The first step is to analyze the consequences of what happens when a decision is made. Utilitarianism states that the consequences of actions might justify the actions. Now Jane could trust her experience and not sign off on the inventory system. By doing so, her company would potentially run out of business. The client company would benefit from her actions as they would be alerted to a potential software disaster for them in the future. On the other hand, if Jane was to sign off on the inventory system knowing they had met the agreed upon standards, then client company would face issues later, but Jane’s company would be saved. Both companies might face equal ramifications. Jane’s company might go out of business if they don’t sign off the product to client. However, if the product is signed off and the client company faces issues later, then they could also be forced out of business. The second value of the ACS code of conduct states that the IT developer must always work in a way that would ensure their developed product in some way improved the quality of life for the individuals who would be affected by the product (ACS, 2014).
So now the question to address is, if the client would have better quality of life with the software product that Jane is signing off? The case study indicates that the system has passed all the contracted tests and Jane is reassured by her employers to sign off.Legally she is under no conundrum as such as what tests were required by the client and what the software development company agreed too has been completed. However, personal and ethically she is facing a conundrum because with her years of experience she knows that sub inventory system risks still exist and these risks could as well lead to significant harm for client and employees (albeit their lives are not in danger). The potential failure could make them suffer losses and hence their quality of life will be impaired indirectly even if they do not suffer a direct physical injury as such.