Advertisement

Responsible Software Engineering

  • Ina Schieferdecker
Open Access
Chapter

Abstract

Software trustworthiness today is more about acceptance than technical quality; software and its features must be comprehensible and explainable. Since software becomes more and more a public good, software quality becomes a critical concern for human society. And insofar artificial intelligence (AI) has become part of our daily lives—naturally we use language assistants or automatic translation programs—software quality is evolving and has to take into account usability, transparency as well as safety and security. Indeed, a majority worldwide rejects currently the use of AI in schools, in court or in the army because it is afraid of data misuse or heteronomy. Insofar, software and its applications can succeed only if people trust them. The initiatives towards “responsible software engineering” address these concerns. This publication is about raising awareness for responsible software engineering.

Keywords

Software testing Software quality Software engineering 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work has been partially funded by the Federal Ministry of Education and Research of Germany (BMBF) under grant no. 16DII111 (“Deutsches Internet-Institut”, Weizenbaum-Institute for the Networked Society) as well as by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research and the Federal Ministry for the Environment, Nature Conservation and Nuclear Safety under grant number 01RIO708A4 (“German Advisory Council on Global Change”, WBGU).

The author thanks the numerous discussions with Stefan Ullrich, Jacob Kröger, Andrea Hamm, Hans-Christian Gräfe, Diana Serbanescu, Gunay Kazimzade and Martin Schüssler all from Weizenbaum-Institute as well as with Reinhard Messerschmidt, Nora Wegener, Marcel J. Dorsch, Dirk Messner and Sabine Schlacke at WBGU.

Last but not least, the author thanks the iSQI team for years of successful and pleasant cooperation to make software quality more present and to offer numerous software quality training schemes that improve the knowledge and expertise in the field. Congrats on its 15th birthday, wishing iSQI at least another 15 successful years of extending the body of knowledge in software quality.

References

  1. 1.
    Unit, E.I.: The growing €1 trillion economic impact of software. (2018)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Russo, D., Ciancarini, P.: A proposal for an antifragile software manifesto. Procedia Comput. Sci. 83, 982–987 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Russo, D., Ciancarini, P.: Towards antifragile software architectures. Procedia Comput. Sci. 109, 929–934 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Osterweil, L.J.: What is software? The role of empirical methods in answering the question. In: Münch, J., Schmid, K. (eds.) Perspectives on the Future of Software Engineering, pp. 237–254. Springer, Berlin (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Parnas, D.L., Madey, J.: Functional documents for computer systems. Sci. Comput. Program. 25(1), 41–61 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    ISO/IEC: Information technology — Vocabulary. 2382. (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Xia, W., Wen, Y., Foh, C.H., Niyato, D., Xie, H.: A survey on software-defined networking. IEEE Commun. Surveys Tuts. 17(1), 27–51 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Myers, B.A., Rosson, M.B.: Survey on user interface programming. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (1992)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Forward, A., & Lethbridge, T.C.: The relevance of software documentation, tools and technologies: a survey. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2002 ACM symposium on document engineering (2002)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordieiev, O., Kharchenko, V., Fominykh, N., Sklyar, V.: Evolution of software quality models in context of the standard ISO 25010. Paper presented at the proceedings of the ninth international conference on dependability and complex systems DepCoS-RELCOMEX, Brunów, Poland, 30 June–4 July 2014 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Boehm, B.W., Brown, J.R., Lipow, M.: Quantitative evaluation of software quality. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Software engineering, San Francisco, California, USA (1976)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Grady, R.B., Caswell, D.L.: Software Metrics: Establishing a Company-wide Program. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs (1987)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    IEEE: Standard for Software Maintenance. (Std 1219). (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dromey, R.G.: A model for software product quality. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. 21(2), 146–162 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hyatt, L.E., Rosenberg, L.H.: A software quality model and metrics for identifying project risks and assessing software quality. Paper presented at the product assurance symposium and software product assurance workshop (1996)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Seffah, A., Metzker, E.: The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Commun. ACM. 47(12), 71–76 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wang, R.Y., Strong, D.M.: Beyond accuracy: what data quality means to data consumers. J. Manag. Inf. Syst. 12(4), 5–33 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pipino, L.L., Lee, Y.W., Wang, R.Y.: Data quality assessment. Commun. ACM. 45(4), 211–218 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Di Gironimo, G., Lanzotti, A., Vanacore, A.: Concept design for quality in virtual environment. Comput. Graph. 30(6), 1011–1019 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Klinker, G., Stricker, D., Reiners, D.: Augmented reality: a balance act between high quality and real-time constraints. In: Ohta, Y., Tamura, H. (eds.) Mixed Reality: Merging Real and Virtual Worlds, pp. 325–346. Springer, Berlin (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Serrano, M., do Prado Leite, J.C.S.: Capturing transparency-related requirements patterns through argumentation. Paper presented at the 2011 first international workshop on requirements patterns (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schieferdecker, I., Messner, D.: The digitalised sustainability society. Germany and the World 2030. (2018)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    WBGU: Our common digital future. German Advisory Council on Global Change, Berlin (2019)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Brey, P.: Values in technology and disclosive computer ethic. In: Floridi, L. (ed.) The Cambridge Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics, pp. 41–58. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, MA (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Jacobson, I., Stimson, R.: Escaping method prison – On the road to real software engineering. In: Gruhn, V., Striemer, R. (eds.) The Essence of Software Engineering, pp. 37–58. Springer, Cham (2018)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Porter, M.E., Kramer, M.R.: The link between competitive advantage and corporate social responsibility. Harv. Bus. Rev. 84(12), 78–92 (2006)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Biermann, F., Kanie, N., Kim, R.E.: Global governance by goal-setting: the novel approach of the UN Sustainable Development Goals. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 26, 26–31 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Weizenbaum, J.: On the impact of the computer on society: how does one insult a machine? In: Weckert, J. (ed.) Computer Ethics, pp. 25–30. Routledge, London (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Strazdiņa, L., Arnicane, V., Arnicans, G., Bičevskis, J., Borzovs, J., Kuļešovs, I.: What software test approaches, methods, and techniques are actually used in software industry? (2018)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    ACM: ACM code of ethics and professional conduct. Association for Computing Machinery’s Committee on Professional Ethics (2018)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    GI: Unsere ethischen Leitlinien, p. 12. Gesellschaft für Informatik, Bonn (2018)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    EC: Ethics Guidelines for Trustworthy AI, p. 41. European Commission High-Level Expert Group On Artificial Intelligence, Brüssel (2019)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Rossi, F., et al.: AI4People—An ethical framework for a good ai society: opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Mind. Mach. 28(4), 689–707 (2018)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    iRights.Lab: Algo.Rules: Regeln für die Gestaltung algorithmischer Systeme. Retrieved from Gütersloh, Berlin. https://www.bertelsmann-stiftung.de/fileadmin/files/BSt/Publikationen/GrauePublikationen/Algo.Rules_DE.pdf (2019)
  35. 35.
    Naur, P., Randell, B.: Software engineering-report on a conference sponsored by the NATO Science Committee Garimisch, Germany. https://carld.github.io/2017/07/30/nato-software-engineering-1968.html (1968)
  36. 36.
    D21: Digital-Index 2018/2019. (2019)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ina Schieferdecker
    • 1
  1. 1.Federal Ministry of Education and ResearchBerlinGermany

Personalised recommendations