Modelling and Classification of Fairness Patterns for Designing Sustainable Information Systems

B\'ereng\`ere Nihoul; Christophe Ponsard; Mounir Touzani

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 16 references

Modelling and Classification of Fairness Patterns for Designing Sustainable Information Systems

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A reusable library of fairness patterns, supported by an extended sustainability meta-model, enables systematic fairness analysis and information-system requirement discovery in sustainable system design.

desk verdict Useful English translation of prior fairness-pattern work; the catalogue is coherent but the validation is partly circular and the transfer claim remains unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.17894 v1 pith:I5CTDJRL submitted 2024-11-26 cs.SE

Christophe Ponsard , Bérengère Nihoul , Mounir Touzani This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SE

keywords fairnesspatternssustainableinformationsystemsdesignrequirementsengineeringsocio-technicalsustainabilitymeta-modeldistributivejusticecasestudy

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper tries to establish that fairness in sociotechnical system design can be treated as a reusable engineering concern rather than an ad hoc afterthought. It builds a catalogue of fairness patterns—such as distributive justice, transparency, rule acceptance, violation anticipation, and co-evolution—and documents them with an extended sustainability meta-model that adds obstacles, assumptions, and modular fragments. The authors claim that this catalogue lets analysts model fairness-related values, spot barriers and assumptions, and instantiate patterns to derive concrete requirements on the information system serving the system. They test the claim on two cases: COVID-19 crisis management (containment and vaccination) and the medico-social monitoring of early childhood. A sympathetic reader would care because, if the catalogue is reusable, fairness requirements could be elicited more systematically across domains.

What carries the argument

The key machinery is the extended sustainability meta-model and the fairness pattern catalogue built on it. The meta-model, based on the value/dimension/indicator/regulation/activity framework, is extended with three concepts: Obstacle (a condition blocking a value), Assumption (a behaviour that must hold for the value to be guaranteed but is not enforced by the system), and Fragment (a modular model element that can be generalised into a reusable Patron). These extensions let analysts reason about barriers to fairness and modularise complex models. The patterns are organised around a continuous improvement cycle—Plan-Do-Check/Study-Act—with stages for design, adoption, implementation, evolution, and governance, and each pattern's archetype is expressed with the extended notations, linking fairness values to activities, indicators, obstacles, and IS components.

What would settle it

Have independent requirements engineers, who did not help build the catalogue, apply it to a new sustainability case in an unfamiliar domain (for example, water quota allocation or public transport planning) and compare the fairness requirements they produce with those from unstructured analysis. If the catalogue-based group does not identify more complete or more consistent fairness requirements, the central claim fails. The paper already notes that wider dissemination and feedback collection are missing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that fairness patterns can be induced from a set of published case studies and organised into a structured library positioned on a continuous improvement cycle (design, adoption, implementation, evolution, governance). Each pattern is described with a summary, applicability, content, archetype, examples, and related patterns, and is expressed in an extended sustainability meta-model that introduces the concepts of Obstacle, Assumption, and Fragment/Patron. The meta-model extension is what carries the reasoning: obstacles make fairness violations explicit and trigger pattern selection, assumptions make hidden conditions explicit, and fragments turn reusable chunks into generic patterns that can be instantiated in a specific context. Validation on the COVID-19 and ONE cases leads the authors to conclude that the approach identifies fairness strategies and yields IS requirements in a systematic and reusable way.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's positive conclusion rests on the assumption that two cases, selected and analysed by the same authors who built the catalogue, are representative enough to demonstrate the catalogue's quality and usefulness; the paper itself says it remains difficult to estimate that quality and that the catalogue has only been tested by a small group close to the authors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Requirements engineers can use the catalogue to identify fairness strategies systematically, moving from ad hoc analysis to pattern-based reasoning.
The meta-model extensions (obstacle, assumption, fragment) provide a reusable reasoning vocabulary that can be applied to other sustainability dimensions, such as resource use and environmental footprint.
The pattern catalogue is designed to grow through community enrichment, accumulating knowledge from new cases.
The approach bridges socio-technical fairness analysis and information-system requirements, producing concrete IS obligations from high-level fairness values.
The cyclical structure supports continuous improvement, so fairness can be monitored and restored as systems evolve.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

A natural next step, not explored in the paper, would be to convert the obstacle-detection step into a tool that suggests candidate patterns semi-automatically, reducing reliance on analyst expertise.
The catalogue's generalisability could be tested by independent analysts applying it to a new domain, such as water allocation or public transport, and comparing outputs against ad hoc analysis; the paper acknowledges it has only been tested by a small group close to the authors.
The fairness patterns overlap conceptually with algorithmic fairness concerns in AI systems, but the paper does not address bias in machine-learning models; connecting the two would be a testable extension.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

You should know this is the English translation of the authors' French journal paper [Chr24], built on their own [PNT21]. The core meta-model, pattern catalogue, and COVID-19 case are already there. What's new is a more systematic state-of-the-art review, a doubled input case base, and the ONE early-childhood validation.

That said, the paper is a decent qualitative contribution. The pattern catalogue is clearly organised around a PDCA cycle with governance, and each pattern is documented with intent, applicability, archetype, examples, and related patterns. The meta-model extensions—obstacle, assumption, fragment—are conservative and genuinely useful for reasoning about barriers to fairness. The authors are frank about their own limitations, which I respect.

The soft spot is the validation. ONE appears in Table 1 as an input case, so applying the catalogue to it is resubstitution, not an independent test. The COVID case is truly outside the input corpus, but it was selected, modelled, and interpreted by the same team that built the catalogue, with no baseline or external evaluators. Section 5 concedes it's only been tested by a small group close to the authors. The further claim that the stability of the COVID models 'indicates the high quality of the methodology' is a non-sequitur—stability over time is not evidence of transferable usefulness. The load-bearing assumption—that the catalogue, not the authors' own familiarity with fairness modelling, is what drives the results—is not supported.

None of this kills the paper. The approach is plausible and the catalogue may well be useful to requirements engineers. But the evidence presented is suggestive, not demonstrative. The citation pattern is fine: they explicitly say this is a translation and build on their own prior work, which is normal.

Who should read it: requirements engineers and RE researchers interested in sustainability and fairness patterns. It's a niche audience, but the paper is a reasonable entry point.

My recommendation: send it to peer review. It deserves referee time. The validation can be improved with an independent, out-of-sample case and at least one external user. With that, it could be a solid contribution. Without it, the transfer claim remains unproven.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper presents a catalogue-based methodology for modelling and classifying fairness concerns in sustainable sociotechnical systems. It builds on an existing sustainability meta-model and extends it with the concepts of Obstacle, Assumption and Fragment (§2.1). From an inventory of sixteen published cases (Table 1), the authors derive six fairness patterns—distributive justice, substantial freedom, rule acceptance, transparency, violation anticipation, and co-evolution—and organise them into a PDCA-style cycle (§3). The claimed contribution is that the resulting library enables a requirements engineer to identify fairness requirements more systematically than with ad hoc analysis. Validation consists of two author-conducted case studies: COVID-19 crisis management (§4.1–4.2), which is not in Table 1, and the ONE early-childhood monitoring system (§4.3), which is listed as row 6 of Table 1.

Significance. If the central claim were established, the paper would make a useful contribution to requirements engineering for sustainability: it offers a concrete modelling vocabulary, a documented set of fairness patterns, and an explicit procedure for instantiating them. The systematic inventory of cases and the explicit extension of the meta-model are valuable, and the paper is honest about several limitations in Section 5. However, the validation is currently self-assessment: the same team discovered, documented, applied and evaluated the patterns, and Section 5 concedes that the catalogue "has only been tested by a small group of researchers close to the authors" and that "it remains difficult to estimate the level of quality or usefulness of the catalogue". The strongest independent element is the COVID-19 case, which is genuinely absent from the input corpus, but its interpretation is still author-dependent. The paper does not provide a baseline comparison, an inter-rater agreement measure, or a test of whether engineers without prior exposure to the catalogue produce different or better fairness requirements.

major comments (3)

[§4.3 and Table 1] The ONE early-childhood monitoring system is not an out-of-sample validation. Table 1 row 6 lists "Health Early childhood care" with reference [Chi+15], and §4.3 explicitly states that ONE "was published as a representative example in terms of sustainability [Chi+15]". Since the pattern catalogue was derived from the case studies in Table 1, applying the catalogue to ONE is a resubstitution exercise. This does not demonstrate transfer of the catalogue to a new system; it demonstrates that the authors can re-model a system they already know. The paper should either replace this case with a genuinely external one, or clearly label the ONE analysis as a within-sample illustration and move the burden of transfer evidence to independent cases.
[§5] The concluding inference from COVID model stability to catalogue quality is a non-sequitur. The text states: "The initial models proved to be very stable and have been reproduced here virtually unchanged. This indicates the high quality of the methodology and the catalogue." Model stability only indicates consistency of the authors' own modelling over time; it does not measure usefulness for third-party analysts and does not support the transferability claim. The paper needs either an external evaluation (e.g., a user study with engineers not involved in pattern creation, or a comparison of the requirements produced with and without the catalogue) or a substantially weaker statement of the claimed contribution.
[§2.2 and §4] The pattern discovery and validation procedures are both performed by the authors without explicit criteria for what counts as a recurrence or a successful application. Section 2.2 lists four steps but gives no operational definition of "recurring strategy", and Section 4 uses the authors' own annotations (speech bubbles) to decide where patterns "seem interesting to apply". This makes the positive evaluation partly circular and leaves the reader unable to distinguish pattern-driven analysis from the authors' prior domain knowledge. The paper should specify a protocol that separates pattern selection from pattern evaluation, for example by having independent raters apply the catalogue and measuring agreement.

minor comments (4)

[Throughout] There are OCR and encoding artifacts: "Ãl’conomic" (§3.1), "stratÃl’gy" (Table 1 row 6), "ails at" (§2.3), and "prokect" (Acknowledgement). These should be corrected in a professional copy-edit.
[§3.2 and §3.3] The template fields are inconsistent: "Dimensions" in §3.3 is filled with a sentence about community characteristics rather than the sustainability dimensions addressed, and "Content" in §3.2 repeats the same sentence. The pattern documentation should use one field discipline.
[Figure 3] The meta-model extension in Figure 3 is described with French terminology while Figure 1 uses English; the text should state whether the language switch is intentional and should provide an English caption for Figure 3.
[§3.5, Figure 11] The definition of the violation anticipation pattern relies on indicators and models, but the archetype diagram does not show how the "obstacle" extension from §2.1 is used; adding a pointer to the extended meta-model would help.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

ONE validation case is in the discovery corpus: Section 4.3 applies the catalogue to a system listed as an input case in Table 1, so the claimed transfer validation is resubstitution.

fitted input called prediction [Section 3 (catalogue discovery); Section 4.3 (ONE validation); Table 1 row 6 (input case)]
"This section documents the patterns discovered from the cases described in Table 1. / Our second case study concerns a system of medico-social monitoring of early childhood in French-speaking Belgium, which dates back to the First World War [ONE19]. Unlike the other case study, this one was the subject of a prior detailed analysis by us and was published as a representative example in terms of sustainability [Chi+15]."

The first excerpt states the pattern catalogue is discovered from the cases in Table 1. Table 1 row 6 lists 'Health Early childhood care' with reference [Chi+15], which is the same ONE system named in the second excerpt. The second excerpt says the ONE case was analysed 'by us' and published in [Chi+15]. Thus ONE is a member of the discovery corpus. Section 4.3 then instantiates the catalogue's patterns (accessibility, distributive justice, violation anticipation, transparency) on ONE and treats this as validation. Applying a catalogue to a case from which it was induced is resubstitution: the patterns appear applicable by construction and no out-of-sample transfer is tested.

full rationale

The circularity is localized and partial. The pattern library is not a numerical fit and has independent grounding: it is organized using published sustainability pattern templates ([RR13]), the meta-model extends prior published work ([PF13], [Kie+20]), and the patterns are identified across a corpus of externally published cases (Table 1). The COVID-19 validation case is genuinely absent from Table 1 and therefore provides an out-of-sample application, which supports the central claim to some degree. However, the second validation case (ONE) is not out-of-sample: Table 1 row 6 lists 'Health Early childhood care' with reference [Chi+15], the same system that Section 4.3 uses and describes as 'the subject of a prior detailed analysis by us'. The Section 3 statement that the catalogue documents 'patterns discovered from the cases described in Table 1' makes the overlap explicit. Consequently, the ONE-based validation is a resubstitution test: it can show that the authors can re-apply their own induced patterns to a familiar case, but it cannot show transfer to a new system. Section 5 itself flags the limitation: the catalogue 'has only been tested by a small group of researchers close to the authors' and 'it remains difficult to estimate the level of quality or usefulness of the catalogue'. The later inference that model stability 'indicates the high quality of the methodology and the catalogue' is an overreach but is not itself a circular derivation. Score 6 reflects that one validation claim reduces by construction while the broader methodology retains independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The central claim rests on the adequacy of the adopted meta-model, the validity of pattern-based knowledge capture, the representativeness of the case studies, and the authors' self-assessment. There are no numerical free parameters, but the conceptual choices are domain assumptions without external verification.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption The adopted sustainability meta-model (Goal, Dimension, Value, Indicator, Regulation, Activity) adequately represents fairness concerns in sociotechnical systems.
Taken from [PF12, PF13] and used throughout Section 2.1.
domain assumption Design patterns are a valid mechanism for capturing reusable fairness knowledge.
Assumed from Gamma et al. (Gam+95) and RR13; no empirical comparison with alternative representations.
domain assumption Introducing the concepts of obstacle, assumption, and fragment is a conservative extension that does not distort the original meta-model.
Claimed in Section 2.1; no formal proof of conservativeness.
domain assumption The two validation cases are representative of fairness problems in sustainable IS design.
The cases were chosen by the authors; no sampling or selection criteria are given (Section 4).
domain assumption The pattern catalogue is complete enough to cover the fairness issues in the validation cases.
The authors manually map patterns to the cases and judge them adequate (Section 4-5).

invented entities (3)

Obstacle
purpose: Represents a condition that obstructs a goal or value in the sustainability meta-model, enabling obstacle analysis.
Introduced in Section 2.1; no external falsifiable handle, only used in the authors' own diagrams.
Assumption
purpose: Captures a behaviour that must be satisfied for a value to be guaranteed without the system enforcing it.
Introduced in Section 2.1; used in COVID modelling to represent citizen acceptance.
Fragment
purpose: Modular packaging of model elements for reuse and pattern instantiation.
Introduced in Section 2.1; used only sparingly in the paper (Section 5 notes limited use).

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Modelling and Classification of Fairness Patterns for Designing Sustainable Information Systems." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I5CTDJRL

@misc{pith2026241117894,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Modelling and Classification of Fairness Patterns for Designing Sustainable Information Systems},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I5CTDJRL}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.17894}
}

read the original abstract

Designing sustainable systems involves complex interactions between environmental resources, social impacts, and economic issues. In a constrained world, the challenge is to achieve a balanced design across those dimensions while avoiding several barriers to adoption. This paper explores the concept of fairness in sociotechnical system design, including its information system component. It is based on a reference sustainability meta-model capturing the concepts of value, assumption, regulation, metric and task. Starting from a set of published cases, different fairness patterns were identified and structured in a library enabling the application of strategies for adoption, anticipation, distributive justice, and transparency. They were generalised and documented using an existing sustainability template. An extension to the initial meta-model is also proposed to identify and reason on assumptions and barriers to reach the desired values. Finally, the validation of our work is discussed using two case studies, respectively addressing the fairness to manage the COVID-19 crisis and the medico-social follow-up of childhood.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

16 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

[3]

From trust to compliance : accountability in the fair trade movement

ISBN : 9783319085814. [DL13] Eileen DAVENPORT et William LOW. “From trust to compliance : accountability in the fair trade movement”. In : Social Enterprise Journal (2013). [Doe+16] Ralf DOERING et al. “Equity and ITQs : About Fair Distribution in Quota Management Sys- tems in Fisheries”. In : Environmental Values 25.6 (2016), p. 729–749.ISSN : 09632719, ...

work page 2013
[5]

London, UK – openscience.fr Page | 26 [IC20] Judy ILLES et Max C AMERON

c 2023 ISTE OpenScience – Published by ISTE Ltd. London, UK – openscience.fr Page | 26 [IC20] Judy ILLES et Max C AMERON . Politicians appeal to our sense of fairness in the battle against COVID-19. http://bit.do/covid-call-for-fairness

work page 2023
[7]

Co-evolution between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innova- tion : Evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai

[Lam09] Axel van LAMSWEERDE . Requirements Engineering - From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, 2009.ISBN : 978-0-470-01270-3. [Ma+18] Yuge MA et al. “Co-evolution between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innova- tion : Evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai”. In : Journal of Cleaner Production 188 (20...

work page 2018
[10]

[Pic12] Gabriele PICCOLI

ISBN : 9781450318662. [Pic12] Gabriele PICCOLI . Information Systems for Managers : Text and Cases. Wiley, 2012, p

work page 2012
[14]

The theoretical foundations of sociotechnical systems change for sus- tainability : A systematic literature review

[Sav+19] Paulo SAVAGET et al. “The theoretical foundations of sociotechnical systems change for sus- tainability : A systematic literature review”. In : Journal of Cleaner Production 206 (2019). [Sen09] Amartya SEN. L’idée de Justice. Penguin Books Ltd, Flammarion,

work page 2019
[258]

Towards Cross Assess- ment of Physical and Digital Accessibility

2007, p. 413–422. [PVS20] Christophe P ONSARD , Jean VANDERDONCKT et Vincent S NOECK . “Towards Cross Assess- ment of Physical and Digital Accessibility”. In : Computers Helping People with Special Needs - 17th Int. Conf., ICCHP 2020, Lecco, Italy, September 9-11. Springer,

work page 2007
[1919]

Quantitative Assessment of Goal Models within and beyond the Requirements Engineering Tool : A Case Study in the Accessibility Domain

[PD17] Christophe PONSARD et Robert DARIMONT . “Quantitative Assessment of Goal Models within and beyond the Requirements Engineering Tool : A Case Study in the Accessibility Domain”. In : Proc. of the 10th Int. i* Workshop, Essen, Germany, June 12-13. 2017, p. 13–18. [Pen+14] Birgit PENZENSTADLER et al. “Safety, Security, Now Sustainability : The Nonfunc...

work page 2014
[1971]

Sustainability requirement patterns

[RR13] K. ROHER et D. RICHARDSON . “Sustainability requirement patterns”. In : 3rd Int. Workshop on Requirements Patterns (RePa). 2013, p. 8–11. [Saa10] Natrah SAAD . “Fairness perceptions and compliance behavior : The case of salaried taxpayers in Malaysia after implementation of the self-assessment system”. In : eJournal of Tax Research 8 (jan. 2010), p...

work page 2013

Show all 16 references

[2001]

Patterns of distributive justice : social housing and the search for market dynamism in Amsterdam

ISBN : 9780201596274. [Jon20] Arend J ONKMAN . “Patterns of distributive justice : social housing and the search for market dynamism in Amsterdam”. In : Housing Studies (2020), p. 1–32. [Kie+20] Jörg K IENZLE et al. “Toward model-driven sustainability evaluation”. In : Commun....

2020
[2009]

Achieving sustainability and fairness in water re- form : A Western Australian case study

[SN06] Geoffrey J SYME et Blair E N ANCARROW . “Achieving sustainability and fairness in water re- form : A Western Australian case study”. In : Water international 31.1 (2006), p. 23–30. [Uni87] UNITED NATIONS . World Commission on Environment and Development : Our Common Fu-...

2006
[2012]

Building social sustainability into software : Case of equality

ISBN : ISBN 978-1-84369-876-0. [Fra86] Nissim F RANCEZ . Fairness. 1re éd. Texts and Monographs in Computer Science. Springer- Verlag New York, 1986.ISBN : 978-1-4612-9347-7,978-1-4612-4886-6. [Gam+95] Erich G AMMA et al. Design Patterns : Elements of Reusable Object-Oriented ...

1986
[2013]

The Role of Fairness in Modelling Customer Choice

[MG11] Christine MATHIES et Siegfried P. GUDERGAN . “The Role of Fairness in Modelling Customer Choice”. In : Australasian Marketing Journal 19.1 (2011), p. 22–29. [MN10] Ronald D. MOEN et Cliff N ORMAN . “Clearing up myths about the Deming cycle and seeing how it keeps evolvi...

2011
[2015]

Modélisation et classification de patrons d’équité pour la conception de systèmes d’information durables

[Chr24] Mounir Touzani CHRISTOPHE PONSARD Bérengère Nihoul. “Modélisation et classification de patrons d’équité pour la conception de systèmes d’information durables”. In : Revue ouverte d’ingénierie des systèmes d’information 4.Numéro Spécial (2024). ISSN : 2634-1468. [Cir22]...

2024
[2016]

Enterprise Modelling for Business Redesign : The I* Frame- work

[YM97] Eric YU et John MYLOPOULOS . “Enterprise Modelling for Business Redesign : The I* Frame- work”. In : SIGGROUP Bull. 18.1 (avr. 1997). c 2023 ISTE OpenScience – Published by ISTE Ltd. London, UK – openscience.fr Page | 28

1997
[2018]

Building sustainable software for sustainable systems : case study of a shared pick-up and delivery service

c 2023 ISTE OpenScience – Published by ISTE Ltd. London, UK – openscience.fr Page | 27 [PLG18] Christophe PONSARD , Renaud De LANDTSHEER et Fabian GERMEAU . “Building sustainable software for sustainable systems : case study of a shared pick-up and delivery service”. In : Proc...

2023
[2020]

Monitoring inequality : Putting the capability approach to work

[Bur08] Tania BURCHARDT . “Monitoring inequality : Putting the capability approach to work”. In : juin 2008, p. 205–229. ISBN : 9781861349347. [Chi+15] Ruzanna CHITCHYAN et al. “Evidencing Sustainability Design through Examples”. In : Proc. of the 4th Int. Workshop on Requirem...

2008

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [3]

From trust to compliance : accountability in the fair trade movement

ISBN : 9783319085814. [DL13] Eileen DAVENPORT et William LOW. “From trust to compliance : accountability in the fair trade movement”. In : Social Enterprise Journal (2013). [Doe+16] Ralf DOERING et al. “Equity and ITQs : About Fair Distribution in Quota Management Sys- tems in Fisheries”. In : Environmental Values 25.6 (2016), p. 729–749.ISSN : 09632719, ...

work page 2013

[2] [5]

London, UK – openscience.fr Page | 26 [IC20] Judy ILLES et Max C AMERON

c 2023 ISTE OpenScience – Published by ISTE Ltd. London, UK – openscience.fr Page | 26 [IC20] Judy ILLES et Max C AMERON . Politicians appeal to our sense of fairness in the battle against COVID-19. http://bit.do/covid-call-for-fairness

work page 2023

[3] [7]

Co-evolution between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innova- tion : Evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai

[Lam09] Axel van LAMSWEERDE . Requirements Engineering - From System Goals to UML Models to Software Specifications. Wiley, 2009.ISBN : 978-0-470-01270-3. [Ma+18] Yuge MA et al. “Co-evolution between urban sustainability and business ecosystem innova- tion : Evidence from the sharing mobility sector in Shanghai”. In : Journal of Cleaner Production 188 (20...

work page 2018

[4] [10]

[Pic12] Gabriele PICCOLI

ISBN : 9781450318662. [Pic12] Gabriele PICCOLI . Information Systems for Managers : Text and Cases. Wiley, 2012, p

work page 2012

[5] [14]

The theoretical foundations of sociotechnical systems change for sus- tainability : A systematic literature review

[Sav+19] Paulo SAVAGET et al. “The theoretical foundations of sociotechnical systems change for sus- tainability : A systematic literature review”. In : Journal of Cleaner Production 206 (2019). [Sen09] Amartya SEN. L’idée de Justice. Penguin Books Ltd, Flammarion,

work page 2019

[6] [258]

Towards Cross Assess- ment of Physical and Digital Accessibility

2007, p. 413–422. [PVS20] Christophe P ONSARD , Jean VANDERDONCKT et Vincent S NOECK . “Towards Cross Assess- ment of Physical and Digital Accessibility”. In : Computers Helping People with Special Needs - 17th Int. Conf., ICCHP 2020, Lecco, Italy, September 9-11. Springer,

work page 2007

[7] [1919]

Quantitative Assessment of Goal Models within and beyond the Requirements Engineering Tool : A Case Study in the Accessibility Domain

[PD17] Christophe PONSARD et Robert DARIMONT . “Quantitative Assessment of Goal Models within and beyond the Requirements Engineering Tool : A Case Study in the Accessibility Domain”. In : Proc. of the 10th Int. i* Workshop, Essen, Germany, June 12-13. 2017, p. 13–18. [Pen+14] Birgit PENZENSTADLER et al. “Safety, Security, Now Sustainability : The Nonfunc...

work page 2014

[8] [1971]

Sustainability requirement patterns

[RR13] K. ROHER et D. RICHARDSON . “Sustainability requirement patterns”. In : 3rd Int. Workshop on Requirements Patterns (RePa). 2013, p. 8–11. [Saa10] Natrah SAAD . “Fairness perceptions and compliance behavior : The case of salaried taxpayers in Malaysia after implementation of the self-assessment system”. In : eJournal of Tax Research 8 (jan. 2010), p...

work page 2013