By Fer O’Neil and Joy Cooney
Case 1: Down to the Wire
By Fer O’Neil
SecCorp’s long-awaited update to its flagship product, SecControl, has kept its technical writing team busy. The product includes server management software for monitoring and controlling certain functions of industrial machines. In the weeks leading to the update’s release, the team has been updating product specification data sheets, installation and user guides, and all the public-facing online help available on the company’s website. Chris has worked with SecCorp’s software developers, engineers, and quality assurance team (QA) to document new on/off control functionality. Currently, customers can remotely control nearly all functions of their machines—only starting or stopping requires manual intervention. The updated SecControl will increase efficiency by allowing customers to program start and stop times.
Unfortunately, after working with QA to document this new feature, Chris determines that it does not work properly for customers whose servers are running the latest OS version. For these customers, the machines unexpectedly start after a few minutes. Based on user scenarios, Chris knows that workers servicing the machines take an average of five minutes to complete their tasks and that any unannounced start of the machines will put the workers in danger of being harmed.
Chris emails the marketing, communications, and public relations departments to confirm whether the on/off bug has been resolved and whether this information should be excluded from the release documentation. Knowing that the release is scheduled for tomorrow, Chris keeps his email brief: he states the facts he has compiled, but adds his concern that this situation needs to be promptly addressed. He also copies his direct manager on the email.
Within the hour, Chris receives a reply to his email stating that the prevalence of the on/off bug is known, but that since such a small number of customers could potentially be affected, the release is still scheduled for the morning. The email indicates that Chris’s concern is understood and that an immediate service release to resolve the issue is in the works and planned for release within a week. Furthermore, internal analytics show that less than 1% of customers run the latest OS, and it is unlikely that they will update to the latest version before a week’s time anyway. Therefore, the number of customers affected by the bug is virtually zero. Chris’s manager replies shortly after and writes, “I’ll instruct my team to remove this information at this time—thanks.”
Chris must decide whether to include the change log information detailing the known issue with the bug, and also, perhaps, a warning message to those customers running the latest OS. Including this information, however, will contradict his direct manager’s explicit instructions. Furthermore, publicizing this “internal only” and “confidential” bug will impact his company’s image, sales, and potentially even his job.
It is 4 pm and all of the stakeholders will be gone by 5:00 PM. The release will occur as soon as SecCorp opens in the morning. What should Chris do?
Case 2: Food for Thought
By Joy Cooney
Amy and Tom formed Athens Communication Team (ACT) with the primary purpose of doing work that would promote social responsibility. Now in its third year, ACT has a small but stable clientele and a solid reputation. However, the partners will soon have to dissolve the company if they can’t bring in more revenue.
Amy and Tom meet with Ed, an executive at Western Food Producers Coalition (WFPC). WFPC represents independent farmers and mid-scale food producers across the West. Ed explains that WFPC has kept silent on the genetically modified (GM) food labeling debate because its members have been divided on the issue. However, they now want to join the industry push for Congress to require FDA guidelines for GM labels that manufacturers could use voluntarily.
WFPC wants ACT to write promotional content for its members to use, and Ed needs an answer immediately. Amy and Tom agree to make a decision by morning.
Tom says he is worried that working for WFPC to promote voluntary labeling of GM foods will detrimentally affect ACT’s reputation. He thinks accepting the job would be bad for business, but Amy is unsure.
Amy reminds Tom that this could be their biggest job yet, giving them exposure and potential for more contracts. Tom says, “Even if this job is good for business, we might decide it’s not socially responsible. We agreed to stick to our mission.”
The partners turn to the Web to read more about the pros and cons of voluntary GM labeling. Tom learns that state-mandated labels will likely increase food prices more significantly than voluntary labeling. He thinks of his friend Linda who struggles to maximize every dollar in her family’s budget. Tom wonders what kind of impact even a small increase in food prices could have on hundreds of families in his community alone.
Tom and Amy decide that helping to keep food costs down will benefit vulnerable populations who already struggle to pay for the food they need. They decide that promoting voluntary labeling is socially responsible and think they might accept the WFPC project.
Amy continues to browse the Web. She reads an Associated Press article which warns that a federal standard for voluntary GM labels “would get manufacturers off the hook if any states pass laws requiring mandatory labeling.” She wonders if WFPC is joining industry leaders in a preemptive maneuver to sidestep potential mandates.
Voluntary labeling proponents claim that a federal standard would be uniform and therefore less confusing than state-by-state standards. Tom likes the clarity and consistency of having one standard, but he thinks that voluntary labeling will ultimately make it harder for consumers to know what is in their food because few manufacturers would voluntarily re-design packaging to include a “Made with genetically modified ingredients” product label. ACT advocates for right-to-know initiatives.
The partners think about ACT’s revenue and reputation, and they contemplate vulnerable populations and their need for affordable food versus their right to know what is in it. With only a few hours left to make a decision, Tom and Amy are again unsure which way to vote.
What should Amy and Tom do?
Shared Concerns
- In case 1, does the low possibility that many customers will be affected let Chris off the hook? In case 2, does the large number of potentially affected people increase Amy and Tom’s struggle?
- In both cases, the decision makers could likely find a way to write an explanation for their decision in a place where stakeholders and constituent audiences could find it. Would a public justification for their choices help offset any potential problems caused by their decisions?
- Both cases could potentially lead to unequal information in which the users or consumers know less than the companies behind the products. To what degree are technical communicators ethically obligated to minimize inequality?
Fer O’Neil and Joy Cooney are graduate students at Texas Tech University.
Editorial Note
When we think about ethics and ethics cases, we often have the luxury of time. We mull over the choices we would make in difficult situations and generally try to consider the implications of the various courses of action we might choose. Sometimes we take days, weeks, or even months to come to a decision that feels right. More often than not, however, our day-to-day lives don’t allow us the luxury of extended contemplation. Deadlines loom, and, like it or not, choices must be made.
In May’s special issue of Intercom on ethics, our authors gave us a lot to think about—the future of health care, public visuals, “other” knowledge, experience architecture, and more. In our column this month, we present two cases dealing explicitly with the problem of deadline-induced decisions that I hope will help us think more specifically about our daily decision-making process. In the first case, Fer O’Neil asks us to think about the choices we might make when faced with the possibility of harm to our clients, an order from a manager, and a looming deadline. In the second, Joy Cooney asks us to consider what value system might win out if we had to choose between our business acumen or our moral highground. The two together offer us, I think, a rich set of cases for our combined consideration—where do we place our own privately held values when decisions absolutely must be made at work?
As always, we welcome and encourage your responses. Let us know your answers to the questions we’ve posed, your thoughts on our roles as technical communicators in general, or send us your own ethics cases or column ideas. Please send your responses to derek.ross@auburn.edu. Responses will be printed in an upcoming issue of Intercom as space permits.
—Derek G. Ross
