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.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Notes
- 1.
http://www.keurmerkafrekensystemen.nl/, last accessed 6th of November 2014.
- 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
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
American Accounting Association, C. o. B. A. C. C (1972) Report of the committee on basic auditing concepts. Acc Rev XLVII:14–74
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T (2007) Practical reasoning as presumptive argumentation using action based alternating transition systems. Artif Intell 171:855–874
Atkinson K, Bench-Capon T, McBurney P (2006) Computational representation of practical argument. Synthese 152(2):157–206
Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsive regulation: transcending the deregulation debate. Oxford University Press, New York
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
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
Black J (2002) Regulatory conversations. J Law Soc 29(1):163–196
Blokdijk JH, Drieënhuizen F, Wallage PH (1995) Reflections on auditing theory, a contribution from the Netherlands. Limperg Instituut, Amsterdam
Bok S (1983) Secrets: on the ethics of concealment and revelation. Pantheon Books, New York
Boritz JE (2005) IS practitioners’ views on core concepts of information integrity. Int J Acc Inf Syst 6(4):260–279
Bovens M (2007) Analysing and assessing accountability: a conceptual framework. Eu Law J 13(4):447–468
Bovens M et al (2005) Public accountability. In: Ferlie E (ed) The Oxford handbook of public management. Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK
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
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
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)
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
Burgemeestre B, Hulstijn J, Tan Y-H (2011) Value-based argumentation for justifying compliance. Artif Intell Law 19(2–3):149–186
Burgemeestre B, Hulstijn J, Tan Y-H (2013) Value-based argumentation for designing and auditing security measures. Ethics Inf Technol 15:153–171
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
COSO (1992) Internal control – integrated framework. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, New York
COSO (2004) Enterprise risk management – integrated framework. Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission, New York
Dando N, Swift T (2003) Transparency and assurance minding the credibility gap. J Bus Ethics 44(2):195–200. doi:10.1023/a:1023351816790
Day P, Klein R (1987) Accountabilities: five public services. Tavistock, London
Debreceny R, Felden C, Ochocki B, Piechocki M (2009) XBRL for interactive data: engineering the information value chain. Springer, Berlin
Deming WE (1986) Out of the crisis. MIT Center for Advanced Engineering Study, Cambridge
Dubnick MJ (2003) Accountability and ethics: reconsidering the relationships. Int J Org Theory Behav 6:405–441
Dubois E, Mouratidis H (2010) Guest editorial: security requirements engineering: past, present and future. Requir Eng 15:1–5
Duff A (2007) Answering for crime: responsibility and liability in the criminal law. Hart Publishing, Oxford
Eisenhardt KM (1985) Control: organizational and economic approaches. Manag Sci 31(2):134–149
Eisenhardt KM (1989) Agency theory: an assessment and review. Acad Manage Rev 14(1):57–74
Elia J (2009) Transparency rights, technology, and trust. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):145–153. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9192-z
Eriksén S (2002) Designing for accountability. Paper presented at the NordiCHI 2002, second Nordic conference on human-computer interaction, tradition and transcendence, Århus
Fabian B, Gürses S, Heisel M, Santen T, Schmidt H (2010) A comparison of security requirements engineering methods. Requir Eng 15:7–40
Fleischmann KR, Wallace WA (2009) Ensuring transparency in computational modeling. Commun ACM 52(3):131–134. doi:10.1145/1467247.1467278
Flint D (1988) Philosophy and principles of auditing: an introduction. Macmillan, London
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
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
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
Grice HP (1975) Logic and conversation. Syntax Semant 3
Hart HLA (1968) Punishment and responsibility: essays in the philosophy of law. Clarendon, Oxford
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
Hess D (2007) Social reporting and new governance regulation: the prospects of achieving corporate accountability through transparency. Bus Ethics Q 17(3):453–476
Hofstede G, Neuijen B, Ohayv DD, Sanders G (1990) Measuring organizational cultures: a qualitative and quantitative study. Adm Sci Q 35(2):286–316
IIA (2013) The three lines of defense in effective risk management and control. IIA Position Papers, The Institute of Internal Auditors (IIA)
Johnson DG, Mulvey JM (1995) Accountability and computer decision systems. Commun ACM 38(12):58–64. doi:10.1145/219663.219682
Knechel W, Salterio S, Ballou B (2007) Auditing: assurance and risk, 3rd edn. Thomson Learning, Cincinatti
Korobkin RB (2000) Behavioral analysis and legal form: rules vs. principles revisited. Oregon Law Rev 79(1):23–60
Kuhn JR, Sutton SG (2010) Continuous auditing in ERP system environments: the current state and future directions. J Inf Syst 24(1):91–112
Leite JC, Cappelli C (2010) Software transparency. Bus Inf Syst Eng 2(3):127–139. doi:10.1007/s12599-010-0102-z
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
Merchant KA (1998) Modern management control systems, text & cases. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
Nissenbaum H (1994) Computing and accountability. Commun ACM 37(1):72–80. doi:10.1145/175222.175228
Norman DA (1998) The invisible computer. MIT Press, Cambridge
Perelman C (1980) Justice law and argument. D. Reidel Publishing, Dordrecht
Power M (1997) The audit society: rituals of verification. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Power M (2007) Organized uncertainty: designing a world of risk management. Oxford University Press, Oxford
Power M (2009) The risk management of nothing. Acc Organ Soc 34:849–855
Power M, Ashby S, Palermo T (2013) Risk culture in financial organisations. London School of Economics, London
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)
Rees J (1988) Self Regulation: an effective alternative to direct regulation by OSHA? Pol Stud J 16(3):602–614
Romney MB, Steinbart PJ (2006) Accounting information systems, 10th edn. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River
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
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
Schneier B (2000) Secrets and lies: digital security in a networked world. Wiley, New York
Searle JR (1995) The construction of social reality. The Free Press, New York
Simon HA (1996) The sciences of the artificial, 3rd edn. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA
Starreveld RW, de Mare B, Joels E (1994) Bestuurlijke Informatieverzorging (in Dutch), vol 1. Samsom, Alphen aan den Rijn
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
Turilli M, Floridi L (2009) The ethics of information transparency. Ethics Inf Technol 11(2):105–112. doi:10.1007/s10676-009-9187-9
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
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
Vishwanath T, Kaufmann D (2001) Toward transparency: new approaches and their application to financial markets. World Bank Res Obs 16(1):41–57
Walton D (1996) Argument schemes for presumptive reasoning. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah
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
Westerman P (2009) Legal or non-legal reasoning: the problems of arguing about goals. Argumentation 24:211–226
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
Zuiderwijk A, Janssen M (2014) Open data policies, their implementation and impact: a comparison framework. Gov Inf Q 31(1):17–29
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights 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