Reference no: EM13823584

Summary of case

Jim, a member of the Australian Computer Society, was contracted as a test consultant to a client, to provide testing and quality assurance services. Initially there was a testing manager, Ken, Jim as team lead, and two test analysts, one of them on loan from the vendor. Ken had hired the two test analysts and Jim for the project.

The system under test had a web browser front end, with an interface for successful customer product orders to SAP for order fulfilment and order transfer to 3rd party vendors. The testing effort initially seemed manageable, but as the team delved into the task they found the complexity increasing substantially.

Suddenly, and voluntarily, Ken left the project approximately 4 weeks after Jim started, when budget issues became apparent. At the time the rest of the team were confused, and questions were asked as to who would take over Ken's responsibilities. Jim took it upon himself to ensure that a fully tested system was delivered to the business, and thus he gladly accepted more responsibility.

Problems soon arose when Jim realised that the two test analysts hired by Ken were not up to the task of performing the testing preparation needed for such a complex system. Al, the analyst from the vendor, was initially brought in to handle the SAP functionality testing component. Al told Jim that he didn't know anything about SAP, and did not want the responsibility of writing the SAP test cases. A few weeks later Jim found out that Ken and Al had previously worked on a project together for the client, and that Ken was fostering relationships with the vendor by hiring its consultants for testing roles within the client's IT projects.

This was the first time that the other test analyst, Col, had lived and worked overseas, so he was finding his feet in a new work and social environment.

Both test analysts needed considerable more time than usual to write the test cases, as they were having difficulty comprehending the requirements and functional specifications, although Jim had held workshops to assist in their preparation. When the difficulties in performing basic test preparation became apparent, Jim asked both analysts about their previous testing experiences. He found that Al had only two years experience, while Col had only one years experience in testing, and he had no previous Telecommunications experience.

Issues came to a head when Al could not meet the deadlines for his test cases, although he had been given the easiest cases to write. Jim, and Bob, the project manager, felt that Al was more of a hindrance than a help to the team and, noting that he was an expensive vendor resource, they made the decision that Al's services were no longer required. Al was not sacked, however his Purchase Order would run out soon and it would not be renewed.

Al was not happy about this and he became very confrontational in two closed meetings with Jim, who considered Al's behaviour as unprofessional. These incidents, coupled with Al's poor work deliverables, prompted Jim to ask the vendor to be involved in a performance review so both the vendor and Al could benefit from objective feedback.

Ken was no longer on the project, and he had not had any formal or informal business contactwith Jim for at least 5 weeks. However, Ken, in a closed meeting, asked Jim to retract his request for a performance review, as he, Ken, said that he might re-hire Al for future projects. He asked Jim to email the vendor saying that he would not require a performance review for Al, and that there were no issues with Al's performance. Jim did neither.

Not long after this incident the project was placed on hold by the client. The project scope had crept alarmingly to the point where it was considered that delivery was impossible for the planned dates, and an internal audit was conducted to investigate the project slippage.

When the project was halted the test team was immediately released as their services were not needed for the time being. Jim was approached by another senior testing manager, Ben, to work on a project that would be for approximately 9 months. An interview was arranged with Ben, Jim and the client business sponsor. The day before the interview Ben rang Jim to say that the interview was cancelled and that Jim would not be considered because Ben had received a bad review of Jim. Ben didn't say who had said this, but Jim later found out from a reliable source that it was Ken.

1.2.1 Public Interest

e) endeavour to preserve the integrity, security, continuity and utility of ICT;

1.2.3 Honesty

b) not knowingly mislead a client or potential client as to the suitability of a product or service;

d) give realistic estimates for projects under your control;

e) qualify professional opinions which you know are based on limited knowledge or experience;

g) not attempt to enhance your own reputation at the expense of another person's reputation.

1.2.4 Competence

a) endeavour to provide products and services which match the operational and financial needs of your stakeholders;

b) not misrepresent your skills or knowledge;

e) advise your stakeholders when you believe a proposed project, product or service is not in their best interest;

f) accept responsibility for your work;

g) respect, and seek when necessary, the professional expertise of colleagues in their areas of competence.

1.2.5 Professional Development

c) encourage your colleagues, staff and students to continue their own professional development;

d) support education, training and professional development in ICT that reflects the diverse needs of individual professionals and their various career paths.

1.2.6 Professionalism

c) confront attempts to limit diversity in the workplace, and ensure that opportunities for employment, advancement, remuneration and other working conditions are based on the actual skills and performance of employees, free of stereotypes and prejudices;