In 2009, Elinor Ostrom received the "Nobel Prize in Economics" for her analysis of economic governance, particularly the common good. Her empirical work highlights collective methods of exploitation that can be effective, fair and sustainable (Ostrom, 1990). Her research is particularly relevant to community governance as it provides insights into how communities can effectively manage common resources, ensuring their sustainability and equitable use. The commons combine environmental and democratic requirements with:

* The sustainability of modes of exploitation: the commons assert collective rights and are concerned with the upkeep of the resource and space.

* The importance of the self-organisation: commons are self-organising institutions capable of producing rules of use, and having mechanisms to ensure that the resource is not over-exploited, for future generations.

This self-regulation is a testament to the power of collective action and can serve as a source of motivation for community leaders and members.

Nowadays, the concept of commons widens with information commons, which can be defined as an information system (e.g. such as a physical library or online community) that exists to produce, conserve, and preserve information for current and future generations (e.g. open data, open source software, open access articles), Wikipedia being an emblematic example. The philosopher Alexandre Monnin also offered the concept of negative commons: a common with adverse effects (for instance, waste or nuclear power plants) that we will inherit in the future and must take care of (Monnin, 2021). These negative commons, while not resources in the traditional sense, impact populations and ecosystems and must be managed to mitigate their adverse effects.

### Acknowledgements

This section is mainly based on the lesson "Open Science & Commons" developed by Sacha Hodencq (Low-Tech Lab - ENSE3) and Emmanuel Laurent (MYNE) from 2021 for master II engineering students in Grenoble INP (France).

It also includes lessons from TU Berlin lesson on open hardware developed by Robert Mies, Sacha Hodencq & Julieta Arancio in 2023.

It uses CC0 resources from the Open Science Training Handbook of the european project FOSTER.

### Links to other content in the Book:

**The Imperative of Responsibility:** transparency, and the governance that comes with the Commons is also a matter of ethics, for instance regarding the responsibility and accountability of the engineers & designers of products and systems. The notions of inclusivity and accessibility are also related to those of justice (distributional justice, recognition justice and procedural justice).

**Entrepreneurship:** the development of business models around open designs and Commons is to be developed and disseminated

**Territoire:** links with the cosmolocalism approach through open hardware.

### References

Aslaksen, F., Bergh, S., Bringo, O.R., Heggem, E.K., 1997. Universal Design: Planning and Design for All.

Duncan, R., 2006. Universal Design and Overview of Center for Universal Design at North Carolina State University.

ECSA, 2015. Ten Principles of Citizen Science. Berlin.

FORCE11, 2014. The FAIR Data Principles [WWW Document]. URL https://force11.org/info/the-fair-data-principles/ (accessed 4.22.22).

Hardin, G., 1968. The Tragedy of the Commons. Science 162, 1243-1248.

Joyce, A., 2022. Inclusive Design [WWW Document]. Nielsen Norman Group. URL https://www.nngroup.com/articles/inclusive-design/ (accessed 2.28.24).

Media Economies Design Lab, n.d. CommunityRule [WWW Document]. URL https://communityrule.info/ (accessed 2.28.24).

Monnin, A., 2021. "Negative commons." Etudes 59-68.

Ostrom, E., 1990. Governing the Commons: The Evolution of Institutions for Collective Action. Cambridge University Press.

**Elinor Ostrom Prize Lecture**

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/economic-sciences/2009/ostrom/lecture/

Powell, A., 2012. Democratizing production through open source knowledge: from open software to open hardware. Media Cult. Soc. 34, 691-708.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443712449497

Schneider, N., De Filippi, P., Frey, S., Tan, J.Z., Zhang, A.X., 2021. Modular Politics: Toward a Governance Layer for Online Communities. Proc. ACM Hum.-Comput. Interact. 5, 16:1-16:26.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3449090

UNESCO, 2021. UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science [WWW Document]. URL https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000379949 Dreze and Tricartier (Eds.). (accessed 11.29.21).

United Nations, 2006. Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD).
# 6 Thinking Hats

D'Edward de Bono

<figure><img src="image_159.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_160.png" /></figure>

## PROCESS

### (Organisation of Thought)

It is the facilitator, the organiser of the meeting, who channels ideas and exchanges between the other hats. They set the starting framework and synthesise the outcome. It is the blue of the sky that encompasses everything.

<figure><img src="image_161.png" /></figure>

## THE FACTS

### (objective information)

The thinker presents facts purely and simply. They provide the group with numbers and information. This hat represents the cold objectivity of computers and paper. It embodies simplicity and minimalism.

<figure><img src="image_162.png" /></figure>

## NEGATIVES

### (risks)

The thinker makes objections by highlighting the dangers and risks that threaten the idea's success. They are the "devil's advocate." This hat represents prudence and negative judgement.

<figure><img src="image_163.png" /></figure>

## POSITIVES

### (benefits)

The thinker shares their dreams and boldest ideas. Their comments are constructive and attempt to put into action the ideas suggested by others. This hat represents the sun and optimism.

<figure><img src="image_164.png" /></figure>

## CREATIVITY

### (all your ideas)

The thinker provokes and searches for alternative solutions. They are inspired by lateral thinking, offering a different way of considering a problem. They explore untrodden paths and propose new ideas. This hat represents the fertility of plants and the seeds of ideas.

<figure><img src="image_165.png" /></figure>

## FEELINGS

### (emotions)

The thinker expresses their emotions, feelings, intuitions, and hunches. They do not need to justify themselves to the other hats. This hat represents fire, passion, and intuition.

<figure><img src="image_166.png" /></figure>
### Class Activities

This activity helps teams think collaboratively and comprehensively by using Edward de Bono's Six Thinking Hats. Each hat represents a different mode of thinking, enabling participants to explore ideas systematically and evaluate outcomes effectively.

In the context of this activity, the focus is on guiding groups to critically and creatively examine the open documentation and knowledge-sharing aspects of their Low-Tech projects.

#### 1. Preparation:

Arrange the workspace to be comfortable and inclusive, with chairs and tables in a circle so all participants can see each other.

Gather materials: worksheets or flip charts, coloured pens and markers, sticky notes (preferably in multiple colours), and a timer or stopwatch.

Consider starting with a warm-up activity (e.g., 10 minutes) to energise participants and set the tone.

#### 2. Introduction (5 mins)

Begin by explaining the purpose of the activity:

* Explore open documentation and knowledge sharing in Low-Tech projects.

* Generate diverse perspectives to evaluate risks, opportunities, and strategies.

Establish ground rules:

* Ideas may be contradictory; this is part of the process.

* Focus on active listening, constructive input, and respect for all views.

#### 3. Hat Sequences

For each hat, set 5 minutes for discussion and idea generation. Transition smoothly between hats, providing context for each:

##### Blue Hat: Process/Organising Thoughts

Begin by structuring the discussion. Decide roles, set timeframes, and outline key topics to focus on.

##### White Hat: Facts/Neutrality

Focus on objective elements:

* What factual information supports open documentation and commons in the project?

* Identify existing resources and gaps.

##### Yellow Hat: Positives/Benefits

Identify opportunities, strengths, and potential benefits:

* What long-term benefits can we envision for the community?

* What opportunities arise from sharing knowledge openly?

##### Black Hat: Judgement/Negative Criticism

Explore potential risks:

* What challenges or failures could arise in making knowledge open?

* Are there specific areas of concern?

##### Green Hat: Creativity/New Ideas

Brainstorm innovative approaches:

* How can documentation be made more accessible or impactful?

* Explore novel methods for knowledge sharing.

##### Red Hat: Intuition/Emotions

Reflect on personal and collective feelings:

* What are your intuitive thoughts about the project's direction?

* Are these intuitions shared or diverse within the group?

##### Blue Hat: Process/Consolidation

Summarise and synthesise ideas:

* Create a final poster capturing the main points and priorities.

* Identify 2-3 key takeaways to share in the presentation.

#### 4. Debrief and Closing (5 mins)

Conclude with a reflective discussion where each participant shares their experience using the method.
<figure><img src="image_167.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_168.png" /></figure>

# The Three R's
Reliability, Repairability, Resilience

Ceri Almrott

7 lessons
3 Self-directed Student Assignments
<figure><img src="image_169.png" /></figure>

Above: Clark Young, man inside tool shed. September 2016. Unsplash.
https://unsplash.com/photos/man-inside-tool-shed-fQxMGkYXqFU
# The Three R's
Reliability,
Repairability,
Resilience

<figure><img src="image_170.png" /></figure>

## Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>A series of classes introducing the core concepts of Reliability, Repairability, and Resilience, covering topics such as material properties, design strategies for longevity, repairability frameworks, resilience in systems, and emotionally durable design.</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Directed</td><td>Online Assessment of the Three R's: A formative assessment to test learners' understanding of theoretical concepts related to Reliability, Repairability, and Resilience.<br>Product Case Study Assignment: An individual or group activity requiring learners to critically analyse an existing product's reliability, repairability, and resilience features<br>Hackathon Project: A hands-on, team-based activity where learners design and prototype a low-tech solution that demonstrates reliability, repairability, and resilience</td><td>30</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

This module aims to provide learners with a broad understanding of the sustainability concepts of Reliability, Repairability and Resilience within the context of low-tech development. It will equip students with the knowledge required to understand, analyse and assess low-tech projects and engage with theoretical models of the Three R's. Learners will be able to apply this theory to their project work to prove their understanding and improve their low-tech practice.

## Learning Outcomes

### Reliability

* Describe material properties in terms of their appropriateness for longevity.

* Understand the relationship between durability and material efficiency.

* Understand the concept of Design for Reliability within the low-tech context.

### Repairability

* Understand the concept of design for repair and how it can be applied in Low-Tech projects.

* Explain the benefits of the right to repair and its integration within Low-Tech development.

* Develop an applicable design for repairability.

### Resilience

* Understand and explain the concept of Emotionally Durable design.

* Develop solutions which can continue to function after abnormal events and uses.

* Undertake a user analysis and explain the core functions of a designed system to identify opportunities to improve its resilience.
<figure><img src="image_171.png" /></figure>

Above: Mihaela Radu. A fairytale chair - Thonet Bistro Chair no.14. May 2018. https://revistadinlemn.ro/en/2018/05/18/a-fairytale-thonet-bistro-chair-no-14/

<figure><img src="image_172.png" /></figure>

Left: Vinicius Benedit. Moka Pot brewing coffee. August 2020. Unsplash. https://tinyurl.com/4sku3w4b

<figure><img src="image_173.png" /></figure>

Right: Fredrik Posse. a car parked in front of a building July 2022. Unsplash. https://tinyurl.com/4v8bpvct
# 1: Introduction to the Three Rs

## The Three Rs of Sustainability versus the Three Rs of Low-Tech.

The Three Rs of sustainability are principles aimed at promoting environmentally responsible behaviours and reducing the negative impact of human activities on the planet. These principles focus on waste reduction, resource conservation, and sustainable consumption. The Three Rs are:

### Reduce:

This principle emphasises the importance of reducing waste and consumption daily.

"Minimising our consumption by opting for products with minimal packaging, avoiding single-use items, and making conscious decisions about our needs versus wants can reduce the demand for resources, energy, and materials."[1]

### Reuse:

Reusing involves extending the lifespan of products and materials, reducing the need for new resources to be extracted and manufactured. Reuse items multiple times before discarding them. Use reusable water bottles, shopping bags, and containers. Repair broken items instead of replacing them and repurpose objects for different uses. The goal is to keep items in circulation as long as possible before they become waste. [2]

### Recycle:

Recycling is a process that recovers valuable resources from waste, reducing the need for virgin materials and lowering energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions. It helps close the loop in a product's lifecycle and reduces the strain on natural ecosystems.

Collectively, these principles promote a more sustainable and responsible approach to consumption and waste management, aiming to lessen our environmental impact and create a healthier, more balanced relationship between humans and the planet. Within the Low-Tech framework, when considering the design and implementation of solutions, we can consider an added or alternative Three Rs, which will help to ensure that the items we design are appropriate and applicable to the communities we are designing for. The Three Rs for Low-Tech for sustainability are:

### Reliable:

Solutions that work reliably for every user, considering their technical and social scope of use. Reliable solutions are those people trust and consistently solve the problem they intend to.

### Example:

The Moko Pot is a stovetop espresso maker designed by Luigi DiPonti in 1933 and produced by Bialetti. It is a simple, compact, and enduring kitchen tool that has become an iconic design and staple of Italian Coffee Culture. The Moko pot's design is straightforward, consisting of a few essential components that make it easy to use and maintain. It is produced from durable materials such as aluminium or stainless steel, making it heat-resistant and mechanically robust. Its brewing method is exceedingly simple and consistent, making it reliable and accessible to many consumers.[3]

### Repairable:

Designs should prioritise *repairability* to ensure sustainability. Adequate interventions should be included in the economic and product design to empower users to fix objects when they fail.

### Example:

The Citroën 2CV was designed to be a simple, affordable, and versatile car that was easy to maintain and repair. Its minimalistic features, modular design, and easy access to crucial components made repairs relatively easy. Citroën also supplied comprehensive repair manuals and guides, and the car used standard tools and fasteners that were widely available[4]

### Resilient:

Resilient designs are built to last. They can withstand use beyond their intended limits and are created with *longevity* in mind. Designers consider how the design will age and how it can continue to be useful beyond the first owner's needs. This requires a deep understanding of the solution's use and human desires.

### Example:

The Thonet café chair, also known as the No. 14 chair, is a classic of functional furniture design that has stood the test of time due to its *resilience* and *durability*. Designed by Michael Thonet in the mid-19th century, this bentwood chair is still an iconic piece of furniture that embodies several vital qualities of *resilience*. The chair's innovative manufacturing technique made the frame solid and flexible, a perfect combination for the rigours of life in a busy commercial setting. Its simple construction reduces the risk of parts breaking or wearing out quickly, making it a long-lasting and environmentally friendly option. The No.14's versatility allows it to be used in various settings, from cafes and restaurants to homes and public spaces, making it a timeless design that is still aesthetically appealing across generations and different interior styles.[5]
Interventions

Photograph of a product you own

Photograph of an intervention you have made

Photograph of an intervention you have made

Describe the product. What is it? What is it used for?

How have you attempted to improve the reliability of the product?

How have you attempted to improve the reliability of the product?

What makes this product unreliable?
## Class Activities

The following discussions should occur during or after the class to allow learners to reflect on their first understanding of the concepts introduced. An online tool like Padlet enables the class to build a knowledge bank and create a discussion around each example. However, this could also be conducted in a seminar-style roundtable where learners could show examples of their choices.

1. Can you think of a product that you have used that you would class as unreliable?

- Using the [PADLET] post an image or video of your product and explain:

- What made it unreliable for you?

- Did you come up with any solutions to make it more reliable?

2. What was the last thing that you repaired or attempted to repair?

- Using the [PADLET] post an image or video of your product and the repair if it is visible.

- What did you have to do to repair your item? Why did you choose to repair it?

- Was this an easy repair to make and what aided or made it difficult?

3. What is an object that you own that shows resilience in its design?

- Using the [PADLET] post an image or video of your object.

- What about the design of your object makes it resilient? Is it the material choice? Its emotional value or its ability to withstand misuse?
<figure><img src="image_174.png" /><figcaption>Above: Pavel Danilyuk. A person pouring milk into a bowl. March 2021. Pexels
https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-person-pouring-milk-in-a-bowl-6996337/</figcaption></figure>
# 2: What is Reliability?

## How is it defined, and how do we prioritise it?

### What makes for a reliable design?

When we consider something reliable, we discuss it in terms of being dependable, consistent and trustworthy at performing specific tasks or functions. In most contexts, reliability measures a system or object's ability to function and perform as intended without unexpected or unexplained failures or errors.

We can consider reliability within the following parameters:

* Engineering or technological

* Service and Infrastructure

* Human and Social

In engineering terms, we usually refer to reliability within a specific set of conditions and over a specified period. This is the most straightforward framework to grasp initially, as we are all innately familiar with using an object repeatedly and with the product failing when we remove it from its specific use boundaries.

When considering service or infrastructure models, we are moving away from relatively simple engineering boundaries where we measure a simple metric, such as durability, ductility, etc., and more into more complex system issues where many different actions could contribute to a failure. However, system-based solutions are becoming more habitual. As such, the designer must consider how the various elements within the system or infrastructure will work together to supply a service that a user can trust to deliver.

Finally, a reliable design from a human and social point of view is one where a large majority, if not all, users can easily find, interact and use the solution. To achieve this, the designer will consider the technical and social system boundaries to ensure the solution is safe, understandable and usable for all.

Low-tech development aims to create solutions users feel empowered and encouraged to use repeatedly, so technical reliability is crucial to achieving these goals.

We can further dissect our understanding of reliability into the following subcategories:

* Functional Reliability

* Durability

* Consistency & Predictability

When we prioritise reliability in a design, we decide to ensure that users can depend on our solution's performance, minimising the likelihood of failures, downtime, or negative user experiences.

### Functional Reliability

Functional reliability is crucial for a product's success, as it affects user satisfaction and safety. It refers to a solution's ability to perform its intended functions consistently and accurately without failure or variance. A highly functionally reliable design builds trust in the product and aligns with user expectations while being intuitive and usable by everyone. It extends over the product's entire lifecycle, and designers must consider its performance over time, usage, and wear and tear.

### Durability

Durability is the ability of a product to withstand wear, stress, and external forces over time without significant deterioration or loss of functionality. Suitable materials must be selected to engineer a durable product, and forces that affect the design must be considered. It's also important to understand the design's social and use factors and consider how users may misuse or find alternative uses for the product.

### Consistency & Predictability

Consistency in design is essential to create a seamless and harmonious user experience. It helps users navigate and interact with products more effectively. Visual elements, user interactions, and overall product experience should remain predictable and unified. Clear and consistent feedback should be provided to the user. A consistent design reduces the learning curve for unaccustomed users, making the design more accessible to everyone.

### How do designers prioritise reliability?

To prioritise reliability, designers must collaborate, test thoroughly and adopt user-centred design approaches. By focusing on these considerations, designers can create products that consistently meet user expectations. Especially within low-tech solutions, designers must focus on the whole system and each component, paying particular attention to user interaction and physical touchpoints to address reliability issues.

To increase reliability, carefully consider material choices. Focus on the solution's technical boundaries, use, and potential misuse. Choose high-quality, durable materials that withstand wear, impact, and any other relevant environmental factors, such as corrosion resistance, strength, and longevity.

Simplify the design and reduce complexity to minimise potential points of failure. Focus on creating a perfect solution to the problem without adding too many features. Consult with users and consider manufacturing and maintenance during the design process.

Links to other content in the Book:
*Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sobriety* pg.147

### References and Further Reading:

[6] Design for Reliability: Overview of the process and applicable techniques. (n.d.). HBK World.
https://www.hbkworld.com/en/knowledge/resource-center/articles/design-for-reliability-overview-of-the-process-and-applicable-techniques#:~:text=First%2C%20let%20us%20start%20with,without%20failure%20under%20specified%20conditions.
1. Place a photograph in the centre of the page of a reliable solution from a different culture.

2. Annotate and make notes around the image of how local, resources and local practices have influenced the outcome and made it reliable.

3. Share back your findings and ideas with the group. Is there anything different you could consider or add to your own ideas?

A reliable solution to a problem from a different culture
## 2: What is Reliability?

### Case Study:

#### KitchenAid Model K Stand Mixer

KitchenAid's Model K Stand Mixer is a versatile and powerful appliance used in households and professional kitchens. It can work with a wide variety of attachments, making it a must-have tool for chefs and bakers alike.

The mixer, designed in 1937 by Egmont Arens, has a cast Zinc housing with an enamel coating. Its weight ensures stability on the worktop, and the enamel coating is hardwearing yet easily cleaned, requiring minimal maintenance.

The machine's powerful electric motor has simple controls that allow the user to adjust the mixing speed easily. This provides for efficient mixing, even with demanding tasks like dough making. The planetary drive arrangement ensures that all ingredients are efficiently combined, increasing the mixer's reliability for a perfect output.

### Class Activities

The following activities should occur during or after the class to allow learners to reflect on their initial understanding of reliability in low-tech products. An online tool like Padlet enables the class to build a knowledge bank and discuss each example. However, this could also be conducted in a seminar-style roundtable, where learners could show examples of their choices.

1. Explore how different cultures have historically created reliable low-tech products suited to their specific environments

Discuss how cultural practices and local resources influence product design and reliability. Students can research and present case studies from diverse cultures via in-class presentations or a sharing tool like Padlet.

2. Encourage students to document low-tech solutions in their local communities.

This can include traditional tools, crafts, or techniques local artisans use. Students can interview community members, take photographs, and create presentations highlighting these reliable low-tech solutions. Findings should be presented on a knowledge bank tool like Padlet.

3. Assignment Task

#### For student's redesign project.

Students should choose a mid complexity technology product, such as a hand tool or basic household product for this assignment.

Ask each student to redesign the product to enhance its reliability while keeping the design as low-tech as possible. Students should document their reliability interventions in their design portfolio.
<figure><img src="image_175.png" /></figure>

Above: Andrea Piacquadio Photo of Man Making an Acoustic Guitar. February 2020. Pixels. https://www.pixels.com/photo/photo-of-man-making-an-acoustic-guitar-3811843/
# 3: Designing reliable low-tech

## How is it defined, and how do we prioritise it?

Designers must focus on reliability when creating products. This means incorporating reliability-focused interventions into the design from the beginning of the conceptualisation phase. The Low-Tech for Sustainability course can help designers develop a framework for their ideas, enabling them to approach their work with a reliability-focused approach.[7]

### User-Centred Design

User-centred design is a crucial aspect of developing a reliable and user-friendly solution. It involves integrating user insights, iterative feedback, and inclusivity into the design process from the beginning of the project. By adopting this approach, designers can gain a strong understanding of a user's primary needs and how they might interact with the solution. This understanding enables the designers to pre-empt user behaviour and optimise the design for their needs. Furthermore, by thoroughly understanding the user's behaviour, designers can ensure that the optimisation is applied in the correct places, making the design intuitive and user-friendly. A user-centric design approach reduces the risk of incorrect usage that could lead to failure.

### Simple Design:

The module, *The Art of Simplicity*, highlights the importance of prioritising *simplicity* in design to ensure reliable solutions. Simple designs with fewer parts and components minimise the chances of mechanical failures. Simplification makes understanding, troubleshooting, and maintaining systems easier, leading to increased reliability. Simplified designs are also easier to manufacture with precision and are less prone to assembly errors.

### Robust Material Selection

Product durability and reliability depend on the materials used. Designers should choose high-quality, long-lasting materials that resist wear and environmental factors. It is crucial to select appropriate materials for each component. Locally produced materials should primarily be considered in low-tech designs, as this increases the territory's autonomy.

### Testing

Testing helps identify defects in the solution before it reaches users. A robust testing approach ensures that the design output serves actors well. Testing verifies that the product performs its intended functions efficiently. By identifying weaknesses through testing, designers can enhance the product's design and materials, making it more reliable over the long term.

### Reliability Testing

Reliability testing determines a product's likelihood of performing without failure for a specified time under defined conditions. It helps designers understand the solution's stability and consistency over time by identifying potential failure points. It often involves accelerated life testing, stress testing and failure mode analysis to predict the product's reaction to use.

### Longevity Testing

Longevity testing assesses a product's ability to maintain its performance and functionality over time. Its goal is to identify issues with continuous use and provide designers with data on how the product interacts with real-world users and environments. This helps improve designs and understand material impacts.

### Durability Testing

Durability testing evaluates a product's ability to withstand repeated usage, stress, and environmental factors without performance degradation. It focuses on resistance to damage and environmental conditions, using mechanical testing and simulation to determine *resilience* in abnormal use cases.

### Maintenance and Use

Low-tech solutions often rely on simple mechanisms, which require regular maintenance to function as intended. Correct maintenance increases a mechanism's lifespan, reducing environmental impact. A maintenance culture can be developed within a territory through the organisation of community actions like repair cafes.

### Ease of Maintenance:

When creating a solution's architecture, it's essential to consider how easy it will be to maintain and repair. End-users should be able to replace components without any difficulty whenever needed. Critical parts requiring maintenance should be easily accessible. The design should avoid the need for complicated disassembly or specialised tools for basic maintenance tasks.

Designs must be easy to assemble and disassemble without requiring specialised tools. Tool-free solutions encourage users to perform simple repairs independently and make maintenance tasks more straightforward. Designers should avoid permanent fixing solutions for components that may require repairs. By integrating universal components and standard fasteners, designers can guarantee that replacement parts are readily available and that maintenance tasks are simplified for users.

Links to other content in the Book:
*Design for Sustainability* - pg39
*Art of Simplicity* - pg.65

### References and Further Reading:

[7] Colin, C., & Martin, A. (2023). The user experience of low-techs: from user problems to design principles. HAL Open Science. https://doi.org/10.5555/3604890.3604892
<figure><img src="image_176.png" /><figcaption>Above: E.C.E. carpentry tools. The tool catalog. 2017. https://ecemmerich.de/wp-content/uploads/E.C.E.-Werkzeugkatalog-2017.pdf</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Designing reliable Low-Tech

When developing a solution, it's crucial to create user manuals that are clear and detailed, including step-by-step instructions for maintenance. It is essential to assist users in identifying and resolving common issues, including product visuals, diagrams, and troubleshooting guides. These resources should be provided with the product and available online in a communal location. When creating these resources, it's essential to consider the medium, such as video tutorials or FAQs, to ensure they are accessible to a wide range of users. For further information on open documentation approaches, please refer to the module Open Design.

## Reducing the requirement for maintenance

Designers should strive to create solutions that require minimal or no maintenance. This can be achieved by prioritising passive systems that rely on natural processes rather than intricate mechanisms or external power sources. Utilising the power of gravity, capillary action, and other natural phenomena can help perform tasks without needing maintenance-intensive components.

To further reduce the need for maintenance, designers should evaluate how the product is likely to be used and identify primary wear surfaces. Materials with inherent lubricating properties should be used for these areas as this will reduce the likelihood of requiring maintenance. Increasing the thickness of wear surfaces can also help them resist wear for longer, lessening the need for regular external lubrication.

Proper weatherproofing measures, such as seals, gaskets, and coatings, protect products from water and UV damage. Critical components should be sealed to prevent foreign objects from entering vital systems, which could shorten the system's lifespan. Understanding Ingress Protection methods can help achieve this.

Finally, designers should reinforce joints and stress points to prevent wear-related failures and maximise durability. Proper engineering can evenly distribute stress, reducing the likelihood of wear in specific areas. By considering all these factors, designers can create solutions that are easy to maintain, long-lasting, and reliable.

By incorporating these strategies, designers can create low-tech products that are robust and reliable and require minimal maintenance, reducing users' burden and ensuring long-lasting functionality.

## Case Study:

### E.C. Emmerich

E.C. Emmerich is a distinguished German woodworking tool manufacturer celebrated for its exceptional wooden carpentry planes. Founded in the 19th century by a skilled carpenter renowned for his plane-making prowess, ECE has never dabbled in metal hand planes. According to the company, wood offers superior reliability, smooth sliding, and non-destructive contact with workpieces. Additionally, wooden planes are lighter than their metal counterparts, reducing fatigue during extended use.

Located near Düsseldorf, E.C. Emmerich's Hosten factory produces hand planes crafted from locally sourced Beech and Hornbeam wood. While most components are made on-site, metal parts are locally manufactured to ensure the highest quality. ECE is an example of how manufacturers can prioritise utilising local resources in developing their products.

ECE designs are user-centric, simple, and constructed from durable materials. Developed over many years and iterations, these tools require minimal maintenance.[8]
# Prototype Testing

1. Bring your prototype to members of your community and ask them to explore and test the idea. Give them specific tasks to do with the prototype so you can compare the results amongst different users.

**I LIKE...**

Encourage your participants to convey aspects that they liked about the prototype. This provides you with positive feedback about your prototype.

2. Once you have run through your test procedure with your prototype ask your testers to provide you some feedback. Use the framework below and record their responses on post-it notes so they can be arranged later.

**I WISH...**

Prompt participants to share ideas of how the prototype can be changed or improved to address their concerns.

3. Analyse the results of your test, what have you learned? Look at the notes you have made and group any that are the same. Are there any strong themes or connections between the feedback you have been provided?

**WHAT IF...**

Ask participants to express new suggestions that might not have a direct link to the prototype. This opens up possibilities for new ideas that your team can explore in future iterations.
Class Activities

The following discussions should occur during or after the class to allow learners to reflect on their first understanding of the concepts introduced. An online tool like Padlet enables the class to build a knowledge bank and create a discussion around each example. However, this could also be conducted in a seminar-style roundtable where learners could show examples of their choices.

1. Can you think of a product that you have used that you would class as unreliable?

- Using the [PADLET] post an image or video of your product and explain:

- What made it unreliable for you?

- Did you come up with any solutions to make it more reliable?

2. What was the last thing that you repaired or attempted to repair?

- Using the [PADLET] post an image or video of your product and the repair if it is visible.

- What did you have to do to repair your item? Why did you choose to repair it?

- Was this an easy repair to make and what aided or made it difficult?

3. What is an object that you own that shows resilience in its design?

- Using the [PADLET] post an image or video of your object.

- What about the design of your object makes it resilient? Is it the material choice? Its emotional value or its ability to withstand misuse?
<figure><img src="image_177.png" /><figcaption>Above: Fairphone. E-Waste Recycling, June 2022. Fairphone Flickr Account.
https://flic.kr/p/2oovKwS</figcaption></figure>
# 4: The Right to Repair

## Designing to empower autonomy and longevity

### What makes for a repairable design?

When designing a product or system, it's crucial to consider its **repairability**. A repairable design can significantly extend a product's lifespan, promoting sustainability by reducing waste and conserving resources.

When designing a repairable solution, it's prudent to consider the system's function and how this affects the ease of repair early in the design phase. Designers should focus not only on the accessibility of system components but also on other factors such as documentation, the ability of the repairer to diagnose faults, and a user's ability to understand how their actions can affect the system. Standardisation, safety, and the appropriateness of repairs are also crucial elements to be considered during the design process.

While some people have an innate ability to understand how a device works and how it could be fixed, most people don't. Thus, design choices should empower as many people as possible to perform repairs. It is essential to consider the skill level of the average user and how best to communicate the knowledge necessary for them to undertake a repair.

Designs should effectively convey to the repairer how modifications and alterations can affect the product system. Designers should communicate information such as the need to remove extra components for proper repair or service or the specific sequence required to conduct the repair accurately. The timing and method of communicating this information should be part of the product's vision. Colour and texture coding, product semantics, material choice, and instructions can all aid in the identification and understanding of the various systems in a design.

It's important to note that specific parts of some solutions may not be safe or suitable for an untrained user to tackle independently. Designers must determine which systems and components should be accessible to the user and which should not. In some cases, repairing these parts may be possible through a community resource, such as a repair café, while in other cases, the parts may need to be discarded into the waste stream. If this is the case, then proper procedures for the disposal of these components should be communicated.

Designing products with **repairability** in mind is an essential aspect of sustainability but also aids in overall user satisfaction. Designers can play a significant role in encouraging and supporting **repairability** by advocating for more repairable product designs,

engaging with relevant stakeholders, and considering the repair of their designs during the detailed design phase. Designing repairable products is essential to reducing a design intervention's environmental impact.

### The right to repair.

Designers can encourage **repairability** by advocating for repairable product designs, engaging with stakeholders, and considering repair during the design phase. The Right to Repair movement aims to empower consumers and independent repair businesses by providing access to repair information, spare parts, and tools in response to manufacturers creating products that are intentionally difficult to repair. [9]

Designers embracing consumers' right to repair without unnecessary restrictions from manufacturers leads to a sustainable, consumer-friendly approach that reduces waste and promotes local economies. This approach combines design innovation, environmental consciousness, and advocacy for consumer freedoms.

### Design for Repairability

"Design for Disassembly" is a sustainable approach crucial for supporting the Right-to-Repair movement. It enables designers to create products that are easy to repair and recycle. A comprehensive and cohesive approach is necessary to ensure all design elements facilitate easy dismantling.

When designing a product, it's important to consider how easy it is to assemble and disassemble. The parts that need servicing should be easy to take apart using standard tools without requiring specialised equipment or excessive force. Components that can't be repaired for safety reasons should be made replaceable, and it should be clear to the repairer that this is the case. The design should facilitate the disassembly process, making material recovery quick and reducing the likelihood of further damage if the user repairs the item instead of discarding it.

Adhesives are a quick and efficient way to assemble things, but they can make it tricky to take things apart. As designers, we should limit the use of adhesives because they can make repairs difficult. If we must use adhesive, we should opt for those that are easy to remove or reversible, such as thermal-based glues. This will make it easier to take things apart without causing damage during repairs or disassembly.
<figure><img src="image_178.png" /></figure>

Above: Fairphone. FP4-Green-Exploded. September 2021. Fairphone Flickr Account.
https://flic.kr/p/2mvYPRx
# 4: The Right to Repair

## Modular Design

Designing products with a modular architecture is essential to make them easy to repair. By incorporating modular design principles, designers can significantly reduce users' difficulty in diagnosing and fixing issues with a device's functionality. This results in much more user-friendly and easily serviceable products. Modularity can be considered at the component level or as subsystems within a product. Indicating to users which components contribute to which subsystems will make repair tasks much easier to understand.

Modularity at the component level allows specific parts to be replaced instead of the entire product being disposed of due to critical failure. This approach was once standard but has been replaced to enhance manufacturing efficiency and reduce product size. Standardised components in a modular system have multiple benefits. They make replacement parts more accessible and allow users to replace or upgrade modules, enhancing the product's functionality and lifespan.

Incorporating modular design principles empowers both consumers and repair technicians. It allows users to replace faulty components without expert knowledge, promoting self-repair and reducing electronic waste. Technicians benefit from simplified diagnostic processes that ensure efficient and targeted repairs. Ultimately, this approach fosters repairability and champions sustainability.

## Documentation

Complete documentation is vital for product repairability. It helps users and repairers diagnose and fix issues efficiently, promoting a more sustainable consumer culture. Clear and accessible documents are crucial for repairing all our products. These manuals should offer detailed instructions, illustrative diagrams, and comprehensive parts lists to provide a clear roadmap for repairers. They serve as invaluable references, ensuring that users and repair technicians have the necessary guidance at every stage of the repair process. With such guidance, repairers can navigate the product's intricacies, making the repair process accessible. Clarity in documentation simplifies repairs and encourages users to self-repair, promoting a more sustainable and empowered consumer base.

By supporting open-source initiatives, manufacturers can improve the repairability of their products. One way they can do this is by releasing design schematics, firmware, or software as open source and inviting collaboration from the community. This openness empowers people to come up with custom repair strategies and extend the lifespan of products. It also encourages a shared sense of responsibility and helps products adapt to diverse repair needs.

Manufacturers can support repair efforts by being transparent about their design choices, materials, and components. This openness fosters trust among users and enables third parties to create innovative repair solutions. By sharing information about the composition of materials or the specifications of components, manufacturers can help produce tailored repair strategies, ultimately improving the product's overall repairability.

## Repair Communities

Design teams should engage with repair communities to support the repairability of their solutions. It is recommended to consult independent repair shops, organisations advocating for the right to repair, and product service centres. By interacting with repair centres, designers can gain valuable insights into facilitating repair in their product solutions.

Designers should focus on repairability and educate consumers about their right to repair. This education can be included in the product design, packaging, and user manual. They should also make repair manuals and 3D files available to facilitate repair.

## Case Study: Fairphone

Fairphone is a Dutch company that promotes sustainable and ethical practices in product design, focusing on the Right to Repair. They make modular smartphones that aim to prolong the device's lifespan by aiding repairability. The devices are designed to be easily repairable, with replaceable components such as cameras, batteries, and screens. Other brands like Nokia Global have also started adopting a similar approach.

The company provides spare parts for its products, even those no longer manufactured. They also offer repair guides and tutorials on their website to encourage users to perform repairs themselves, reducing the need for professional assistance.

Fairphone values user input for new product development and collaborates with its community to meet product needs. The company's transparent supply chain practices provide consumers with detailed information on material sourcing, labour, and environmental impact. [10]

## Links to other content in the Book:

* Design for Sustainability - pg.39

* Open Design - pg.93

* The Imperative of Responsibility - pg.175

## References and Further Reading:

[10] Case study - Fairphone... | Circular Tech. (n.d).
https://circulartech.apc.org/books/a-guide-to-the-circular-economy-of-digital-devices/page/case-study-fairphone-building-a-mobile-phone-that-is-socially-and-environmentally-responsible-and-losts-longer
1. Find a product that you own and analyse it with regards to how easy and accessible it is to repair.

Photograph of a product you own

2. What do you need to repair this product? Does it require any special tools or skills? Where can you get spare parts and are they accessible?

What tools do you need to repair this product? Are they common or specialised?

Reflect on the what you have learned, how confident are you repairing this item?

How easy what is to find repair information?

<figure><img src="image_179.png" /></figure>

Who published the repair information?

<figure><img src="image_180.png" /></figure>

Manufacturer

<figure><img src="image_181.png" /></figure>

Reputable third party

<figure><img src="image_182.png" /></figure>

Repair Advocate

<figure><img src="image_183.png" /></figure>

Other

How was the information presented?

<figure><img src="image_184.png" /></figure>

Printed Document

<figure><img src="image_185.png" /></figure>

Online Repair Guide

<figure><img src="image_186.png" /></figure>

Video Tutorial

<figure><img src="image_187.png" /></figure>

Other
# 4: The Right to Repair

## Class Activities

The following activities should occur during or after the class to allow learners to apply their knowledge of Repairability in low-tech products.

1. Ask the students to consider some of their own products and research repair documentation for their object. Students should analyse their findings and discuss the following:

+ How easy was the information to obtain?

+ Whether the manufacturer, a repair partner or the community supported the information.

+ The accessibility of the tools and materials required for general repair tasks.

+ How confident would the student be to undertake a repair task with their product?

Have students suggest improvements to improve repairability for their item.

2. Assignment Task
For student's redesign project.

Ask each student to redesign the product to enhance its reliability while keeping the design as low-tech as possible. Students should document their reliability interventions in their design portfolio.
<figure><img src="image_188.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: An example of the format a function diagram takes</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_189.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: An example of the format a function tree takes</figcaption></figure>

<figure><img src="image_190.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: A Function Structure. Engineering Design Process - Y Haik ISBN: 9780495668145 (2011)</figcaption></figure>
# 5: Taking a systems approach

## How to understand the system to develop a resilient approach

### What makes for a resilient design?

Designing for **resilience** means creating solutions that can endure and adapt to challenges and changes. Resilient designs can recover from adverse use, maintain functionality, and continue providing value even in unexpected use cases. In this lesson on resilient design, we will cover several topics, but it is essential for the designer to consider the following from the outset:

* user-centeredness,

* flexibility,

* robustness of materials.

To make a successful solution, designers need to understand the needs of their users and incorporate feedback throughout the design process. A design that meets the user's needs is much more likely to be embraced and maintained, even when demands change. It is essential that designs are flexible and can adapt to different scenarios. To achieve this, incorporating adjustable features can be helpful. It is also necessary to understand the boundaries of use for the product.

When designing products, it is crucial to consider the technical limitations of material choices. Choosing high-quality, durable materials that can withstand wear and tear and environmental factors is necessary to ensure **longevity** and prevent premature failure. Additionally, designers should consider material choices' social and emotional aspects to maintain user attraction even after heavy use.

Finally, designers must adopt a systems thinking approach to create compelling designs. This means understanding how different components and interactions contribute to the system's performance.

### Functional Analysis

Performing a function analysis is one of the simplest ways to gain a complete understanding of a design solution. This analytical tool breaks down the product into its components to create an abstract model of its functionality. The primary objective is to understand the relationship between functions and components. By identifying and comprehending the specific tasks or goals that a product is intended to accomplish, the designer can justify the essential functions, thus enabling greater clarity in the development of the system.

Function diagrams, function trees, and function structures are tools that designers employ to analyse, organise, and systematically optimise a product's functions. These methods help designers ensure the product solution is well-structured, logically sequenced, and optimised for efficiency and functionality.

### Function Diagrams:

Function diagrams are visual representations that show how different system functions are connected. Designers use them to understand how the various parts of a product work together to achieve the overall function. These diagrams help identify how distinct functions depend on each other and the order in which they must operate. This allows designers to plan the design tasks logically. With function diagrams, designers can see how changes in one function impact others and will enable them to adjust their designs accordingly. This makes analysis of the effects of modifications and improvements to the design easy.

### Function Trees:

Function trees provide a hierarchical breakdown of functions, starting from the primary function and branching out into sub-functions. Function trees are used to organise and categorise the system functions, creating a clear structure for the design process. Function trees help designers identify essential functions for the product's core purpose. By focusing on these critical functions, the design team can ensure that the product's core functionality is resilient and well-designed.

### Function Structures:

Function structures are diagrams that provide an in-depth understanding of how functions, inputs, processes, and outputs relate. Designers use these diagrams to identify parameters, constraints, and potential improvements in each function, helping them seamlessly integrate different system components.

By understanding the interdependence between functions, designers can create cohesive interfaces and port assemblies, leading to a more usable and robust design. Function structures can also optimise the design by allowing designers to analyse the system and its sub-functions for efficiency and effectiveness. This helps identify opportunities for improvement and refine the product solution.

Using Function Trees in conjunction with Function Structures allows designers to manage their time more efficiently by identifying tasks requiring greater attention, resources, or innovation. This approach enables designers to prioritise their efforts based on the criticality of functions in the tree, which ultimately leads to more effective design outcomes.

Potential disruptions must be considered when designing a product. Therefore, it is crucial to analyse internal and external factors that could cause system failures. An adaptive system should be able to continue functioning even with environmental changes[11]

Links to other content in the Book:
*Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sobriety* pg.147

### References and Further Reading:

[11] Colton, K., & Almrott, C. (2023, September). Product Function and Failure [Slide show, DGMM 3411 Design & Manufacturing Methods].
<figure><img src="image_191.png" /><figcaption>Above: GD Stream. Cross-government Design Systems Meetup at GDS. December 2017. GD Stream Flickr Account. https://flic.kr/p/Fcu8Zb</figcaption></figure>
## 5: Taking a systems approach

Diversifying the components used in the product to minimise the risks of failure is recommended. Depending on a single component can cause problems if it fails, so using diversified components or FMEA can significantly reduce the risk.

A modular component design is suggested to reduce the maintenance load and the possibility of the system failing due to a single point of failure. This design enables easy identification and replacement of the component, reducing downtime and increasing the system's longevity.

### Failure Mode and Effects Analysis

Designers should evaluate potential vulnerabilities and their impact to identify risks. This helps prioritise and reduce risks based on severity. FMEA is a systematic approach to preventing product and process problems, enhancing safety, and increasing customer satisfaction.

It is recommended that FMEAs be conducted during the product design or process development stages. However, conducting an FMEA on existing products and processes can also provide significant benefits.

When conducting an FMEA, the relative risk of a failure and its effects is determined by three factors:

* **Severity:**
The consequence of the failure should it occur.

* **Occurrence:**
The probability or frequency of the failure occurring.

* **Detection:**
The probability of the failure being detected before occurring.

Each Failure Mode is rated out of 10 for the three factors. Multiplying these (severity × occurrence × detection) creates a risk priority number (RPN) that will be determined for each potential failure mode and its effect.

The Risk Priority Number (RPN), which can range from 1 to 1000, is a metric used to assess the need for corrective actions to eliminate or reduce potential failure modes. With the help of this analysis method, designers can prioritise areas of their system that need immediate attention and take a systematic approach to enhance safety and resilience within their solution.

Designers can develop resilient solutions by applying systems thinking and considering strategies to withstand disruptions and continue providing value to stakeholders.

### References and Further Reading:

[12.] Practical Action, 2022. The 6 R's. [Online]. Available at: https://practicalaction.org/the-6-rs
<figure><img src="image_192.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ceri Almrott. Student at a low-tech hackathon considering their system. April 2024. TU Dublin.</figcaption></figure>
Class Activities

The following activities should occur during or after the class to
allow learners to apply their knowledge of Repairability in low-tech
products.

1. Assignment Task

For student's redesign project.

Ask each student to consider their product. Ask them to construct the following diagrams to explain the system:

+ Function Diagram

+ Function Tree

+ Function Structure

Ask the student to consider the functional design of their product and suggest less technologically intensive ways of producing the same outputs. These should be explained through an updated function structure diagram.

2. Hackathon Task

For student's redesign project.

Students should consider their low-tech solution and analyse the design within the functional frameworks presented. Students should be able to use the Function Diagram, Tree and Structure for their solution.
<figure><img src="image_193.png" /><figcaption>Above: Dan Edwards. Cooking While Camping. October 2015. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/meat-and-vegetable-on-cooking-pan-KwnMOxpHLE4</figcaption></figure>
# 6: Emotionally Durable Design

Emotionally durable design is an approach that focuses on creating long-lasting emotional connections and meaningful experiences for users through products. Instead of following short-lived trends or relying on disposability, designers who engage in emotionally durable design aim to produce products that endure changing fashions and continue to evoke positive emotions and attachments over time. This approach involves considering the relationship between users and the product, the product's ability to age gracefully, and the emotional impact of design choices. By promoting long-lasting bonds between users and their possessions, emotionally durable design encourages sustainable consumption patterns, reduces waste, and fosters a more meaningful and sustainable consumer culture.[14]

## Connecting with Users

Emotionally durable design creates products that connect with users on a deeper emotional level. By understanding their psychological needs, designers can create products that resonate with users, leading to stronger connections, long-lasting relationships, and greater satisfaction. User research should be done within the users' cultural context. This will help designers create products that align with users' cultural identity and values.

## Craft and Material

Product designers should anticipate future needs in terms of aesthetics. Designs should have timeless appeal and remain relevant for decades. The module *The Art of Simplicity* discusses this concept. Certain principles and approaches can help achieve a timeless aesthetic:

### Simplicity and Minimalism:

Simplicity and minimalism in designs create a timeless quality as they age gracefully and stay relevant to users. Simple designs are adaptable and versatile, seamlessly integrating into different environments and styles and complementing diverse interiors or fashion styles.

### Balanced Proportions:

Well-balanced proportions create a visual sense of harmony and stability by paying meticulous attention to the distribution of elements.

### Attention to Detail:

Meticulous attention to detail, such as carefully crafted joints, exquisite finishes, or fine stitching, distinguishes design work. These precise details enhance aesthetics and contribute to enduring feelings of quality.

High-quality materials and expert craftsmanship are vital to creating designs that deeply resonate with users, fostering lasting connections between people and their belongings. Quality materials like solid wood, genuine leather, or fine metals convey luxury and authenticity. They increase the perceived value of a product, building trust and satisfaction and ultimately strengthening the emotional bond between user and product. High-quality materials are often more durable and develop a unique character over time. This encourages their use through multiple generations, reinforcing strong emotional connections between the user and the object.

High degrees of craftsmanship enhance the tactile and visual experience of the product. Smooth finishes, precise joinery, and attention to detail create a sensory delight for users. When users touch, feel, or even smell the quality materials, it triggers positive sensory responses, developing a sense of pleasure and emotional attachment. Craftsmanship, when executed with precision and artistry, transforms products into works of art. Users appreciate the skill and dedication invested in creating each piece. This artistic expression resonates deeply, eliciting admiration and emotional resonance. Users often form an emotional bond with products that testify to exceptional craftsmanship.

High-quality products often come with a rich narrative highlighting the expertise of the artisans who made them and the heritage of their craft. This emotional narrative adds life to the object, giving users a sense of connection to its origin and the traditions it represents. When users own a well-crafted product, they often feel a unique sense of pride and appreciation for it and perceive the product as an extension of their identity – important to enhancing their emotional attachment.

## Narrative and emotional engagement

Good design depends on compelling storytelling. Stories add depth, context, and personal connection to products, creating emotional resonance with users. By conveying the inspiration, purpose, and values behind their products, designers help users develop strong personal attachments to them – if they get the story right. Stories that align with a user's beliefs, values, or experiences generate a personal connection with a product, likely fostering emotional attachment. When a product's story resonates with a particular group, it fosters this sense of belonging. People feel included in a community that appreciates the same narrative, strengthening their emotional attachment to the product.

## References and Further Reading:

[13] Chapman, J. (2005). Emotionally durable design: Objects, Experiences and Empathy. Routledge.
1. Find an object you own that has been passed down to you. Ideally your object is something that has been passed down through two previous generations of your family.

2. Reflect on the item. What is it's narrative? How did you come to own it, who owned it before you. Where did it come from and how has it featured in the story of your family.

3. Reflect further: what is it about this item that gives it longevity, what makes it emotionally durable? Are your feelings about it the same as those of other generations of your family?

Photograph of heirloom product

What is the story of this item?

What makes this item an heirloom to you?

What is the object and what does it do?
# 6: Emotionally Durable Design

## Case Study:

### Le Creuset Cookware

Le Creuset is a French cookware manufacturer that has been around since 1925. The company is famous for its iconic enamelled cast iron cookware, which has a special place in the hearts of its users. People tend to form an emotional connection with their cookware because they look forward to creating cherished meals and memories with it. As the cookware ages, it retains its functional integrity and gains sentimental value, which fosters a long-lasting relationship between the user and the product.

Le Creuset's dedication to ensuring their products remain durable aligns with the principles discussed earlier in this module. The availability of replacement parts and the company's commitment to extending its lifespan enhance Le Creuset cookware's emotional resilience. As a result, users feel satisfied with maintaining and repairing their cookware, which contributes to its emotional durability.

Le Creuset cookware is known for its classic, timeless design

and vibrant use of coloured enamels. The aesthetic appeal of the cookware creates an emotional connection, as the design is not tied to any particular trend but aligns effortlessly with many enduring culinary traditions. When given proper care, the enamel finish on Le Creuset cookware matures and develops a unique patina. This personalisation over time adds an extra layer of emotional value as each scratch, and mark tells a story of countless shared meals and culinary experiences.

Le Creuset's cookware design language produces versatile objects that easily transition from stove to table. This feature is practical for users and helps establish a lasting relationship with the cookware as it becomes an essential part of their cooking and dining routine. While Le Creuset cookware may have a high initial investment cost, its long-lasting material choices and significance in countless family meals make them a valuable item often passed down through generations or highly sought after in second-hand stores.

## Class Activities

The following activities should take place during or after the class to allow learners to apply their knowledge of system design in low-tech products.

### 1. Ask students to identify an object they own that has been passed on to them through at least three generations (Parent or Guardian/Grandparent).

Students should discuss the object and write a short reflective piece on the object in which they analyse the narrative held within the object. Students should consider what it is about the object which has made it emotionally durable across multiple generations.

### 2. Assignment Task

#### For student's redesign project.

Students should assess the design of the object through the lens of emotionally durable design. They should describe and analyse the object in terms of its emotional durability and suggest alterations to the design, which will increase its likelihood of maintaining an emotional connection with users now and in the future.
More in a single cut
with **FISKARS**
new scissors

<figure><img src="image_194.png" /></figure>

FISKARS new scissors add much to easy cutting.
Every single detail is new and exciting.

**Smooth fitting handles!**

Pick up the scissors. You'll be surprised how light they are. Feel how well the shock proof plastic rings fit your fingers. Cut. A smooth delightful cut all along the cutting edges. And your fingers will not be strained. The joint at the pivot is guaranteed durable.

**Stainless steel!**

The FISKARS scissors are made of chrome steel with a high coal content. The blades maintain their sharpness for a long time. Guaranteed stainless.

**They are riveted!**

Many tools are riveted. But scissors have not been – till now! These are the first riveted scissors. And the rivet tolerates considerable strain. It will not loosen even after long use.

<figure><img src="image_195.png" /></figure>
# 7: Material Choices

## and their role in reliable and resilient design solutions

Before the Industrial Revolution, an area's geography significantly influenced the manufacturing of objects. The success of a product and the choice of materials used in its production were heavily reliant on the available material resources of the region where it was made. However, in the modern era, we have developed various innovative and intricate materials, resulting in a greater diversity of materials available to designers than at any other point in human history.

Selecting suitable materials is critical to creating reliable and durable product designs. Choosing the best materials can improve a product's performance by increasing its strength, endurance, and resistance to environmental factors. Designers should work with experts and conduct extensive research, testing, and simulations to make informed material choices. Keeping up to date with emerging materials and technologies is also crucial. Designers need to consider the intended lifecycle of a product, potential stressors it may encounter, and end-of-life disposal methods when making decisions about material selection. By taking a systematic approach and staying informed, designers can improve the *resilience* of their designs and create products that perform reliably over time.

### Material Characteristics

To create an effective design solution, it is imperative to understand the characteristics of the materials we use. We must consider our design's technical and emotional aspects and carefully weigh them against each other during the material selection. When choosing materials, it's also essential to consider their *reliability*, considering several significant material characteristics.

#### Durability

*Durability* is a critical factor in selecting materials for reliable products. This characteristic refers to a material's ability to withstand wear, environmental stressors, and ageing. Durable materials enhance a product's lifespan through greater structural integrity, reducing the risk of failures and ensuring that a product maintains relevant, safe operating conditions.

#### Toughness

Toughness is a material's ability to absorb energy and deform plastically without fracturing under stress, absorbing energy in the process. It's crucial for *reliability* and *durability*, especially for components exposed to unpredictable forces. Tough materials exhibit *resilience* and reduce the likelihood of catastrophic failure.

#### Ductility

Ductile materials can withstand deformation without fracturing, making them ideal for products exposed to stress. They resist sudden failure and are more resilient to impacts

and bending. This is important for components subjected to dynamic forces, ensuring product *reliability* and safety. Ductility prevents sudden failures and promotes long-term structural integrity.

#### Maintenance

Regular maintenance is crucial for materials, not just mechanical systems, to maintain performance. Environmental factors such as light, heat, and moisture can degrade materials, compromising integrity. Mitigating these factors through design or protective measures, such as varnishes, conditioning oils, or coating, ensures prolonged *resilience* across various applications.

**Material Selection**

As designers, we must consider various factors regarding material choices beyond just cost implications. In Class 3 - Strategies for Designing Reliable Low-Tech Solutions, we learned that local availability is important in making decisions. Using *local resources*, like those used by EC Emmerich, can help shape dependable products, reducing reliance on complex logistics.

Apart from local availability, we must also consider the product narrative. It's essential to align material choices with emotional and technical needs. The materials used should gracefully reflect the product's value, production process, and age to maintain emotional appeal. Ultimately, our selections should harmonise with the product narrative, ensuring coherence and *longevity* in design.

### Case Study:

#### Fiskars Scissors

Fiskars is a well-known Finnish company that has gained worldwide recognition for its iconic orange-handled scissors. Introduced initially as fabric scissors in the late 1960s, the scissors are designed with two materials: stainless steel for the blades and distinctive orange plastic for the handles. The use of stainless steel wasn't groundbreaking, but it did ensure that the scissors had hard, sharp cutting blades that could continue to cut smoothly through fabric and other materials without leaving any marks. Designer Olof Bäckström's decision to use plastic for the handle of scissors was a revolutionary move. This allowed for more complex and ergonomic forms that could be easily manufactured from the all-metal designs of that time. The material was also impact-resistant and lighter in weight, which meant the scissors could be used comfortably for longer periods and were less likely to be damaged if accidentally dropped.

Bäckström understood the significance of ergonomics in his scissor design and ensured that left- and right-handed people could use its handle comfortably. During the production of the prototypes, the injection moulding machine used orange plastic to create an orange juicer, and the bright colour was fashionable then. The designers decided to stick with the orange colour, which became Fiskars' iconic colourway. The distinctiveness and brightness of the orange colour made it easier for the users to identify and use the scissors, adding to their emotional *durability*.

### References and Further Reading:

[14] Weller, C. (2017, September 28). These perfectly-designed orange scissors are iconic — take a look at their history. Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/history-of iconic-fiskars-orange-scissors-2017-9
<figure><img src="image_196.png" /><figcaption>Above: Andrea Piacquadio Shallow Focus Photo of Woman Sitting on Chair While Smiling. May 2018. Pixels. https://www.pixels.com/photo/shallow-focus-photo-of-woman-sitting-on-chair-while-smiling-3801402/</figcaption></figure>
Class Activities

The following activities should occur during or after the class to
allow learners to apply their knowledge of Repairability in low-tech
products.

1. Assignment Task

For student's redesign project.

Ask each student to consider their product. Ask them to construct the following diagrams to explain the system:

+ Function Diagram

+ Function Tree

+ Function Structure

Ask the student to consider the functional design of their product and suggest less technologically intensive ways of producing the same outputs. These should be explained through an updated function structure diagram.

2. Hackathon Task

For student's redesign project.

Students should consider their low-tech solution and analyse the design within the functional frameworks presented. Students should be able to use the Function Diagram, Tree and Structure for their solution.
<figure><img src="image_197.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_198.png" /></figure>

# Effectiveness, Efficiency, Sufficiency

## Trade-offs between design objectives

Benoit Delinchant, Philippe Fortemps & Sacha Hodencq

3 lessons

3 Self-directed Student Assignments
<figure><img src="image_199.png" /><figcaption>Above: This is Engineering. Engineers discuss designs in front of whiteboard. June 2019. Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/thisisengineering/48676669273/in/album-72157711373118421/</figcaption></figure>
# The Trade-offs between design objectives

<figure><img src="image_200.png" /></figure>

## Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>User centredness, Qualitative and Quantitative analysis, decision aiding</td><td>8</td></tr><tr><td>Case Studies</td><td>Explore and analyse case studies around transportation using the above framing</td><td>3</td></tr><tr><td>Blind Kahoot</td><td>Understand the difference between effectiveness, efficiency and sufficiency</td><td>1</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Directed</td><td>Sustainability practices and case study analysis. Preparation for a hackathon on low-tech</td><td>12</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

This course intends to equip engineering students with high knowledge for low-tech design. The knowledge and skills necessary for effective decision support address simultaneously 3 specific criteria: effectiveness, efficiency and sufficiency.

The curriculum encompasses various essential concepts, including the systemic approach featuring complexity and uncertainties, and will focus on multicriteria decision making. Students will delve into the realms of multi-criteria preference modeling to develop a comprehensive understanding of the factors influencing decision-making in low-tech systems design

## Learning Outcomes

### Course Goals

Upon completion of the course, students will possess a robust understanding of decision-making processes in low-tech systems design. They will be proficient in applying multiple-criteria decision-making methodologies, with a focus on the practical implementation of the ELECTRE method in real-world scenarios.

### Learning Outcomes

Upon completion of the course the learner shall be able to:

* Define and understand interaction between efficiency, effectiveness and sufficiency criteria.

* Define user needs and satisfaction levels

* Conduct a critical evaluation based on qualitative and/or quantitative criteria

* Understand and experiment with the strategies to improve criteria
<figure><img src="image_201.png" /><figcaption>Above: Mathew Schwartz, three brown windmill on crop field, October 2017. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/three-brown-windmill-on-crop-field-Jwj1KiuX42c</figcaption></figure>
# 1: Effectiveness, efficiency, and sufficiency

## Introduction

The Low-Tech approach emphasises the need for various changes: Technical with resource savings and the increase of devices' lifespan; Social with appropriation, matching the local needs; and Organisational with context dependency, resilience and collaboration (Tanguy, Carrière, et Laforest 2023). When it comes to technical systems and components, these changes can be embodied with three complementary principles: efficiency, effectiveness and sufficiency.

### Efficiency definition

A common principle to decrease a device's consumption is improving efficiency. Efficiency is about minimising the resource consumption for a given service. It questions the adequacy of the effects obtained compared to the means mobilised and whether the same results could have been achieved at a lower cost or impact. Efficiency is often measured as the ratio of useful output to total input: efficiency=P/C

with P the amount of useful output ("product") and C the amount of resources input ("cost").

### Efficiency example:

#### Improving the efficiency of a motor for cars

This definition can be widened through a systemic view if we include other « costs », such as emissions and wastes, and will depend on the boundaries of the considered system (see 2. An Introduction to systemic approach). See Figure 1, with technosphere resources (e.g. human labour, time, money) and ecosphere resources (e.g. raw material, energy).

### Efficiency and optimality

Productive efficiency means we can produce the given output at a lower cost or more output for a given cost. Then efficiency is trying to be optimal. The danger of optimisation is that it is always at the expense of other indicators: everything not included in the cost function will be removed.

Dealing with optimality needs to add some other concepts:

* Problem formulation: don't forget implicit or tacit knowledge

* Adding constraints: to avoid going beyond some criteria

* Multi-criteria optimisation: including criteria in the cost function. Then dealing with balancing the importance between each objectives.

### Efficiency and rebound effect

Efficiency also faces a systemic effect called the rebound effect or take-back effect. It has been known since the Industrial Revolution when there was an increase in coal consumption (Jevons' paradox). In a forced growth system, efficiency gains translate into increased global use. The rebound effect can be:

* Direct, with an opportunity effect (the cost decrease, increasing the use of the service) and a substitution effect (the resources saved are used to increase the service),

* Or indirect (the gas savings compensate for another pollutant transportation mean)[1]

<figure><img src="image_202.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1: System view of product production</figcaption></figure>

## References and Further Reading:

[1] Pierre-Yves Longaretti, "Sobriété et effet rebound Enjeux, obstacles, leviers", Lobos 1point5 - Janvier 2023
https://labos1point5.org/les-seminaires/hiver-2023
<figure><img src="image_203.png" /><figcaption>Above: Felix Mizioznikov. Aerial image of the I10 Katy Tollway Houston Texas. July 2018. Adobe Stock. https://stock.adobe.com/ie/images/aerial-image-of-the-i10-katy-tollway-houston-texas/218781663?asset_id=218781663</figcaption></figure>
# 1: Effectiveness, efficiency, and sufficiency

## Rebound effect examples:

* The motors in cars are becoming more and more efficient. Still, the overall fuel consumption of cars does not decrease accordingly due to the increase in the size of the vehicles. A one per cent fuel economy increase raises driving by 0.2 to 0.4 per cent [2]

* Another emblematic example is digital devices. With a more efficient 5G cellular network, more and more people are watching videos/films on public transport. The digital sector's overall material and energy consumption is rising exponentially, reaching more than 1% of the world's electricity consumption in 2014 (IEA 2017).

## Effectiveness definition

The best possible efficiency can also be useless if it doesn't meet real needs. Effectiveness tackles this limitation by considering the ability of a product to be helpful in a given context for given objectives rather than a (difficult to reach) context-free overall efficiency. Effectiveness (or effectivity) is the degree to which something achieves its goals or produces the desired results. It focuses on the outcome or impact of a product or a process. Effectiveness is often measured by how well an objective is accomplished or how successfully a particular approach achieves the desired outcome. Effectiveness calls for a user-centred approach in design methods, as poorly defined objectives will ultimately lead to lower effectiveness.

Methods are based on researching customer and/or user needs. The objective is to listen and observe, to empathise. Empathise means putting oneself in the audience's position to understand their wants and needs better. Popular methods include surveys, focus groups, interviews, and keyword research. Sometimes, you'll discover new problems; other times, you'll investigate known ones. A possible resource can be design thinking methodology [3]

### Effectiveness example:

Instead of enlarging an existing road to absorb the increasing number of cars in a city, it could be more effective to define the mobility plan in the town with the inhabitants, based on their needs and practices.

For instance, the Katy Freeway in Houston, Texas, demonstrates the limitations of conventional approaches to congestion management. Despite being expanded to 26 lanes, the freeway has failed to resolve traffic congestion due to the phenomenon of induced traffic—where increasing road capacity encourages more vehicle use, ultimately exacerbating the problem. (See Image Left)

## Sufficiency definition

Besides effectiveness, we must question and prioritise things. Sufficiency emphasises meeting the minimum or necessary level without excessive or unnecessary abundance. It is derived from the Greek word "sôphrosunê," which was translated in Latin to "sobrietas" in a sense of "enough". In sustainability, sufficiency often relates to consuming or using resources in a balanced way that does not exceed the Earth's capacity.

Parallels are often drawn between the Low-Tech approach and sufficiency, as the Low-Tech approach seeks to question the needs and decrease consumption. They also share the same types of locks, such as desirability and social acceptability facing mainstream models, the necessary involvement of citizens, the need to offer a common culture and actual views of the alternative, as well as administrative and financial locks to disseminate (Bonjean et al. 2022).

Sufficiency can be differentiated between structural sufficiency (offering the proper conditions for consumption decrease), sizing sufficiency (proper sizing of equipment compared to the actual use), use sufficiency (reducing the use of equipment), and convivial sufficiency (sharing and commons mechanisms).

**Sufficiency IPCC WP3 definition** [4] (Yamina Saheb's work) is avoiding the demand for materials, energy, land, water, and other natural resources while delivering a decent living standard for all within the planetary boundaries

Among all consumption sectors where sufficiency can be applied, energy sufficiency has been identified as a lever of choice for reducing the socio-ecological impacts of the energy sector in addition to other levers (development of renewable energy to replace carbon-based energy and energy efficiency), particularly in developed countries (Ivanova et al. 2020). While the contribution of sufficiency to the energy transition has so far rarely been explored in relation to the use of technology alone (Samadi et al. 2017), it is beginning to appear in reference scenarios with the explicit mention of "sufficiency" policies in the IPCC report in 2022 (Shukla et al. 2022). In 1999, Wolfgang Sachs introduced sufficiency with the following terms: "While efficiency is about doing things right, sufficiency is about doing the right things" (Sachs 1999). Energy sufficiency can be defined as reducing energy demand sustainably without falling below people's basic needs (Bierwirth et Thomas, 2019). As a result, it also brings about energy justice considerations, both in terms of distribution: sufficiency particularly concerns big consumers who are far from energy poverty, and in terms of recognition and procedure, as sufficiency is not only thought of individually, but is instead a matter of collective decision, and so, of democracy. For instance, we can ask ourselves: what are we attached to? What could we give up? Or, what is sufficient for us to flourish in a constrained world? So when it is clear we ask ourselves why, what, and how to produce, it is equally important to reflect on who asks these questions and who answers them (Mateus et Roussilhe, 2023). As such, sufficiency should not be reduced to "eco-friendly little acts" and must be studied long-term at a societal scale.

### Sufficiency examples:

Decreasing the temperature in buildings at 19°C and heating bodies through clothes and other techniques rather than buildings only. Also, it is important to ensure that everyone has their say in this decision and that households can heat up to 19°C.

## References and Further Reading:

[2] Linn, Joshua. "The Rebound Effect for Passenger Vehicles." The Energy Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, 2016, pp. 257-88. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24696756

[3] Design thinking, explained | MIT Sloan. (2017, September 14). MIT Sloan. https://mitsloan.mit.edu/ideas-made-to-matter/design-thinking-explained

[4] Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of climate change. (n.d.). IPCC. https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg3/
<figure><img src="image_204.png" /><figcaption>Above: Luke Stackpoole, the sun shines through the trees in a forest. May 2018. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/the-sun-shines-through-the-trees-in-a-forest-ke50GMONqqo</figcaption></figure>
# 2: Design as a Complex Activity

The aim is to study multi-criteria decision support while designing low-tech systems. Before doing so, it is necessary to introduce various concepts, such as the systems approach and complexity. The module doesn't go into system modelling but tries to highlight the existence of interaction effects and identify most of the consequences of creating a new product. Designing simple solutions (low-tech) doesn't mean considering simple challenges.

## Introduction to complexity

"When I talk about complexity, I'm referring to the basic Latin meaning of the word "complexus", "that which is woven together". The components are different, but we need to see the overall picture, as in a tapestry. The real problem (in terms of thought reform) is that we have learned too well to separate. It's better to learn to connect. Linking, that is to say, not just making an end-to-end connection, but making a looping connection. [...] Today, knowledge must have the tools, the fundamental concepts that will enable it to be linked, fundamental concepts that will enable us to make connections."

Edgar Morin, 1995 [8]

Edgar Morin introduces complex thinking as the union between:

* Critical thinking: guided by specific criteria, procedural, self-correcting and context-sensitive.

* Creative thinking: guided by sometimes contradictory criteria, heuristic, more results-oriented, self-transcending (synthetic), governed by the context in which it appears.

* Responsible thinking: presupposes dialogical communication (i.e. the construction of a coherent set of complementary, competing or antagonistic proposals to represent a phenomenon), openness to others and differences, and a willingness to change.

We are facing social and ecological crises that can easily be considered to be complex issues, that is to say, issues with:

* Mutually influencing variables,

* A context of great uncertainty,

* Multiple players with divergent value systems

Relevant approaches, such as system thinking and indicators, must be used to address such issues. It needs to be underlined that Science can appear to be ineffective for decision-making in situations of conflict of interest (Pielke 2007), so decision-making approaches need to be accompanied by governance tools in order to be effective in facing complexity (the commons presented in the Open Design module are examples of such governance tools).

## Introduction to a systemic approach

Understanding the fundamental principles of the systemic approach for addressing interleaved multifaceted challenges.

"A system is an interconnected set of elements that is coherently organised around some purpose" (de Vries 2013).

System thinking aims to distance itself from discrete events and move beyond reactive decision-making based on patterns and behaviour to generative decision-making (George Richardson 2013). It focuses on policy structure and identifies causality, providing insights into how a system works. The system perspective requires a deep understanding of causality and how system elements interact; it is an inherently interdisciplinary approach.

<figure><img src="image_205.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2: System diagram. Source: Hugo Leboulzec from Bossel 1994</figcaption></figure>

System approach features four key considerations (George Richardson, 2013):

* Dynamic thinking (graphs over time)

* Causal thinking (cause/effect relationship, see next paragraph)

* Stock-and-flow thinking (accumulation)

* Thinking endogenously, i.e. with the internal cause or origin of a behaviour.

## References and Further Reading:

[5.] Morin, E. (1995). La stratégie de reliance pour l'intelligence de la complexité. Revue Internationale De Sytémique, 9(2), 105-112. http://www.res-systemica.org/ris/vol-09/vol09-num-02/ris-vol09-num02-p105-112.pdf
“There is a maxim which is often quoted, that ‘The same causes will always produce the same effects.’ To make this maxim intelligible we must define what we mean by the same causes and the same effects, since it is manifest that no event ever happens more that once, so that the causes and effects cannot be the same in all respects.”

James C Maxwell
“Matter and Motion”, 1876
## 2: Design as a complex activity

### Introduction to Causal Thinking

Causal thinking deepens the understanding of the system's behaviour. It is different from correlation, which is a mutual relationship or connection between two or more things that only replicates past behaviour based on historical analysis. Causation mimics actual behaviour, which can change over time: it represents the system's structure.

Causal thinking enables the representation of causal loop diagrams, i.e., "variables connected by arrows denoting the causal influences among the variables" (Sterman, 2000), with positive (if the cause increases → the effect increases and vice versa) and negative (if the cause increases → the effect decreases and vice versa) directions.

These polarities give way to **reinforcing causal loops** (an action produces a result that influences more of the same action, thus resulting in growth or decline) or **balancing causal loops** (circles of cause and effect that counter a change with a push in the opposite direction)—see Figure 3.

<figure><img src="image_206.png" /><figcaption>Figure 3: Causal loop diagram. Source: Hugo Leboulzec, 2023</figcaption></figure>

### Choosing the right indicators

To achieve systemic approach correctly, the boundaries of the studied system need to be clearly defined.

In concept a feedback system is a closed system. Its dynamic behavior arises within its internal structure. Any action which is essential to the behavior of the mode being investigated must be included inside the system boundary.

Forrester (1961).

But within these boundaries, many aspects or indicators can be considered or not. In order to face complexity, we are addressing low-tech design with the prism of 3 main criteria: effectiveness, efficiency, and sufficiency. But we could add the 3-R (reliability, reparability, resilience), the art of simplicity or the ethical decision-making for avoiding harm and doing good, looking to justice, autonomy, solidarity... It is important to define a list of criteria we want to look at. [Figure 4].

<figure><img src="image_207.png" /><figcaption>Figure 4: Ethical decision-making - Based on: https://www.collidu.com/presentation-ethical-decision-making</figcaption></figure>

Links to other content in the Book:

* The Art of Simplicity (p. 67)

* The Three R's (p. 111)

* Imperative of Responsibility (p. 177)
<table><caption>Figure 5: Sustainability Indicators - Thies, C., Kieckhäfer, K., Spengler, T. S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2019). Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 1-21.</caption><thead><tr><th colspan="2">Sustainability Indicators</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Global Warming</td><td rowspan="10">Ecological</td></tr><tr><td>Ozone Depletion</td></tr><tr><td>Photochemical Oxidant Formation</td></tr><tr><td>Particulate Matter</td></tr><tr><td>Acidification</td></tr><tr><td>Eutrophication</td></tr><tr><td>Ionizing Radiation</td></tr><tr><td>Resource Depletion</td></tr><tr><td>Toxicity</td></tr><tr><td>Energy</td></tr><tr><td>Water</td></tr><tr><td>Materials</td><td rowspan="10">Economic</td></tr><tr><td>Land Use</td></tr><tr><td>Recyclability</td></tr><tr><td>Waste</td></tr><tr><td>Emissions</td></tr><tr><td>Pollution</td></tr><tr><td>Noise</td></tr><tr><td>Biodiversity</td></tr><tr><td>Human Health</td></tr><tr><td>Ecosystem</td></tr><tr><td>Resources</td><td rowspan="10">Social</td></tr><tr><td>Enviromental Cost</td></tr><tr><td>Enviromental Impact Score</td></tr><tr><td>Other Enviromental</td></tr><tr><td>Costs</td></tr><tr><td>Revenues</td></tr><tr><td>Contribution Margin</td></tr><tr><td>Profit</td></tr><tr><td>Price</td></tr><tr><td>Net Present Value</td></tr><tr><td>Added Value</td></tr><tr><td>Quality</td><td rowspan="5">Economic</td></tr><tr><td>Risk</td></tr><tr><td>Economic Impact Score</td></tr><tr><td>Other Economic</td></tr><tr><td>Workers</td></tr><tr><td>Local Community</td><td rowspan="5">Social</td></tr><tr><td>Society</td></tr><tr><td>Consumers</td></tr><tr><td>Value-chain Actors</td></tr><tr><td>Social Impact Score</td></tr><tr><td>Other Social</td></tr></tbody></table>
## 2: Design as a complex activity

Structuring criteria is required when dealing with many criteria. For instance, it has been done from literature review on sustainability indicators in [Figure 5].

One can look to many criteria, like [Figure 6] used in the context of transportation infrastructure decision making.

However, in a systemic approach, it is also important to apply the principle of Occam's razor, also known as the principle of simplicity of parsimony. It can be formulated as follows: "The simplest sufficient hypotheses should be preferred". We will see how to quantify which criteria are considered necessary and sufficient using preference modelling.

<figure><img src="image_208.png" /><figcaption>**Figure 6:** Indicators for transportation infrastructure decision-making.
Dimitriou, H. T., Ward, E. J., & Dean, M. (2016). Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal. Research in Transportation Economics, 58, 7-20</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_209.png" /><figcaption>Above: Tima Miroshnichenko. People Looking at the Screen if a Laptop Together. February 2021. Unsplash. https://www.pexels.com/photo/people-looking-at-the-screen-if-a-laptop-together-6914429/</figcaption></figure>
### Collective or group decision-making

Group decision-making is a more complex process than individual decision-making[6]. It involves deliberation, discussion, and dialogue to build consensus. However, in real-world situations, experts may not have enough knowledge about every alternative or criterion. It's worth noting that each individual's decision can be influenced by the social group. An interesting aspect of group decision-making is empowerment, as engagement is stronger when participating in the decision-making process. Some of the group decision-making methods include decision-making, voting-based methods, Delphi method, and Dotocracy.

### Handling uncertainties and subjectivity

One final aspect of the topic of complexity is the question of uncertainties. How do we handle uncertainties and subjectivity during the decision-making process?

One can distinguish uncertainties in the problem-solving itself, or about the problem setting as described by Padulo et al. in the following figure.

<figure><img src="image_210.png" /><figcaption>Figure 7: Uncertainties during problem-solving and problem setting</figcaption></figure>

Decision-making deals with vagueness and imprecision. A framework developed by Pelissari et al [7]. helps with choosing the uncertainty modelling technique according to the type of data uncertainty, whether related to ambiguity, stochasticity, or partial information.

Most of the multi-criteria decision-making literature treats uncertainties based on the following modelling techniques:

* Probabilistic: it has been mostly characterised by stochastic methods, with probability distributions of different shapes assigned to the possible performance data.

* Fuzzy: It allows dealing with the vagueness of information. It specifies a soft transition from one qualitative performance level to another (e.g., from 'poor' to 'fair') without an abrupt change of the degree of possibility.

* **Others:**

+ evidential reasoning: each performance is represented using a belief structure defined by a distributed assessment

+ gray numbers (interval): performances are specified by clear boundaries without indicating an exact position of the performance within these boundaries.

Beyond modeling techniques, post-normal science is a problem-solving strategy when facts are uncertain, values are contested, stakes are high, and decisions are urgent. It can be formulated as a call for the democratisation of expertise and is considered as a movement for informed critical resistance.

### References and Further Reading:

[6] Wikipedia contributors. (2024, May 23). Group decision-making. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grouṕ_decision-making

[7] Pelissari R, Oliveira MC, Abackerli AJ, Ben-Amor S, Assumpção MRP. Techniques to model uncertain input data of multi-criteria decision-making problems: a literature review. International Transactions in Operational Research; 2018. doi: 10.1111/itor.12598
"the ability of the designer to recognise as many of the constraints as possible; his willingness and enthusiasm for working within these constraints. The constraints of price, of size, of strength, of balance, of surface, of time, etc.; each problem has its own peculiar list."

Charles Eames
from Design Q&A, 1972
## 2: Design as a complex activity

### Introduction to product design decision-making process

Before delving into the decision-making process itself, one can use a framework like Voice in Decisions Technique[8]. This technique introduces a Framework for Accountable Decision Making, which looks at:

* the "reasons" to help explain or provide a basis for the decision, which are linked to values and preferences.

* The "process" helps explain how the decision is made, the steps and actions taken, and the people involved in making the decision. This is relative to the transparency and reproducibility of the process.

* The "role" helps explain the part people play in the decision. It allows us to question the opportunities for participation in the decision (group decision-making) and the people affected by the decision.

A classical decision-making process deconstructed can be the following:

1. Defining the problem involves questioning the needs and specifying the key objectives.

2. "Develop alternatives" means creating multiple solutions to fulfil a certain need. This involves designing and analysing various options to determine the best possible outcome.

3. Evaluate the alternatives: quantify how far each solution is from the objectives.

4. Make the final decision by selecting the solution that best matches the designer's preferences.

5. Implement the solution

6. Monitor the solution

Decision-making itself can be considered only as the act of choosing between a set of alternatives. But depending on the decision-making problem, the set of alternatives can already exist or have to be created.

It leads to two kinds of approaches:

* Alternatives have to be designed: Each alternative can be found using design methodologies that can include a creative approach or solving an inverse problem in a systemic approach, which requires examining several conflicting criteria; the number of alternatives is either finite or infinite but typically exponentially large.

* Alternatives are explicitly known: The problem is to find the optimal solution for a decision-maker or a set of good alternatives. Each alternative's performance is considered using multiple criteria.

<figure><img src="image_211.png" /><figcaption>Above Figure 8: Decision-making steps - Based on: https://www.collidu.com/presentation-effective-decision-making</figcaption></figure>

### References and Further Reading:

[8] The Right Question Institute. (2021, November 1). Voice in Decisions Technique - Right Question Institute. Right Question Institute. https://rightquestion.org/vidt/
<figure><img src="image_212.png" /><figcaption>Above: Zainul Yasni, men and women gathered around a table. May 2019. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/men-and-women-gathered-around-a-table-Qilxg_q2vh0</figcaption></figure>
## 2: Design as a complex activity

Tools are available to assist the decision-maker in both scenarios. However, selecting and balancing criteria is an essential aspect, making decision-making a complex cognitive task. Applying decision-making to the same data may result in very different outcomes, known as the "decision-making paradox."

One way to deconstruct the decision-making process is by considering two main activities that occur before making the decision.

1. Problem setting: understanding the needs and specifying the designer's preferences.

2. Problem-solving: investigating the given information, finding feasible solutions, and quantifying the criteria.

Problem-solving is often considered a complicated task instead of a complex one. Thanks to computational facilities, it is "easy" to evaluate multiple alternatives and find the ones that best meet the specifications. A typical problem-solving sequence can be:

1. Using physical system modelling, perform simulations to evaluate criteria and calculate requirements for a given product. The simulation solves the "direct problem" and considers attributes such as geometry and physical properties to determine efficiency, cost, environmental impact, and other factors.

2. Optimise attributes to find feasible alternatives. The optimisation solves the "inverse problem" of finding attributes that meet goals.

Product design is more than "simple" problem-solving and is a challenging cognitive task. Indeed, it is not only an inverse problem; it is solving an ill-defined problem (Batres, 2022).

Resource: An example of a design methodology is applied at MIT School of Engineering for tackling ill-structured problems [10].

### Prior or posterior preference modelling

The decision-making process involves reasoning based on assumptions about the decision-maker's values, preferences, and beliefs. It's important to recognise that there's usually no one perfect solution, so the decision-maker's preferences must be used to distinguish between all feasible options. This process can be described as a set of orderings that reflect human preferences for one thing over another.

There are three main categories of multi-criteria decision-making approaches depending on how preferences are modelled between problem-setting and problem-solving.

**Prior Preferences:**

Transforming problems into single-criterion problems.

**Progressive or Interactive Preferences:**

Incorporating decision-maker preferences through-out the solution process.

**Posterior Preferences:**

Addressing multiple-criteria problem-solving to define a set of potential alternatives.

In this chapter, we are looking only at prior and posterior articulation preferences.

<figure><img src="image_213.png" /><figcaption>Figure 9: Articulation of preference modeling between problem setting and problem solving</figcaption></figure>

Finding alternatives with:

* **Prior preferences:** A value function can be defined to rank alternatives automatically during solution space exploration, which allow for instance optimisation algorithms to choose the best possible solution.

* **Posterior preferences:** If there are no specific preferences on the criteria, exploring alternatives can use the concept of dominance to identify a set of optimal solutions. Conflicting criteria, where improving one generally leads to the degradation of another, do not have a unique solution. In such cases, positive interactive criteria or antagonist effects can be used.

By definition alternative a1 dominates a2, if:

+ a1 is no worse than a2 in all criteria

+ a1 is strictly better than a2 in at least one criteria

The non-dominated set (NDS) is a set of all the solutions not dominated by any other solution. The NDS of the entire feasible decision space is called the Pareto-optimal set, and the boundary defined by the set of all points mapped from the Pareto optimal set is called the Pareto-optimal front.

<figure><img src="image_214.png" /><figcaption>Figure 10: Pareto front - non-dominated set of alternatives</figcaption></figure>

### References and Further Reading:

[9] Triantaphyllou, Evangelos (2000). Multi-criteria decision making methods: a comparative study. Applied optimization. Vol. 44. Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. p. 320. doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3157-6

[10] Lavi, R. (2024) 'Decarbonizing Ulaanbaatar: Using DIMES-FIRST methodology to tackle a climate and sustainability challenge,' Medium, 8 February. https://medium.com/@realavi_58810/decarbonizing-ulaanbaatar-using-dimes-first-to-tackle-a-climate-and-sustainability-challenge-e8f7e6fee715.
<figure><img src="image_215.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ceri Almrott. Developing low-tech educational frameworks. ENSE³, Grenoble. June 2023.</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Multiple-Criteria Decision-Aiding (MCDA) methods

## Problem statement

* MCDA is a methodology for supporting decision-makers facing multiple conflicting criteria. As previously described, there is no unique optimal solution for such a problem, and the decision-maker's preferences must be used to differentiate between alternatives.

Depending on the method and preferences, the problem statement can be:

* Choice: choosing the best alternative.

* Ranking: consists of imposing a preference relation on the set of alternatives, i.e., listing them from the best to the worst.

* Sorting (classifying, clustering): assigns the alternatives to preference-ordered clusters.

<figure><img src="image_216.png" /><figcaption>Figure 11: MCDA Sorting</figcaption></figure>

## Measurement scale

This final recommendation can be based on scores of alternatives, on binary relations, or on decision rules:

* **Scoring:** can result in a cardinal recommendation type, where the distance between each alternative is quantitatively meaningful.

* **Binary relations:** leads to an ordinal recommendation, where only the position of the alternatives is meaningful (e.g., ordering of the criteria, pairwise comparisons).

* A third but more specific approach is **decision rules**, which are based on logical "if..., then..." statements that represent scenarios of a causal relationship between the performance of alternatives on a subset of criteria and a comprehensive judgment.

There are two types of measurement scales for scoring and binary relations: qualitative and quantitative preference models. MCDA methods are designed to work with a specific type of measurement. Some methods take into account the distance between performance by using the quantitative nature of the input, while others only use the qualitative nature of the input.

* **Cardinal scale** (quantitative): Like interval and ratio, it can be applied to continuous or discrete data. It mostly belongs to the physical-technical application areas.

* **Ordinal scale** (qualitative): This scale is used for ranking, but the distance between values is unknown. It is prevalent in the socio-ecology-economic domains.

## Measurement scale

This final recommendation can be based on scores of alternatives, on binary relations, or on decision rules:

* **Scoring:** can result in a cardinal recommendation type, where the distance between each alternative is quantitatively meaningful.

* **Binary relations:** leads to an ordinal recommendation, where only the position of the alternatives is meaningful (e.g., ordering of the criteria, pairwise comparisons).

* A third but more specific approach is **decision rules**, which are based on logical "if..., then..." statements that represent scenarios of a causal relationship between the performance of alternatives on a subset of criteria and a comprehensive judgment.

There are two types of measurement scales for scoring and binary relations: qualitative and quantitative preference models. MCDA methods are designed to work with a specific type of measurement. Some methods take into account the distance between performance by using the quantitative nature of the input, while others only use the qualitative nature of the input.

* **Cardinal scale** (quantitative): Like interval and ratio, it can be applied to continuous or discrete data. It mostly belongs to the physical-technical application areas.

* **Ordinal scale** (qualitative): This scale is used for ranking, but the distance between values is unknown. It is prevalent in the socio-ecology-economic domains.
<figure><img src="image_217.png" /><figcaption>Figure 12: Thresholds for pairwise comparison (Electre III)</figcaption></figure>
# 3: Multiple Criteria Decision-Aiding Methods

## Scoring function or Binary relations

Scoring functions are obtained based on a weighting of the criteria to express their relative importance. The ratio can express trade-offs (compensation or substitution rate) between criteria, meaning how much of one criterion compensates for a unit change of the other criterion. Different aggregation rules can implement a normalisation procedure with weights to scale all criteria.
Normalisation methods:

* **cardinal**: use differences in the performance like min-max, target, and distance to a reference, and apply a linear transformation (or piecewise linear, or non-linear)

* **ordinal**: general approaches driven by the ordinal nature of the data. Like rank, percentile rank, and categorical, which use the position of the alternative in the ranking

Outranking relations and pairwise comparison thresholds can be used to handle uncertainty in performance measurement and the DM's hesitation.

For instance Electre III (Roy, 1977) defines 3 thresholds for pairwise comparison between two solutions {$s_1, s_2$} and their associated performances on one criteria {$g(s_1), g(s_2)$}: (see below)

* **q**: indifference thresholds account for the maximum difference that makes two alternatives indifferent.

* **p**: preference thresholds consider the minimum difference in performance that leads to a full preference for one alternative.

* **v**: veto thresholds can be used to enforce fully non-compensatory modelling. This threshold guarantees that when an alternative performs worse than another by at least the veto value on even a single criterion, the former cannot outrank (i.e., be considered as good as) the latter, irrespective of its comparative performance on the remaining criteria.

Outranking methods perform pairwise comparisons of the alternatives, leading to an outranking matrix representing a directed graph where alternatives are in nodes and outranking relations are on arcs. The quality of each alternative depends on its relations with all the other alternatives.

This matrix is then exploited using different algorithms (e.g., net flow score procedures or approaches for identifying a graph kernel) to develop the final recommendation.

Other methods examples:

* **Analytical Hierarchy Process**: AHP finds priorities of the alternatives using pairwise comparisons of alternatives provided by the DM for each criterion.

* **TOPSIS**: distance-based. Using Fuzzy information.

(Moffett, 2006) proposes a classification of methods that use the information without any weights (Figure 13), like the non-dominated set (NDS) computation and maximin, moving then to those that use qualitative weights and finally to those that use quantitative weights.

## Choosing MCDA Methods

A taxonomy is proposed by (Cinelli et al. 2020), which provides useful information to help choosing a method. It is important to consider the decision-making paradox when choosing a method for decision-making as there is no single best method. One way to choose a method is by using certain criteria such as the ease of use. Ease of use refers to the amount of time it takes to interact with the decision maker and obtain preference information, as well as the level of input required from stakeholders. Another important factor is the processing time and effort needed to gather the data required for the technique, which can vary depending on the chosen method.

Easiness of use :

* Easy : ELECTRE I

* High : AHP, DRSA sorting, TOPSIS

<figure><img src="image_218.png" /><figcaption>Figure 13: Moffett MCDA methods classification</figcaption></figure>
<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Taxonomy of the MCDA process characteristics (c.) and sub-characteristics (c.x.)</th><th>Frequency</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Phase 1: Problem formulation</td><td rowspan="3">c.1 - Problem typology</td><td rowspan="3">c.1.1 - Problem statement</td><td>Choice</td><td>25</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>Ranking</td><td>42</td><td>75</td></tr><tr><td>Sorting</td><td>26</td><td>46</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">c.1.2 - Problem variability (alternatives n.)</td><td>Stable</td><td>5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Incremental</td><td>5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>Flat</td><td>18</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">c.2.1 - Structure</td><td>Hierarchical</td><td>18</td><td>32</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.2.2.1 - Measurement Scale</td><td>Interval</td><td>39</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td>Ordinal</td><td>39</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="10">c.2.2 - Criteria</td><td rowspan="5">c.2.2.2 - Evaluation of performance</td><td>Ratio</td><td>39</td><td>70</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">Deterministic</td><td>14</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>DIS</td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Uncertain</td><td>ER</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>FU</td><td>14</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td>GN</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>JM</td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>LV</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3">c.3.1.1.2 - Performance Type</td><td>Binary relations</td><td>33</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Decision rules</td><td>11</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">c.3.2 - Indirect</td><td rowspan="2">c.3.2.1 - Frequency of preference provision</td><td>INC</td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>OT</td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">c.3.2.2 - Elicitation approach</td><td>AAC</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>CAI</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>JM</td><td>5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>ORA</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>PWA</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Taxonomy of the MCDA process characteristics (c.) and sub-characteristics (c.x.)</th><th>Frequency</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Phase 2: Construction of the decision recommendation</td><td rowspan="3">c.3 - Elicitation of preferences</td><td rowspan="3">c.3.1 - Direct</td><td rowspan="3">c.3.1.1 - Weight Type</td><td rowspan="3">c.3.1.1.2 - Subjective</td><td>JM</td><td>12</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">Imprecise</td><td>Precise</td><td>20</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td>IC</td><td>20</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>TOF</td><td>25</td><td>45</td></tr><tr><td>CON</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>FU</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">c.3.1.1.2 - Objective</td><td>INT</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>JM</td><td>8</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>MI</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>ORD</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>PWC</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">c.3.1.2 - No Weights</td><td>COR</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>DEA</td><td>4</td><td>7</td></tr><tr><td>EM</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>FA</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td>JM</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">c.4 - Features of aggregation</td><td rowspan="2">c.4.1 - Compensation level between criteria</td><td>Full</td><td>33</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>32</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.4.2 - MCDA method capacity to handle inconsistent preferences</td><td>Partial</td><td>30</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.4.3 - MCDA method decision context dependency</td><td>Dependent</td><td>11</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Independent</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8">Phase 3: Qualitative features and technical support</td><td rowspan="4">c.5 - Exploitation of the model</td><td rowspan="2">c.5.1 - Univocal recommendation</td><td></td><td>56</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Exact</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.5.2 - Robustness assessment</td><td>JM</td><td>8</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Stochastic</td><td>12</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.5.3 - Group decision</td><td></td><td>14</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>20</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">c.6 - Easiness of use / Understandability of the method</td><td rowspan="2">c.7 - Processing amount needed to compile the data required for the method</td><td></td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.8 - N. alternatives and/or criteria</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.9 - Extent of use of the method in the specific context/area</td><td rowspan="2">c.10 - Software support and graphical representation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Taxonomy of the MCDA process characteristics (c.) and sub-characteristics (c.x.)</th><th>Frequency</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="10">Phase 2: Construction of the decision recommendation</td><td rowspan="3">c.3 - Elicitation of preferences</td><td rowspan="3">c.3.1 - Direct</td><td>JM</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Indifference</td><td>24</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td>Preference</td><td>24</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.3.1.4 - Interactions between criteria</td><td>Veto</td><td>20</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>6</td><td>11</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">c.3.1.5 - Preference models</td><td>JM</td><td>22</td><td>39</td></tr><tr><td>Intensity of preference on a ratio scale</td><td>24</td><td>43</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">Scoring Functions</td><td>GEN</td><td>8</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>LIN</td><td>17</td><td>30</td></tr><tr><td>NLI</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td>PLI</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.3.2 - Indirect</td><td>Binary relations</td><td>33</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>Decision rules</td><td>11</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5">c.3.2.1 - Frequency of preference provision</td><td>INC</td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td>OT</td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">c.3.2.2 - Elicitation approach</td><td>AAC</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>CAI</td><td>1</td><td>2</td></tr><tr><td>JM</td><td>5</td><td>9</td></tr><tr><td>ORA</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>PWA</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th colspan="3">Taxonomy of the MCDA process characteristics (c.) and sub-characteristics (c.x.)</th><th>Frequency</th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="8">Phase 2: Construction of the decision recommendation</td><td rowspan="4">c.4 - Features of aggregation</td><td>Full</td><td>33</td><td>59</td></tr><tr><td>None</td><td>32</td><td>57</td></tr><tr><td>Partial</td><td>30</td><td>54</td></tr><tr><td>c.4.2 - MCDA method capacity to handle inconsistent preferences</td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.4.3 - MCDA method decision context dependency</td><td>Dependent</td><td>11</td><td>20</td></tr><tr><td>Independent</td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">c.5 - Exploitation of the model</td><td rowspan="2">c.5.1 - Univocal recommendation</td><td></td><td>56</td><td>100</td></tr><tr><td>Exact</td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.5.2 - Robustness assessment</td><td>JM</td><td>8</td><td>14</td></tr><tr><td>Stochastic</td><td>12</td><td>21</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">c.5.3 - Group decision</td><td></td><td>14</td><td>25</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>20</td><td>36</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.6 - Easiness of use / Understandability of the method</td><td></td><td>3</td><td>5</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>10</td><td>18</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.7 - Processing amount needed to compile the data required for the method</td><td></td><td>2</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td></td><td>7</td><td>13</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="4">c.8 - N. alternatives and/or criteria</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.9 - Extent of use of the method in the specific context/area</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2">c.10 - Software support and graphical representation</td><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr><tr><td></td><td></td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>AAC</th><th>CAI</th><th>CON</th><th>COR</th><th>DEA</th><th>DIS</th><th>EM</th><th>ER</th><th>FA</th><th>FU</th><th>GEN</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Assignment of some alternatives to categories</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Constraint-based</td><td>Correlations</td><td>Data Envelopment Analysis</td><td>Deterministic intervals / Scenarios</td><td>Entropy method</td><td>Evidential reasoning</td><td>Factor analysis</td><td>Fuzzy</td><td>General (respect ordinal character, e.g. rank, percentile rank, categorical)</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><thead><tr><th>GN</th><th>IC</th><th>INC</th><th>INT</th><th>JM</th><th>LIN</th><th>LV</th><th>MI</th><th>NLI</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Grey numbers</td><td>Relative importance coefficients (precise)</td><td>Incremental</td><td>Intervals</td><td>Just mentioned</td><td>Linear (min/max, target, distance to a reference)</td><td>Linguistic variables</td><td>Missing</td><td>Non-linear</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td></tr></tbody></table>

<table><caption>Above Figure 14: Cinelli MCDA methods taxonomy</caption><thead><tr><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th><th>AAC</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td><td>Comparisons of some alternatives with respect to intensity of preference</td></tr></tbody></table>
## ELECTRE methods (easy)

The ELECTRE method is an outranking approach that is known for its flexibility. It allows for the direct evaluation of alternatives based on each criterion, without the need for normalization. Furthermore, the method can be used to evaluate both qualitative and quantitative criteria scales. However, to use the ELECTRE family of methods, one needs to define the degree of importance (w) or certain threshold parameters such as indifference, preference, and veto thresholds (q, p, and v) as depicted in Figure 12 for ELECTRE III. Here is a proposition of simplified method inspired from ELECTRE I.

Let $\mathcal{C}$ be the set of criteria. Let $\mathcal{A}$ be the set of stocks or options to be compared.

For each criterion $i \in \mathcal{C}$, we ask that the decision-maker be able to say, $\forall a, b \in \mathcal{A}$, whether $a$ is at least as good as $b$ or not, with respect to this criterion. This is denoted $a \succsim b$ or $a \not\succsim b$. We also allow the decision-maker to say that on criterion $i$, $a$ is really much better than $b$. And this is noted $a \succ \succsim b$.

We then determine, $\forall a, b \in \mathcal{A}$, the set of criteria for which there is agreement (or concordance) to say that $a$ is at least as good as $b: C(a, b) = \{i \in C\}$, as well as the set of criteria for which there is strong opposition (veto or discordance) to say that $a$ is at least as good as $b: D(a, b) = \{i \in C: b \succsim a\}$.

Overall, $a$ is said to be at least as good as $b$ if the agreement is strong enough and there is no disagreement. We then say that $a$ outperforms $b$, which is denoted $aSb$.

If we associate a weight $w_i \ge 0$ to each criterion $i \in \mathcal{C}$, such that $\sum_{i \in C_w = 1}$. Then we can say that:

$$aSb \Leftrightarrow \sum_{i \in C(a,b)} w_i \ge \lambda \wedge D \left( a, b \right) = 0$$

where $\lambda \in [0.5, 1]$ is the minimum agreement threshold for a coalition of criteria to lead to an overall preference.

The outranking relation is a binary relation, since $aSb$ is either true or false.

In an optimistic approach, we can calculate the "outflow" of the relationship, which corresponds to the number of options that a given option $a \in \mathcal{A}$ outperforms, i.e. $\text{OFS}(a) = \text{card}\{b \in \mathcal{A} : a \succ b\}$. The higher this outflow, the better the option can be considered.

In a pessimistic approach, we can calculate the "inflow" of the relationship, which corresponds to the number of options by which a given option $a \in \mathcal{A}$ is outclassed, i.e. $\text{IFS}(a) = \text{card}\{b \in \mathcal{A} : a \succ b\}$. The higher the inflow, the less the option will be considered good.

Finally, in a neutral approach, we can calculate the "net flow" defined as the difference between the outflow and the inflow: $\text{NFS}(a) = \text{OFS}(a) - \text{IFS}(a)$ and the higher the net flow, the better the option.

These three orders (based on flows) can be used to qualify the recommendation, depending on the context.

Example with ELECTRE III:

https://help.xlistat.com/6713-electre-3-multi-criteria-decision-analysis-excel

## AHP method (hard)

The Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) is a decision-making tool designed for groups. It helps to quantify the weights of decision criteria by utilising the experiences of individual experts to estimate the relative magnitudes of factors through pair-wise comparisons. Each expert compares the relative importance of each pair of items using a specially designed questionnaire. With the help of the AHP, the relative importance of the criteria can be determined by comparing the requirements. The best alternative can be found based on the specified criteria.

1. The first step is to create a hierarchy model of the problem. The different aspects of the problem must be explored, starting from general to detailed levels, and then expressed in the multilevel format that the AHP requires. When dealing with complex decision-making problems, a hierarchy approach can help integrate large amounts of information and gain a better understanding of the situation. By building this information structure, we can form a more precise and more comprehensive picture of the problem (Saaty, 2008).

2. After constructing a hierarchy, it can be analysed by making pairwise comparisons to create numerical measurement scales for each node. The criteria are compared against the goal to determine their relative importance, while the alternatives are compared against each requirement to determine preference. These comparisons are processed mathematically, resulting in the derivation of priorities for each node. (see Figure 14).

Example: Choosing a family car: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Analytic_hierarchy_process_%E2%80%93_car_example

<figure><img src="image_219.png" /><figcaption>Figure 14: Simple AHP hierarchy with associated default priorities [Wikipedia]</figcaption></figure>
<figure><img src="image_220.png" /><figcaption>Above: Giammarco Boscaro, book lot on black wooden shelf. September 2017. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/book-lot-on-black-wooden-shelf-zeH-ljowHtg</figcaption></figure>
# 4: References & Resources

## References

Thies, C., Kieckhäuser, K., Spengler, T. S., & Sodhi, M. S. (2019). Operations research for sustainability assessment of products: A review. European Journal of Operational Research, 274(1), 1-21.

Dimitriou, H. T., Ward, E. J., & Dean, M. (2016). Presenting the case for the application of multi-criteria analysis to mega transport infrastructure project appraisal. Research in Transportation Economics, 58, 7-20.

Padulo, M., & Guenov, M. D. (2012). A Methodological perspective on computational engineering design under uncertainty. Proc Applied Sciences and Engineering (ECCOMAS 2012). JE et. al. Vienna, Austria.

Pelissari, R, Oliveira MC, Abackerli AJ, Ben-Amor S, Assumpção MRP. Techniques to model uncertain input data of multi-criteria decision-making problems: a literature review. International Transactions in Operational Research; 2018. doi: 10.1111/itor.12598

Batres, R. Teaching ill-defined problems in engineering. Int J Interact Des Manuf 16, 1321-1336 (2022).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-00978-y

Moffett, A., & Sarkar, S. (2006). Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Diversity and Distributions, 12(2), 125-137.

Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., & Stowiński, R. (2020). How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega, 96, 102261.

Zopounidis, C., & Pardalos, P. M. (Eds.). (2010). Handbook of multicriteria analysis (Vol. 103). Springer Science & Business Media.

Dean, M. (2022). A practical guide to multi-criteria analysis. Bartlett School of Planning, University College London.

Moretti, S., Öztürk, M., Tsoukiàs, A. (2016). Preference Modelling. In: Greco, S., Ehrgott, M., Figueira, J. (eds) Multiple Criteria Decision Analysis. International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, vol 233. Springer, New York, NY.

Bierwirth, Anja, et Stefan Thomas. 2019. « Energy Sufficiency in Buildings ». Wuppertal Institute for Climate, Environment and Energy, 2019, ecece concept papers édition.
https://www.energysufficiency.org/libraryresources/library/items/energy-sufficiency-in-buildings-concept-paper/

Bonjean, Anne-Charlotte, Erwann Fangeat, ADEME, Astrid Forget, Alan Fustec, Camille Hobe, Romain Jaeger, et al. 2022. « État des lieux et perspectives des démarches « low-tech ». » ADEME.
https://librairie.ademe.fr/dechets-economie-circulaire/5421-demarches-low-tech.html

Forrester, Jay W. 1961. Industrial Dynamics. M.I.T. Press.

Batres, R. (2022). Teaching ill-defined problems in engineering. International Journal on Interactive Design and Manufacturing (IJIDeM), 16(4), 1321-1336. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12008-022-00978-y

Roy, B. (1977), Electre III, un algorithme de classement fondé sur une représentation floue des préférences en présence de critères multiples. Cahiers du Centre d'études de recherche opérationnelle, 20 (1) : 3-24.

Moffett, A., & Sarkar, S. (2006). Incorporating multiple criteria into the design of conservation area networks: a minireview with recommendations. Diversity and Distributions, 12(2), 125-137.

Cinelli, M., Kadziński, M., Gonzalez, M., & Stowiński, R. (2020). How to support the application of multiple criteria decision analysis? Let us start with a comprehensive taxonomy. Omega, 96, 102261.

George Richardson. 2013. An Introduction to System Dynamics.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSo8kqbLDlw.

IEA. 2017. « Digitalization and Energy - Analysis ».
https://www.iea.org/reports/digitalisation-and-energy

Ivanova, Diana, John Barrett, Dominik Wiedenhofer, Biljana Macura, Max Calloghan, et Felix Creutzig. 2020. « Quantifying the Potential for Climate Change Mitigation of Consumption Options ». Environmental Research Letters 15 (9): 093001.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab8589

Mateus, Quentin, et Gauthier Roussilhe. 2023. Perspectives low-tech. Editions Divergences.
https://www.editionsdivergences.com/livre/perspectives-low-tech

Pielke, Jr, Roger A. 2007. The Honest Broker: Making Sense of Science in Policy and Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511818110.

Sachs, Wolfgang. 1999. Planet Dialectics: Explorations in Environment and Development. Zed Books Ltd.

Samadi, Sascha, Marie-Christine Gröne, Uwe Schneidewind, Hans-Jochen Luhmann, Johannes Venjakob, et Benjamin Best. 2017. « Sufficiency in Energy Scenario Studies: Taking the Potential Benefits of Lifestyle Changes into Account ». Technological Forecasting and Social Change 124 (novembre): 126-34.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techfore.2016.09.013.

Shukla, P.R., J. Skea, R. Slade, et, A. Al Khourdjajie, R. van Diemen, D. McCollum, M. Pathak, S. Some, P. Vyas, R. Fradera, M. Belkacemi, A. Hosija, G. Lisboa, S. Luz, J. Molley, (eds.). 2022. « Climate Change 2022: Mitigation of Climate Change. Contribution of Working Group III to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change ». Summary for Policymakers. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA: IPCC. doi: 10.1017/9781009157926.001.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/sixth-assessment-report-working-group-3/

Tanguy, Audrey, Lisa Carrière, et Valérie Laforest. 2023. « Low-tech approaches for sustainability: key principles from the literature and practice ». Sustainability: Science, Practice and Policy 19 (1): 2170143.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15487733.2023.2170143.

Vries, Bert de de. 2013. Sustainability Science. Cambridge University Press.

Saaty, Thomas L. (2008). Decision Making for Leaders: The Analytic Hierarchy Process for Decisions in a Complex World. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: RWS Publications. ISBN 978-0-9620317-8-6.

## Resources

Bisdorff, R. (2022). Algorithmic Decision Making with Python Resources. Springer International Publishing.
https://digraph3.readthedocs.io/en/latest/_static/digraph3Tutorial.pdf

Application on transportation: Dean, M. (2022). A practical guide to multi-criteria analysis. Bartlett School of Planning, University College London.
https://silverdecisions.pl/
<figure><img src="image_221.png" /></figure>
<figure><img src="image_222.png" /></figure>

# The Imperative of Responsibility

Philippe Fortemps

7 lessons
1 Training Workshop
<figure><img src="image_223.png" /><figcaption>Above: Novoto Studio. An artist's illustration of artificial intelligence (AI), 2023. Google DeepMind. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/an-artist-s-illustration-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-this-image-depicts-the-potential-of-ai-for-society-through-3d-visualisations-it-was-created-by-novoto-studio-as-part-of-the-visua-18069494/</figcaption></figure>
# The Imperative of Responsibility

<figure><img src="image_224.png" /></figure>

## Learning Hours

To successfully complete this module the learner will engage in:

<table><thead><tr><td>Activity</td><td>Activity Description</td><td>Hours</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Lecture</td><td>Online or in person direction</td><td>12</td></tr><tr><td>Workshop</td><td>Ethical Technology Workshop</td><td>4</td></tr><tr><td>Self-Directed</td><td>Online assessment<br/>Online debates (kialo-edu.com)<br/>Case study assessment</td><td>18</td></tr></tbody></table>

## Module Objectives

Designers, engineers, and managers have a significant impact on people's well-being and the achievement of sustainable development goals. This is because their work shapes social, cultural, and environmental contexts and relations. Ethical principles and tools are essential to address dilemmas that professionals may encounter. Due to their specific competencies, it is their responsibility to adopt an appropriate ethical reflection. The current module is named after Hans Jonas' book.

## Learning Outcomes

Through study in this module learners will:

* Define and understand the great classical and contemporary approaches in ethics.

* Deliberate to make and argue a contemporary ethical judgment on a proposed solution in an identified situation.

* Understand the current emergence and emergency of low-tech approaches.

* Critically evaluate the low-tech approaches with respect to contemporary ethical issues.

* Be a responsible actor, in their personal life, in teams and in design processes.

## References and Further Reading:

* H. Jonas (1984), The imperative of responsibility: In Search of an Ethics for the Technological Age. The university of Chicago Press. English version by Hans Jonas with the collaboration of David Herr of: Das Prinzip Verantwortung - Versuch einer Ethik für die technologische Zivilisation. Frankfurt/M.: Insel, 1979.
<figure><img src="image_225.png" /><figcaption>Above: Gu Evary. Person Jumping from Natural Arch over Sea Shore. Pixels. https://www.pixels.com/photo/person-jumping-from-natural-arch-over-sea-shore-20068515/</figcaption></figure>
# 1: What is Ethics? What is a human being?

One can define ethics (also known as moral philosophy) as:

> "the questioning that precedes the
> introduction of the idea of morality, with
> the aim of living well with and for others in
> just institutions." [1]

While morality consists of describing, discerning, or prescribing what is right and wrong, ethics establishes rational and systematic approaches to understanding, evaluating, and making moral decisions with the aim of living well. In other words, ethics questions the foundations of morality. In this way, it enables us to address new, complex, and uncomfortable ethical issues. They are called dilemmas because we face a limited set of possible actions, all open to criticism.

Ethics, therefore, is not a collection of "ready-to-think" or "ready-to-decide" products. It is preparation for contextualised analysis in a given moment and situation, with identified stakeholders, leading to a decision. Like any rational activity, ethical questioning has its own methods, rigour, and premises.

Ethical agents find themselves torn between conflicting issues. Frequently, they have no other option but to choose and resolve to carry out the least bad action, i.e., the one they can live with. So, ethics cannot be based on a single, stable and definitive foundation that would settle once and for all the questions that might arise. There is no body of universally established certainties but rather a pluralism of virtues, principles, and values.

* An **ethical value** consists of a foundational belief about what is ethically important: justice, happiness, dignity, autonomy, friendship, wisdom... A value can be identified as a supreme good if it is intrinsically good and sought solely for its own sake and not merely as an instrument for another end.

* An **ethical principle** is a general, actionable rule that guides ethical behaviour. For example, remember the golden rule: don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you.

* An **ethical virtue** is a positive character quality that describes individuals acting ethically. Examples include integrity, courage, and responsibility.

Ethics is not just about individuals. It can also concern social or societal choices and institutions. In such cases, ethics must enable us to identify the right decisions, interact with them, communicate them, and justify them to as many people as possible. Such a process of ethical discernment naturally includes a dimension of dialogue.

Ethics goes beyond the law. The law often contains norms that may originate in ethical considerations and social compromises, making them more concrete and operational. However, other factors, such as economic issues, can influence the law differently from ethics. There may be circumstances where ethics is more demanding than the law. Was it ethical to tolerate slavery? What about the unequal rights for men and women?

Occasionally, ethical considerations demand that an individual deviate from the prevailing norms of their community. This can occur within a company, referred to as whistleblowing, or at the national level, known as conscientious objection. For instance, in authoritarian or totalitarian states, would it be ethical to conform to societal standards?

## Human being and the Tribe

An ethical thinker acts as an observer of himself, of others and Society. Imagine you are an observer with cannibals... Obviously, a question burns in your mind: "Why do you eat human beings?" It's an eminently ethical question that fascinates you! Your interlocutor will reply that "those who know cannibals know that they don't eat human beings because they risk being put to death on the spot for taking a human life". But then you might protest: "Wasn't that a man I just saw you put in the pot?" "Of course not," he will reply, shaking his head firmly. "But then, what is a human being?" you might ask anxiously, realising the crucial nature of the answer... "A member of the Tribe!"

This thought experiment[2] highlights the significance of the question, "What is a human being?" The answer to this question can significantly affect the extent of our ethics, as well as our perspective on what is right or just, as it determines the group we identify with.

## References and Further Reading:

[1] Ricoeur, P. (1992). Oneself as another. The University of Chicago Press.

[2] Inspired from Raymond J. Nogar (1998), The Lord of the Absurd
<figure><img src="image_226.png" /><figcaption>Above: Rohit Sharma. Woman in Traditional Clothing Standing in Lake Water for Ritual. November 2024. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/woman-in-traditional-clothing-standing-in-lake-water-for-ritual-20074741/</figcaption></figure>
Class Activities

Ethics:

Gather learners in small groups of 5 to 7 members. Ask them to think what the word "ethics" means and to prepare a short definition. Let them write their response on the board and then compare the different propositions.

Then, propose a more formal definition (by example, the one by Paul Ricoeur presented at the beginning of current class) and stress the differences and the similarities.

Ask learners to propose examples of contexts where morality is not sufficient and where dilemmas are present.

Values and Principles:

Gather learners in small groups. Ask them in teams to identify an ethical dilemma (in their daily life, in their professional context, in current events...), i.e., a problem whose solution is not obvious because it brings at least 2 values, principles, or virtues into conflict. If needed, propose one of the following dilemmas:

I. A friend tells you that he cheated on a test. He asks you not to tell anyone.

II. A classmate is bullied by a group of students. Do you intervene?

III. A member of your team is not contributing equally to the work. What should you do?

Ask learners to highlight the conflicting values, principles, and virtues, while identifying the stakeholders in the dilemma: decision-makers, beneficiaries, etc. If several values or principles are involved, try to establish a hierarchy.

Facilitate a whole-class discussion where teams share their thoughts on their ethical dilemmas. Encourage learners to justify their decisions and consider alternative perspectives.

Human being and the Tribe:

Ask learners to take individually a moment to identify the adjective (or short expression) that they think best defines a human being. They don't need to look for an exhaustive definition, just the word that seems most meaningful to them.

Invite the learners, in pairs, to exchange the paper on which they have written their adjective. Then ask them to think about what the implications might be. What is the natural scope of their Tribe? How can this adjective lead them to the definition of the value that can guide the discernment of the Good?
<figure><img src="image_227.png" /><figcaption>Above: Magnus Flechsenhaar. City tramway on paved street in sunset. February 2020. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/city-tramway-on-paved-street-in-sunset-3841412/</figcaption></figure>
2: Classical ethical approaches

Three Classical Approaches

Classically, there are three main types of ethical approaches.
They can be seen as three angles of view of the human being that
complement each other to inform ethical discussion. Considering
these three perspectives enriches ethical discernment because
they sometimes lead to different recommendations.

* If you consider the human being primarily as a sentient being, you will focus on the effects of actions. This is the realm of consequentialist ethics, also known as utilitarianism, where the moral worth of an action is determined by its outcomes.

* If you consider humans to be mainly logical, you will focus on the admissibility of actions with respect to rules, principles, and reason. You will then refer to deontological approaches such as Kant's deontologism.

* If you consider human beings mainly as agents looking out for their own, you will focus on the inherent qualities of ethical agents. You will then refer to virtue ethics, which is Aristotle's approach.

<figure><img src="image_228.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_229.png" /></figure>

<figure><img src="image_230.png" /></figure>

Consequentialism

In Consequentialism, an action is ethically valued only with respect to the difference between the sum of pleasures and the sum of pains implied by this action. This is the **principle of utility**. On the other hand, there is a **principle of impartiality**: the ethical agent must consider the utility of the action for all the concerned individuals on an equal basis. This can be summarised in Jeremy Bentham's expression, "It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong."

Other consequentialists, such as John Stuart Mill, have insisted on incorporating other dimensions into utilitarianism, highlighting a **hierarchy among human desires**, with lower and higher pleasures or pains.

Utilitarianism is a demanding ethical approach because it seeks not just a better condition for humanity but the **most satisfied humanity**, putting all the concerned people on the same footing.

Moreover, it should also be noted that the starting point was to
consider the human being a sentient being... We must, therefore,
also consider other sentient beings, such as animals and even
plants, in the scope of this ethics.

Deontologism

In Deontologism, an action is ethical if compatible with the duty to satisfy moral laws and ethical reason. Everyone knows the Golden Rule, which can be considered a moral law. However, deontologists, such as Kant, looked for autonomous ethical justification. He introduced the **maxim** as a personal rule of action that agents give themselves. Such a rule is to be consistent with freedom and reason; it makes sense to require that it is **universalisable**. In other words, "Can my desire for action become the law of action for everyone?" Above this minimum requirement to be reasonably legitimate, Kant also requires respect for **human dignity**.

Other deontologists have insisted that unconditional duties can
lead to immoral situations (e.g., telling the truth to a murderer
looking for his victim). This shows that an agent's duties may only
exist in response to the rights of other agents.

Deontologism proposes three tools to filter the set of potential
actions: first, if an action cannot be universalisable, this action
is considered as intrinsically immoral, whatever the beneficial
consequences that might be hoped for in the current situation.
Then, human dignity is an inescapable criterion for our actions:
a person can never be treated as a mere mean. Finally, an action
may only become an ethical duty if it corresponds to someone's
rights.

Virtue

Every human being naturally aspires to be a 'good person' in
their own eyes and the eyes of those around them. For Aristotle,
a person's self-flourishing corresponds both to their intrinsic
qualities and to the development of these qualities in practice.
These qualities are known as *virtues*.

First and foremost, the virtue of **Practical Wisdom** enables us to discern the right attitude to adopt in each situation. Other virtues include courage, friendship, justice, benevolence, tolerance, and open-mindedness... Each virtue is a **golden mean** between two excesses or, more precisely, a flexible middle ground to be discerned according to circumstances, emotions, or context. For example, courage is a golden mean between cowardice and recklessness in the face of fear. As for friendship, it is the right attitude between its vice by default (the cantankerousness) and vice by excess (the self-serving flattery).

The acquisition of these virtues is the result of an ongoing process of self-improvement; on the one hand, by practising each virtue, like a sportsman practises his sport to become a **virtuoso**, and on the other hand, by drawing on selected ethical heroes, we want to be like. Thus, every choice implies the possibility of the agent's ethical improvement.
<figure><img src="image_231.png" /><figcaption>Above: Mehmet Turgut Kirkgoz. Street Sweeper at Work. September 2022. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/street-sweeper-at-work-13695369/</figcaption></figure>
## 2: Classical ethical approaches

### Class Activities

Start by proposing some of the following quotes to groups of learners. Invite them to highlight the differences. Ask them to identify the approach that best suits them. One of them... or a combination of the three? Groups can then share their thoughts with others. Finally, teachers can formally define the approaches.

#### Consequentialism:

a. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832): "Nature has placed mankind under the governance of two sovereign masters, pain and pleasure. It is for them alone to point out what we ought to do, as well as to determine what we shall do. On the one hand the standard of right and wrong, on the other the chain of causes and effects, are fastened to their throne. They govern us in all we do, in all we say, in all we think (...)." "Sum up all the values of all the pleasures on the one side, and those of all the pains on the other (...)."

b. John Stuart Mill (1806-1873): "Few human creatures would consent to be changed into any of the lower animals, for a promise of the fullest allowance of a beast's pleasures; no intelligent human being would consent to be a fool, no instructed person would be an ignoramus, no person of feeling and conscience would be selfish and base, even though they should be persuaded that the fool, the dunce, or the rascal is better satisfied with his lot than they are with theirs."

#### Deontologism:

a. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): "Now an action done from duty must wholly exclude the influence of inclination and with it every object of the will, so that nothing remains which can determine the will except objectively the law, and subjectively pure respect for this practical law, and consequently the maxim that I should follow this law even to the thwarting of all my inclinations."

b. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): "Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it becomes a universal law."

c. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804): "Act so that you use humanity, as much in your own person as in the person of every other, always at the same time as end and never merely as means."

#### Virtues:

a. Aristotle (384-322 BC): "Similarly, the excellence of the horse makes a horse both good in itself and good at running and at carrying its rider and at awaiting the attack of the enemy. Therefore, if this is true in every case, the virtue of man also will be the state of character which makes a man good and which makes him do his own work well."

b. Alasdair MacIntyre (1929-): "Consider the example of a highly intelligent seven-year-old child whom I wish to teach to play chess, although the child has no particular desire to learn the game. The child does however have a very strong desire for candy and little chance of obtaining it. I therefore tell the child that if the child will play chess with me once a week I will give the child 50 cents worth of candy; moreover I tell the child that I will always play in such a way that it will be difficult, but not impossible, for the child to win and that, if the child wins, the child will receive an extra 50 cents worth of candy. Thus motivated the child plays and plays to win. Notice however that, so long as it is the candy alone which provides the child with a good reason for playing chess, the child has no reason not to cheat and every reason to cheat, provided he or she can do so successfully. But, so we may hope, there will come a time when the child will find in those goods specific to chess, in the achievement of a certain highly particular kind of analytical skill, Strategic imagination and competitive intensity, a new set of reasons, reasons now not just for winning on a particular occasion, but for trying to excel in whatever way the game of chess demands. Now if the child cheats, he or she will be defeating not me, but himself or herself."
<figure><img src="image_232.png" /><figcaption>Above: RDNE Stock project. A Girl Talking to Her Mother using a Laptop. June 2021. Pexels
https://www.pexels.com/photo/a-girl-talking-to-her-mother-using-a-laptop-8489039/</figcaption></figure>
3: More contemporary ethical approaches

Care ethics

While classical ethics, which were more influenced by male authors, required ethical agents to be detached from their emotions and indifferent to the people concerned, Care ethics incorporates more feminist ideas. It integrates emotions and human relationships into its reasoning. Inspired by the recent work of the American philosopher Carol Gilligan, this approach involves identifying what is right and what is wrong in a particular situation by recognising the vulnerability of other people and putting ourselves in their shoes.

Since we are essentially social beings, Care ethics considers the
dimension of relationships to be fundamental to ethics. Such
relationships define the specific responsibilities we have towards
people and the natural bias we want to show towards those closest
to us. Our choices are guided by our emotions and empathy in a
context-dependent way.

Care ethics is associated with action, attitude, and motivation. An
appropriate attitude implies compassion, empathy, engagement,
and awareness of the interconnections between beings (human
and non-human).

These sound very much like virtues, with a new emphasis on
the relationship rather than the individual. For example, care
ethics will need to take account of vulnerability and dependency,
particularly where relationships are not symmetrical. Think of the
parent-child relationship, the employer-employee relationship, etc.
Each agent has to improve their capacity (virtu) for empathy and
compassionate action.

Ubuntu ethics

Ubuntu ethics, in line with important African wisdom, highlights a
crucial dimension of our humanity: the relational dimension of the
human person.

Our humanity is inextricably linked to that of others: those who
have gone before me, those who are my contemporaries and those
who will come after me. The key idea is that a human being only
becomes fully human through other human beings.
Of course, no one is perfect at Ubuntu. It's an ethics of self-
improvement, where practising the ubuntu qualities/virtues
(kindness, courtesy, compassion, respect, concern for others...)
leads us to improve together. It's about considering how my choices
can foster the human community dimension of Ubuntu.

So, while it is personal, it is an ethics that emphasises relationships
between people and the community. In such a mindset, we have
a dual duty: to improve ourselves, become a better version of
ourselves, and enable and help others to become better versions
of themselves. Finally, it is important to consider not just human
beings but the entire natural environment in which human beings
live. This holistic vision places human beings within the continuity
of Nature.

The ethical criterion for choosing a particular action is to use one's personal power and resources to commit oneself to the common good rather than to create an isolated individual good or even a plenty of isolated individual goods. An important question that this ethics invites us to consider is the extent to which each of our decisions helps to recreate or strengthen the fundamental social bond of our human community, locally and on the scale of the whole humanity.

Responsibility ethics

Over the years (over the last 300 years or so), humanity has
developed a capacity to disrupt Nature and to have an impact
on the fate of the planet and, therefore, of humanity as well. From
that point of view, Hans Jonas proposed an ethics of responsibility:
the present generations must assume their responsibility towards
future generations and not shift it onto the shoulders of those
future generations. To quote H. Jonas, "We have the right to risk our
own lives, but not the lives of humanity".

This kind of responsibility is to be exercised towards humans who
do not yet exist or do not have the opportunity to participate
in the debate, as well as towards Nature. But H. Jonas finds an
example of a similar responsibility in parental responsibility, which
is a forward-looking responsibility. It is already exercised before the
children are born and gives rise to non-reciprocal duties: parents
have moral duties towards their children because of the latter's
vulnerability. This responsibility is, therefore, driven as much by
reason as by sentiment: a sense of the vulnerability of others to
what I can do or decide.

So, for H. Jonas, responsibility is a correlate of power or knowledge.
The ethics of responsibility call on us to be extremely cautious
out of concern for those who will be the object of the decisions we
are about to make, both because of the power or knowledge we
possess and because of the long-term effects of these decisions.
Such an understanding cannot stand on its own; it creates an
additional duty to educate ourselves, know better and measure the
consequences: a new ethical obligation to perfect our knowledge
and skills in our areas of expertise.
<figure><img src="image_233.png" /></figure>

Above: Kureng Workx. Kids Sitting Near the Laptop. August 2017. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/kids-sitting-near-the-laptop-4314674/
3: More contemporary ethical approaches

Class Activities

Start by proposing some of the following quotes to groups of
learners. Invite them to highlight the differences with classical
ethics as well as to highlight contemporary issues. Groups can then
share their thoughts with others. Finally, teachers can formally
define the approaches.

Care ethics:

a. Carol Gilligan (1936—): "At a time when efforts are being made to eradicate discrimination between the sexes in the search for social equality and justice, the differences between the sexes are being rediscovered." "While men represent powerful activity as assertion and aggression, women in contrast portray acts of nurturance as acts of strength." "While an ethic of justice proceeds from the premise of equality—that everyone should be treated the same—an ethic of care rests on the premise of nonviolence—that no one should be hurt."

b. Nel Noddings (1929—2022): "A great attraction of care ethics, I think, is its refusal to encode or construct a catalog of principles and rules. One who cares must meet the cared-for just as he or she is, as a whole human being with individual needs and interests."

Ubuntu ethics:

a. **Nelson Mandela** (1918—2013): "A traveller through a country would stop at a village and he didn't have to ask for food or for water. Once he stops, the people give him food and attend him. That is one aspect of Ubuntu, but it will have various aspects. Ubuntu does not mean that people should not address themselves. The question therefore is: Are you going to do so in order to enable the community around you to be able to improve?"

b. **Barbara Nussbaum**: "Joe Mogodi, a successful businessman in Pietersburg, South Africa, showed his Ubuntu by buying up 100 sewing machines at an auction, which he then made available to men and women in the community who were interested in starting tailoring businesses but did not have the necessary capital. He honoured their dignity by making a simple verbal agreement that they would pay him for the machines once there were sufficient profits to begin interest-free payments."

Responsibility ethics:

a. **Hans Jonas** (1903—1993): "The finally unbound Prometheus, to whom science confers unprecedented powers and the economy its unbridled impetus, calls for an ethics that, through freely consented restraints, prevents man's power from becoming a curse for him. The opening thesis of this book is that the promise of modern technology has turned into a threat, or that the latter has become indissolubly linked to the former. It goes beyond the observation of a physical threat. The submission of nature to human happiness has led, through the excess of its success, which now also extends to the nature of man himself, to the greatest challenge to the human being that its making has ever entailed."

b. "Act in such a way that the effects of your action are compatible with the permanence of authentically human life on Earth. [...] or simply: do not compromise the conditions for the indefinite survival of humanity on Earth".

c. Ursula Le Guin (1929—2018): "We must learn to keep the balance. Having intelligence, we must not act in ignorance. Having choice, we must not act without responsibility."
<figure><img src="image_234.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ben White. Woman thinking while leaning against a brick wall. December 2016. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/woman-praying-while-leaning-against-brick-wall-yy3GonY48N0</figcaption></figure>
4: Ethical Analysis

Ethical analysis is a practical framework that guides individuals and organisations to make decisions and take actions that align with their values, principles, and societal norms. This course will present the ethical analysis process, a structured approach designed to illuminate the ethical dimensions of decisions and actions. The aim is to equip learners with the practical tools and insights necessary to engage in thoughtful, ethical deliberation and make informed, morally sound choices in diverse contexts by exploring a seven-step evaluation process.

State the
Question

Identify the
Issues

Realise a
Survey

Analyse the
Dilemma

Deliberate

Decide
Ethically

Communicate
the Decision

1. State the question:

At first, the ethical question needs to be clearly posed. While such a question can be one of understanding the ethical situation or identifying the stakeholders' points of view and of the positions taken by the different philosophers, the most interesting question is a question of evaluation, justification, or recommendation. The aim is to determine the best (or worst) option to adopt or perhaps to propose a new option. Of course, a good ethical question does not already suggest an answer. It cannot simply consist in confirming an option already taken. The question must freely open several possibilities or even allow such possibilities to be opened through ethical analysis.

2. Identify the issues:

In the second step, all the ethical aspects must be listed. What are the values, principles and virtues to be considered in the light of the question posed? Among other things, this involves considering the various impacts of the decision on the various stakeholders. Besides the public's or field specialists' opinions, it is interesting to consider various publications (general or specialised scientific literature). An essential point in applying an ethical approach to a technology lies in identifying the intrinsic values of the human activity that the technology will impact.

3. Realise a survey:

An ethical survey consists of consulting people beyond the circle of reflection to find out what they have to say about understanding, identifying, evaluating, and recommending ethical propositions. The scientific or ethical press can provide information on current practices or thinking in the field. The general media will provide information on public opinion. The survey can also involve interviews or even a poll. In this case, an interview guide or a progressive and adaptive questionnaire should be drawn up. For example, a sequence of increasingly difficult ethical scenarios can help to identify the breaking point at which a proposal goes from being ethically acceptable to ethically unacceptable.

4. Analyse the dilemma:

This step addresses the ethical question studied according to the ethical approaches identified in the previous chapters. It is important not to limit ourselves to a single ethical approach, however good it may be. On the one hand, each ethical approach has its own bias and way of looking at an ethical question.
Therefore, formulating several approaches makes it possible to

enrich points of view and lead to more nuanced assessments. On the other hand, each individual acts with a preferred ethics; this may correspond to one of the ethical approaches presented above or to a specific combination of several of these approaches. Formally considering several approaches makes it easier to come to terms with the points of view of the various people involved in the decision.

5.Deliberate:

Today, ethics can only be conceived in terms of dialogue, debate, and deliberation. The importance and complexity of the questions mean that ethical reflection must occur within a think-tank that sufficiently involves the various stakeholders. Ethical deliberation can be defined as a process concerning a group of persons looking for an ethical decision through the exchange of information, the critical exploration of a question and the common building of an argumentation. Such a deliberation must include representatives of all stakeholders as early as possible, enjoy an effective impact on the decision-making process, and be transparent and resource-effective.

6.Decide:

An ethical analysis is a process that aims to make a decision. This decision may not be as simple as just a "yes" or "no." It can also lead to new proposals that can take on various forms, such as innovative recommendations. This makes the ethical analysis process a crucial part of the design process.

However, making a decision is not enough. It needs to be accompanied by a thorough argumentation that lays out all the reasons that led to the proposal. This should include arguments for the chosen proposal and against the others, as well as arguments against the chosen proposal and in favor of the others. It's important to provide the full range of ethical arguments that made the decision possible.

7. Communicate:

When communicating the decision and its arguments, care should be taken to ensure that the wording is accessible to all the stakeholders concerned. Technical and ethical jargon should be avoided. As mentioned earlier, this communication is necessary to ensure the transparency of the deliberation process.
<figure><img src="image_235.png" /><figcaption>Above: Oladimeji Ajegbile. Photo of Man Writing On Notebook. September 2019. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/photo-of-man-writing-on-notebook-2989397/</figcaption></figure>
4: Ethical Analysis

Class Activities

The best thing, of course, is to allow teams of learners to carry out the proposed ethical analysis process step by step. Below are a few points to bear in mind at each step.

1. **Ethical question:** If learners can themselves propose the ethical question that interests them, they will be more involved in the learning process. It is important to ensure that the question is open-ended and, ideally, that it can lead to recommendations about what should be done... or what should have been done.

2. **Ethical issues:** We recommend starting by listing the stakeholders as broadly as possible, before, if necessary, reducing the number to a reasonable value. An important point is to state the intrinsic value of the situation concerned. For example, the exercise of justice can be seen as a punitive task (what punishment should be applied to a particular criminal?) or a restorative one (how can we repair the way we live together?). In the first case, the value is the proportionality and the consistency of the punishment. In the second case, the value is the social link to be rebuilt. Values and principles should come at the end of the current step.

3. **Ethical survey:** The difficulty with documents (written, audio or video) is to obtain sufficiently rich and complete information to answer the three levels of the ethical question. Often, in fact, we will find documents that only address the understanding or the identification of the ethics issues. Others will provide an assessment or a recommendation, but without proposing an explicit reflective pathway.

4. **Ethical analysis:** This stage requires the learners to reposition themselves each time in the mindset specific to each ethical approach. This can be a real challenge for some learners; teachers should support the learners in this.

5. **Deliberation:** Each team can propose a debate to other learners, around their ethical dilemma. In such a case, the practice of Samoan circles can be recommended. This is a debate process in which all participants are put on an equal footing, while organising an effective exchange of arguments. The participants are divided into two concentric circles: only those in the inner circle may speak, but they must regularly make way for participants from the outer circle. To begin with, care is taken to ensure that all points of view are represented in the inner circle.

6. **Decision:** Each team makes explicit the arguments against/in favour of various proposals for a decision. Moreover, they can recommend one of the initial proposals, or argue in favour of a new proposal they present.

7. **Communication:** Each team drafts a written report, adapting the arguments to the decision's main target audience.

The training workshop at the end of this module will propose additional activities that can be used
for different steps of the ethical analysis.
<figure><img src="image_236.png" /></figure>

Above: Warren Wong. person wearing black and red hoodie holding smoke bomb. August 2017. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/person-wearing-black-and-red-hoodie-holding-smoke-bomb-bh4LQHcOcxE
5: Be an ethical actor

The aim of this class is not to provide a complete course on ethical organisational behaviour. Instead, we shed light on some principles relevant to being an ethical actor in a low-tech design process.

Moral integrity

The moral integrity of each implied agent is desirable for all stakeholders to have long-term confidence in the various parties involved and to anticipate their behaviour reasonably. This requires both external consistency and internal coherence and consistency. External consistency refers to the logical alignment between what the agent says or claims and what they do or accomplish. Internal consistency is the logical alignment between the agent's beliefs, values, or principles. Internal coherence reflects the consistency of the belief or value system.

Moral integrity means assuming the same ethical principles or values in each agent's whole life, beliefs and claims, individual or organisational behaviour, and project-related decisions. Any inconsistency in this regard can harm moral agents' relationships with others and put the credibility of their choices at risk. Inconsistencies will be quickly noticed and criticised, as they can be interpreted as dishonesty.

Subsidiarity

The principle of subsidiarity, which has its roots in the writings of Alexis de Tocqueville (1805-1859), suggests that a decision, task, or action should be handled by the level of authority closest to those directly affected. Generally, this level is the one most capable of effectively performing the task at hand.

In the Design Thinking process, the journey begins with an empathy phase, where needs are discovered and listened to. However, it is the test and acceptance phase that truly empowers end-users, as they are entrusted with the final decision to approve the proposed product.

In a product or system designed with the principle of subsidiarity in mind, the user is empowered to make effective choices. It is not the engineer's or designer's role to impose their choices on the user in a paternalistic manner. Such an approach would disregard the user's dignity and autonomy.

Co-design

For a long time, designers, engineers, and managers saw themselves as experts: they did not need to listen to users or even need to listen to each other. So, they designed prodigious products, services, and systems, but they did not necessarily meet end-users real needs.

Co-design brings together participative, open and co-creation design processes. It originated in the participatory approach developed in Scandinavia in the 70s, which included the end-users as the experts in the design process. More precisely, it involves genuine cooperation with users throughout the design process, relying on the strengths of "collective intelligence". It requires to give power and skills for each stakeholder to participate actively and efficiently.

Sobriety / sufficiency

Any co-design project can encounter inherent difficulties. Indeed, when several stakeholders contribute, there is a risk of adding functionalities or improving the technology without any real need. Therefore, the principle of sobriety/sufficiency can be applied to curb undue project drift. First, the design process needs to define a clear, ambitious, but limited scope. Changes are certainly possible, but they will not always be accepted. Then, one must choose the appropriate level of quality and technology, avoiding any gold-plating finishers or useless sophisticated technologies.

Knowing how and when to say "no" is the professional attitude and skill of a project manager who is aware of the various limitations of the design process. Not everything is feasible, given the limited resources or available skills. To go beyond this would involve unacceptable risks.
<figure><img src="image_237.png" /><figcaption>Above: Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona. London Black Lives Matter Peaceful Protest from Hyde Park to Trafalgar Square. June 2020. Unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/man-in-blue-jacket-holding-red-and-white-plastic-cup-72doRdFx-Lo</figcaption></figure>
5: Be an Ethical Actor

Class Activities

To go further, learners can be invited to see how
these character traits recommended for an ethical
agent are integrated into Low-Tech approaches,
for example in the Low-Tech Lab (see the website:
https://lowtechlab.org/en/).

* The "external consistency" in the moral integrity principle is aligned with the Low-Tech Lab principles. Indeed, before advocating for a system or an organization, project managers must experiment with it. See

+ the Low-Tech Explorer program:
https://lowtechlab.org/en/the-low-tech-lab/our-actions/explorer-program

+ the Biosphere experience:
https://lowtechlab.org/en/the-low-tech-lab/our-actions/biosphere-2018

+ the Low-Tech Lab charter
https://wiki.lowtechlab.org/images/a/ad/Monter_une_Communaut_Locale_Low-tech_Lab_Charter_Signature_EN.pdf

* The **subsidiarity principle** is at the core of the values of the Low-Tech Lab. See for examples:

+ the report on the Low-Tech habitat:
https://lowtechlab.org/media/pages/le-low-tech-lab/les-actions/habitat-low-tech/a4127aaf37-1638190947/hlt_-_global_-_web_-_anglais_-_vf.pdf (p. 7)

+ the Low-Tech Lab charter
https://wiki.lowtechlab.org/images/a/ad/Monter_une_Communaut_Locale_Low-tech_Lab_Charter_Signature_EN.pdf

* The **sobriety/sufficiency principle** can find an echo in the first of Cramer's 10R principles of Circular Economy. Indeed, the R0 principle simply states "Refuse, because consumers can do without it!".

+ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_economy

* **French-speaking learners** can also consult the values of Low-Tech as presented in the following video with Corentin de Chatelperron:

+ https://campus.we-explore.org/?CommentFaireMieuxAvecMoinsPenserAutreme
<figure><img src="image_238.png" /></figure>

Above: Amin Hasani. person in blue denim jeans holding black and gray corded headphones November 2020. unsplash. https://unsplash.com/photos/person-in-blue-denim-jeans-holding-black-and-gray-corded-headphones-kSacao6ETQw
6: Technology and Ethics

Some ethical views of
technology

In a neutral or *instrumental* view, technology is seen as *mere means to an end*, or 'just tools' used to solve problems. As such, it is neither good nor bad a priori; it is the use to which it is put that can be subject of ethical judgment. Therefore, Designers, Engineers and Managers can neither be blamed when it is misused, nor honoured when it is used for good. It is the users who are responsible for its use, good or bad.

The progressive view is based on the utopia of indefinite and favourable improvement. Successive revolutions have been driven by the desire to make human beings ever more autonomous in the face of Nature, or to achieve economic imperatives. And any eventual problems posed by contemporary situation or current technologies will inevitably find a solution in future technologies. So, there can be no question here of criticising technology, since it defines a kind of ethics of progress.

Over time, a critical view has been undermined by the many
negative outcomes attributed to the development of technology.
And the accumulation of technologies that are supposed to solve
previous problems has often failed to live up to its promises. A sort
of ethics of caution is emerging here.

An **anthropological** view states that technology is an essential part of human activities. It therefore affects the way we view nature. On the one hand, technology often finds its source in our **admiration for Nature** and the prodigious survival dynamics it conceals. On the other hand, technology offers us new ways of relating to and **using Nature**, often by exploiting its resources. It also transforms our humanity, since human beings can be described as a technological species. But the existence of a given technology can limit our ability to invent new responses that are more appropriate and more respectful of a new problem or context.

Finally, a symbolic view considers that technology is an integral part of the history of human civilization, and that it constitutes a heritage that we inherit. Therefore, it is a legacy that calls into question its accessibility to all human beings. In some sense, this opens the question of Open Source and Open Design.

Value alignment of technology

**As an instrumental value** (a means of achieving another value), technology must contribute to positive ends and avoid contributing to negative outcomes. For positive outcomes, we can ask for reliability and resilience. As far as negative outcomes are concerned, the principle is to minimise the risks, either by reducing the probability of their occurrence or by reducing their actual impact. When considering the negative effects of a technology, all human groups must be considered separately. Since some could be systematically negatively impacted, it is not enough for a technology to be acceptable on average: it has to be acceptable to everyone.

**As an intrinsic value** (a value in itself), technology becomes a capability of the human beings, rather than a simple toolbox. The focus will then be more on the actual way in which the technology works than on its results. Indeed, elegance, coherence, simplicity... are expression of beauty, even for technology. As a human capability or legacy, technology must not compete with other human values: democracy, autonomy, etc. Finally, we must avoid passing on technologies that are intrinsically evil as part of the human heritage.

Ethical by Design

The "Ethical by Design" mindset integrates ethics as an essential
constituent of the Design process. It ensures that ethical issues,
principles, and values are considered from the beginning and
through the whole process. It also seeks to promote collaboration
and innovation in ecosystems, instead of isolated companies.
Among many others, we can note the "Value Sensitive Design"
methodology, as well as the Responsible Research and Innovation
(RRI) concept developed as a process implying societal actors and
innovators in a mutual responsibility with respect to ethics and
sustainability.
<figure><img src="image_239.png" /><figcaption>Above: Google DeepMind. An artist's illustration of artificial intelligence (AI). July 2023. Google DeepMind. Pexels. https://www.pexels.com/photo/an-artist-s-illustration-of-artificial-intelligence-ai-this-image-depicts-ai-safety-research-to-prevent-its-misuse-and-encourage-beneficial-uses-it-was-created-by-khyati-trehan-as-part-17485633/</figcaption></figure>
6: Technology and Ethics

Class Activities

After presenting the contents of this Class, it may be interesting to
 invite teams of learners to consider one given technology and to
evaluate it with respect to ethical issues. They can look for elements
in favour or in disfavour of this technology, either from the ethical
approaches discussed in Classes 2 et 3, or from the specific issues of
current Class. The online tool Kialo (see Resources) enables arguments
to be recorded efficiently, collaboratively, and progressively,

* An existing technology that generally stimulates discussion is the guillotine. Although deeply rooted in French history, it leaves no one indifferent, whatever their origin.

* One can also consider the invention of the steam engine, with its immediate and positive impacts on mining and on industry, but also with its other impacts on environment and sociology.

* Another technology is that of guns. Learners can be asked to evaluate to what extent do guns transform a man into a gunman.

* A final example is the prolific invention of torture technologies over the centuries. Can we take a neutral view of these technologies? How can they be assessed from an anthropological or symbolic perspective?
<figure><img src="image_240.png" /></figure>

Above: Jordan Skattum. Man Forging Metal. October 2019. j.mt_photography Pixels. https://www.pixels.com/photo/man-forging-metal-3680094/
7: Low-tech and similar spirits

A "technological paradigm" delineates the specific requirements to be addressed, the scientific foundations applied, and the materials and technologies utilized within a given context. It is a structured approach to resolving technical and economic challenges by employing carefully chosen scientific principles coupled with defined strategies to develop, protect, or disseminate knowledge. This Class provides selected quotations about different technological paradigms.

Low-Tech

"The issue is not between growth and degrowth, but between endured degrowth - because the question of resources will catch up with us at some point - or chosen degrowth."

Ph. Bihouix (2014), L'âge des low-tech, Seuil, p. 113.

"A technology is low-tech if it constitutes a basic technical element of a sustainable, equitable and convivial society."

J Carrey, S. Lachaize and G. Carbou, Les low-techs comme objet de recherche scientifique. Vers une société pérenne, équitable et conviviale. Online : https://lapenseecologique.com/6312-2/

"Without a social, cultural and politicised low-tech approach, low-tech will not contribute to a technical democracy, and without bodies for the democratic deliberation of our socio-technical and socio-economic choices, low-tech risks not achieving its systemic, cultural and social dimension".

Q. Mateus and G. Roussilhe (2023), Perspectives Low-Tech. Editions divergences.

Convivial Tech

"A convivial society should be designed to allow all its members the most autonomous action by means of tools least controlled by others."

"An individual relates himself in action to his society through the use of tools that he actively masters, or by which he is passively acted upon. To the degree that he masters his tools, he can invest the world with his meaning; to the degree that he is mastered by his tools, the shape of the tool determines his own self-image.

Convivial tools are those which give each person who uses them the greatest opportunity to enrich the environment with the fruits of his or her vision. Industrial tools deny this possibility to those who use them and they allow their designers to determine the meaning and expectations of others. Most tools today cannot be used in a convivial fashion."

"The future depends more upon our choice of institutions which support a life of action than on our developing new ideologies and technologies."

I. D. Illich (1977), Tools for Conviviality.

Frugal innovation / engineering

"There is more to this than simply cutting costs to the bone. Frugal products need to be tough and easy to use. [...] Frugal innovation is not just about redesigning products; it involves rethinking entire production processes and business models."

The Economist (2010), First break all the rules: the charms of frugal innovation, The Economist, 15 April, available at: www.economist.com/node/15879359

"Frugality was a virtue of the ancient world when economic resources were deficient, and is equally relevant to most of today's emerging economies where similar conditions exist."

"[Frugal innovation is] meeting the desired objective with a good-enough, economical means. [...] At the basic level, frugal innovation could be thought of as a "mindset", or a "way of life". At an activity level, it could be construed as a "process" or a "workflow", and finally, the "outcome" could be manifested as a product or a service."

P. Soni and R.T. Krishnan (2014). Frugal innovation: aligning theory, practice, and public policy. Journal of Indian Business Research, 6(1), 29-47.
<figure><img src="image_241.png" /><figcaption>Above: Quang Nguyen Vinh. Asian boy helping grandfather to make bird cages. February 2021. Pexels
https://www.pexels.com/photo/asian-boy-helping-grandfather-to-make-bird-cages-6712948/</figcaption></figure>
7: Low-Tech and similar spirits

Design Thinking, Human Centred Design

"It's not 'us versus them' or even 'us on behalf of them.' For
a design thinker it has to be 'us with them'."

Tim Brown, CEO and President of IDEO

"We spend a lot of time designing the bridge, but not enough time thinking about the people who are crossing it."

Dr. Prabhjot Singh, Director of Systems Design at the Earth Institute

"We must design for the way people behave, not for how we would wish them to behave."

Donald A. Norman, Living With Complexity

Simplicity

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger and more complex. It takes a touch of genius - and a lot of courage - to move in the opposite direction."

E. F. Schumacher (1973), Small is Beautiful, in The Radical Humanist: volume 37, p. 22

Small is Beautiful

E. F. Schumacher (1973), Small is Beautiful: a study of economics as if people mattered, Blond and Briggs. Available online: https://www.ditext.com/schumacher/small/small.html

The KISS principle: keep it simple, stupid.

Happy sobriety

"Sobriety is a happy option that produces a lighter, calmer and freer life. Happiness is not in possessing, in having, but in being."

"True power lies in the capacity of a human community to be content with little but to produce joy."

"It is in today's utopias that tomorrow's solutions lie."

Class Activities

To better appreciate the quotations of current Class, learners can be asked to write a personal essay on their motivations for adhering to one or other approach, with a view to convince other learners. Of course, they should first look for additional insights and motivations by browsing literature, websites, and so on.
For example, the website of the Low-Tech lab: https://lowtechlab.org/en/low-techs

Such an activity is crucial in the training of designers, engineers, or managers in relation to the Low-Tech approach. Indeed, they will often be asked by their peers to justify adopting an approach that is not "mainstream". They therefore need to develop their argumentation, drawing on a variety of arguments.
<figure><img src="image_242.png" /></figure>

## Our Design Goal:

WE WANT TO...

BY DOING...

IN ORDER TO...

With specific stakeholders (think inclusively) in a clearly identified territory (geographically, in terms of tangible or intangible resources.)

## Ethical Assessment

### Virtue Ethics

*An action is morally right just because it would be done by a virtuous person acting in character*

* Is your design morally right? Why (not)?

* How could you change that?

### Care Ethics

*An action is morally right just because it would be done by an altruistic and self-denial person*

* Is your design morally right? Why (not)?

* How could you change that?

### Deontologism

*An action is morally right just because it abides moral "rules and" serves a person's moral duty*

* Is your design morally right? Why (not)?

* How could you change that?

### Ubuntu Ethics

*An action is morally right just because it respects human dignity and serves the human community in harmony with Nature*

* Is your design morally right? Why (not)?

* How could you change that?

### Consequentialism

*An action is morally right just because it produces the best actual or expected results for the most people*

* Is your design morally right? Why (not)?

* How could you change that?

### Responsibility Ethics

*An action is morally right just because it produces the best results for the permanence of genuine human life on Earth*

* Is your design morally right? Why (not)?

* How could you change that?

## Ways for Improvements:

* Which virtues could your design affect?

* Positively or negatively?

* How could your design stimulate virtuous behaviour and commitment to human flourishing?

* How could your design help to perceive the interpersonal links?

* How could your design encourage personal experiences and self-reflection?

* How could your design encourage personal experiences and self-reflection?

* What kind of person does your design appeal to?

* Is your design inclusive, with the mindset of attentiveness to each individual stakeholder?

* What would the world be like if everyone uses your design?

* Would you use your design?

* Would you let your children know and use your design?

* In your design, do you treat people with respect and not solely as a mean to achieve a goal?

* In your design, do you treat the human community with respect and not solely as a mean to achieve a goal?

* In your design, do you treat Nature with respect and not solely as a mean to achieve a goal?

* Would your design improve people's expertise, with a view to passing on the legacy to future generations?

* What are the consequences of your design for the different stakeholders and for the territory's resources?

* Could your design bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number?

* Can you include corrective responsiveness to observed negative effects?

* Could you improve the consequences for the least satisfied stakeholder? Or the least well impacted? Or to the weakest stakeholder?

* Does your design preserve or enhance the potential for future generations to live at least as well as the current one?