Two of the ethical considerations contained in BCS code of conduct would be identified and discussed, with reference to persons who had violated them.
You shall carry out work or study with due care and diligence in accordance with the relevant authority’s requirements, and the interests of system users. If your professional judgment is overruled, you shall indicate the likely risks and consequences.
The CEO, Michael Waterson was the person who was primarily responsible for ensuring the high standard of ethical practices within the organization. As a leader, he was not only responsible for his workers but he was duty bound to help create an environment that encourages fair practices, mutual trust, and confidence building. Instead, he issued threats of terminating the services of workers if deadlines were not met and thereby promoted an environment of fear and stress that provoked his subordinates to resort to unethical practices and deceitful behavior that violated BCS code of conduct. He also employed Sam Reynolds as the project head of highly technical robot division, fully knowing that Reynolds neither had the expertise nor the experience of working with robotics that required working on prototypes prior to a final version. The flaw in the programming led to the malfunctioning of the robot CX30. The main reason being that vital precautionary measures and testing at different levels of software development, as a normal course, could not be conducted due to a non flexible deadline and the hanging threat of dismissal of the project team. Hence Waterson had violated section 3 of BCS code of conduct and he was responsible for the substandard work of his workers and he should have taken full responsibility for the death of the operator.
Section 2 of BCS had also been violated by Michael Waterson.