In this first lecture in the Design for Values Fundamentals series prof. dr. Ibo van de Poel spoke about how to operationalize values so that they can be properly taken into account in the design of new technologies/products. Future lectures will among others address value conflicts, values dynamics and value assessment. More information on the lecture series can be found at http://designforvalues.tudelft.nl/ddfv-fundamentals-series/.

1. 1
Value
Operationalisation
Ibo van de Poel,
4 December 2018,
Delft University of Technology
From Abstract & General
Values to Concrete & Specific
Design Requirements

2. 2
Part of the DDfV Fundamentals Series
A lecture series of the Delft Design for Values Institute
http://designforvalues.tudelft.nl/ddfv-fundamentals-series/

3. 3
Why is it important to operationalise
values?
• Values are usually abstract and general
– May lead to window-dressing
– May lead to disagreement at a very general
level
• They need to be operationalised in order
to
– Be effective in design
– Assess whether design options meet certain
values

4. 4
What is value operationalisation?
I will distinguish:
• Translating values into design
requirements: specification
• Making values measurable to assess
(design) options: operationalisation

5. 5
Are there methods for value
operationalisation?
• I will discuss approaches but they do not
provide straightforward methods
• Often there is not “one best way”
• Nevertheless: quality criteria for good
specification and operationalisation can
be formulated

6. 6
Overview
• What are values?
• Conceptualisation of values
• Specification of values
• Operationalisation of values

7. 7
What are values?

8. 8
Definitions of value
• “what a person or a group of people
consider important in life” (Friedman,
Kahn, and Borning 2006: 349).
• “[v]alues are (a) concepts or beliefs, (b)
about desirable end states or behaviors,
(c) that transcend specific situations, (d)
guide selection or evaluation of behavior
and events, and (e) are ordered by
relative importance.” (Schwartz and
Bilsky 1987: 551)

9. 9
Philosophical definitions
• Values refer to what is good
• They may be seen as varieties of
goodness (von Wright 1963).

10. 10
Evaluative versus deontic judgements
• Evaluative statements evaluate state-of-
affairs in terms of goodness
• Deontic statements are about the
rightness of certain actions
• Values are used in evaluative statements
not (directly) in deontic statements

11. 11
Evaluative versus deontic
Evaluative Deontic
State-of-affairs Actions
Goodness Rightness
Values Norms, reasons, ‘oughts’
Evaluative state-of-affairs
in terms of goodness
Prescribe, forbid, allow,
recommend (etc.) certain
actions

12. 12
Correspondence between values and
reasons
V: If x is valuable or is a value one has
reasons for a positive response (a pro-
attitude or a pro-behavior) towards x

13. 13
For example
• Beauty of sunset
– Admire
• Beauty of building (still to be built)
– Increase beauty of design

14. 14
Values: evaluative and deontic
• Values can be used to evaluate state-of-
affairs
• They are not directly action-guiding
– But can be associated with deontic
statements (norms, reasons, ought) via (V)

15. 15
Conceptualisation
of values

16. 16
Conceptualization
the providing of a definition, analysis or
description of a value that clarifies its
meaning and its applicability in general

17. 17
Relation with operationalisation
Conceptualisation is often the first step in
both specification and operationalisation of
values
Conceptualisation is largely (but not
completely) context-independent

18. 18
Some examples
• Well-being
• Sustainability
• Privacy

19. 19
Three philosophical theories of well-
being
• Pleasurable experience (hedonism)
– Problem: experience machine
• Desire satisfaction
– Problem: not everything people desire
contributes to their well-being
• Objective list accounts (list of general
prudential values)
– Problem: How to account for reasonable
differences between people?

20. 20
Design approaches
• Pleasurable experience
– Design for experience
• Desire satisfaction
– Quality Function deployment (QFD)
• Objective list accounts
– Value Sensitive Design (VSD)

21. 21
Sustainability
“Sustainable development is development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It
contains within it two key concepts:
• the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential
needs of the world's poor, to which over-riding
priority should be given; and
• the idea of limitations imposed by the state of
technology and social organization on the
environment's ability to meet present and future
needs.”
(World Commission on Environment and Development
1987)

22. 22
A broad conception of sustainability
Three key values:
• Intergenerational justice
• Intragenerational justice
• Care for nature
• Sustainability as a composed value

23. 23
Sustainability
“Sustainable development is development that meets
the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. It
contains within it two key concepts:
• the concept of ‘needs’, in particular the essential
needs of the world's poor, to which over-riding
priority should be given; and
• the idea of limitations imposed by the state of
technology and social organization on the
environment's ability to meet present and future
needs.”
(World Commission on Environment and Development
1987)

24. 24
Privacy
• As confidentiality
– Personal data are to be kept
secret/confidential
• As control
– People should be able to control what data
about them are collected and shared with
whom (‘informed consent’)

25. 25
Quality criteria
A good conceptualization:
• Is coherent (at least ‘no inconsistencies’)
• Explains why a value is valuable
• Relates the value to other values and
other normative concepts (norms,
reasons)
• Makes clear in what types of situations a
value is relevant

26. 26
Context
• Conceptualisation is largely context-
independent
• But still in some context some
conceptualisations of a value may be
more appropriate than others
– E.g. privacy conceptualised in informational
terms (‘informational privacy’)

27. 27
Specification
of values

28. 28
Specification
makes a value more specific so that it can
guide action and decisions in a specific
context

29. 29
Values hierarchy
Values
Norms
Design
requirements

30. 30
Design requirements
Norms
Values
Animal
welfare
Enough
living space
at least 450
cm2 floor
area per hen
10 cm
feeding
trough per
bird
40 cm height
over at least
65% of the
area
floor-slope of
maximally
14%
Presence of
laying nests
Litter Perches
Example of values hierarchy

31. 31
Constructing a values hierarchy
• Can be done top-down and bottom-up
• Usually combination and iterative process
• Top-down: specification
• Bottom-up: for the sake of

32. 32
Bottom up: for the sake of
• Higher level elements provide reasons for
striving for lower level elements
• “For the sake of” relation is
antisymmetrical
• Higher level elements done for their own
sake: intrinsic value

33. 33
Intrinsic versus instrumental value
• Intrinsic values: valuable for their own
sake
• Instrumental values: valuable because
they contribute to something else that is
valuable (e.g. money)

34. 34
Intrinsic values according to Frankena
• Life, consciousness, and activity
• Health and strength
• Pleasures and satisfactions of all or certain kinds
• Happiness, beatitude, contentment
• Truth; knowledge and true opinions of various kinds, understanding, wisdom
• Beauty, harmony, proportion in objects contemplated
• Aesthetic experience
• Morally good dispositions or virtues
• Mutual affection, love, friendship, cooperation
• Just distribution of goods and evils
• Harmony and proportion in one's own life
• Power and experiences of achievement
• Self-expression
• Freedom
• Peace, security
• Adventure and novelty
• Good reputation, honor, esteem

35. 35
Top down: two transitions
• From values to norms
• From general (moral) norms to design
requirements

36. 36
Values hierarchy
Values
Norms
Design
requirements

37. 37
Correspondence between values and
norms
V: If x is valuable or is a value one has
reasons for a positive response (a pro-
attitude or a pro-behavior) towards x
May help to associate norms with values

38. 38
Possible positive responses
• Increase
• Maximize
• Respect
• Protect
• Admire
• Enjoy
• What response is appropriate will usually
depend on value and the context

39. 39
Examples of some appropriate
responses in design
• Safety
– Respect safety margins
– Maximize overall safety
• Democracy
– Involve stakeholders in the design process
– Design criteria for democratic technologies
(Sclove)

40. 40
What is a appropriate response to a
value?
• (v) is helpful
– To determine appropriate response
• But:
– Requires judgment
– Room for (rational) discussion and
disagreement

41. 41
From norms to design requirements:
specification
• Non-deductive
• Context-dependent
• Adds information
– Scope of norm
– Specification of goals
– Specification of means
• Adequacy: does meeting lower level
norms count as an instance of meeting
higher level norm or value?

42. 42
Design requirements
Norms
Values
Animal
welfare
Enough
living space
at least 450
cm2 floor
area per hen
10 cm
feeding
trough per
bird
40 cm height
over at least
65% of the
area
floor-slope of
maximally
14%
Presence of
laying nests
Litter Perches
Example of values hierarchy

43. 43
Quality criteria: critical questions
• Are all relevant values included?
• Is the relation between values appropriate?
– Instrumental versus intrinsic values
• From values to general norms
– Are the individual norms an appropriate response
to the values?
– Are the norms jointly sufficient as response to the
value?
• From general norms to design requirements
– Would meeting the design requirements count as
an instance of meeting the norm (in the given
context)?

44. 44
Critical questions
• Are helpful for critical assessment
• But:
– Require judgment
– Room for (rational) discussion and
disagreement
– Different stakeholders may disagree

45. 45
Sustainability
Intergenerational
justice
Sustain availability
of fuels
Effective fuel
Renewable
Reliable supply
Competitive
price
Reduce
greenhouse gas
emissions
High energy
efficiency
No additional
greenhouse
emissions from
cultivation,
production and
transportation
Avoid increase in
other
environmental
problems
No increased
use of fertilizer
and pesticides
No over-use of
water and of
other inputs
No increased air
pollution
Care for nature
Maintain
biodiversity
Cultivation
should not have
negative effects
on biodiversity
Intragenerational
justice
Avoid (additional)
increase in food
prices
Non-edible
No competition
for agricultural
land and other
inputs
Provide
opportunities to
developping
countries
Can be
produced in
developping
countries
Can be
produced on
small scale and
with limited
investments
Ensure just reward
Flexible use of
license
agreemnets for
IP (intellectual
Property)
Should not
detoriate working
conditions for
farmers

46. 46
Human well-being
Safety
Should be
structural reliable
Meet legal
requirement
s
max heigt 4
meter
etc.
Design material
stiff and strong
enough for certain
allowable loads
and strains (safety
factor) under
certain load
scenarios
Choice of
material
Thickness of
material
Respect traffic
safety concerns
(crash
comptability)
Meet legal
requirement
s
Blind spot
mirrors
Safety
guardrails
Structure of
rear bumper
Economic
efficiency
Minimize
production
costs Maximise
transportatio
n fuel
efficiency
Maximise
freight per
travel
Minimise
weight
Maximise
volume
Minimize
energy
consumptio
n per travel
Minimise
weight
max 5000 kg
Minimise air
resistance
Aerodynami
c
Usability
Should be
easy to use
Flexible
loading/unl
oading
Compatible
with existing
trucks
Comfort
Look and
feel safe
Floor
deflection <
20 mm
Heavy driver
should not
cause the
floor to
bend too
much
Side panels
Easy to
manoeuvre
Torsional
stiffness
Sustainabilit
y
Maximise
transportatio
n fuel
efficiency

47. 47
Limitations of values hierarchy
• Not a straightforward methodology
• Translation can be done in multiple ways
• Possibility for disagreement among
stakeholders

48. 48
Nevertheless
• Helps to do it more structured and
systematic
• Quality criteria
• Makes it possible to trace disagreement
and to pinpoint critical issues

49. 49
Operationalisation
of values

50. 50
Operationalisation of values
• Aimed at making values measurable so
that (design) options can be compared
• Is done by associating measurable
attributes with values

51. 51
A measurement
• Very roughly, a measurement is a
representation of (relations between)
certain features of the world in terms of
(relations between) a set of abstract
entities. The set of abstract entities is
known as the measurement scale.
• Three kinds of measurement scales
– Nominal
– Ordinal
– Quantitative (interval and ratio)

52. 52
Measuring moral values: the example
of refrigerator coolants
• In 1990s CFCs under attack due to
contribution to ozone depletion
• In household refrigerators: CFC 12 was
commonly used as coolant
• Search for alternatives
– Important morally relevant values included
human health and safety, and environmental
sustainability

53. 53
Attributes
Evaluation criteria
Values
Moral
goodness
Environmental
sustainability
Direct
contribution to
global warming
Global
Warming
Potential
(GWP)
Contribution to
ozone
depletion
Ozone
Depletion
Potential (ODP)
Energy
efficiency
Coefficient of
Performance
(COP)
Safety Flammability
Lower
Flammability
Limit (LFL)
Heat of
Combustion
(HOC)
Burning
velocity
Health Toxicity
Occupational
Exposure Limit
(OEL)

54. 54
Role of context
• What values are relevant is context-
dependent
• Conceptualization of moral values is largely
context-independent
• Specification of moral values in terms of
evaluation criteria and attributes is context-
dependent
• Measurement methods for attributes will
often be context-independent: technical
standards

55. 55
Specification of moral values in
attributes context-dependent: health
and safety
• Traditionally understood in terms of two
evaluation attributes
– Flammability
– Toxicity
• ASHRAE Standard 34 formulates the
measurement scale in terms of 6 safety
classes :
– Toxicity class A or B based on TLV-TWA value (or
comparable)
– Flammability class 1, 2 or 3 based on LFL and
HOC

56. 56

57. 57
Quality criteria
Three conditions for a good measurement
1. reproducible: independent of (subjective
features of) the person who performs the
measurement (‘objectivity’)
2. accurate: close to the “real” value (no
systematic errors/ limited random errors)
3. valid: does what is measured correspond to
what one intended to measure

58. 58
Attributes
Evaluation criteria
Values
Moral
goodness
Environmental
sustainability
Direct
contribution to
global warming
Global
Warming
Potential
(GWP)
Contribution to
ozone
depletion
Ozone
Depletion
Potential (ODP)
Energy
efficiency
Coefficient of
Performance
(COP)
Safety Flammability
Lower
Flammability
Limit (LFL)
Heat of
Combustion
(HOC)
Burning
velocity
Health Toxicity
Occupational
Exposure Limit
(OEL)

59. 59
Two main issues
• How to aggregate ?
– How to aggregate the scores on the
individual attributes into an overall measure?
• Construct validity:
– Do the attributes really measure the value?
Both require (second-order) value
judgements

60. 60
In sum:
• Value measurement is not objective but
involves value judgements
• Two main issues are:
– construct validity
– how to aggregate attributes into overall
measure
• But some operationalisations are better
than others: quality criteria

61. 61
Conclusions

62. 62
Some conclusions
Specification Operationalisation
What? Translates values
into design
requirements
Makes values
measurable
Why? So that values can
guide the design
process
So that design
options can be
compared in terms
of values
Translation steps Values -> norms ->
design requirements
Values -> evaluation
criteria -> attributes
Type of resulting
judgements
Deontic Evaluative

63. 63
Both specification and operationalisation:
• Require first conceptualisation of values
• Are context-specific
– Often long and cumbersome processes
• Involve value judgements
– Can be done in different ways
– Can be disagreement about
• Come with certain quality criteria
– Some are specifications and
operationalisations are better than others

64. 64
• Not one best way
• Requires transparency and accountability
about how values have been
operationalized