Abstract

Software, like technical artifacts, is discussed and evaluated in terms of its functions. According to intentionalist function theories, the function we ascribe to an object should reflect the intended effect on its environment as fixed by its designer. In this paper, I demonstrate how we develop an intentionalist understanding of the functions of software, despite recent arguments to the contrary. For this, I analyze software design and use from an action-theoretical perspective, a methodology previously used to develop the ICE theory of technical functions. I explain why the arguments raised against intentionalist function theories are no cause for abandoning them in the context of software. Next, I introduce an ICE-like alternative for understanding function ascriptions to software. This identifies what I call configured effectuation mechanisms as function bearers. Finally, I show how my intentionalist function theory enables the uniform evaluation of software by designers and users.