Software Engineering Ethics - CSSE Center for Systems ：软件工程伦理为中心系统的话.ppt

usc-csse,1,barry boehm fall 2011,software engineering ethics,10/31/2019, usc-csse,2,outline,definitions and context power to do public harm or good acm/ieee software engineering code of ethics principles and examples rawls theory of justice relation to stakeholder win-win case study: mercy hospital integrating ethics into daily software engineering practices vbse/mbase/win win spiral model cs 577 ethics situations,10/31/2019, usc-csse,3,definition of “ethics” -webster, 1993,the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation a theory, system, or set of moral principles or values the principles of conduct governing an individual or group professional ethics,10/31/2019, usc-csse,4,context,software engineers have increasing power to do public harm or good intellectual property, privacy, confidentiality, quality of work, fairness, liability, risk disclosure, conflict of interest, unauthorized access professional societies have developed codes of ethics hard to integrate value-based ethics into value-neutral software engineering practices vbse/mbase/win win spiral enable ethics integration,10/31/2019, usc-csse,5,power to do public harm or good i,intellectual property: use without credit; use copyrighted material privacy: credit, health, personal information confidentiality: competitive information, political sensitivity quality of work: many dimensions; see table,10/31/2019, usc-csse,6,example: confidentiality,government agency hires company to support sw procurement provides data under nondisclosure agreement employee and company consultant prepare cost estimate employee: “ i dont see how anyone can do all this for $8m” consultant provides $8m target cost to some bidders government agency angry with company for leak whose fault? how could it be avoided?,10/31/2019, usc-csse,7,quality concerns vary by stakeholders role,acquirers,administrators,developers, maintainers,system controllers,information consumers,info brokers,system dependents,info suppliers,stakeholder classes,*critical *significant 0 insignificant or indirect,10/31/2019, usc-csse,8,power to do public harm or good - ii,fairness: equality of opportunity/treatment; fair reward system liability: accountability; parity of authority and responsibility risk disclosure: safety tests, cots capabilities; schedule slips conflict of interest: source selection; personnel or product reviews unauthorized access: reading, copying, modifying; denial of service,10/31/2019, usc-csse,9,examples: fairness,enron software to schedule power outages, raise prices suppose you had been asked to develop it? urban fire dispatching system inefficient old system caused $700m property loss new-system spec. includes dispatching algorithm to minimize property loss any fairness issues?,10/31/2019, usc-csse,10,cs 577 ethics accountability,honoring commitments to cs 577b team lca life cycle plan for 577b should identify 577b continuing team members and roles. if you signed that you will continue in 577b in the basic 577a questionnaire, we are expecting you to honor your commitment. if you are considering not honoring your commitment, please meet with me as soon as possible.,10/31/2019, usc-csse,11,example: safety tests,your company is delivering a drug prescription fulfillment system reusing software from a warehouse inventory system you are the quality assurance manager with company responsibility for certifying product safety the software has passed all the contracted tests but many off-nominal conditions untested some have shown unsafe outcomes you feel more off-nominal testing if necessary company president says if you dont certify safety by delivery date, company may go out of business what should you do?,10/31/2019, usc-csse,12,acm/iee software engineering code of ethics -table of contents,products: achievable goals, realistic estimates, high quality public: safety, respect of diversity, public interest first judgment: objectivity, no bribes or conflicts of interest client and employer: no employer-adverse interests, surface problems management: fair, ethical work rules, due process for violations profession: support profession and ethics code, dont misrepresent software colleagues: credit colleagues work, give colleagues a fair hearing self: improve your technical and ethical knowledge and practices,10/31/2019, usc-csse,13,code of ethics 2. public,2.01 disclose any software-related dangers 2.02 approve only safe, well tested software 2.03 only sign documents in area of competence 2.04 cooperate on matters of public concern 2.05 produce software that respects diversity 2.06 be fair and truthful in all matters 2.07 always put the publics interest first 2.08 donate professional skills to good causes 2.10 accept responsibility for your own work,10/31/2019, usc-csse,14,code of ethics 4. client and employer,4.01 provide services only where competent 4.02 ensure resources are authentically approved 4.03 only use property as authorized by the owner 4.04 do not use illegally obtained software 4.05 honor confidentiality of information 4.06 raise matters of social concern 4.07 inform when a project becomes problematic 4.08 accept no detrimental outside work 4.09 represent no interests adverse to your employer,10/31/2019, usc-csse,15,outline,definitions and context power to do public harm or good acm/ieee software engineering code of ethics principles and examples rawls theory of justice relation to stakeholder win-win case study: mercy hospital integrating ethics into daily software engineering practices vbse/mbase/win win spiral model cs 577 ethics situations,10/31/2019, usc-csse,16,rawls theory of justice (1971) -following collins et al., “how good is good enough?” comm.acm, jan. 1994,fair rules of conduct principles of justice participants and obligations provider (developer) buyer (acquirer) user(s) penumbra (general public) negotiate mutually satisfactory (win-win) agreements,10/31/2019, usc-csse,17,rawls theory of justice - ii,fair rules of conduct negotiation among interested parties veil of ignorance (about what affects whom) rationality principles least advantaged - dont increase harm to them harm = probability x magnitude (risk exposure) risking harm - dont risk increasing harm dont use “low-threat” software in “high-threat” context publicity test - defensible with honor before an informed public use for difficult cost-benefit tradeoffs,10/31/2019, usc-csse,18,obligations of the software provider,10/31/2019, usc-csse,19,obligations of the software buyer,10/31/2019, usc-csse,20,obligations of the software user,10/31/2019, usc-csse,21,obligations of the software penumbra,10/31/2019, usc-csse,22,case study: mercy hospital pharmacy system -collins et al., 1994,growing hospital manual pharmacy information system reaching overload spec developed for pc-based information system rachel: vp, records & automation george: chief pharmacist system developed by consultants hired by george rachel: test procedures based on mature warehouse inventory system budgeted 50% more testing than other bidders installation & training discovers problems helen: consultant in charge of installation & training ann: skeptical nurse cross-checking computer outputs,10/31/2019, usc-csse,23,mercy hospital pharmacy system: problems,dosage problems from data entry errors 10x dosage; wrong patient cross-checking incomplete; not trusted by some doctors heavier data-entry load formalizing automated procedures more info. needed pharmacy info warehouse info helen: should go back to old system during cleanup george: - is old system less risky? how do we ensure cleanup will get it right? how much will cleanup cost? future practice: how to anticipate, avoid similar problems?,10/31/2019, usc-csse,24,outline,definitions and context power to do public harm or good acm/ieee software engineering code of ethics principles and examples rawls theory of justice relation to stakeholder win-win case study: mercy hospital integrating ethics into daily software engineering practices vbse/mbase/win win spiral model cs 577 ethics situations,10/31/2019, usc-csse,25,mercy hospital : use of vbse/mbase/win win spiral,results chain add patient safety outcome, patient stakeholder representative rework-business-workflows initiative, including safety checks; add clerical-staff stakeholder stakeholder win win patient representative: safety criteria; parallel-operation phase-in clerical staff: prototype gui, including safety-check support business case: includes added safety costs and benefits risk management: assess warehouse package safety, effects of workflow changes.,10/31/2019, usc-csse,26,use of vbse/mbase/win win spiral-ii,concurrent engineering concurrently address business workflows, gui prototypes, cots alternatives, feature prioritization, cost/schedule/benefits analysis, other risks prepare to pass lco, lca, ccd, and ioc anchor point milestone reviews monitoring and control: use balanced scorecard to track progress with respect to plans; apply corrective actions as necessary change as opportunity: look for emerging cots pharmacy-related fulfillment systems,10/31/2019, usc-csse,27,cs 577 ethics situations,assuming your priorities match those of other stakeholder