Agrico Inc. - Business Ethics

Student Name: ____Zineb AMEZIANE EL HASSANI        Student ID: __2B7002_____

In Agrico Inc. case, apparently, there are differing views between Burdelle and Rogers regarding the situation. List and explain the underlying factors using relevant moral dimensions (at least two) of Information Systems. (Score: 20 points)

Agrico’s case study is about a moral dilemma presented to George P. Burdelle, new VP of Information Systems for Agrico, Inc., who is offered the opportunity to copy the source code for the new information system in his company. As well as a legal predicament that it presents, there is also the moral and ethical issue in play, in so far as the owner of the code is adamant that the source code be left under his sole control, which has initially been agreed to contractually by Agrico.

As far as the five moral dimensions of Information Systems are concerned, the dilemma is about:

• Property rights and obligations: the source code developed by AMR is, as stipulated by the contract binding AMR and Agrico, which has been agreed upon, and which has been reviewed extensively by the legal and IT departments of the customer Agrico, the property of the provider AMR. Copying the code, even for the purpose of keeping it as a safeguard against the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the two parties, would amount to stealing, which is in breach of the law and would create a culture of dishonesty in the firm. Agrico has submitted the software provided by AMR to a multitude of tests, both by its internal IT department and by independent consultants, and should have raised the concerns with the ownership of the source code simultaneously. They were also fully aware of the limited rights they had on the source code and have requested that the source code would be kept in escrow for back-ups. The most extreme course of action would be to drop the relationship; however, Agrico has invested extensively in the software AMR had provided, switching costs would be high, and in the late 80s, the pool of suppliers was very low. Under this moral dimension, the only course of action would be to renegotiate the contract and respect the property rights of AMR on the source code.
• System quality: Since a flawless software is technically unrealizable and unfeasible, and since the needs of Agrico were specific enough to warrant tailoring and modification of the software to fit their needs, we are not clear about the disclaimer offered by AMR regarding the specifications of the software it sells. It seems like Agrico went from surprise to surprise when it comes to the investment it made in AMR’s software. There was no standard version of the software, and the approach adopted by AMR in bug fixing had the potential to corrupt and endanger Agrico’s customers’ assets, and Agrico was right in dismissing the approach. The problems with the software appeared after the sale was agreed upon. AMR had a moral obligation to disclose all the particularities and limitations of the software solution beforehand. The series of unexpected mishaps with the software contributed to the flagging relationship between AMR and Agrico and created a climate of distrust between the two. At this point, AMR and Rogers should be open to renegotiating the contract and offering more security to Agrico in providing the source code for safekeeping. The concerns of Burdelle and his team are fully legitimate: if AMR was to go out of business before a decision for the escrow location was made, Agrico would be left without a software package. In my view, Rogers should relent in allowing an emergency copy of the source code be made available to Agrico without delay.
• Accountability and control: Whether he decides to copy the code or not, Burdelle is looking at taking responsibility for a number of outcomes: his job is in jeopardy if he copies the code and expose the company to legal action against it, his job is also in jeopardy if he passes up on the opportunity to secure a version of the code source and puts the company and its clients at risk in case of failure of the software. Burdelle is also responsible for reading, understanding, negotiating and drafting the contract with the help from Agrico’s lawyer. He was also responsible for assessing the integrity of the systems department and the hiring decisions. If the software fails and a copy of the source code is not available to Agrico, he, along with Rogers are accountable for the failure. Moreover, as a senior manager, Burdelle is responsible for upholding and building a culture of honesty and morality. As the case shows, he has already involved two other persons, who look up to him, in a potential breach of ethical and moral conduct. Instead of considering stealing the code, which is theft of intellectual property and makes the company and Burdelle liable for a lawsuit, he should try to amend and restore the relationship with Rogers, and work on a viable solution for all parties concerned.

Apple was given five days to respond to the federal court order. Help T.Cook to resolve of the moral dilemmas using Badaracco’s Four Questions Framework (“Consequences” “Rights” “Integrity/Conscience and Values” and “Pragmatism/Reality”) (Score: 40 points)

The Apple case is a textbook “Right-vs-Right” dilemma. Two rights seem to collide and create a conundrum for Tim Cook, CEO of Apple: helping the FBI fight and prevent terrorism is right, protecting the privacy of its millions of users is also right. Using Badaracco’s framework for assessing the resolution of Right-vs-Right dilemmas, the dilemma amounts to: