A new on-line teller system design for a medium size bank was approved by the president, signaling the beginning of implementation. The project leader devised a master plan to specify who is to perform each task and in what order. New deposit slips and withdrawers were ordered and delivered three weeks before implementation. In the interim, copies of the user manual were prepared for the lobby and drive-in-tellers.

Soon after the terminals were installed, the tellers begin to learn how to enter various transactions. After training sessions were over, they had a chance to ask questions and enquire about the new system. Once completed, the telephone company and the computer service representative hooked up the terminal on-line with the master system.

The following Monday (a week before actual conversion), the analyst asked the head teller whether the tellers would come in on Saturday to catch up on their work and run test data to reinforce recent training. The head teller agreed to overtime, but on Saturday, only 12 of 17 tellers showed up. During that time, the entire system was checked out and functioned as expected.

The bank opened the following Monday, the online system operated normally. Customers were greeted at the door by the president. Coffee and cake were served in the lobby. At the end of the day, the analyst sent a report to the board directors informing them that the system was now in operation and all user requirements had been met.

Three weeks later the analyst was called to the board meeting. The chairman criticized the analyst for exceeding the budgeted amount approved by the board. Furthermore the authorization the analyst gave the terminal vendor to bring in two CRT screens to expedite information retrieval exceeded his authority to implement the system. The banks auditor also estimated that it would take 3.8 years rather than the initial estimate of 2.1 years to break even on the total cost of the installation. Not knowing what to say, the analyst left the board room with a feeling of total failure.

1. What are the major problems in the case? Who is to blame? Why?

2. Was the board chairman justified in his criticism of the analyst? Explain.

3. Discuss whether the analyst succeeded in implementation of the system.

In May 2007, Google added its street view feature to Google Maps, and it has been battling privacy complaints, paying fines and facing audits ever since. Google street view provides panoramic views of streets gathered by webcams. It prompted privacy worries for showing men leaving strip clubs, people entering adult bookstores, and people picking up prostitutes, among other activities. Google allows users to flag worrisome images for removal and added a blurring feature for faces and license plates. Nonetheless, street views have run into privacy battles with Switzerland, France, Belgium, Germany and South Korea, to name a few countries. France fined Google the equivalent of $142,000 in March 2011 related to street views, but an August 2011 review by the U.K. government gave Google positive marks for improving the privacy of street view. Meanwhile, Google must undergo regular privacy audits mandated by the FTC for the next 20 years as the result of a settlement over improper privacy disclosures in its now-defunct Buzz social media service.

1- Analyze this case and comment your views on the risks associated with IT and ethical issues that can arise in an organization set up. Suggest the security measures for these issues.