Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A framework for the application of socio-technical design methodology

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Ethics and Information Technology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Socio-technical systems (STS) have become prominent platforms for online social interactions. Yet, they are still struggling to incorporate basic social ideas for many different and new online activities. This has resulted in unintended exposure of users’ personal data and a rise in online threats as users have now become a desirable target for malicious activities. To address such challenges, various researchers have argued that STS should support user-oriented configurations to protect their users from online social abuse. Some methodologies have also been proposed to appreciate the integration of social values in the design of information systems, but they often lack an application mechanism. This paper presents a framework for the application of the socio-technical design methodology to incorporate social standards in the design of STS. The proposed framework exemplifies the socio-technical design approach by considering a list of social standards, followed by their mapping onto corresponding technical specifications. Based on these two sets, the framework highlights various individual, inter-group, and intra-group interactions and their supporting tools for STS governance. A conversation about the integration of social standards in STS is already materializing, therefore, a comprehensive framework to apply these standards in STS is entailed.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These social standards are considered only to exemplify the working of the framework, and are not meant to be exhaustive in any sense, nor representative of any desired/proposed list. Therefore, they should not be compared with different rights standards proposed by various international organizations, including Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966), European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950), Helsinki Final Act (1975), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (1966), etc.

  2. The discussions about norms, how they are developed, spread, got adopted, rejected etc. are out of the scope of this paper.

  3. Without supporting social standards in design, current STS will face the same negativity as portrayed by the P2P file sharing systems, where violations of the copyright law lead to demolishing of this useful tool, altogether.

  4. This paper does not focus on different rights (e.g., right to be forgotten, right to internet access, etc.), rather it proposes a framework through which incorporation of social standards can be made possible in socio-technical design approach.

  5. There are different types of rights such as civil, political, economic, social and liberal etc., however, this distinction and their discussion is out of the scope of this article.

  6. After the receiving party’s consent.

  7. https://www.gnu.org/home.en.html

  8. https://sourceforge.net/

  9. https://creativecommons.org/

  10. For instance, information about operating system processes.

References

  • Ahmad, A., Azhar, A., Naqvi, S., Nawaz, A., Arshad, S., & Zeshan, F. (2019a). A methodology for sender-oriented anti-spamming. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 38(3), 2765–2776. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179562

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, A., Whitworth, B., Zeshan, F., Janczewski, L., Ali, M., Chaudary, M. H., & Friedman, R. (2019b). A relation-aware multiparty access control. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 37(1), 227–239. https://doi.org/10.3233/JIFS-179080

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ahmad, A., & Whitworth, B. (2011). Distributed access control for social networks. In International conference of information assurance and security (pp. 68–73). Malacca, Malaysia, 5–8 December 2011. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISIAS.2011.6122797.

  • Ahmad, A., Whitworth, B., Zeshan, F., Bertino, E. & Friedman, R. (2017). Extending social networks with delegation. Computers & Security, 70, 546–564, 2017, ISSN 0167-4048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2017.07.010.

  • Almeida, V. A. F., Doneda, D. & Rossini, C. (2016). How Do App Stores Challenge the Global Internet Governance Ecosystem? In IEEE internet computing (vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 49–51), Nov.–Dec. https://doi.org/10.1109/MIC.2016.123.

  • Baraniuk, C. (2017). Google and Facebook duped in huge 'scam'. BBC News, 28th April 2019. Retrieved October 19, 2017, from http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-39744007

  • Beer, D., & Burrows, R. (2007). Sociology and, of and in Web 2.0: Some Initial Considerations. Sociological Research Online, 12(5).

  • Beu, D., & Buckley, M. R. (2001). The hypothesized relationship between accountability and ethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics, 34(1), 57–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bird, P. (1973). Accountability: Standards in financial reporting. Accountancy Age Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bonahoom, O. M. (1953). Moral and ethical considerations in tax practice. Marquette Law Review, 37(1), 85.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bovens, M., Goodin, R. E., & Schillemans, T. (2014). In M. Bovens, R. E. Goodin, & T. Schillemans (Eds.), The Oxford handbook public accountability. Oxford University Press. Retrieved July 24, 2019, from from https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199641253.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199641253

  • Brandom, R. (2015). Is Facebook’s photo-tagging system violating privacy law?. The Verge, 2015. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://www.theverge.com/2015/12/21/10634100/facebook-photo-tagging-lawsuit-biometric-privacy-law

  • Broadbent, J., & Laughlin, R. (2003). Control and legitimation in government accountability processes: The private finance initiative in the UK. Critical Perspectives on Accounting., 14(1–2), 23–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cahn, A., Alfeld, S., Barford, P., & Muthukrishnan, S. (2016). An Empirical Study of Web Cookies. In Proceedings of the 25th international conference on World Wide Web (WWW '16). International World Wide Web Conferences Steering Committee, Republic and Canton of Geneva, CHE, 891–901. https://doi.org/10.1145/2872427.2882991

  • Cath, C. (2019). Internet governance and human rights: A literature review. In C. Öhman, & D. Watson (Eds.), The 2018 yearbook of the digital ethics lab (pp. 105–132). Digital Ethics Lab Yearbook. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-17152-0_8

  • Cerf, V. (2012). The right to connect and internet censorship. New Perspectives Quarterly., 29(2), 18–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaffey, D. (2020). Global social media research summary August 2020. Smart Insights, 3.

  • Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Rome, 4.XI. 1950. https://www.echr.coe.int/documents/convention_eng.pdf

  • Coons, J. E. (1987). Consistency. In California law review, Seventy-Fifth Anniversary Issue (Vol. 75, No. 1, pp. 59–113). http://www.jstor.org/stable/3480573

  • Copyright Law. (2016). Copyright law of the United States. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://www.copyright.gov/title17/

  • DeNardis, L. (2014). The global war for internet governance. Yale University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Debbarma, P. (2016). Case study : Reasons why Google’s Orkut failed. Medium Corporation. 2016. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://medium.com/@PachaelPhillip/case-study-reasons-why-googles-orkut-failed-after-facebook-was-launched-92dd8a7abf0

  • Detel, W. (2008). On the concept of basic social norms. Analyse & Kritik, 30(2), 469–482. https://doi.org/10.1515/auk-2008-0207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dryer, D. P. (1964). Freedom. The Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science / Revue Canadienne D’economique Et De Science Politique, 30(3), 444–448.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dykstra, C. A. (1939). The quest for responsibility. The American Political Science Review, 33(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.2307/1949761

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC Directive. (2003). The privacy and electronic communications (EC Directive) regulations 2003. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2003/2426/contents/made

  • Economides, N. (2008). “Net Neutrality”, non-discrimination, and digital distribution of content through the Internet. I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy., 4, 209–233.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eggenschwiler, J. (2017). Accountability challenges confronting cyberspace governance. Internet Policy Review, 6(3), 1. https://doi.org/10.14763/2017.3.712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Electronic Frontier Foundation. (2010). A bill of privacy rights for social network users. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2010/05/bill-privacy-rights-social-network-users

  • Facebook Help, How to stop Facebook sending friend requests without my permission? Retrieved December 24, 2019, from https://www.facebook.com/help/community/question/?id=2319753068153651.

  • Fehr, E., Kremhelmer, S., & Schmidt, K. M. (2008). Fairness and the optimal allocation of ownership rights. The Economic Journal, 118(531), 1262–1284.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fire, M., Goldschmidt, R., & Elovici, Y. (2014). Online social networks: Threats and solutions. IEEE Communications Surveys & Tutorials, 16(4), 2019–2036.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fried, C. (1968). Privacy. The Yale Law Journal, 77(3), 475–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, B., Kahn, P., & Borning, A. (2002). Value sensitive design: Theory and methods. University of Washington technical report (pp. 2–12).

  • Friedman, B., & Kahn Jr, P. H. (2007). Human values, ethics, and design. In The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1267–1292). CRC Press.

  • Gao, H., Hu, J., Huang, T., Wang, J., & Chen, Y. (2011). Security issues in online social networks. IEEE Internet Computing, 15(4), 56–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Geer, D. E. (2015). The right to be unobserved. IEEE Security & Privacy, 13(4).

  • Gert, B., & Gert, J. (2020). The definition of morality. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Fall 2020 Edition). Retrieved October 18, 2021, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2020/entries/morality-definition/

  • GCIG (Global Commission on Internet Governance). (2017). Retrieved November 17, 2017, from https://www.cigionline.org/initiatives/global-commission-internet-governance

  • Greenbaum, J. (1996, November). Back to labor: Returning to labor process discussions in the study of work. In Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (pp. 229–237).

  • Grudin, J. (1988, January). Why CSCW applications fail: problems in the design and evaluation of organizational interfaces. In Proceedings of the 1988 ACM conference on Computer-supported cooperative work (pp. 85–93).

  • Hart, H. L. A. (1961). The concept of law.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helsinki Final Act, 1 August 1975. https://www.osce.org/helsinki-final-act

  • Hu, P. J., Chau, P. Y. K., Sheng, O. R. L., & Tam, K. Y. (1999). Examining the technology acceptance model using physician acceptance of telemedicine. Journal of Management Information Systems, 16, 91–112.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, H., Ahn, G., Zhao, Z., & Yang, D. (2014). Game theoretic analysis of multiparty access control in online social networks. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM symposium on Access control models and technologies (SACMAT '14) (pp. 93–102). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2613087.2613097

  • International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), 16 December 1966. General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-civil-and-political-rights

  • International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, 16 December 1966. General Assembly resolution 2200A (XXI). https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/international-covenant-economic-social-and-cultural-rights

  • ICO (Information Commissioner’s Office).(2017).International enforcement operation finds website privacy notices are too vague and generally inadequate. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://ico.org.uk/about-the-ico/news-and-events/news-and-blogs/2017/10/international-enforcement-operation-finds-website-privacy-notices-are-too-vague-and-generally-inadequate/

  • Ilia, P., Carminati, B., Ferrari, E., Fragopoulou, P., & Ioannidis, S. (2017). SAMPAC: Socially-aware collaborative multi-party access control. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM on conference on data and application security and privacy (CODASPY '17) (pp. 71–82). ACM, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3029806.3029834.

  • Jin, L., Chen, Y., Wang, T., Hui, P., & Vasilakos, A. V. (2013). Understanding user behavior in online social networks: A survey. IEEE Communications Magazine, 51(9), 144–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, D. G. (1985). Computer ethics. Prentice-Hall Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kash, J. (2018). 10 reasons why most online business startups fail? Design Hill 13-04-2018. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://www.designhill.com/design-blog/reasons-why-most-online-business-startups-fail/

  • Kelsen, H. (1949). General theory of law and state. Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M., Song, C., Kim, H., Park, D., Kwon, Y., Namkung, E., & Carlsson, M. (2019, September). Scam detection assistant: Automated protection from scammers. In 2019 first international conference on societal automation (SA) (pp. 1–8). IEEE.

  • Kling, R. (1980). Social analyses of computing: Theoretical perspectives in recent empirical research. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 12(1), 61–110.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpela, M., Soriyan, H. A., Olufokunbi, K. C., Onayade, A. A., Davies-Adetugbo, A., & Adesanmi, D. (1998). Community participation in health informatics in Africa: An experiment in tripartite partnership in Ile-Ife, Nigeria. Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW), 7(3), 339–358.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, B., Riche, N., Karlson, A., Carpendale, S., SparkClouds. (2010). Visualizing trends in tag clouds. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics, 16(6), 1182–1189.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lessig, L. (2006). Code: And other laws of cyberspace, Version 2.0. Basic Books.

  • Lessig, L. (2012). Against perpetual copyright. The Lessig Wiki.

  • Littleton, A. C. (1966). Accounting evolution to 1900, 2nd edition, Russell and Russell.

  • Locke, J. (1963). An essay concerning the true original extent and end of civil government: Second of Two Treatises on Government‖ (1690). In J. Somerville & R. E. Santoni (Eds.), Social and political philosophy (pp. 169–204). Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Masnick, M: Techdirt: Disney Claims House Of Mouse Built With Copyright, Ignores Public Domain Foundation: Techdirt, 11th September, 2012. Retrieved November 17, 2019, from https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120910/02485220325/disney-claims-house-mouse-built-with-copyright-ignores-public-domain-foundation.shtml

  • Mead, G. H. (1934). 1934. University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mehnaz, S., & Bertino, E. (2019). A fine-grained approach for anomaly detection in file system accesses with enhanced temporal user profiles. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing.

  • Mislove, A., Viswanath, B., Gummadi, K. P., & Druschel, P. (2010). You are who you know: inferring user profiles in online social networks. In: Proceedings of the third ACM international conference on web search and data mining (pp. 251–260).

  • Muhammad, T., & Ahmad, A. (2021). A joint sharing approach for online privacy preservation, World Wide Web, (accepted).

  • Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 24–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. J. (1997). Ethnocritical heuristics for reflecting on work with users and other interested parties. In Computers and design in context (pp. 349–380).

  • Musiani, F., Cogburn, D. L., DeNardis, L., & Levinson, N. S. (2015). The turn to infrastructure in internet governance. Palgrave Macmillan US.

    Google Scholar 

  • Novak, E. & Li, Q. (2012). A survey of security and privacy in online social networks (pp. 1–32), College of William and Mary Computer Science. Technical Report.

  • O'Flaherty, K. (2021). Is it time to leave WhatsApp—And is Signal the answer? The Guardian 24-01-2021. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2021/jan/24/is-it-time-to-leave-whatsapp-and-is-signal-the-answer

  • O'Reilly, L. (2011). Four reasons why MySpace failed to retain the social network crown. Marketing Week 12th Jan 2011. Retrieved February 3, 2019, from https://www.marketingweek.com/2011/01/12/four-reasons-why-myspace-failed-to-retain-the-social-network-crown/

  • Pang, J., and Zhang, Y. (2015). A new access control scheme for Facebook-style social networks. In Computers & security (Vol. 54, pp. 44–59). ISSN 0167-4048. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cose.2015.04.013.

  • Pettrachin, A. (2018). Towards a universal declaration on internet rights and freedoms? International Communication Gazette, 80(4), 337–353. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518757139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Porra, J., & Hirscheim, R. (2007). A lifetime of theory and action on the ethical use of computers. JAIS, 8(9), 467–478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Redeker, D., Gill, L., & Gasser, U. (2018). Towards digital constitutionalism? Mapping attempts to craft an internet bill of rights. International Communication Gazette, 80(4), 302–319. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748048518757121

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ridley, M. (2010). The rational optimist: How prosperity evolves. Harper.

  • Robertson, A. (2016). Facebook is asking users to judge the truthfulness of news headlines. The Verge 2016. Retrieved July 24, 2019, from https://www.theverge.com/2016/12/5/13849108/facebook-misleading-clickbait-news-headlines-survey

  • Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. The Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Samreen, A., Ahmad, A., Zeshan, F., Ahmad, F., Ahmed, S., & Khan, Z. A. (2020). A collaborative method for protecting teens against online predators over social networks: A behavioral analysis. IEEE Access, 8, 174375–174393. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2020.3007141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues, 50(4), 19–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology, 48(1), 23–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sepuldeva, M., Van Banning, T., & van Genugten, W. J. M. (2004). Human rights reference handbook. University for Peace.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shah, H. (2011). Accountability: Has it been hollowed out in the modern state? Journal of Political Studies, 18(1), 77–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sidorowicz, R. (2002). Back to the beginning—Core values. Refresher Publications Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Streitfeld, D. (2014). The New York Times, May 13, 2014. Retrieved July 30, 2019, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/14/technology/google-should-erase-web-links-to-some-personal-data-europes-highest-court-says.html?_r=0

  • Suchman, L. (1997). Do categories have politics? The language/action perspective reconsidered. In Human values and the design of computer technology (pp. 91–106).

  • Suntaxi-Oña, G., & Varadharajan, V. (2015). A comparative analysis of the social graph model and multiparty access control model for online social networks. International Journal of Future Computer and Communication, Vol. 4, No. 5.

  • Tappenden, A. F., and Miller, J. (2014). Automated cookie collection testing. ACM Transactions on Software Engineering Methodology. 23, 1, Article 3. https://doi.org/10.1145/2559936.

  • TFG (The TypeFace Group). (2020). Social network value per user—How much is your audience worth? TFG website. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://www.thetypefacegroup.co.uk/social-network-value-per-user/

  • The Madrid Privacy Declaration. (2009). Global privacy standards for a global world. Retrieved January 23, 2021, from https://www.intgovforum.org/cms/documents/contributions/open-consultations/2010-february/394-the-madrid-privacy-declaration/file

  • Timberg, C., & Dwoskin, E. (2020). Silicon Valley is getting tougher on Trump and his supporters over hate speech and disinformation. The Washington Post. Retrieved February 2, 2021.

  • Tuomela, R. (1995). The importance of us.

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Turilli, M., & Floridi, L. (2009). The ethics of information transparency. Ethics and Information Technology, 11(2).

  • Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), 10 December 1948, 217 A (III). Retrieved September 26, 2021, from https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b3712c.html

  • Vasak, K. (1977). Human rights: A thirty-year struggle: The sustained efforts to give force of law to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. UNESCO Courier, 30, 29–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Voloch, N., Nissim, P., Elmakies, M., & Gudes, E. (2019, July). A role and trust access control model for preserving privacy and image anonymization in social networks. In IFIP international conference on trust management (pp. 19–27). Springer.

  • Waldron, J. (2016). In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Property and ownership, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2016 Edition). Retrieved from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2016/entries/property/

  • Wenar, L. (2021). "Rights". In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), The Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy (Spring 2021 Edition). Retrieved October 18, 2021, from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2021/entries/rights/

  • Wentworth, D. (2002). Mickey rattles the bars: The supreme court hearing of Eldred v. Ashcroft, Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard.

  • Whitworth, B., & De Moor, A. (Eds.). (2009). Handbook of Research on Socio-Technical Design and Social Networking Systems. Hershey, PA: IGI.” ISBN: 978-1-60566-264-0.

  • Whitworth, B., & Ahmad, A. (2014). The social design of technical systems: Building technologies for communities. Interaction Design Foundation.

  • Wilde, D., (2019). Over 1,000 Android apps take your data, even despite permission blocks, 9to5Google 09-07-2019. Retrieved February 3, 2021, from https://9to5google.com/2019/07/09/android-app-data-permissions/

  • Young, H. P. (2015). The evolution of social norms. Economics, 7(1), 359–387.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zajonc, R. (1965). Social facilitation. Science, 149(3681), 269–274. American Association for the Advancement of Science. Retrieved February 3, 2019, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1715944

  • Zeebaree, S., Ameen, S., & Sadeeq, M. (2020). Social media networks security threats, risks and recommendation: A case study in the kurdistan region. International Journal of Innovation, Creativity and Change, 13, 349–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, J., Gu, Z., Jang, J., Wu, H., Stoecklin, M. P., Huang, H., & Molloy, I. (2018, May). Protecting intellectual property of deep neural networks with watermarking. In Proceedings of the 2018 on Asia conference on computer and communications security (pp. 159–172).

  • Ziccardi, G. (2019). The right to data oblivion. DATA POLITICS (p. 231).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Saint Louis University, St. Louis, USA

    Adnan Ahmad

  2. School of Engineering and Advanced Technology, Massey University, Auckland, New Zealand

    Brian Whitworth

  3. Department of Computer Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, USA

    Elisa Bertino

Authors
  1. Adnan Ahmad
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Brian Whitworth
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elisa Bertino
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elisa Bertino.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Appendix-I

Appendix-I

See Table 3.

Table 3 Important concepts related to Socio-technical system design
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ahmad, A., Whitworth, B. & Bertino, E. A framework for the application of socio-technical design methodology. Ethics Inf Technol 24, 46 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09651-0

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-022-09651-0

Keywords

Search

Navigation