Read the following case study and answer the questions which follow: Unfunded Equipment Development. An engineer, from Production Support Unit, came up with a very creative approach to improve the Upper Control Limit required for High Potential Leakage Tests conducted on printed circuit boards (PCB). These tests are carried out on a High Potential Leakage Tester found at the end of the final assembly line and the purpose is to determine the effectiveness of the insulation. Any PCB with leakage values above the Upper Control Limit would be scrapped. He proposed to modify a very complex piece of computer-based test equipment which will be annexed to the current High Potential Leakage Tester. This modification would help the final assembly line personnel in analyzing and identifying the causes of PCBs failing the potential leakage tests and develop preventive measures. He convinced his Unit Manager of the value of his proposal. The latter then went to the Area Manager and convinced him of this design proposal which would reduce the scrapping of PCBs produced. The Production Management previously funded the purchase of High Potential Leakage Test equipment. This time, the Area Manager could not convince the Production Management to fund the improvement of the same test equipment as the latter is focused on controlling its tight budget constraints. The improvement proposal would involve one man-year of programming, purchase of sensors and linked components worth $10,000, and about four man-months of technician time to assembly, debug and try the test equipment. [Case study extracted from Jon E. Freckleton, P.E. (n.d.) Case studies in engineering ethics, published Rochester Institute of Technology (a) Discuss the responsibilities of the different stakeholders in the case study. [15 marks] (b) There are three options: (a) drop the proposal, (b) pursue the negotiations and (c) steal resources from other funded projects. Discuss the different options in terms of ethical decision making in this organisation. Justify your arguments with relevant theories. [15 marks]