Evaluating Computer Systems and Their Impacts
Understand the importance of evaluating the impacts of a computer system.
We'll cover the following
Given the scenario below, select the approach that you would choose from the options provided.
Scenario
You are developing a hospital’s electronic medical record (EMR) system that contains a feature that allows doctors and nurses to access patients’ medical information efficiently. You are excited about the project and are working hard to meet the deadline.
One day, your project manager requests you to speed up the development process and submit the project as soon as possible. You hasten the development and the testing process to deliver the project on time.
Due to the shortage of time and pressure to deliver the software quickly, you rush through the testing phase and skip some complex and time-consuming test cases. However, you fear there may be errors or bugs and security vulnerabilities in the EMR system. Just a few days before the deadline, you inform your manager about your concerns, but you are asked to just go-ahead and focus on delivering the product on time.
What would you do?
A lack of proper assessment and evaluation of a computer system and its impacts can have dire consequences for everyone involved. The importance of proper evaluation can be understood by the following case study.
Case study
The following case study is based on a true series of events where two Boeing 737 MAX planes (Lion Air JT610 and Ethiopian Airline Flight ET302 ) crashed due to the lack of evaluation and testing, costing around 350 lives and a financial loss
Boeing 737 MAX plane crashes
One of the top aircraft manufacturers, Boeing, launched a family of aircraft, 737 MAX, by modifying its existing 737NG to keep up with its competitor Airbus’ A320 aircraft family.
Since Boeing did not want to lose its contracts to its competitors, it left its initial plan of launching a completely new family of aircraft (which would take a lot of time) to modify its latest generation of aircrafts.
When faced with the design challenge while inserting larger engines, Boeing did not opt for a costly hardware redesign for the new model but chose the software solution instead. This task was challenging for them, but they tried their best to develop the software. However, considering how big of a task and responsibility it was, the engineers were unsure if their software solution was a wise choice to mask the hardware design issue or even if the software solution itself was foolproof. Since Boeing’s competitor’s aircraft family was gaining popularity, the management urged the engineers to develop the software within a specific timeline.
To insert a bigger engine on the newer model, it had to be positioned further forward and higher on the wings to ensure sufficient clearance from the ground as compared to the previous aircraft versions. This, in turn, changed the plane’s aerodynamics and increased the risk of a nose-up stall under certain flight conditions. The solution to controlling the nose-up stall was to incorporate the MCAS (Maneuvering Characteristics Augmentation System) to adjust the horizontal stabilizer in the plane’s tail.
The aircraft had two sensors, one on each side, but it used only one of the sensors to detect the nose-up stall, which then activated the MCAS. However, the system malfunctioned and repeatedly signaled the MCAS to adjust the horizontal stabilizer, which unnecessarily pushed the plane’s nose down. Not only did it lead to the grounding of airplanes worldwide, affecting the company’s reputation, but it also cost hundreds of lives.
According to several reports, the pilots were unaware of the existence of the MCAS before the first plane crash on October 29, 2018. After Lion Air crashed, Boeing included information about the MCAS in their manual. However, the pilots still weren’t
Takeaways
Below are the key takeaways to remember:
To sum up, choosing a risky “band-aid” software solution, along with inadequate information on the system, lack of proper testing, and inadequate user training, may lead to the loss of lives, damaged reputations, and financial losses.
While the engineers at Boeing did feel the pressure of losing contracts to their competitor Airbus, their opted approach should have been more responsible and thorough.
Issuing a list of concerns, at the very least, for transparency’s sake allows the stakeholders to make informed decisions and give informed consent. For instance, in Boeing’s case study, the engineers could at least create a report to disclose all the possible future risks and include their concerns to allow all the involved stakeholders to make informed decisions and give informed consent. The company could also insist on training the pilots about the deployed solution and disclose all factors that may go wrong.
Principles
The following general ethical principles apply to the scenario above:
Give comprehensive and thorough evaluations of computer systems and their impacts, including an analysis of possible risks.
Accept and provide appropriate professional reviews.