1 / 8

Chuck Huff St. Olaf College

Computing is Socio-Technical or: Why Stakeholder Listing is Inadequate for Thoughtful Ethical Analysis. Some informal musings and a request for feedback on the topic:. Chuck Huff St. Olaf College. For NSF Computer Ethics Workshop, 2002. Beginnings.

corbin
Download Presentation

Chuck Huff St. Olaf College

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Computing is Socio-Technical or: Why Stakeholder Listing is Inadequate for Thoughtful Ethical Analysis Some informal musings and a request for feedback on the topic: Chuck Huff St. Olaf College For NSF Computer Ethics Workshop, 2002

  2. Beginnings • Much case analysis begins with a listing of stakeholders, not a bad idea • But how do we know we have the right set of stakeholders? • There is no easy rule for completion

  3. Components of an STS • Socio-Technical systems include: • Hardware: Mainframes, Workstations, Peripheral, connecting networks • Software: operating systems, utilities, application programs, specialized code • Physical surroundings • People: Individuals, groups, roles (support, training, management, line personnel, engineer), agencies • Institutions: corporations, associations, government agencies etc. • Procedures, both official and actual: Management models, Reporting relationships, Documentation requirements, Data flow, Rules & norms • Laws and regulations • Data and Data Structures

  4. An STS Is Not Static or Value-Neutral • An STS will change over time, and this change has a trajectory. • An STS is configurable in all its elements, and this allows for change over time • Individual components of the STS have their own trajectories. • Trajectories are most influenced by and usually support those with social power • They are not value neutral – their use creates winners and losers

  5. An Example: Therac 25

  6. The Therac 25 STS • Hardware: Therac 20 w/ PDP-11, Therac 25 & PDP-11, the console • Software: real-time control software, interface • Physical surroundings:the shielded room, emergency shutoffs, cameras, hospital setting • People: Patients, Operators, Medical physicists, AECL, Programmer, Doctors, Hospital Administrators, Maintenance personnel, Therac User groups • Institutions: Atomic Energy Canada LTD, Canadian Radiation Protection Board, US FDA, Hospitals • Procedures, both official and actual: Support agreements, Machine Setup, Reporting Procedures (AECL and FDA), Scheduling procedures • Laws and regulations: FDA regulations • Data and Data Structures: counters, data on machine state, data on console state, data on patients

  7. Gosh! • Certainly a complex system with many technical aspects and social actors • The trajectory was influenced by the lowly (medical physicist) and the mighty (FDA). • The design was flawed, but many social procedures were flawed too. • An actor aware of the system can act with more effectiveness • A designer unaware of the system can be in grave danger • A Social Impact Statement (coming Thursday) is a useful ethical tool • There are more stakeholders than are dreamt of in your philosophy

  8. What Next? • How to control this complexity … • Avoiding paralysis of analysis • How to teach using these ideas?

More Related