Case Study 8 -Conflict of InterestHarshal works for the IT section of a very large Federal government department. His role is mostly database management and coding associated with that. He is always looking for ways to get ahead so on his own initiative he gained accreditation as a SFIA consultant even though the Department has not yet adopted it.He receives a very interesting offer direct from Alice, the head of the IT Section. Alice wants him to submit a proposal to do a full SFIA analysis of the skills of all 10 staff in the IT Section’s Business Analysis Unit as a pilot project for bringing SFIA into the whole Section. This is great news for Harshal because he has long been interested in moving into business analysis. The BA Unit has been considered a very successful unit for a long time, but for some reason it’s profile has dropped considerably recently.Harshal ‘s proposal is accepted by the IT Head very quickly and with almost no consultation with other staff. When Harshal meets John, the leader of the BA Unit, John immediately hands over a schedule of first interviews with most of the BA Unit staff. However he also passes across 2 documents which appear to be SFIA matrices already filled out for John and Freda, one of the senior consultants. John explains that it won’t be necessary for Harshal to interview either himself or Freda. Heexplains that he himself is too busy and that Freda has just come backfrom extended stress leave, so it’s not really appropriate for her to beinterviewed.John is very welcoming and to Harshal ‘s surprise he adds that if his report is well received, he will make sure that Harshal is short listed for any upcoming positions in the Unit, should he be interested in applying for them.Harshal is actually somewhat shocked by this because he did not know that John knew of his interest in joining the unit. He also now has a problem. How can he fulfil his responsibility to interview and document everyone in the Unit as agreed in the project brief?Also uploading a Sample assignment, Which is the same topic and same ethical situation, But different people and a different issue.Please Go through the sample assignment , All you need is editing the sample assignment and create a new one satisfying the case study above.Requirements :Discuss ethical, professional and legal issues which you consider arise from this scenario. Make somerecommendations of actions which could be taken to resolve the situation and/or to minimise thechance the scenario may recur. Support your answers with relevant references (as well as the Codes and Laws). Things to Consider in Your Assignment:You should list at least 3 values from the ACS Code of Ethics and up to 5 clauses from the ACS Code of Professional Conduct youthink are specifically relevant in deciding how to resolve thesituation. Make sure that you refer to the most up to date ACS Codeswhich are available on the ACS website –www.acs.org.au. You should also list any relevant Australian legislation that you think applies to this scenario. Your analysis, discussion and recommendations should use the framework you selected in Week 3( i.e Thomas white or Macdoland framework)–Solving an Ethical Dilemma. Your assignment should be 400-500 words in length(excluding your code lists, legislation list and references). You may need to undertake a small amount of research, however, most information you will need is available via the seminars and their references. Also, use a cover page, as per the suggested template, use in‐text referencing, use complete Harvard Notation, submit in “Word” format or equivalent format that can be readily opened in MS Word, keep your formatting simple: Arial 11pt, 10pt after paragraph, single line spacing, headings in bold, maximum 2 indent levels/bullet levels. Do not use page borders, word art, page backgrounds or similar extraneous decoration Your uploaded file name should identify you as part of its name –e.g. PE_Assignment1_William_Smith. Marking GuideMarks will be awarded using the following guidelines. 15% meeting the procedural requirements, including, spelling, grammar, number of words, document formatting, 30% how logically and thoroughly you identified and described professional ,ethical and legal issues arising in the scenario, 30% how well you developed your recommendations and supported them with relevant, correct referencing, 20% how well you convinced the reader that you understood the issues, 5% did the material generate interest in the reader?
