Do You Own a Volkswagen? Values as Non-Functional Requirements

  • Balbir S. BarnEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9856)


Of late, there has been renewed interest in determining the role and relative importance of (moral) values in the design of software and its acceptance. Events such as the Snowden revelations and the more recent case of the Volkswagen “defeat device” software have further emphasised the importance of values and ethics in general. This paper posits a view that values accompanied by an appropriate framework derived from non-functional requirements can be used by designers and developers as means for discourse of ethical concerns of the design of software. The position is based on the Volkswagen “Dieselgate” case study and a qualitative analysis of developers views from Reddit discussion forums. The paper proposes an extension of an existing classification of requirements to include value concerns.


Functional Requirement Technology Acceptance Model Supervisory Board Engineering Ethic Emission Test 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Reuters Agency. Volkswagen executives describe authoritarian culture under former ceo (2015).
  2. 2.
    Ameller, D., Ayala, C., Cabot, J., Franch, X.: How do software architects consider non-functional requirements: an exploratory study. In: 2012 20th IEEE International on Requirements Engineering Conference (RE), pp. 41–50. IEEE (2012)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Arnett, G.: The scale of the volkswagen crisis in charts (2015).
  4. 4.
    Barn, B., Barn, R.: Resilience and values: antecedents for effective co-design of information systems. In: 23rd European Conference on Information Systems (ECIS 2015), AISNet Library (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bennett, R.: Factors underlying the inclination to donate to particular types of charity. Int. J. Nonprofit Voluntary Sect. Mark. 8(1), 12–29 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bucciarelli, L.L.: Designing Engineers. MIT press, Cambridge (1994)Google Scholar
  7. 7. Hearing on volkswagen emissions violations (2015).
  8. 8.
    Christ, H.: Fundamentals of engineering ethics. VDI the Association of Engineers, Dusseldorf (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Lawrence Chung, B., Nixon, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-functional requirements. Softw. Eng. (2000)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Dardenne, A., Van Lamsweerde, A., Fickas, S.: Goal-directed requirements acquisition. Sci. Comput. Program. 20(1–2), 3–50 (1993)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Dou, K., Wang, X., Tang, C., Ross, A., Sullivan, K.: An evolutionary theory-systems approach to a science of the ilities. Procedia Comput. Sci. 44, 433–442 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ebert, C.: Putting requirement management into praxis: dealing with nonfunctional requirements. Inf. Softw. Technol. 40(3), 175–185 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Friedman, B.: Value-sensitive design. Interactions 3(6), 16–23 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Friedman, B., Nissenbaum, H.: Bias in computer systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. (TOIS) 14(3), 330–347 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Glinz, M.: On non-functional requirements. In: 15th IEEE International on Requirements Engineering Conference 2007, RE 2007, pp. 21–26. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Franco, A.J.: Requirements elicitation approaches: a systematic review. In: 2015 IEEE 9th International Conference on Research Challenges in Information Science (RCIS), pp. 520–521. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Locke, E.A.: The motivation sequence, the motivation hub, and the motivation core. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50(2), 288–299 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mairiza, D., Zowghi, D., Nurmuliani, N.: An investigation into the notion of non-functional requirements. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, pp. 311–317. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Matoussi, A., Laleau, R.: A survey of non-functional requirements in software development process. Departement dÕInformatique Universite Paris, 12 (2008)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Miceli, M., Castelfranchi, C.: A cognitive approach to values. J. Theory Soc. Behav. 19(2), 169–193 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mitcham, C.: The importance of philosophy to engineering. Teorema: Revista Internacional de Filosofía, pp. 27–47 (1998)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., Yu, E.: From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Commun. ACM 42(1), 31–37 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Pommeranz, A., Detweiler, C., Wiggers, P., Jonker, C.: Elicitation of situated values: need for tools to help stakeholders and designers to reflect and communicate. Ethics Inf. Technol. 14(4), 285–303 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Raymond, E.S.: The Cathedral & the Bazaar: Musings on Linux and Open Source by an Accidental Revolutionary. O’Reilly Media Inc., Sebastopol (2001)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    reddit. “rouge” software engineers blamed for vw emissions (would this be a bug or feature?) (2015).
  26. 26.
    Ruddick, G.: Vw scandal: chief executive martin winterkorn refuses to quit (2015).
  27. 27.
    Shilton, K.: Values levers: building ethics into design. Sci. Technol. Hum. Values 38(3), 374–397 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Shilton, K., Koepfler, J.A., Fleischmann, K.R.: Charting sociotechnical dimensions of values for design research. Inf. Soc. 29(5), 259–271 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Spinellis, D.: Developer, debug thyself. IEEE Softw. 33(1), 3–5 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Suchman, L.: Do categories have politics? the language/action perspective reconsidered. In: Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology, pp. 91–106. Center for the Study of Language and Information (1997)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Svensson, R.B., Höst, M., Regnell, B.: Managing quality requirements: a systematic review. In: 2010 36th EUROMICRO Conference on Software Engineering and Advanced Applications (SEAA), pp. 261–268. IEEE (2010)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Venkatesh, V., Morris, M.G., Davis, G.B., Davis, F.D.: User acceptance of information technology: toward a unified view. MIS Q. 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Wikipedia Clean air act (United States) (2015).
  34. 34.
    Yoo, D., Huldtgren, A., Woelfer, J.P., Hendry, D.G., Friedman, B.: A value sensitive action-reflection model: evolving a co-design space with stakeholder and designer prompts. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 419–428. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Yu, E.S.K.: Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the Third IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering 1997, pp. 226–235. IEEE (1997)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middlesex UniversityLondonUK

Personalised recommendations