1. In this blog entry, I am discussing the issue of ethics. Every new development in information technology brings new possibilities to obtain, use, and manipulate information. Thus, we are forced to consider the ethics of different uses of information.
2. Here is a link to an interesting article about the social networking website Facebook and ethical issues on tracking and reporting of user data:
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/140372/wakeup_call_in_facebookbeacon_controversy.html
3. The author of this article is reporting on the outrage that many people felt at Facebook's use of the Beacon program to track transactions of its users on third party website linked to Facebook and then reporting this information to friends of the user on their Facebook homepages. The questions that the article poses relates to the Privacy, Accuracy, Property, Accessibility issues that classmate Freda Thomas discusses in her blog entry:
http://bb.bbprod.cuny.edu/webapps/portal/frameset.jsp?tab=courses&url=/bin/common/course.pl?course_id=_19305_1
Privacy, property, and accessibility are definitely issues in the Facebook-Beacon controversy. Was this program a breach of privacy? Is the information obtained from tracking the activity of the Facebook user the property of Facebook since the user consented to join the social networking website? Should other users of facebook be allowed to access this private information? Does facebook have a right to track and distribute users' personal information? I believe the outrage that resulted from this incident and the apology from Facebook's CEO tells us that the answers to these questions are no. Companies need to reevaluate their code of ethics and be stricter in enforcing them. Use of information that can directly compromise the customer is neither right nor good for business in the long run. Yet many companies have continued these business practices, acting radically on personal information they have collected for quick profits.
Saturday, December 15, 2007
Saturday, December 8, 2007
News 14 - Web Based vs Face to Face Negotiation
1. This week, we learned about negotiation by doing an interactive exercise in class where we were each assigned unique values or preferences for certain outcomes. Our objective was to make a group decision for an outcome that was collectively optimal. We learned that bidding was one way to resolve a negotiation.
2. Below is a link to an article that discusses collaborative software as a way for a group of people to negotiate and reach a decision together:
http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2003/08/negotiation_and.html
3. The author states that collaborative software such as Socialtext is a good way for people to negotiate because preferences are revealed for all to see. He compares this experience to negotiating in person, which the author believes is inferior to negotiating through this internet based platform. The reason is that in a face to face setting, personality can inhibit effective negotiation.
A fair negotiation should be based on understanding and equal distribution of benefits to the involved parties' and should not depend on personality. However, personality can often help to arrive at a decision more quickly, especially if one side presents a stronger argument and is better at obtaining his/her objectives than the opposing side. I think that the outcome of a negotiation is not necessarily fair - one party may benefit more than the other. The only condition is that both parties must be sufficiently satisfied with the outcome to reach a common decision and to possibly collaborate again in the future for mutual benefit.
2. Below is a link to an article that discusses collaborative software as a way for a group of people to negotiate and reach a decision together:
http://ross.typepad.com/blog/2003/08/negotiation_and.html
3. The author states that collaborative software such as Socialtext is a good way for people to negotiate because preferences are revealed for all to see. He compares this experience to negotiating in person, which the author believes is inferior to negotiating through this internet based platform. The reason is that in a face to face setting, personality can inhibit effective negotiation.
A fair negotiation should be based on understanding and equal distribution of benefits to the involved parties' and should not depend on personality. However, personality can often help to arrive at a decision more quickly, especially if one side presents a stronger argument and is better at obtaining his/her objectives than the opposing side. I think that the outcome of a negotiation is not necessarily fair - one party may benefit more than the other. The only condition is that both parties must be sufficiently satisfied with the outcome to reach a common decision and to possibly collaborate again in the future for mutual benefit.
Indiv 5 - Negotiation
How did your group make the decisions? What problems did you encounter in the process? Did your group make decisions in a different way than the whole class did? Why? What kind of information system do you need to design to support such a process of negotiation? Provide a simple hardware/software configuration.
1. Our group made decisions by sharing our value information through email and then analyzing the information via excel to come up with a decision that is relatively good for everybody involved.
2. I found that in the process of a negotiation, people with different objectives must compromise to reach a solution that all parties involved agrees to. Often sacrifices need to be made by the individuals, some greater than the others, in order to reach a decision. Another problem is that often when parties negotiate, they may not trust each other because they are not entirely clear of the others' objectives.
3. I believe that we our decision-making process was similar in fashion to those of the rest of the class because we do not require or have access to many resources to help us make this negotiation process easier. However, since this is a simple negotiation experiment, we do not need special software to aid us in this process.
4. For a complex negotiation involving many companies, a more organized approach should be used. An internet based application can be used to help people negotiate and reach a decision. One example of such a software is smartsettle.com. Smartsettle.com is a secure web platform that allows companies and individuals to analyze their preferences, negotiate, and reach a decision in real-time. This service makes the negotiation process quicker and easier.
Links:
http://mediationblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/high-resolution-new-negotiation.html
http://www.smartsettle.com/html/advantages.html
1. Our group made decisions by sharing our value information through email and then analyzing the information via excel to come up with a decision that is relatively good for everybody involved.
2. I found that in the process of a negotiation, people with different objectives must compromise to reach a solution that all parties involved agrees to. Often sacrifices need to be made by the individuals, some greater than the others, in order to reach a decision. Another problem is that often when parties negotiate, they may not trust each other because they are not entirely clear of the others' objectives.
3. I believe that we our decision-making process was similar in fashion to those of the rest of the class because we do not require or have access to many resources to help us make this negotiation process easier. However, since this is a simple negotiation experiment, we do not need special software to aid us in this process.
4. For a complex negotiation involving many companies, a more organized approach should be used. An internet based application can be used to help people negotiate and reach a decision. One example of such a software is smartsettle.com. Smartsettle.com is a secure web platform that allows companies and individuals to analyze their preferences, negotiate, and reach a decision in real-time. This service makes the negotiation process quicker and easier.
Links:
http://mediationblog.blogspot.com/2006/10/high-resolution-new-negotiation.html
http://www.smartsettle.com/html/advantages.html
Saturday, December 1, 2007
News 13 - Systems Development Life Cycle
1. System Development Life Cycle Approach was introduced in class this week. The original SDLC is a waterfall model approach. System developers follow the steps in sequence to create the system. The steps are in the following order: Planning, Analysis, Design, Development & Implement, Testing, Acceptance and Maintenance. This is the way many older systems were developed. However, this model is not sufficient as it used to be.
2. I found an interesting article on this topic. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=71151&pageNumber=1
3. The author believes that the problem with the waterfall model is that the waterfall model assumes that the only role for users is in specifying requirements, and that all requirements can be specified in advance. He explains that the requirements always grows, and change on design and development must be made. Feedback and interactive consultation will be very helpful. Therefore, many other SDLC models have been developed, such as, the fountain model which considers overlap of activities throughout the development cycle, and the spiral model which emphasizes the need to go back and reiterate earlier stages a number of times as the project progresses.
I agree with the author’s point of view. A single waterfall cycle is not enough to create a sufficient system because in a complex system, the developers can’t do all the analysis and get everything right without doing any design or implementation. The developer needs to do some analysis, then some design, then some implementation, and then go back to the cycle to do more analysis. In this way, the developer can refine the system, and eliminate constructive errors.
2. I found an interesting article on this topic. http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=71151&pageNumber=1
3. The author believes that the problem with the waterfall model is that the waterfall model assumes that the only role for users is in specifying requirements, and that all requirements can be specified in advance. He explains that the requirements always grows, and change on design and development must be made. Feedback and interactive consultation will be very helpful. Therefore, many other SDLC models have been developed, such as, the fountain model which considers overlap of activities throughout the development cycle, and the spiral model which emphasizes the need to go back and reiterate earlier stages a number of times as the project progresses.
I agree with the author’s point of view. A single waterfall cycle is not enough to create a sufficient system because in a complex system, the developers can’t do all the analysis and get everything right without doing any design or implementation. The developer needs to do some analysis, then some design, then some implementation, and then go back to the cycle to do more analysis. In this way, the developer can refine the system, and eliminate constructive errors.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)