Step 5 Recommendation Identify which responses are good by using the matrix from Step 4 (look for the ones with the most "yes" identified). . Analyze the good responses by identifying which actions and/or non-action was taken to satisfy a duty and the Code of Ethics. From this analysis, draft a single recommendation that will satisfy OACETT's Code of Ethics. Note, it is possible for some codes to be not applicable as they are not affected by the potential recommendation. Step 6 Evaluate Recommendation against an established code/ standard Evaluate your draft/final recommendation against OACETT's Code of Ethics. You are looking to see if your recommendation satisfies each of the codes of ethics. Some codes contain multiple duties (employer and client), if one duty is breached, then the code is not satisfied. Some codes as well may not apply, example, if you are not recommending additional work, then anything regarding compensation would be not applicable. Your recommendation should be a single recommendation (which can contain several steps) and it shall be free of "if" statements (do not assume someone else's actions). If your recommendation does not satisfy all codes, then you may have to modify your recommendation and/ or possibly repeat steps 3 & 4 with new approaches.Instructions As an individual or with a partner (group of 2 students), you are to read the Case Study - "Yours is not to question why" available via eLearn. You have been approached by Reilly M. Karful to assist him in solving his dilemma. To satisfy your client's request. you will provide him with a recommended course of action. For the purpose of this assignment, assume that you are a member of OACETT. Your main objective is to solve your client's ethical dilemma NOT to solve the problem the dilemma spawns from. To do so, you must make a recommendation that is clear and can be controlled by your client. Your recommendation cannot contain "what if" type scenarios where your client must rely on the actions of others to do a specific action. Your recommendation should conclude once it is in the hands of another to act. To assist you in providing a recommendation, you will rst have to go through the process of "Facilitating an Ethical Dilemma\". This document (entitled Ethical Report Background Work) is available via eLearn and outlines the requirements of your "Rough Work" needed to establish a sound recommendation. Presentation of Recommendation You will present your ndings to your client in a letter format. The letter shall be structured as follows; Overall format Must include the date. I Must include an address line [use Mohawk's address for your client]. 0 Must include a salutation and signature (use a writing script font for electronic]. Paragraph 1 - Introduction I Write a brief purpose and introduction to your letter. I Identify the ethical dilemma that you are trying to resolve. Paragraph 2 - Process or Methodology I You are to explain the process / methodology used to solve the ethical dilemma. I You need to explain the process to facilitate an ethical dilemma. I Do not provide all of your backup work in this section, just the process to ensure your client knows that your recommendation is based on a sound process. Paragraph 3 - Recommendation I State your recommendation to your client I If your recommendation includes multiple steps, ensure that they are in the chronological order that they must occur. Paragraph 4- - Evaluation against Code of Ethics I You are to justify your recommendation and support it against OACETT'S Code of Ethics. I This paragraph can be either written in sentence structure, presented in point form, or displayed in graphical [table] format. Paragraph 5 - Conclusion 0 Summarize your letter. I Be sure to come back to your recommendation and explain why your client should follow it. Submission Requirements Your final submission shall be a hardcopy submission and an electronic submission via the eLearn dropbox. Please conrm the due date and time via eLearn. Electronic submissions shall be MS Word documents (.docx) or PDF documents. Ethical Dilemma Report Background Work introduction The purpose of this document is to outline the process to Facilitate an Ethical Dilemma, which you will use to establish a recommendation to resolve the case study for your report assignment. There are many methods to solve an ethical dilemma, which are all similar in nature; however, the process identied in this document is one of the most practical and straightforward methods. You are required to do the steps identied, as it is part of your background / support work to establish a practical recommendation that meets a code of ethics standard. in a few years, this is what OACE'IT refers to as "Rough Work\" for their ethics problems for the Professional Practice Exam. Steps to Facilitating an Ethical Dilemma [Process or Methodology] Step 1 identify the Facts I Identify the facts relevant to the dilemma. I Omit facts that are not important. Step 2 identify the Stakeholders I A stakeholderis an individual oran entity (company, co rporation, group, etc) who hold a vested interest in the outcome of the situation. I Identify all individuals who are a stakeholder. 0 Identify all the motives for each stakeholder. I Note, not all stakeholders will have motives as they may not be part of the actual dilemma, however could be impacted by the outcome [common with the general public). Step 3 identify Alternative Responses I Brainstorm short responses to solve the dilemma. I At this time you do not know if your response to the dilemma is good or bad. I Ideally you would want at least two (2) responses that you think are good and two (2) responses you think are bad, however, you are not limited to your number of responses. Step 4 Evaluate Responses I Evaluate / justify why these are good and/or bad. I At this time, evaluate the responses identied in Step 3, to see if they satisfy all the duties are owed (self, association, employer, client, public). I A good tip is to establish a simple matrix to track your evaluation [example below]; Res onse Self Association Em n lo er Client Public Step 5 Recommendation I Identify which responses are good by using the matrix from Step 4 [look for the ones with the most "yes" identied]. - Analyze the good responses by identifying which actions and/or non-action was taken to satisfy a duty and the Code of Ethics. I From this analysis, draft a single recommendation that will satisfy OACE'IT's Code of Ethics. I Note, it is possible for some codes to be not applicable as they are not affected by the potential recommendation. Ethical Dilemma Report Case Study - "Yours is not to question why" Case Study - Yours is not to question why... Reilly M. Karful, a technologist with Slud, Geff, Owsdown & Hill (SGOH), has spent the last few weeks designing a tank for the wastewater treatment plant for the town of Whiteside, Ontario. It so happens that the existing treatment plant is located inside one room of a pre-engineered metal building, except for the headworks, which consist of a screen. The design that Reilly is proposing includes installing a new tank inside the treatment room and relocating the screen on top of the tank. During a design review, the reviewer, Yvonne Moore-Karful (distant relation to Reilly) of the architectural firm Plansem & Drawsem, notices that sewage plant headworks are covered by National Fire Code (NFC) Section 820, which requires certain areas to be Class I, Division 1 or Class I, Division 2; i.e., "explosion proof." Concerned about the potential problem, Yvonne calls to let Reilly know that moving the screen into the treatment room would require the room to be classified as explosion proof, and she follows up this call with a memo and her notations on the design drawings. Reilly decides to double-check this information and he reviews NFC 820 himself. The code indeed appears to require the headworks and the existing treatment room to be explosion proof Reilly informs the project manager at SGOH, Dante McWaves, about the matter, and gives him a copy of Yvonne's memo. With Reilly in his office, Dante phones the client, Bull Parker, the town commissioner, to make him aware of Reilly's concerns. Bull happens to be cleaning his shotgun when he gets Dante's call. News of cost increases and delays does not please Bull, and he pointedly reminds Dante that the project is behind-schedule, that Whiteside needs this addition to the wastewater treatment plant to avoid non-compliance with Provincial regulations, and that Whiteside is not a wealthy town. As he trips the action on the shotgun, as if to place a shell in the chamber (Dante hears this over the phone), Bull tells Dante that he'll have the Fire Code Official, Bobby Burns, get back to Dante. Reilly notices the color drain from Dante's face and that his hands visibly shake as he hangs up the phone. Within minutes, the fire code official calls and informs Dante that the existing room is already explosion proof. What luck! The problem is solved and Dante, still pale yet with obvious relief, informs Reilly that he doesn't want to bother Bull with any more problems. Dante then clearly and unequivocally directs Reilly to finish the project. But Reilly is concerned. While Bobby Burns' statement satisfies Dante, Reilly suspects the fire code official could be wrong. Though Reilly has limited experience with fire codes, he has noticed that the electrical sockets, light switches, lighting fixtures, and junction boxes appear normal and don't give the appearance of being explosion proof. While part of him wants to pursue the matter, he also realizes that exploring his doubts about the existing room being explosion proof will not only further stress out Dante, but could result in additional project delays, in Whiteside having to fund an expensive retrofit to bring their existing facility up to code, and in further annoying Bull