Information System- Critical Thinking

The stakeholders, in this case, are four. They include Harold, Diane, Hugh, and the EMC employer. If I may decide to withdraw from the project or discontinue it as the project leader, all of these stakeholders will be affected. For Harold, being my employer and his company taking the EMC consulting position will lose a job. The fact that Harold linked me to that project means that he is also earning from it.  Hence, he will also lose the contract. Secondly, Diane, the project analyst, will lose the contract as there will be no project to analyze.

For Hugh, it will be both an advantage and a disadvantage. He is concerned about his security for being a “whistle blower.” He is reporting his employer’s fudging to the analyst because he does not want to be involved in unlawful activities. Thus, if he got a chance to withdraw from the project, he would. On the other hand, he will also lose the job at the EMC Company. If his employer learns that he has exposed his deal of manipulating emission tests, he will automatically fire Hugh. His employer also will be negatively affected. Since he wants to grab the highest market share before the competition begins, it might threaten the environment if the new machine is not tested, thereby sending a bad image of his company. In the end, he will lose potential customers.


Besides withdrawing or discontinuing the project, there are two alternative courses of action that can be done to solve the problem. The responsible panel can talk to Hugh’s employer and stress the need to have the emission test done and the repercussions if it is omitted. By this, the employer might adhere to the emission standards set. Also, it will be a benefit to the employees such as Hugh, because they will perform their work without fear.

Secondly, because EMC’s employer is concerned about winning the U.S market, the organization can use public relations specialists and advertising agencies. This will help maintain a mutual understanding with the public and grab potential customers, even when the competition is high. It does not have to worry about the market; the critical thing is to ensure high-quality products and services and good relationships with the public. If the two are achieved, even if conducting emission tests will consume time, customers will still rank the company high over the others.

My recommendation to Harold is not to withdraw the project even if the EMC employer has not met the standards because that is a mistake that can be rectified. Rather than losing the project, it would be wise to advise the EMC organization. To Diane, I would recommend that she approaches Hugh’s employer with care and professionalism to tackle the issue without interfering with the project. Also, she is responsible for advising Hugh about restraining from talking about the issue to the public to maintain the goodwill of EMC Company. Again, to keep Hugh on the safer side as a “whistle blower,” I would recommend she keeps Hugh’s name confidential. Lastly, to Hugh, he did an intelligent thing of disclosing the issue. Still, I would recommend that he does not disclose it to anyone else as it could lead to the company being discontinued, thereby losing his job.