Comprehensive Analysis of the Case of the Killer Robot
The Case of the Killer Robot tells a fictional story of Robbie CX30, a robot programmed to automate an assembly line which ended up taking the life of a programmer, Barth Matthews. The story particularly tackles specific issues in software engineering and computer ethics such as software process models, team dynamics, user interfaces, psychology behind programmers, the nature of system requirements, software theft, privacy, and the most important consideration that must be pondered upon “when is the software good enough”?
Primary issues pointed out in the case study
The issues carefully pointed out by the Case of the Killer Robot are classified into four broad categories:
1. Requirements Analysis and Specification
a. Was the solution proposed the correct one for the customer or user?
b. Did the system specified actually able to produce that solution?
2. System Design and Development
a. Was the design method employed appropriate for the specified system?
b. Did the development methods and team suit the design?
3. System Testing and Usability
a. Was the system thoroughly tested?
b. Were the users of the system even considered or involved?
4. Ethics and Culpability
a. Did everybody who were concerned act with the best of motives?
b. Who should be held responsible for the casualty?
The primary issues pointed out in the case study counters the eight principles of the Code of Ethics namely:
Principle 1: Public — Software engineers shall act consistently with the public interest.
It appears that Ray is more concerned with his job as head of the Robotics Division rather than the lives who are at stake in the operation of Robbie CX30. Obviously, Ray placed a price on the life which is nothing compared to the profits on the robot’s project. It is wrong to place a value in a human being as part of a cost-benefit analysis as life is completely priceless.
Principle 2: Client and Employer — Software engineers shall act in a manner that is in the best interests of their client and employer, consistent with the public interest.
An important lesson in this case study tells us to be open to the realization about the complications of the tasks of building real-world software and to be able to see and apply the code of ethics in software engineering intertwined in that complexity of ethical issues. The ethically appropriate manner which Ray Johnson failed to exemplify is to inform the customer of the progress, whatever it may be, and offer alternatives to retain the customer’s business, but never skimp on the product to reduce the likelihood of such tragic events.
Principle 3: Product — Software engineers shall ensure that their products and related modifications meet the highest professional standards possible.
Ray Johnson’s authorization of the faulty test runs in the hopes to deliver the product on time and by forcing an employee to knowingly falsify reports and ultimately threatening job loss is the real cause of this tragedy. He made clear misrepresentation to the customer, stating that the product works fine, knowing full well that the appropriate tests had not been even been performed.
Principle 4: Judgement — Software engineers shall maintain integrity and independence in their professional judgement.
Randy was very incompetent and stubborn in the course of programming Robbie CX30. It is further emphasized about how he only cared for the “how” aspect of the programming but not the “what” and “why” aspect which are very important factors in software development.
Principle 5: Management — Software engineering managers and leaders shall subscribe to and promote an ethical approach to the management of software development and maintenance.
I believe that Cindy Yardley would not have allowed Robbie CX30 out and running without passing the software tests. It appears that she was in a way blackmailed in the sense that she had to go against her moral values as a condition for her job and her co-workers. The weight of the guilt was placed on Cindy’s shoulders instead. More importantly, it seems that the management of Silicon use Randy as a scapegoat for the casualty. Randy’s incompetence in writing the program was already perfect evidence in for himself. There was even no management intervention which made Randy misinterpret the formulas.
Principle 6: Profession — Software engineers shall advance the integrity and reputation of the profession consistent with the public interest.
It is characterized that Ray Johnson would rather “stick” to his old experience in manufacturing hardware and apply those same methods to software development which is a big no-no when it comes to the code of ethics in software engineering as there are different software process models that are to be carefully considered during the development. Furthermore, it is also exemplified about how Johnson would rather use Cindy as a means only to preserve the Robotics Division.
Principle 7: Colleagues — Software engineers shall be fair to and supportive of their colleagues.
I believe that almost all the employees of Silicon Technotronics are guilty in this case. It appears that the people throughout the case investigation would rather choose to blame other people rather than owning it up to themselves.
Principle 8: Self — Software engineers shall participate in lifelong learning regarding the practice of their profession and shall promote an ethical approach to the practice of the profession.
I believe that Ray Johnson should be responsible and held accountable for Bart Matthew’s death. Ray used his authority to manipulate Cindy for his selfish needs. He was fully aware of the problem with Randy Samuel’s program and he was not going to let it hinder the project’s deadline no matter what.
Case Study Comprehensive Analysis
I believe that almost all the employees of Silicon Technotronics are guilty in this case. It appears that the people throughout the case investigation would rather choose to blame other people rather than owning it up to themselves. For one, Randy was very incompetent and stubborn in the course of programming Robbie CX30. It is further emphasized about how he only cared for the “how” aspect of the programming but not the “what” and “why” aspect which are very important factors. Moreover, it seems that Ray Johnson would rather “stick” to his old experience in manufacturing hardware and apply those same methods to software development which is a big no when it comes to the code of ethics in software engineering as there difference software process models that are to be carefully considered during the development. Furthermore, it is also exemplified about how Johnson would rather use Cindy as a means only to preserve the Robotics Division. Next, it seems that Sam Reynolds who was a very ambitious, arrogant and opinionated individual appears to stubbornly insist upon the “waterfall” program development; everything else was just a fad for him. Michael Waterson conspiring to have Randy indicted by his friend and prosecuting attorney, Jane McMurdock. The person responsible for designing the interface console of Robbie CX30, Cindy Yardley conspired with Ray Johnson to manipulate the software results of the test. Max Worthington for allowing the communication between Yardley and Johnson without any intervention or notifying the proper authorities. The above people synergistically created the conditions of an uneventful event that was bound to happen.
The real issue in this case is who is the most responsible for allowing the Robbie CX30 to go out the door without proper due diligence. I believe that Ray Johnson should be responsible and held accountable for Bart Matthew’s death. Ray used his authority to manipulate Cindy for his selfish needs. He was fully aware of the problem with Randy Samuel’s program and he was not going to let it hinder the project’s deadline no matter what. It appears that Ray is more concerned with his job as head of the Robotics Division rather than the lives who are at stake in the operation of Robbie CX30. Obviously, Ray placed a price on the life which is nothing compared to the profits on the robot’s project. It is wrong to place a value in a human being as part of a cost-benefit analysis as life is completely priceless. I believe that Cindy Yardley would not have allowed Robbie CX30 out and running without passing the software tests. It appears that she was in a way blackmailed in the sense that she had to go against her moral values as a condition for her job and her co-workers. The weight of the guilt was placed on Cindy’s shoulders instead. More importantly, it seems that the management of Silicon use Randy as a scapegoat for the casualty. Randy’s incompetence in writing the program was already perfect evidence in for himself. There was even no management intervention which made Randy misinterpret the formulas. Hence, the liability of Bart’s death is directed towards Randy alone instead. The primary dilemma is that there should have been protocols within the division that act as “checks and balances” in which the Code of Ethics of software engineering should be applied. This would help Randy’s mistake to be caught and taken care by the others instead in the early stage of development. In conclusion, Randy is not responsible alone about the incident. In fact, the protocols appears to have been sabotaged by Ray Johnson. Johnson’s authorization of the faulty test runs in the hopes to deliver the product on time and by forcing an employee to knowingly falsify reports and ultimately threatening job loss is the real cause of this tragedy. He made clear misrepresentation to the customer, stating that the product works fine, knowing full well that the appropriate tests had not been even been performed.
An important lesson in this fictional story tells us to be open to the realization about the complications of the tasks of building real-world software and to be able to see and apply the code of ethics in software engineering intertwined in that complexity of ethical issues. The ethically appropriate manner which Ray Johnson failed to exemplify is to inform the customer of the progress, whatever it may be, and offer alternatives to retain the customer’s business, but never skimp on the product to reduce the likelihood of such tragic events.
