We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byMaddison Haymes
Modified over 4 years ago
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC QA – The Key to Taking Responsibility Being Responsible for your action (or inaction) knowing who will be affected by your action knowing the affects caring about them accepting praise or blame being accountable Can a responsible action be unethical ? Can a non-human be responsible ? a UC committee, a government The Stakeholder vs the Shareholder view
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC 1. The Gardener holding the garden stake that can really do you damage - the client 2. The Gambler at the table, chips on the felt, knows the game - investors, unions 3. The Victim impacted, but not an actor - customer, employees & their families 4. Gaia ecological, societal, governmental and economic systems Responsibility: recognising stakeholders
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC To have responsibility for an action (or not taking an action) in some situation, a person needs to have an element of: 1. Voluntariness - responsibility is diminished for an action that is a completely involuntary 2. autonomy - the person needs to have some capacity to choose between alternative actions 3. foresight - responsibility is reduced if its effect simply could not be foreseen and there needs to be a 4. causal influence between the action and the effect. (Bittner & Hornecker). Limits on Responsibility
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC Complex organisations & large systems diffuse and disguise responsibility: difficult for one person to take responsibility as effects emerge from a mix of actions and interactions that can't be attributed to a single person. Technology and the division of labour in systems developments means that responsibility for certain components may be clear, but liability for the whole is less clear. Impediments to Responsibility
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC Ethics and a Basis for QA in Projects Being responsible for the impact the system has on all stakeholders
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC The Product – Process Model Developmen t task product Documents: (Case Level) spec staff knowledge - attitudes policy / procedures / standards history (precedents) Tools & Techniques Task Resources: Task Management: time, scope, cost, plan review monitor organization / power structures responsibility / authority Task Context: Quality Who’s it for? What do they do with it? Who is Impacted ? 1 23
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC PMSS – Project Management Support System
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC PMSS – Configuration Management
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC PMSS – QA part of Document Template 6. Quality Assurance T his section specified the quality assurance for this document 6.1 Process of Document Development This document was constructed from a review of text books & meetings with the client comparing with other systems users manual content 6.2 Traceability Other documents that are related to this is the users manual. As they are both manuals, they both share the same target. To guide the user with using your system. 6.3 Verification This document was tested against other owners manual. All the stakeholders Even though the contents are different for each system, they both share the same meaning. 6.4 References Schwalbe K (2004) Information Technology Project Management Thomson Learning 6.5 Document History 1. OWNER’S MANUAL INTRODUCTION3 2. Measuring Systems Performance4 3. Cost - Benefit Measurement6 4. Risk Management7 5. Audit, Legal and other Compliance Issues8 6. Quality Assurance9
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC PMSS - Meetings Supporting
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC PMSS - Issues Management
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC PMSS – Configuration Management Stakeholders: Project team Re-developers business owner user system manager line manager
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC Project Evaluation Product System Owner: Various Operational users: Line Manager: External Stakeholder Next Developer: Systems Management Auditor: Process Evidence of : Project Planning, Modification & Review Team Management Information & configuration management Quality Process Risk prevention, detection, correction Reflection Individual, Peer Review client reviews Tutor’s Review Innovation, creativity
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC The Principles & Practice of Building QA into the Teaching & Assessment of Student Computer Systems Development Projects
Project Quality Plans Gillian Sandilands Director of Quality
Module N° 4 – ICAO SSP framework
EMS Checklist (ISO model)
Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan Evaluation February 16, 2005.
Major Accident Prevention Policy (MAPP) and Safety Management System (SMS) in the Context of the Seveso II Directive.
What is Corporate Governance?
Craig McDonald © 2007 Quality, by design. Craig McDonald © 2007 Quality is not a thing-in-itself it is a judgement of the attributes of something Quality.
© Craig McDonald 2005 UC Ethics and Systems Quality Craig McDonald School of Information Sciences and Engineering University of Canberra
Environmental Management System Implementation
[Organisation’s Title] Environmental Management System
Department of Environmental Quality Environmental Management System Overview.
ORGANIZATION. 2 Purchasing & Inventory Assessment Occurrence Management Information Management Process Improvement Customer Service Facilities & Safety.
Discussion on SA-500 – AUDIT EVIDENCE
IS Audit Function Knowledge
Ch3. CP AND ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Course on Cleaner Production Middle East Technical University Department of Environmental Engineering Ankara.
Quality evaluation and improvement for Internal Audit
Office of Inspector General (OIG) Internal Audit
Chapter 15 Evaluation.
Implementing and Auditing Ethics Programs
QUALITY ASSURANCE: QA is defined as a procedure or set of procedures intended to ensure that a product or service under development (before work is.
© 2018 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.