Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Design for the Values of Accountability and Transparency

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design

Abstract

If an organization is to be held accountable for its actions, the public need to know what happened. Organizations must therefore “open up” and provide evidence of performance to stakeholders, such as principals who have delegated tasks, employees, suppliers or clients, or regulators overseeing compliance. The social values of transparency – the tendency to be open in communication – and accountability – providing evidence of past actions – are crucial in this respect.

More and more aspects of the internal control systems, policies, and procedures to gather evidence of organizational performance are implemented by information systems. Business processes are executed and supported by software applications, which therefore effectively shape the behavior of the organization. Such applications are designed, unlike practices which generally grow. Therefore, it makes sense to take the core values of accountability and transparency explicitly into account during system development.

In this chapter we provide an account of the way in which transparency and accountability can be built into the design of business processes, internal controls, and specifically the software applications to support them. We propose to make trade-offs concerning core values explicit, using an approach called value-based argumentation. The approach is illustrated by a case study of the cooperation between providers of accounting software and the Dutch Tax and Customs Authority to develop a certificate, in order to improve the reliability of accounting software. Widespread adoption of the certificate is expected to stimulate accountability and indeed transparency in the retail sector.

Although the approach is developed and tested for designing software, the idea that trade-offs concerning core values can be made explicit by means of a critical dialogue is generic. We believe that any engineering discipline, like civil engineering, water management, or cyber security, could benefit from such a systematic approach to debating core values.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    http://www.keurmerkafrekensystemen.nl/, last accessed 6th of November 2014.

  2. 2.

    A “no sale” is an action on the POS system that has no financial consequences, for example, opening the cash register to change bills into coins.

References

  • Aftergood S (2009) Reducing government secrecy: finding what works. Yale Law Policy Rev 27:399–416

    Google Scholar 

  • Alles M, Brennan G, Kogan A, Vasarhelyi M (2006) Continuous monitoring of business process controls: a pilot implementation of a continuous auditing system at Siemens. Int J Acc Inf Syst 7:137–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Accounting Association, C. o. B. A. C. C (1972) Report of the committee on basic auditing concepts. Acc Rev XLVII:14–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171:855–874

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2):157–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Bannister F, Connolly R (2011) Trust and transformational government: a proposed framework for research. Gov Inf Q 28(2):137–147. doi:10.1016/j.giq.2010.06.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bex FJ, Prakken H, Reed C, Walton DN (2003) Towards a formal account of reasoning about evidence: argumentation schemes and generalisations. Artif Intell Law 11:125–165

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Black J (2002) Regulatory conversations. J Law Soc 29(1):163–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blokdijk JH, Drieënhuizen F, Wallage PH (1995) Reflections on auditing theory, a contribution from the Netherlands. Limperg Instituut, Amsterdam

    Google Scholar 

  • Bok S (1983) Secrets: on the ethics of concealment and revelation. Pantheon Books, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Boritz JE (2005) IS practitioners’ views on core concepts of information integrity. Int J Acc Inf Syst 6(4):260–279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens M (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. Eu Law J 13(4):447–468

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bovens M et al (2005) Public accountability. In: Ferlie E (ed) The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

    Google Scholar 

  • Breaux T, Anton A (2008) Analyzing regulatory rules for privacy and security requirements. IEEE Trans Softw Eng 34(1):5–20. doi:10.1109/tse.2007.70746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bresciani P, Perini A, Giorgini P, Giunchiglia F, Mylopoulos J (2004) Tropos: an agent-oriented software development methodology. J Auto Agent Multi-Agent Sys 8:203–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Breu R, Hafner M, Innerhofer-Oberperfler F, Wozak F (2008) Model-driven security engineering of service oriented systems. Paper presented at the information systems and e-Business Technologies (UNISCON’08)

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewka G, Strass H, Ellmauthaler S, Wallner JP, Woltran S (2013) Abstract dialectical frameworks revisited. Paper presented at the 23rd international joint conference on artificial intelligence (IJCAI 2013), Being

    Google Scholar 

  • Burgemeestre B, Hulstijn J, Tan Y-H (2011) Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance. Artif Intell Law 19(2–3):149–186

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burgemeestre B, Hulstijn J, Tan Y-H (2013) Value-based argumentation for designing and auditing security measures. Ethics Inf Technol 15:153–171

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chopra AK, Singh MP (2014) The thing itself speaks: accountability as a foundation for requirements in sociotechnical systems. In: Amyot D, Antón AI, Breaux TD, Massey AK, Siena A (eds) IEEE 7th international workshop on requirements engineering and law (RELAW 2014), Karlskrona, pp 22–22

    Google Scholar 

  • COSO (1992) Internal control – integrated framework. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • COSO (2004) Enterprise risk management – integrated framework. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Dando N, Swift T (2003) Transparency and assurance minding the credibility gap. J Bus Ethics 44(2):195–200. doi:10.1023/a:1023351816790

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Day P, Klein R (1987) Accountabilities: five public services. Tavistock, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Debreceny R, Felden C, Ochocki B, Piechocki M (2009) XBRL for interactive data: engineering the information value chain. Springer, Berlin

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Deming WE (1986) Out of the crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubnick MJ (2003) Accountability and ethics: reconsidering the relationships. Int J Org Theory Behav 6:405–441

    Google Scholar 

  • Dubois E, Mouratidis H (2010) Guest editorial: security requirements engineering: past, present and future. Requir Eng 15:1–5

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duff A (2007) Answering for crime: responsibility and liability in the criminal law. Hart Publishing, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1985) Control: organizational and economic approaches. Manag Sci 31(2):134–149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manage Rev 14(1):57–74

    Google Scholar 

  • Elia J (2009) Transparency rights, technology, and trust. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):145–153. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9192-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eriksén S (2002) Designing for accountability. Paper presented at the NordiCHI 2002, second Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, tradition and transcendence, Århus

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabian B, Gürses S, Heisel M, Santen T, Schmidt H (2010) A comparison of security requirements engineering methods. Requir Eng 15:7–40

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fleischmann KR, Wallace WA (2009) Ensuring transparency in computational modeling. Commun ACM 52(3):131–134. doi:10.1145/1467247.1467278

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Flint D (1988) Philosophy and principles of auditing: an introduction. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Florini A (2007) Introduction. The battle over transparency. In: Florini A (ed) The right to know. Transparency for an open world. Columbia University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman B, Peter H, Kahn J (1992) Human agency and responsible computing: implications for computer system design. J Syst Softw 17(1):7–14. doi:10.1016/0164-1212(92)90075-u

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman B, Kahn PH Jr, Borning A (2006) Value sensitive design and information systems. In: Zhang P, Galletta D (eds) Human-computer interaction in management information systems: applications, vol 6. M.E. Sharpe, New York, pp 348–372

    Google Scholar 

  • Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. Syntax Semant 3

    Google Scholar 

  • Hart HLA (1968) Punishment and responsibility: essays in the philosophy of law. Clarendon, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman C, Roetter A (1999) Designing government agents for constitutional compliance. Paper presented at the proceedings of the third annual conference on autonomous agents, Seattle

    Google Scholar 

  • Hess D (2007) Social reporting and new governance regulation: the prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Bus Ethics Q 17(3):453–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hofstede G, Neuijen B, Ohayv DD, Sanders G (1990) Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study. Adm Sci Q 35(2):286–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IIA (2013) The three lines of defense in effective risk management and control. IIA Position Papers, The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson DG, Mulvey JM (1995) Accountability and computer decision systems. Commun ACM 38(12):58–64. doi:10.1145/219663.219682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knechel W, Salterio S, Ballou B (2007) Auditing: assurance and risk, 3rd edn. Thomson Learning, Cincinatti

    Google Scholar 

  • Korobkin RB (2000) Behavioral analysis and legal form: rules vs. principles revisited. Oregon Law Rev 79(1):23–60

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhn JR, Sutton SG (2010) Continuous auditing in ERP system environments: the current state and future directions. J Inf Syst 24(1):91–112

    Google Scholar 

  • Leite JC, Cappelli C (2010) Software transparency. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2(3):127–139. doi:10.1007/s12599-010-0102-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Menéndez-Viso A (2009) Black and white transparency: contradictions of a moral metaphor. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):155–162. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9194-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merchant KA (1998) Modern management control systems, text & cases. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum H (1994) Computing and accountability. Commun ACM 37(1):72–80. doi:10.1145/175222.175228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norman DA (1998) The invisible computer. MIT Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Perelman C (1980) Justice law and argument. D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Power M (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Power M (2007) Organized uncertainty: designing a world of risk management. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Power M (2009) The risk management of nothing. Acc Organ Soc 34:849–855

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Power M, Ashby S, Palermo T (2013) Risk culture in financial organisations. London School of Economics, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Prakken H, Ionita D, Wieringa R (2013) Risk assessment as an argumentation game. Paper presented at the 14th international workshop on computational logic in multi-agent systems (CLIMA XIV)

    Google Scholar 

  • Rees J (1988) Self Regulation: an effective alternative to direct regulation by OSHA? Pol Stud J 16(3):602–614

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Romney MB, Steinbart PJ (2006) Accounting information systems, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River

    Google Scholar 

  • Santana A, Wood D (2009) Transparency and social responsibility issues for Wikipedia. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):133–144. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9193-y

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Satava D, Caldwell C, Richards L (2006) Ethics and the auditing culture: rethinking the foundation of accounting and auditing. J Bus Ethics 64:271–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneier B (2000) Secrets and lies: digital security in a networked world. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle JR (1995) The construction of social reality. The Free Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Starreveld RW, de Mare B, Joels E (1994) Bestuurlijke Informatieverzorging (in Dutch), vol 1. Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn

    Google Scholar 

  • Suh B, Chi EH, Kittur A and Pendleton BA (2008) Lifting the veil: improving accountability and social transparency in Wikipedia with wikidashboard. Paper presented at the proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence

    Google Scholar 

  • Turilli M, Floridi L (2009) The ethics of information transparency. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):105–112. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9187-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vaccaro A, Madsen P (2009) Corporate dynamic transparency: the new ICT-driven ethics? Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):113–122. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9190-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van de Poel I (2011) The relation between forward-looking and backward-looking responsibility. In: Vincent N, Van de Poe I, Van den Hoven J (eds) Moral responsibility. Beyond free will and determinism. Springer, Berlin, pp 37–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Vishwanath T, Kaufmann D (2001) Toward transparency: new approaches and their application to financial markets. World Bank Res Obs 16(1):41–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walton D (1996) Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber RH (2008) Transparency and the governance of the internet. Comp Law Secur Rev 24(4):342–348. doi:10.1016/j.clsr.2008.05.003

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westerman P (2009) Legal or non-legal reasoning: the problems of arguing about goals. Argumentation 24:211–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yu E (1997) Towards modelling and reasoning support for early-phase requirements engineering. In: Proceedings of the 3rd IEEE international symposium on requirements engineering (RE’1997), IEEE CS Press, pp 226–235

    Google Scholar 

  • Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a comparison framework. Gov Inf Q 31(1):17–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Joris Hulstijn & Brigitte Burgemeestre

  2. Pandar, Amsterdam, The Netherlands

    Brigitte Burgemeestre

Authors
  1. Joris Hulstijn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brigitte Burgemeestre
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joris Hulstijn .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Philosophy Section, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Jeroen van den Hoven

  2. Delft University of Technology Dept. Philosophy, Delft, The Netherlands

    Pieter E. Vermaas

  3. Department of Philosophy Sch. of Techn. Policy & Management, Delft University of Technology, Delft, The Netherlands

    Ibo van de Poel

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht

About this entry

Cite this entry

Hulstijn, J., Burgemeestre, B. (2014). Design for the Values of Accountability and Transparency. In: van den Hoven, J., Vermaas, P., van de Poel, I. (eds) Handbook of Ethics, Values, and Technological Design. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_12-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-6994-6_12-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-007-6994-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Religion and PhilosophyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Humanities

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation