Value Sensitive Design & Valueism

The concept of value sensitive design (VSD) emerged in the 1990’s and the value sensitive design Lab was founded in 1999 at the University of Washington. Batya Friedman and David G Hendry provide a detailed history of the development of the discipline over the past two decades, bringing together descriptions of the theories, methods and applications in their recently published book, Value Sensitive Design: Shaping Technology with Moral Imagination (The MIT Press, 3rd May 2019). It is a “definitive account of the state of the art in value sensitive design” offering “an essential resource for designers and researchers working in academia and industry, students in design and computer science, and anyone working at the intersection of technology and society”.

This description of what the book promises reflects the fact, “the vast majority of early work in value sensitive design concerned information technology”. Only recently has VSD been applied to non-information technologies and process, and the authors suggest it remains an open question how the theory and methods of VSD will need to be adapted or extended to account for human values in the design process of other non-information technologies. 

Having read the book and related it to the concept of Valueism, which I have been developing for the past couple of years, I am certain many of the ideas and insights associated with VSD are going to be valuable to the further development of Valueism and vice-versa. Before I explain why I think this, I need to just be clear about the way the term technology is being defined. 

The authors note, we tend to view technology in terms of physical artefacts, or objects, that augment human activity e.g. a knife or machine. But a broader definition extends the meaning to include the practical application of knowledge including the use of specific methods, materials or devices. They add that, based on this definition of technology, there is little difference between tools and technology, except that technology is a more inclusive term. They also include reference to infrastructure, both physical and organisational, as another dimension of technology, or what some call technological systems. So, tools, technology and infrastructure are all included in their use of the term technology.  

Recently I have been referring to systems and systems-of-systems as ways in which to think about how we organise ourselves to create value. The authors would describe these systems as technologies. It is at this fundamental level that the link between VSD and Valueism starts. Value-creation is the focus of Valueism, and it requires systems, and systems-of-systems, that are designed and organised in ways sensitive to the goal of ensuring the maximum amount of value is created, sustainably.

For the goals of Valueism to be achieved we must, as VSD advocates, respect the relationships between ourselves and the systems, and between the systems and ourselves. Both are impacted by each other. Our systems define our ways of being, and our values influence the design of the systems we create. This applies to all systems, not only information technology. It applies to political, health, education, legal, business and other systems, for example. 

If we take a systems-perspective we can easily understand how the VSD of all systems is essential. And, as the authors suggest, engaging with values in the process of designing and re-designing them, offers creative opportunities for innovators to improve the human condition. This relates to the goals of Valueism - to increase levels of sustainable widely shared prosperity, measured in terms of human flourishing and well-being.

The authors say VSD is about “envisioning, designing and implementing technology in moral and ethical ways that enhance our futures”. They add, ”our human imaginations have the potential to be moral and imagine what constitutes lives of quality and societies of quality, human beings living well and other living creatures living well".

Illustrating how our ways of being are impacted by this interdependence, between our values and the design of our technologies, or systems, the authors point to the internet and the ways in which it has, “enabled new and remote forms of communication and, in so doing, transformed our ideas about how we experience friendship, parenting, caring for the elderly, community and social networks.

In a further example, focused on non-digital technologies, they give as an example the ways in which we produce and consume food, and the changes in our ideas about what it means to eat and drink healthy food. This example also illustrates the similarity between the authors use of “technology” and my use of systems and systems-of-systems. Food production and consumption is driven by systems.

These days we hear much about platform business models such as that operated by Amazon. They are technology enabled systems-of-systems for producing, processing, marketing, promoting, distributing and delivering products and services. But, as large as Amazon may be, it is still only one enterprise in only one part of the economy. The economy includes other systems such as finance, taxation, public sector spending etc. And the economy is only one system-of-systems within the much larger ones that collectively determine how our society functions. The way we design and manage each of them, and the relationship we have with each of them, defines our way of being, and will have a major influence on the ways of being of future generations. They need to be designed in value sensitive ways.

To make their point about the interdependent nature of our relationship with technologies [systems] the authors even quote Winston Churchill saying, “we shape our buildings and afterwards our buildings shape us”. He was right, and our build environment is another system. 

The authors suggest VSD is about ensuring, “researchers, designers, engineers and policy makers [those we entrust to design and manage our systems] engage in the design and delivery of tools and technology [or systems] to support human flourishing in all its richness – to enable human beings to grow and develop to manifest what they value, and to act meaningfully and ethically in the world”.  

Let me suggest, capitalism is a system designed to create value, and it should support human flourishing in all its richness but, its current design is flawed. It is failing. It is not value sensitive. It needs to be re-designed to reflect our values if trust in it is to be restored. This is the challenge Valueism is attempting to tackle. I believe the authors of Value Sensitive Design share the same goal. However, they need to appreciate how their thinking is relevant beyond information technology, to every system used in a sustainable and well-functioning society.

The ideas in the book merit several more articles and I intend to write more. I have also connected with the authors and plan to interview them soon. In the meantime, you may wish to get a copy of the book. It is available on Amazon.