From the Creation of Value to the Connections of Worth

Gilbert Cockton Research Chair, Human-Computer Interaction School of Computing and Technology, University of Sunderland

NESTA Fellow 2005-2007

Design as the Creation of Value? In Autumn 2005, I began a NESTA

fellowship on value-centred design exploring if and how design as the creation

of value could make sense. 

When I talk about design, I try not to mention the “d” word anymore. I try to talk about value.

Expanding Scope of Designing, V1

Expanding Scope of Designing, V2

Style Value Function Interaction

Experience

Design as connecting, not just creating

Artefacts People

Scope and Structure

This expanding scope of designing has an internal structure First focus: artefacts

(products, services, systems) Next focus: connecting stuff with people Third focus: intended worth

(balance of costs and benefits)  History preserving structure

John Heskett, layers in design history

Design as the enabling of worth

Not enough for designing to create value Even if value can be ‘created’

(rather than ‘added to’, ‘designed for’, etc.) Value is for people, not in things

(value > price) Value focus emphasises benefits but

ignores costs price: cost of purchase and ownership effort: physical/mental costs of usage, not only

of operation/consumption, but of integration into existing product-service ecosystems 

Load, Aim, Fire

Innovation follows invention??? aim, load, fire (‘needs-first’ design)!!! load, fire, aim (‘thing-first’ design)

Increasingly explicit commitment to associational designing connecting (Mok, RSA) bridging, translating (Marzano) linking (Cox report)  

Find the Structure in Heskett

Design outcomes “result from … decisions … Choice implies alternatives, in how ends can be achieved, and for whose advantage. … design is not only about initial decision or concepts by designers, but also about how these are implemented and by what means we can evaluate their effect or benefit” (Heskett 2002, pp. 5-6)

cos

ts

Connecting Means to Ends and More

association

valu

e

ach

ievable

?

measures

Means Ends

EvaluationBeneficiar

y Worth

achieved?

Heskett’s Buried Treasure

provides a basis for systematic derivation of meta-principles for designing meta-principles too general for

immediate use need to be refined for specific project

contexts  systematic derivation sketchy presentation!

cos

ts

Commitment

association

valu

e

Means Ends

Beneficiary

Worth

Designing requires commitment to delivering specific ends. Such ends need to be stated as design purpose, and committed to until a completed design meets this specific purpose, or a initial position on design purpose is replaced by a more appropriate one.

Commitment is judged by the extent to which a project team remains focused on design purpose throughout development.

Receptiveness ideas can come from anywhere (Richard Banks, MSRC)

precedent

trends

Means Ends

theory

field

rese

arch

past

pre

sent

Designing requires receptiveness in the consideration of alternative means and chosen ends. Receptiveness is judged relative to possible sources of inspiration and insight, including field evidence, design history, contemporary design critiques, trends in society, culture and the economy, and theoretical understandings of design, technology and people.

Expressiveness

association

measures

c

osts

Means Ends

Designing requires expressiveness in communicating alternative means, chosen ends, and the associations between means and ends. Expressiveness is judged by the extent to which effective, appropriate and confident decisions can be based on well enough developed specifications and communication of the human and design elements within a development process.

cos

ts

Inclusiveness

association

valu

e

Means Ends

Beneficiary

Worth

Designing requires inclusiveness for those who are beneficiaries in the development process and after project completion.

Inclusiveness is judged relative to rights and responsibilities in the development process (project team, sponsors) and the potential impact of fielded designs in the world (end-users, colleagues, consumers, citizens).

Credibility

association

valu

e

ach

ievable

?

Means Ends

EvaluationBeneficiar

y Worth

Designing requires credibility in the feasibility of alternative means, groundedness of chosen ends, and plausibility of associations between means and ends.

Credibility is judged relative to the epistemic values chosen by a project team, and accepted by stakeholders.

cos

ts

Improvability

association

valu

e

ach

ievable

?

measures

Means Ends

EvaluationBeneficiar

y Worth

achieved?

Designing requires improvability for all its aspects, i.e., its choices of beneficiaries, means and purpose, its quality of expression, its receptiveness, and its focus on design purpose.

Improvability is judged relative to three subprinciples of evaluability, understandability and responsiveness.

Six Meta-Principles for Designing

Commitment Receptiveness Expressiveness Inclusiveness Credibility Improvability

Worth-Centred Development (WCD)

Development = research + design + evaluation

meta-principles guide practice framework co-ordinated design approaches (very) brief examples per principle modifications to existing models and representations

from interaction design, consumer psychology and related design disciplines

illustrative rather than instructive demonstrates basis for systematic approaches based

on worth-centred meta-principles for designing as connecting  

Commitment and Worth Maps

Flexible

Physical comfort

Caring for planet

Healthy Budget

Healthy plants and pets

Environmental conscience eased by manageable

carbon offset

Comfortable room temperatures

In control of usage and costs, no excess, unpredictable or

unaffordable expenditure

Clear

Predictive Cost & Usage Module

Rooms Programming Module

Local & Remote Room/Home Override

Physical Discomfort

Hypothermia, dead plants &

pets

Financial Hardship

Global Warming

Carbon footprint information

Burst Pipes

Informative

Damp Home

Dry home

Controllable heat outlets and supply

Internal and external sensors

Remote access (mobile phone, web,

ITV)

Home alarm and sensors

Broadband links

Predictive algorithms

Receptiveness and Interdependencies

Elias, Processual/Figurative Sociology Social contexts of individuals are complex

‘figurations’ Kin, Kind, Institutions

Weber/Habermas: Value/Worth Spheres Shape individual motivations of existence,

relatedness and growth (Herzberg) Map out sources of individual and

collective worth

Expressiveness and Worth Boards

Multimedia artefacts Beyond image and style of mood boards

Credibility and UEFs

User Experience Frames

feelings

system usage

system response

actions in the world

beliefs

features and

qualities

outcomes

Inclusiveness and UEFs

User Experience Frames can be formed for each included stakeholder

Balance of worth for each stakeholder can be expressed and compared

Interdependencies can be used for stakeholder identification

Personas can express stakeholder worth Can include general public, planet and project

team as stakeholders

Improvability and EMSs

Element Measurement Strategies Measures, targets and instruments for

each worth map element, including self-instrumentation

Basis for evaluability Worth processing systems expressed in

worth maps, basis for understandability Receptiveness is the basis for

responsiveness

Wrapping Up

Not a return to design methods of 1960s and 1970s not tied to scientific approaches project teams must interpret meta-

principles and select/tailor approaches Separate focus on human worth

creates a genuine human centre Not just an extended way of talking

about things (UCD 1980s, UX 1990s)

Conclusions

Moving from commentaries on the changing nature of design to concrete development approaches

Normative constructions of designing and meta-principles guide development of frameworks

Refining and revising through case studies

Questions?

Thank You

Gilbert Cockton Research Chair, Human-Computer Interaction School of Computing and Technology, University of Sunderland

NESTA Fellow 2005-2007