Advertisement

Principles for Value-Sensitive Agent-Oriented Software Engineering

  • Christian Detweiler
  • Koen Hindriks
  • Catholijn Jonker
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6788)

Abstract

As software plays an increasingly important role in people’s lives, the impact it has on their values frequently becomes apparent. Many software design methods address “soft issues”, but very few address values explicitly. We present six principles that design methods should meet in order to properly deal with values. One area in which adherence to stakeholder values is important, is Agent-Oriented Software Engineering (AOSE). The Tropos AOSE method, with its concept of soft-goal, comes close to meeting our principles, but does not address values explicitly. Value-Sensitive Design is a methodology that does explicitly address value issues, but it offers little guidance in operationalizing them. We discuss a case study in which we attempt to capture values in Tropos’ soft-goals after eliciting them using Value-Sensitive Design. Subsequently, we discuss to what extent Tropos adheres to our principles. Finally, we propose the introduction of values as a first-class entity in Tropos in order to meet our aims of dealing with values.

Keywords

Values Value-Sensitive Design Requirements Engineering Non-Functional Requirements Tropos 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Bankston, K.: Facebook’s new privacy changes: The good, the bad, and the ugly (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kirkpatrick, M.: Facebook’s zuckerberg says the age of privacy is over (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Friedman, B.: Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Cambridge University Press, CSLI, New York, Stanford, CA (1997)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Wooldridge, M., Ciancarini, P.: Agent-oriented software engineering: the state of the art. In: Agent Oriented Software Engineering III, pp. 55–82. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Weyns, D., Parunak, H., Shehory, O.: The future of software engineering and multi-agent systems. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 3(4) (2009)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Chung, L., Nixon, B., Yu, E., Mylopoulos, J.: Non-functional requirements in software engineering (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Barbacci, M., Ellison, R., Lattanze, A., Stafford, J., WeinStock, C., Wood, W.: Quality attribute workshops (qaw) (cmu/sei-2003-tr-016). Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wojcik, R.: Attribute-driven design (add), version 2.0 cmu/sei-2006-tr-023. Technical report, Software Engineering Institute, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Weyns, D.: Architecture-Based Design of Multi-Agent Systems. Springer, New York (2010)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P., Borning, A.: Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Human-Computer Interaction and Management Information Systems: Foundations, pp. 348–372. ME Sharpe, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bardi, A., Schwartz, S.: Values and behavior: Strength and structure of relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 29(10), 1207 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Maio, G.R.: Mental representations of social values. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 42, 1–43 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miceli, M., Castelfranchi, C.: A cognitive approach to values. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 19(2), 169–193 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schroeder, M.: Value theory. In: Zalta, E.N., ed.: The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Fall 2008 edn. (2008)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hodges, B.H., Baron, R.M.: Values as constraints on affordances - perceiving and acting properly. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour 22(3), 263–294 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rokeach, M.: Beliefs, attitudes and values: A theory of organization and change (1968)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Spates, J.: The sociology of values. Annual Review of Sociology 9(1), 27–49 (1983)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Proynova, R., Paech, B., Wicht, A., Wetter, T.: Use of personal values in requirements engineering–a research preview. Requirements Engineering: Foundation for Software Quality, 17–22 (2010)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nuseibeh, B., Easterbrook, S.: Requirements engineering: a roadmap, pp. 35–46. ACM, New York (2000)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thew, S., Sutcliffe, A.: Investigating the role of’soft issues’ in the re process. In: 16th IEEE International Requirements Engineering, RE 2008, pp. 63–66 (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Glinz, M.: On non-functional requirements. In: 15th IEEE International Conference on Requirements Engineering, RE 2007, pp. 21–26. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Chung, L., do Prado Leite, J.: On non-functional requirements in software engineering. In: Conceptual Modeling: Foundations and Applications, pp. 363–379 (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Mouratidis, H., Giorgini, P.: Secure tropos: A security-oriented extension of the tropos methodology. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering 17(2), 285–309 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ieee standard glossary of software engineering terminology. IEEE Std 610.12-1990 (1990)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Bartak, R.: Modelling soft constraints: a survey. Neural Network World 12(5), 421–432 (2002)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bresciani, P., Perini, A., Giorgini, P., Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J.: Tropos: An agent-oriented software development methodology. Autonomous Agents and Multi-Agent Systems 8(3), 203–236 (2004)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    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, RE 1997, pp. 226–235 (1997)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    DeLoach, S., Padgham, L., Perini, A., Susi, A., Thangarajah, J.: Using three aose toolkits to develop a sample design. International Journal of Agent-Oriented Software Engineering 3(4), 416–476 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Friedman, B., Kahn, P., Borning, A.: Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington Technical Report (2002)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Miller, J., Friedman, B., Jancke, G.: Value tensions in design: the value sensitive design, development, and appropriation of a corporation’s groupware system, pp. 281–290. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ciancarini, P., Nierstrasz, O., Tolksdorf, R.: A case study in coordination. In: Conference Management on the Internet (1998)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Giunchiglia, F., Mylopoulos, J., Perini, A.: The tropos software development methodology: processes, models and diagrams. LNCS, pp. 162–173 (2003)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Antunes, L., Coelho, H.: Redesigning the agents’ decision machinery. Affective Interactions, 121–137 (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christian Detweiler
    • 1
  • Koen Hindriks
    • 1
  • Catholijn Jonker
    • 1
  1. 1.Man-Machine Interaction GroupDelft University of TechnologyThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations