Chapter 20 Translating Values into Design Requirements

 

Abstract

This abstract discusses a key aspect of Value Sensitive Design (VSD), which is the process of turning values into specific design requirements. It highlights that there's limited research on how this conversion can be effectively done. The main points of the abstract are:

Translation of Values: The author starts by examining an example of how values can be translated into design requirements. This is a critical step in VSD, where abstract values are converted into concrete criteria or features in the design of a product or system.

Values Hierarchy Concept: The author introduces the concept of a "values hierarchy." This is a structured approach that organizes values, norms, and design requirements in a hierarchical manner. It helps in understanding how values (abstract principles or beliefs) inform norms (standards or rules of behavior) and eventually lead to specific design requirements.

Specification Relation: The author discusses the 'relation of specification,' which is the method by which abstract values are translated into concrete design requirements. This process involves interpreting values and deciding how they can be represented or embodied in the design of a technology or system.

For the Sake of Relation: This is another concept introduced, which links design requirements back to the underlying norms and values. It shows the reasoning behind each design requirement, connecting it to broader ethical or societal values.

Conditions for Adequate Specification: The author considers the conditions under which the translation of values into design requirements can be considered adequate or acceptable. This involves evaluating how well the design requirements reflect the intended values and meet the needs of the intended users or stakeholders.

In summary, the abstract emphasizes the importance of methodically translating values into design requirements in Value Sensitive Design and proposes a structured approach to facilitate this process.

20.1 Introduction

This introduction outlines the focus of the paper, which is on Value Sensitive Design (VSD) - specifically, how ethical values can be incorporated into engineering design to create tangible design requirements. The main points are:

Incorporating Ethical Values in Engineering Design: Recent discussions in the field have emphasized the importance of integrating ethical values into engineering design. Examples include designing cars that are safe and sustainable or creating internet search engines that are transparent, unbiased, and respectful of privacy.

Focus on Translating Values into Design Requirements: The paper specifically addresses how values can be converted into design requirements, a relatively overlooked aspect of VSD. These requirements define the properties, attributes, or capabilities that a designed artifact, system, or process should have.

Role of Design Requirements in Guiding the Design Process: Design requirements are crucial in guiding the design process. For VSD to effectively incorporate values into design, focusing on design requirements is essential.

Example of Animal Welfare in Chicken Husbandry Systems: The author uses an example of how the value of animal welfare was translated into design requirements for chicken husbandry systems, like battery cages. This example is used to illustrate the general process of turning values into design requirements.

Introduction of Values Hierarchy: The paper introduces the concept of a "values hierarchy," which is a structured approach that organizes values, general norms, and specific design requirements. This hierarchy is held together by two types of relations: specification and pursuit for the sake of.

Specification and Pursuit for the Sake of Relations: Specification is the process of translating higher-level elements (like values and norms) into lower-level elements (like specific design requirements). The pursuit for the sake of relation connects lower-level elements to higher-level values and norms.

Conclusion on Values Hierarchy: The paper concludes with the potential benefits of using a values hierarchy to translate values into design requirements, emphasizing its usefulness in making the design process more value-sensitive.

In summary, the paper proposes a structured approach to incorporating ethical values into engineering design by translating these values into specific, actionable design requirements.

20.2 The Design of Chicken Husbandry Systems as an Example

This section uses the design of chicken husbandry systems, specifically battery cages, as an example to explore the translation of ethical values into design requirements in the context of Value Sensitive Design (VSD).

Background: Battery cages are common in industrialized countries for housing laying hens, designed for efficient egg production. However, they have been criticized for neglecting animal welfare.

Economic Efficiency vs. Moral Values: Initially, the main value in the design of battery cages was economic efficiency, leading to specific design requirements like egg production per animal and feed conversion. Over time, moral values such as environmental sustainability, farmer wellbeing, and animal health and welfare became important.

EU Regulation and Animal Welfare: The translation of the value of animal welfare into design requirements is discussed in the context of EU regulation. This required understanding the notion of animal welfare more clearly, particularly through the science of ethology, which studies animal behavior in natural environments.

Ethological Needs and Norms: Ethology helped define 'ethological needs' of chickens, leading to norms such as adequate living space, laying nests, freedom to scratch and take dustbaths, and rest on perches.

Translation into Design Requirements: These norms were translated by governments into concrete design requirements. For instance, the EU set specific space requirements for each hen in a cage and mandated features like nests and perches in enriched battery cages.

Process Characteristics: The translation of values into design requirements is often a lengthy process, requiring specific expertise (like ethology in this case). It also involves value-laden decisions about how to specify these values and is highly context-dependent.

Hierarchy of Values and Design Requirements: The paper suggests that values and design requirements have a hierarchical structure. In this case, the general value of animal welfare is first translated into a range of norms (adequate living space, etc.) and then into specific design requirements (space per hen, nest availability, etc.).

In summary, this section demonstrates how the process of translating ethical values into concrete design requirements plays out in a real-world example. It highlights the complexity and multidisciplinary nature of this process in the context of engineering and design.

20.3 Values Hierarchies

This section discusses the concept of "values hierarchies" in the context of Value Sensitive Design (VSD), using the example of animal welfare in chicken husbandry systems:

Hierarchical Nature of Values and Requirements: The section starts by noting that values and design requirements in VSD have a hierarchical structure. The most concrete layer of this hierarchy is the design requirements, followed by an intermediate layer of norms, and topped by the layer of values.

Intermediate Layer of Norms: Norms are prescriptions or restrictions on action, and in design, they often refer to end-norms, which are goals or ends to be achieved by the design. These end-norms are crucial in translating values into specific design attributes or capabilities.

Non-Deductive Relation Between Layers: The relation between different layers in a values hierarchy is not deductive; you can't logically deduce the lower-level elements from the higher-level ones. Specifying lower-level elements (like design requirements) from higher-level elements (like values) involves judgment, and more than one specification may be possible.

Top-Down and Bottom-Up Construction: Values hierarchies can be constructed both top-down (starting from general values) and bottom-up (starting from specific design requirements). The process involves specifying higher-level elements into lower-level ones and justifying lower-level elements by higher-level ones.

For the Sake of Relation: This relation is antisymmetrical, meaning if A is done for the sake of B, then B cannot be done for the sake of A. The highest levels in the hierarchy are intrinsic or final values, strived for their own sake. Lower-level elements like design requirements are justified by these higher-level values.

Normativity of the For the Sake of Relation: This relation is normative, providing moral authority or justification to the lower-level elements. However, justification at a higher level does not automatically transfer to lower levels; the legitimacy of lower levels depends on the adequacy of the specifications made.

In summary, this section highlights the hierarchical and complex nature of integrating values into design, emphasizing the normative aspects and the non-deductive, value-laden process of translating higher-level values into concrete design requirements.

20.4 Specification

In section 20.4, the focus is on the process of specification in Value Sensitive Design (VSD), particularly how general values are translated into specific design requirements. Key points include:

Specification Process: Specification is a top-down process in a values hierarchy, where general values are translated into specific design requirements. This process can also be critically assessed in a bottom-up approach to ensure that design requirements adequately cover the base value.

Distinction from Conceptualization: Specification is different from conceptualization, which is more about defining or clarifying a value. Specification adds context-specific content to a value, making it applicable to a particular design project.

Requirement of Contextual Knowledge: Unlike conceptualization, specification requires detailed knowledge of the domain where the value will be applied. This is because specification involves adding context-specific details to a general value.

Philosophical Analysis of Specification: Philosophical analysis can help judge the adequacy of specifications made in engineering design. This involves translating a general value into one or more general norms and then into specific design requirements.

Criteria for Adequate Specification: There are two criteria for an adequate specification: the norm should be an appropriate response to the value, and the set of norms should be sufficient to engage with the value properly.

Transition from Evaluative to Deontic Domain: The first step in specification involves transitioning from evaluating the worth of a value to prescribing actions based on that value. This requires understanding the relationship between values and reasons for actions.

Specification in Two Steps: Specification occurs in two steps: translating a general value into general norms and then translating these norms into specific design requirements. This process is context-specific and can be done in different ways.

Normativity of Specification: The specification process is value-laden and normative. It requires making judgments about how a general value or norm can be concretely manifested in a design requirement, considering the specific context and project.

In summary, this section of the paper delves into how values are specified into design requirements in VSD, emphasizing the complexity and context-specific nature of this process, along with the philosophical underpinnings and criteria for assessing the adequacy of these specifications.

20.5 Conclusions

In the concluding section of the paper, the author summarizes the main points discussed about the values hierarchy and its relevance to Value Sensitive Design (VSD):

Values Hierarchy and Design Process: The values hierarchy, along with the relations of specification and for the sake of, are presented as conceptual tools to connect general and abstract values with specific design requirements. These tools aid in translating values into design requirements that can guide the design process.

Bottom-up and Top-down Construction: The construction of values hierarchies typically involves a mix of bottom-up and top-down approaches. This iterative process adds reflection and critical discussion to the formulation of both values and design requirements in the design process.

Non-Deductive and Context-Dependent Specification: The specification relation is characterized as non-deductive and context-dependent, involving value judgments. While criteria for judging the adequacy of a specification are proposed, often multiple specifications can be reasonably defended.

Dealing with Competing Specifications: The paper acknowledges the challenge of choosing between competing specifications in design. It suggests that the proposed approach helps in tracing the value judgments and disagreements more precisely, even if it doesn’t provide a direct solution to these conflicts.

Making Value Judgments Explicit and Debatable: The reconstruction of a values hierarchy makes the translation of values into design requirements systematic, and the value judgments involved become explicit and open for debate. This process allows for critical reflection on the translations made.

Identifying Disagreements: A values hierarchy can help pinpoint where disagreements about the specification of values in design lie, clarifying the nature of these disagreements.

Transparency of Design Choices: The chosen specifications and the underlying value judgments should be transparent, especially in cases where the design impacts others besides the designers. This transparency is essential in a democratic society to protect or enhance the moral autonomy of its citizens.

In summary, the paper concludes that while the values hierarchy and related concepts do not solve all conflicts in VSD, they provide a systematic, explicit, and transparent way to relate values to design requirements, facilitating critical reflection and clearer communication about the value judgments inherent in the design process.