A CHECKLIST FOR MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBILITY IN INFORMATION SYSTEMS


In this chapter we have discussed three important aspects of responsibility and IS: responsibility because of, for, and through IS. The underlying idea was that management wants to act responsibly and asks how this can be done. It turned out that both of the temporal directions, prospective as well as retrospective, must be considered . Furthermore, the role of technology in the ascription is also of importance.

Given the communicative nature of responsibility, however, it proved to be impossible to deduce easy-to-follow rules that managers must simply adhere to. Responsibility ascriptions are complex social interactions that require many tacit skills such as prudence and judgment. They are not transformable into simple deontologies or codes of conduct. Managers who usually do not have a lot of training in moral philosophy may be disappointed by this, but philosophical ethics, as we have seen earlier, does not usually give clear-cut directions. However, from a point of view of reflective responsibility, it seems too weak an answer to managers wanting to know how to act responsibly if one just tells them to act on their judgment. We will therefore develop a list of aspects that are of relevance and that should be taken into account when acting responsibly. This list should not be misunderstood as a code of ethics that tells managers what to do or how to do it. Whichever definition of ethics one prefers, be it the German or the French as discussed earlier or any of a number of others, it is generally true that it cannot be codified. This is not to completely condemn codes of ethics, but it should be noted that such codes can only have a limited effect. [24] The checklist that we will introduce should rather be understood as something to be used by managers when visualising responsibility. The multitude of aspects discussed so far can easily lead to confusion and to the neglecting of important aspects. The checklist is therefore just a brief summary of the most important points discussed here. Its purpose is to remind people who want to act responsibly what can be of relevance and what aspects they may have to think of. It does not prescribe a certain way to act or any particular outcome. The point is to remind people who are involved in responsibility ascriptions which aspects can be important and thus how the processes can be formed to maximise their acceptability and viability.

The checklist is divided into six points, each of which is again divided further. The points will be demonstrated by questions which indicate what aspect should be the centre of attention for each of them. The attempt to answer the questions for a particular case should go a long way toward describing how responsibility can be discharged.

Clarity of the Notion

Is the idea of the ascription clear and is it comprehensible to all of the parties involved?

Social Construction/Ascription

Is the nature of the responsibility as a social construction recognised? Do the parties involved realise that it is a process of ascription?

Type

What type of responsibility ascription are we looking at? Is it a legal, a moral, a task-oriented ascription or another kind? Are we looking at a reflexive or a transitive ascription?

Norms

What sort or norm is going to be the basis for the ascription? Where does it come from, how is it justified? Is it acceptable to the affected parties?

Dimensions

Which are the dimensions, the central parts of the ascription?

Subject

Who or what is to be held responsible? Is the subject generally recognised as being able to assume responsibility? Is the subject an individual or a collectiveentity?

Object

What is the object for which responsibility is to be ascribed?

Instance

Who is to decide about the eventual outcome of the ascription? How are differences of opinion between the subject and those who ascribe responsibility to the subject overcome ? Who determines the sanctions or rewards? Who enforces the ascription?

Conditions

Are the conditions for an ascription fulfilled? These refer to the subject, the object, and to the relationship between the two.

Freedom

Was the subject free to make the decision or do the action that led to its being linked to the object? Could the subject at least have committed to do what it did?

Causality

Is there a causal connection between subject and object which would make it plausible that the object is ascribed to the subject?

Power

Did the subject have the power to change the outcome? Knowledge

Was the subject aware or could it have been aware of the object?

Validity

The reflective turn of responsibility demands that ascriptions be valid. The question should therefore be whether the ascription can achieve validity.

Viability

Is the ascription possible as intended? Can a link between subject and object be established? Is this link acceptable?

Openness

Is the process of ascription open and accessible to everybody affected? Are mechanisms in place that can clarify questions?

Consequences

Does the ascription lead to consequences?

Good Life

Does the ascription live up to the general idea of the good life? Is it plausible that the ascription and the resulting sanctions improve social settings?

Stakeholder/ Discourse

Does the ascription follow a model that allows the participation of everybody concerned , as suggested for example by the stakeholder theory or discourse theory?

Realisation

Does the process of responsibility ascription take its own realisation into account? Does it reflect the openness and communicative orientation?

Prudence

Is the ascription sufficiently open to allow the consideration of the individual s ability to make prudent judgments ?

Accountability

Are there structures which allow the construction of relationships between subject, object, instance as well as assessment of conditions and outcomes ?

Institutions

Are there other institutions apart from those guaranteeing accountability that are necessary for the identification, ascription, enforcement, and viability of responsibility ascription?

Limits

What are the limits of the ascription? Are there excuses or exemptions? To which point are the conditions fulfilled?

Second-Order Responsibilities

Looking at all of the points mentioned so far, are there discernible responsibilities that result from the original ascription? Are there new institutions that need to be created? Is there responsibility on another level of magnitude that needs to be assumed? Is there a need to form subjects, objects, or instances by developing consciousness or by education? If so, who is responsible for initiating these new responsibility ascriptions?

[24] For a thorough philosophical critique of the idea of codes of ethics, see Ladd (1995).




Responsible Management of Information Systems
Responsible Management of Information Systems
ISBN: 1591401720
EAN: 2147483647
Year: 2004
Pages: 52
Authors: Bernd Stahl

flylib.com © 2008-2017.
If you may any questions please contact us: flylib@qtcs.net