss could have helped? Once your boss knows that you lied once, will he believe you the next time?”
Another reader had actually worked under an unproductive, reactive, meddling boss. Based on his experience, he suggested speaking to the boss about the problem at an appropriate time and place. In addition, the reader explained that as situations arose that required him to convey important information that might elicit interference, he developed action plans and made firm presentations to his boss. The boss, the reader assured Schrage, will adapt.
Some readers argued that CIO must consider the company’s long-term needs rather than just the current needs of a specific project. Others argued that engaging in unethical behavior, even for the best of purposes,
crosses a line that eventually leads to more serious transgressions. Some readers suspected that Schrage had published the article to provoke outrage. Another reader agreed with Schrage, arguing that ethics has to “take a
back seat to budgets and schedules” in a large organization. This reader explained, “At the end of the day, IT is business.”

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 1:

3. Is There a Place for Ethics in IT? On March 15, 2005, Michael Schrage published an article in CIO magazine entitled “Ethics, Schmethics,” which stirred up a great deal of controversy in the IT community. In the article, Schrage proposed that CIOs (chief information officers) “should stop trying to do the ‘right thing’ when implementing IT and focus instead on getting their implementations right.” Schrage argued that ethics had become a buzzword, just like quality in the 1980s; he asserted that the demand for ethical behavior interferes with business efficiency. In the article, Schrage provided a few scenarios to back up his opinion. In one such example, a company is developing a customer relationship management (CRM) system, and the staff is working very hard to meet the deadline. The company plans to outsource the maintenance and support of the CRM system once it is developed, meaning that there is a good chance that two-thirds of the IT staff will be laid off. Would you disclose this information? Schrage answered, “I don’t think so.” In another scenario, Schrage asked readers if they would consider deliberately withholding important information from their boss if they knew that its disclosure would provoke his or her immediate counterproductive intervention in an important project. Schrage said he would withhold it. Business involves competing values, he argued, and trade-offs must be made to keep business operations from becoming paralyzed.70 Schrage was hit with a barrage of responses accusing him of being dishonorable, shortsighted, and lazy. Other feedback provided new perspectives on his scenarios that Schrage had not considered in his article. For example, an IT manager at Boise State University argued that doing the right thing is good for business. Not disclosing layoffs, she argued, is a trick that only works once. Remaining employees will no longer trust the company and may pursue jobs where they can feel more secure. New job applicants will think twice before joining a company with a reputation for exploiting employees. Other readers responded to that scenario by suggesting that the company could try to maintain loyalty by offering incentives for those who stayed or by providing jobplacement services to departing employees. Addressing the second scenario, another reader, Dewey, suggested that not giving the boss important information could backfire on the employee: “What if your boss finds out the truth? What if you were wrong and the boss could have helped? Once your boss knows that you lied once, will he believe you the next time?” Another reader had actually worked under an unproductive, reactive, meddling boss. Based on his experience, he suggested speaking to the boss about the problem at an appropriate time and place. In addition, the reader explained that as situations arose that required him to convey important information that might elicit interference, he developed action plans and made firm presentations to his boss. The boss, the reader assured Schrage, will adapt. Beberapa pembaca berpendapat bahwa CIO harus mempertimbangkan kebutuhan jangka panjang perusahaan alih-alih hanya kebutuhan saat ini sebuah proyek tertentu. Orang lain berpendapat bahwa terlibat dalam perilaku yang tidak etis, bahkan untuk yang terbaik dari tujuan, melintasi garis yang akhirnya mengarah pada pelanggaran-pelanggaran yang lebih serius. Beberapa pembaca diduga bahwa Schrage telah menerbitkan artikel untuk memprovokasi kemarahan. Pembaca lain setuju dengan Schrage, berdebat bahwa etika telah "mengambil kembali kursi untuk anggaran dan jadwal"organisasi besar. Pembaca ini menjelaskan, "Pada akhir hari, itu adalah bisnis."

Hasil (Bahasa Indonesia) 2:

3. Apakah Ada Tempat untuk Etika dalam IT?
Pada tanggal 15 Maret 2005, Michael Schrage menerbitkan sebuah artikel di majalah CIO berjudul "Etika, Schmethics," yang menimbulkan banyak kontroversi di masyarakat IT. Dalam artikel itu, Schrage mengusulkan bahwa CIO (chief information officer) "harus berhenti mencoba melakukan 'hal yang benar' ketika mengimplementasikan IT dan berfokus pada mendapatkan implementasi hak mereka." Schrage berpendapat bahwa etika telah menjadi kata kunci di, seperti kualitas di tahun 1980-an; ia menegaskan bahwa permintaan untuk perilaku etis mengganggu efisiensi bisnis.
Dalam artikel itu, Schrage disediakan beberapa skenario untuk mendukung pendapatnya. Dalam salah satu contohnya, sebuah perusahaan sedang mengembangkan manajemen hubungan pelanggan (CRM) sistem, dan staf bekerja sangat keras untuk memenuhi tenggat waktu. Perusahaan berencana untuk melakukan outsourcing pemeliharaan dan dukungan dari sistem CRM setelah dikembangkan, yang berarti bahwa ada kesempatan baik bahwa dua-pertiga dari staf TI akan diberhentikan. Apakah Anda mengungkapkan informasi ini? Schrage menjawab, "Saya tidak berpikir begitu."
Dalam skenario lain, Schrage meminta pembaca apakah mereka akan mempertimbangkan sengaja menyembunyikan informasi penting dari bos mereka jika mereka tahu bahwa pengungkapannya akan memprovokasi kontraproduktif langsung nya
intervensi dalam sebuah proyek penting. Schrage mengatakan ia akan menahannya. Bisnis melibatkan nilai-nilai bersaing, ia berpendapat, dan trade-off harus dilakukan untuk menjaga operasi bisnis dari menjadi paralyzed.70
Schrage dipukul dengan rentetan tanggapan menuduhnya tidak terhormat, picik, dan malas. Umpan balik lain yang disediakan perspektif baru pada skenario bahwa Schrage tidak dipertimbangkan dalam artikelnya. Untuk
contoh, seorang manajer IT di Boise State University berpendapat bahwa melakukan hal yang benar baik untuk bisnis. Tidak mengungkapkan PHK, ia berpendapat, adalah trik yang hanya bekerja sekali. Sisa karyawan tidak akan lagi mempercayai perusahaan dan dapat mengejar pekerjaan di mana mereka dapat merasa lebih aman. Pelamar kerja baru akan berpikir dua kali sebelum bergabung dengan sebuah perusahaan dengan reputasi untuk mengeksploitasi karyawan. Pembaca lainnya menanggapi skenario itu dengan menyarankan bahwa perusahaan bisa mencoba untuk mempertahankan loyalitas dengan menawarkan insentif bagi mereka yang tinggal atau dengan menyediakan layanan jobplacement untuk berangkat karyawan.
Mengatasi skenario kedua, pembaca lain, Dewey, menyarankan agar tidak memberikan informasi penting bos bisa menjadi bumerang pada karyawan: "Bagaimana jika bos Anda menemukan kebenaran? Bagaimana jika Anda salah dan bos bisa membantu? Setelah bos Anda tahu bahwa Anda berbohong sekali, akan ia percaya Anda waktu berikutnya?
"Pembaca lain telah benar-benar bekerja di bawah tidak produktif, reaktif, campur tangan bos. Berdasarkan pengalamannya, ia menyarankan berbicara dengan bos tentang masalah pada waktu yang tepat dan tempat. Selain itu, pembaca menjelaskan bahwa sebagai situasi muncul yang mengharuskannya untuk menyampaikan informasi penting yang mungkin menimbulkan gangguan, ia mengembangkan rencana aksi dan membuat presentasi perusahaan kepada bosnya. Bos, pembaca meyakinkan Schrage, akan beradaptasi.
Beberapa pembaca berpendapat bahwa CIO harus mempertimbangkan kebutuhan jangka panjang-perusahaan bukan hanya kebutuhan saat proyek tertentu. Lainnya berpendapat bahwa terlibat dalam perilaku yang tidak etis, bahkan untuk yang terbaik dari tujuan,
melintasi garis yang akhirnya mengarah ke pelanggaran yang lebih serius. Beberapa pembaca menduga bahwa Schrage telah menerbitkan artikel untuk memprovokasi kemarahan. Pembaca lain setuju dengan Schrage, dengan alasan bahwa etika harus "mengambil
kursi kembali ke anggaran dan jadwal" di sebuah organisasi besar. Pembaca ini menjelaskan, "Pada akhir hari, TI adalah bisnis."