Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluating the Potential of Technology in Justice Systems Using Goal Modeling

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
E-Technologies: Embracing the Internet of Things (MCETECH 2017)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing ((LNBIP,volume 289))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Context: In Canada, the justice system suffers from performance and efficiency issues as indicated by long wait time before trial. Actors in the justice system are seeking solutions involving emerging information technology. Problem: There is need to guide the selection of appropriate combinations of technologies supporting or improving justice systems, yet there is no adapted approach focusing on this concern. Objective: This paper aims to develop the basis of a modeling approach supporting the selection of technologies relevant to justice systems. Method: Goal-oriented requirements modeling is used to describe and evaluate the contribution of technology in the context of justice systems, with the help of an illustrative example targeting the improvement of access to justice. Results: The example shows that it is feasible to model the technology alternatives and their contributions to the goals of different stakeholders in justice systems so that selected technologies are well-aligned with the needs of such systems. Goal models also support trade-off analysis in this context. Conclusion: A justice-aware modeling approach has the potential of helping justice stakeholders to better reason about technology selection and document the rationale of their choices. There are however many remaining challenges in the generalization of the approach to other cases and in its validation in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  1. Akhigbe, O., Alhaj, M., Amyot, D., Badreddin, O., Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Richards, G., Mussbacher, G.: Creating quantitative goal models: governmental experience. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 466–473. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_40

    Google Scholar 

  2. Alleweldt, F., et al.: Cross-border alternative dispute resolution in the european union. Directorate-General for Internal Policies, European Parliament, IP/A/IMCO/ST/2010-15 PE464.424 (2011). http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2009_2014/documents/imco/dv/adr_study_/adr_study_en.pdf. Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017

  3. Alwidian, S.A., Amyot, D.: Towards systems for increased access to justice using goal modeling. In: Eight International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW 2015), pp. 33–36. IEEE CS (2015). doi:10.1109/RELAW.2015.7330209

  4. Amyot, D., Shamsaei, A., Kealey, J., Tremblay, E., Miga, A., Mussbacher, G., Alhaj, M., Tawhid, R., Braun, E., Cartwright, N.: Towards Advanced Goal Model Analysis with jUCMNav. In: Castano, S., Vassiliadis, P., Lakshmanan, Laks V., Lee, M.L. (eds.) ER 2012. LNCS, vol. 7518, pp. 201–210. Springer, Heidelberg (2012). doi:10.1007/978-3-642-33999-8_25

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  5. Aranda, G.N., Vizcaino, A., Echich, A., Piattini, M.: Technology selection to improve global collaboration. In: International Conference on Global Software Engineering (ICGSE 2006), pp. 223–232. IEEE CS (2006). doi:10.1109/ICGSE.2006.261236

  6. Ayala, C., Franch, X.: A goal-oriented strategy for supporting commercial off-the-shelf components selection. In: Morisio, M. (ed.) ICSR 2006. LNCS, vol. 4039, pp. 1–15. Springer, Heidelberg (2006). doi:10.1007/11763864_1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  7. Bailey, J.: Reopening law’s gate: public interest standing and access to justice. UBC Law Rev. 44, 255–285 (2011). https://ssrn.com/abstract=2279632. Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017

  8. Bailey, J.: Digitization of court processes in Canada. Working Paper no. 2, Cyberjustice Laboratory, Canada, 23 October 2012. http://www.cyberjustice.ca/files/sites/102/WP002_CanadaDigitizationOfCourtProcesses20121023.pdf. Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017

  9. Baresi, L., Pasquale, L., Spoletini, P.: Fuzzy goals for requirements-driven adaptation. In: Proceedings of the 18th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference, pp. 125–134. IEEE CS (2010). doi:10.1109/RE.2010.25

  10. Benyekhlef, K., Amar, E., Callipel, V.: ICT-driven strategies for reforming access to justice mechanisms in developing Countries. World Bank Leg. Rev. 6, 325–343 (2015). doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-0378-9_ch15

    Google Scholar 

  11. Benyekhlef, K., Callipel, V., Amar, E.: La médiation en ligne pour les conflits de basse intensité. Gazette du Palais 87, 17–22 (2015)

    Google Scholar 

  12. Bridenback, M.L.: Study of state trial courts use of remote technology. NAPCO, Final report, April 2016. http://napco4courtleaders.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/Emerging-Court-Technologies-9-27-Bridenback.pdf. Last Accessed 27 Jan 2017

  13. Brown, S.: Standardized technology evaluation process (step) user’s guide and methodology for evaluation teams. Mitre Corporation (2007). http://www2.mitre.org/work/sepo/toolkits/STEP/files/StepUsersGuide_09.pdf. Last Accessed 17 Jan 2017

  14. Cares, C., Franch, X.: 3MSF: a framework to select mobile office devices. Int. J. Comput. Sci. Appl. 6(5), 121–144 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Chan, F.T.S., Chan, M.H., Tang, N.K.H.: Evaluation methodologies for technology selection. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 107(1–3), 330–337 (2000). doi:10.1016/S0924-0136(00)00679-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. eJury, L.L.C.: eJury – the online trial experience. http://www.ejury.com. Last Accessed 24 Jan 2017

  17. Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Peyton, L.: A systematic review of goal-oriented requirements management frameworks for business process compliance. In: 4th International Workshop on Requirements Engineering and Law (RELAW), pp. 25–34. IEEE CS (2011). doi:10.1109/RELAW.2011.6050270

  18. Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D., Rifaut, A., Dubois, E.: Goal-oriented compliance with multiple regulations. In: 22nd IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2014), pp. 73–82. IEEE CS (2014). doi:10.1109/RE.2014.6912249

  19. Grance, T., Stevens, M., Myers, M.: Guide to selecting information technology security products. Recommendations of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST Special Publication 800-36 (2003). http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-36.pdf. Last Accessed 17 Jan 2017

  20. Hassine, J., Amyot, D.: A questionnaire-based survey methodology for systematically validating goal-oriented models. Requirements Eng. 21(2), 285–308 (2016). doi:10.1007/s00766-015-0221-7. Springer

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Houseman, O., Tiwari, A., Roy, R.: A methodology for the selection of new technologies in the aviation industry. Decision Engineering Report Series. Cranfield University, UK (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  22. Ingolfo, S., Jureta, I., Siena, A., Perini, A., Susi, A.: Nòmos 3: legal compliance of roles and requirements. In: Yu, E., Dobbie, G., Jarke, M., Purao, S. (eds.) ER 2014. LNCS, vol. 8824, pp. 275–288. Springer, Cham (2014). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12206-9_22

    Google Scholar 

  23. ISO/IEC: ISO/IEC 14102:2008, Information technology – Guideline for the evaluation and selection of CASE tools (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  24. ITU-T, Recommendation Z.151 (10/12): User Requirements Notation (URN) - Language Definition, Geneva, Switzerland (2012). http://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Z.151/en

  25. Katsh, E., Rifkin, J.: Online Dispute Resolution: Resolving Conflicts in Cyberspace. Jossey-Bass, Wiley (2001)

    Google Scholar 

  26. Kaufmann-Kohler, G., Schultz, T.: Online Dispute Resolution: Challenges for Contemporary Justice. Kluwer Law International, The Hague (2004)

    Google Scholar 

  27. Lamb, M., Gregory M.J.: Industrial concerns in technology selection. In: Portland International Conference on Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET 1997), pp. 206–212. IEEE CS (1997). doi:10.1109/PICMET.1997.653333

  28. MacCoun, R.J., Lind, E.A., Tyler, T.R.: Alternative dispute resolution in trial and appellate courts. In: Kagehiro, D.K., Laufer, W.S. (eds.) Handbook of Psychology and Law, Part 2, pp. 95–118. Springer, New York, (1992). doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-4038-7_6

  29. Maeno, Y., Nitta, K., Ohsawa, Y.: Reflective visualization of dispute resolution. In: IEEE SMC 2009, pp. 1698–1703. IEEE CS (2009). doi:10.1109/ICSMC.2009.5346821

  30. Mussbacher, G., Ghanavati, S., Amyot, D.: Modeling and analysis of urn goals and scenarios with jUCMNav. In: 17th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2009), pp. 383–384. IEEE CS (2009). doi:10.1109/RE.2009.56. http://softwareengineering.ca/jucmnav/

  31. Ondrus, J., Bui, T., Pigneur, Y.: A multi-actor, multi-criteria approach for technology selection when designing mobile information systems. In: Krogstie, J., Kautz, K., Allen, D. (eds.) MOBIS 2005. ITIFIP, vol. 191, pp. 271–278. Springer, Boston, MA (2005). doi:10.1007/0-387-31166-1_19

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  32. Pourshahid, A., Chen, P., Amyot, D., Forster, A.J., Ghanavati, S., Peyton, L., Weiss, M.: Business process management with the user requirements notation. Electron. Commer. Res. 9(4), 269–316 (2009). doi:10.1007/s10660-009-9039-z. Springer US

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Supreme Court of Canada: R. v. Jordan, 2016 SCC 27. http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/16060/index.do. Last Accessed 17 Jan 2017

  34. Senécal, F., Benyekhlef, K.: Groundwork for assessing the legal risks of cyberjustice. Can. J. Law Technol. 7(1), 41–56 (2009)

    Google Scholar 

  35. Shehabuddeen, N., Probert, D., Phaal, R.: From theory to practice: challenges in operationalizing a technology selection framework. Technovation 26(3), 324–335 (2006). doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2004.10.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Tawhid, R., Alhaj, M., Mussbacher, G., Braun, E., Cartwright, N., Shamsaei, A., Amyot, D., Behnam, S.A., Richards, G.: Towards outcome-based regulatory compliance in aviation security. In: 20th IEEE International Requirements Engineering Conference (RE 2012), pp. 267–272. IEEE CS (2012). doi:10.1109/RE.2012.6345813

  37. Tan, K.H., Noble, J., Sato, Y., Tse, Y.K.: A marginal analysis guided technology evaluation and selection. Int. J. Prod. Econ. 131(1), 15–21 (2011). doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2010.09.027

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Tyler, T.: Access to justice a ‘basic right’. The Toronto Star, Canada, 12 August 2007. http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/245548

  39. UNCITRAL: Working Group III, Online Dispute Resolution. United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, Vienna, Austria (2016). http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/commission/working_groups/3Online_Dispute_Resolution.html

  40. van den Herik, J.: Towards crowd sourced online dispute resolution. J. Int. Commercial Technol. 7(2), 99–111 (2012)

    Google Scholar 

  41. VirtualJury™. http://www.virtualjury.com

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by the Towards Cyberjustice project, funded by Canada’s SSHRC Major Collaborative Research Initiative program. We also thank Jane Bailey for her support and for useful discussions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Computer Science and Electrical Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada

    Sanaa Alwidian & Daniel Amyot

  2. Department of Information Technology, HEC Montréal, Montreal, Canada

    Gilbert Babin

Authors
  1. Sanaa Alwidian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel Amyot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Gilbert Babin
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel Amyot .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Université de Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada

    Esma Aïmeur

  2. University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Umar Ruhi

  3. Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada

    Michael Weiss

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG

About this paper

Cite this paper

Alwidian, S., Amyot, D., Babin, G. (2017). Evaluating the Potential of Technology in Justice Systems Using Goal Modeling. In: Aïmeur, E., Ruhi, U., Weiss, M. (eds) E-Technologies: Embracing the Internet of Things . MCETECH 2017. Lecture Notes in Business Information Processing, vol 289. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59041-7_11

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-59041-7_11

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-59040-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-59041-7

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation