A modelling language for transparency requirements in business information systems

A Modelling Language for
Transparency Requirements in
Business Information Systems
Mahmood Hosseini, Alimohammad Shahri, Keith Phalp, and Raian Ali
Bournemouth University, UK
Saturday,June25,2016
1

Agenda
• Introduction
• Transparency as a requirement
• What is missing?
• Transparency reference models
• Transparency Stakeholders’ Wheel
• Transparency Depth Pyramid
• Transparency Achievement Spectrum
• Information Quality in Transparency
• TranspLan: a transparency modelling language
• Modelling constituents and representations
• TranspLan mathematical definition
• Shield Diagram
• Sitreq Specification
• Infolet Specification
• Transparency requirements analysis
• Case study: university marking scheme
• Conclusion
• Conclusion
• Acknowledgements
2

Transparency as a requirement
• Transparency is a requirement of democratic societies
3
Introduction Reference Models TranspLan Case Study Conclusion
Image courtesy of The Independent, 12 Dec 2015

• Poor handling of transparency can lead to crises
• Financial crisis of 2008, as a result of lack of transparency
• Ashley Madison and Panama Papers incidents, results of
unwanted transparency
4
Image courtesy of FinFacts Ireland, 8 Oct 2008
Image courtesy of News.com.au, 24 Apr 2016
Image courtesy of Time, 14 Apr 2016

• Transparency is the requirement of the younger generation
and the millennials
• They live in a more transparent world
• They are more transparent (e.g., through sharing in social media)
• They demand more transparency
5
Image courtesy of TheViewInside.me, 25 Sep 2013 Image courtesy of Tru Access Blog, 16 Dec 2013

What is missing?
• The literature on transparency in general, and in computer
sciences in particular, lacks a critical focus, i.e., systematic
modelling and analysis of transparency requirements
• Transparency is usually studied alongside its adjacent concepts
related to information, e.g., privacy.
• There is a lack of rigorous conceptual models or reference
models for transparency.
• There has been no domain-specific languages proposed for
transparency requirements.
6

Transparency Stakeholders’ Wheel
(Presented in RE 2015)
7

Transparency Depth Pyramid
• It discusses transparency meaningfulness.
(Facets Presented in REFSQ 2016)
8

Transparency Achievement Spectrum
• It discusses transparency usefulness.
(Facets Presented in REFSQ 2016)
9

Information quality in transparency
(Kahn et al, 2002)
10
[1] B. K. Kahn, D. M. Strong, R. Y. Wang, Information quality benchmarks: product and service performance,
Communications of the ACM 45 (4) (2002) 184–192.

Modelling constituentsand representations
• TranspLan is based on the four reference models of
transparency
• TranspLan is mathematically defined, but it also has the
following visual representation and specifications:
• StakeHolders’ Information Exchange Layout Diagram (or Shield
Diagram)
• INFOrmation eLEment Transparency specification (or Infolet
Specification)
• Stakeholders’ Information Transparency REQuirements
specification (or Sitreq Specification)
11

Modelling constituentsand representations
• TranspLan constituents:
• Stakeholders
• Information elements
• types: data, process, policy
• Stakeholder-information relationships
• types: production, obligation, optionality, restriction, undecidedness
• Decomposition relations
• types: and, or, xor
• Information exchanges
12

TranspLan mathematical definition
13

Shield Diagram
14

Sitreq Specification
15

Infolet Specification
16

Transparency requirements analysis
• Transparency Meaningfulness Mismatch
17

Transparency requirements analysis
• Transparency Leakage
18

University marking scheme specification
• During and at the end of each semester, students' understanding of a unit is
evaluated by a combination of coursework and exams, hereby called assignment.
The marking is generally performed by two markers. The first marker is the unit
leader by default, and the second marker performs marking for quality
assurance purposes. The marking is performed using a marking scheme provided
by the university as a general guideline. Feedback on assignments is also
provided by the first marker to students. Besides, students may ask the first
marker to give them statistics about markings. Sometimes, an external examiner
is also involved in the marking process by marking the assignments in order to
evaluate the quality of the marking performed by the first and second marker.
The external examiner also provides feedback on marking of the first and second
marker. Furthermore, a teaching committee is in charge of reviewing all the
markings and accepting or refusing them.
• If any inconsistencies arise between the two markers, or between the two
markers and the external examiner, then an exam board will review the
markings and decide the final marking. The exam board also investigates
students‘ complaints about their marks, which must not be disclosed to the unit
leader, and investigates the marking refusal if the teaching committee refuses
the marking. The exam board decision on students' marking will be final.
19

Analysis of the transparency model
• The analysis of Sitreq specifications revealed that several transparency
meaningfulness types were missing, i.e., the level of transparency
meaningfulness (i.e., data, process, or policy) required by the
stakeholders was unknown. Furthermore, some Infolet specifications
missed the same information, meaning that the level of transparency
some information elements provide was not investigated, irrespective of
the stakeholders' requirements.
• The analysis of Sitreq specifications also showed that several
transparency provision types were missing, i.e., whether the
transparency is coercive or voluntary supply, or legal or personal
demand, could not be identified.
• The use of Infolet specifications helped the detection of negligence in
information quality checks for information elements.
• The use of Infolet specifications also facilitated the discovery of
inattention to transparency usefulness.
20

Analysis of the transparency model
• Running the first algorithmic analysis on transparency mismatch
detection:
• While the first marker's feedback on assignments contained the
spotting and revealing of the mistakes students had made on their
assignments(i.e., ‘data’), students requested that the first marker also
emphasises on why they think one solution is wrong and how these
mistakes could be avoided (i.e., ‘policy’).
• Running the second algorithmic analysis on transparency leakage
detection:
• The students did not want their complaints to be seen by the first
marker. The exam board, however, provided the first marker with
their decisions on complaints, literally revealing the complaints to
the first marker. While this is not a privacy issue or a security
problem, it can put pressure on students and probably discourage
them from making further complaints.
21

Case study: Shield Diagram
22

Case study: Sitreq Specification
23

Case study: Infolet Specification
24

Conclusion
• We proposed TranspLan, which is a domain-specific language
for engineering transparency requirements.
• The language is based on an extensive literature study and on
our four reference models of transparency.
• It provides a graphical language for transparency requirements
engineers along with specification sheets.
• A case study, as a proof of concept, shows the feasibility and
potentials of TranspLan for modelling and analysis of
transparency requirements in a business information system.
25

Acknowledgements
• The research is supported by an FP7 Marie Curie CIG grant
(the SOCIAD project).
26

Questions
27
mhosseini@bournemouth.ac.uk

A modelling language for transparency requirements in business information systems

More Related Content

Viewers also liked

Similar to A modelling language for transparency requirements in business information systems

More from Engineering and Social Informatics (ESOTICS)

Recently uploaded

A modelling language for transparency requirements in business information systems