The Use of an Axiological Lens to Review Globalised Automation and Control Systems Projects

Problems in the design, development and management of large scale systems have be related to the multi-cultural contexts in which these systems are developed and deployed. Culture can be defined in terms of human values (axiology). Using an axiological lens, this paper explores potential value conflicts between systems engineers and the praxis in which they are formally educated. The findings provide evidence to support an axiological perspective of systems engineering and suggest that axiology could be extremely useful in understanding various aspects of systems engineering development, ethics and management. 1. BACKGROUND & MOTIVATION Cultural meanings are an embodiment of the values held by different cultural groups. These values are formally studied in the discipline entitled axiology. Cultural anthropology shows us that organisations will need to adopt an axiological perspective if they are to be successful in a globalised economic system (Barrett (1998), Byrne & Bradley (2007)). Automation and control technologies are now key players in the monitoring, control and management of large-scale organisational activities. These activities occur in a mixed cultural context, across many national boundaries simultaneously and involve human activity systems which comprise people with a wide variety of social and ethnic backgrounds. These technologies are typically constructed by teams of systems engineers distributed across the world, from different socio-ethnic backgrounds and using a variety of engineering techniques. Some researchers have suggested that the values that inform systems engineering, and the methodologies that are used to develop and deploy automation and control systems, require attention, especially in our attempts to understand the dynamics of system failure (Freeman, Stapleton & Byrne (2007), Goulielmos (2005) & (2003)). In spite of this, a conceptualisation of culture and organisation has yet to be incorporated into theories of technology design, development and management. With a few notable exceptions, neither human-centred systems research nor development methodology research have paid much formal attention to the complexities and ambiguities of cross-cultural exchanges as cultural artefacts. Anthropologists looking at cultural aspects of information technologies have described culture as “a constellation of meanings” (Greene and Murphy (1997)). This complex web of meanings can be defined in terms of the system of values which inform the culture. Recent work shows how the values espoused by members of national and regional cultural groups explain their distinguishing cultural traits (Schwartz (2006)). These examined cultural effects in terms of values espoused by any particular cultural group. This study explored the relationship between human values (as determinants of cultural similarities and differences) and the development processes of automation technologies. 2. ENGINEERING ETHICS AND VALUES Researchers have shown that systems engineers experience ethical difficulties in their work. These studies have tended to argue that this requires new approaches to ethics and has tried to set out new trajectories for the ethics of engineering (c.f. Stapleton (2007)). However, any particular ethical stance reflects some set of values which underpin it. Consequently, rather than concentrate just on ethical analyses per se, engineering ethics research which attempts to understand the effects of globalisation (for example) should also concern itself with the value systems underlying systems engineering praxis. Research has shown how certain systems engineering methodologies embody a particular ethical position, and this is reflective of a particular set of values (Rogerson, Weckert & Simpson (2000)). However, few researchers have attempted to frame this as a value-systems issue, rather than an ethics issue. This raises the following question: given that systems engineering methods are underpinned by a set of values, and given that systems engineers come from a wide variety of cultural and ethnic backgrounds, is it possible to explain ethical difficulties that systems engineers experience in terms of value conflicts? This in turn raises a deeper question: is it possible that the praxis of systems engineering has systematically built into it the potential for creating value-conflicts for systems engineers? This paper explores this second question. Proceedings of the 17th World Congress The International Federation of Automatic Control Seoul, Korea, July 6-11, 2008 978-1-1234-7890-2/08/$20.00 © 2008 IFAC 8113 10.3182/20080706-5-KR-1001.2171 This paper first briefly sets out a theory of human values. It then explores this theory in terms of systems engineering methods. It proceeds to sets out a research question and propositions for the paper and outlines a research study designed to test the propositions. The paper then sets out some findings as regards the personal values of young engineers from distinct cultural groups. Finally, conclusions are drawn from these findings and future research possibilities outlined. 2. ETHICS AND AXIOLOGY: THE STUDY OF HUMAN VALUES Recently, a series of papers in the automation and control systems literature have called for a revised perspective of engineering ethics (c.f. Stapleton (2007); Hersh (2002); Hersh & Moss (2004); Bitay, Brandt & Savelsberg (2005)). Research has indicated that certain modes of reasoning underpinning systems engineering, which themselves reflect particular value orientations, are becoming outmoded and problematic (Stapleton (2006)). Systems engineering development methods is one particular domain which has received little attention in this regard (Stapleton (2006)). It is clear that the research that underpins the development of the systems engineering methodologies now taught and practiced by systems engineers is itself not morally or ethically neutral. A much richer ethical perspective is urgently needed that takes engineering beyond codes of ethics and explores the deeper processes which inform engineering praxis and the processes by which advanced technologies come to be (Stapleton (2006)). Ethical analysis alone cannot take into account the human values which underpin ethics itself. The human values which inform engineering research and praxis need careful scrutiny and consideration. Axiology is the study of human values and is a branch of philosophy closely related to ethics. Ethics informed by concerns about morality and the relative importance of human values. Based on the work of Rokeach (1973), Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) devised a theory of universal types of values as criteria by viewing values as cognitive representations of three universal requirements which are, biologically based needs of the organism, social interaction requirements for interpersonal coordination and social institutional demands for group welfare and survival. In order to measure the values of individuals Schwartz developed the Schwartz’s Value Survey (SVS) which measure the relative importance to an individual of 57 sets of different values (Schwartz (1992)). According to Schwartz (1990, 878) “values are concepts or beliefs, that pertain to desirable end states or behaviours, they transcend specific situations, guide selection or evaluation of behaviour and events, and are ordered by relative importance”. In the SVS the 57 values are used to represent 10 motivationally distinct value domains that are theoretically derived from universal requirements of human life. Summarising, these are: 1. Power (social power, authority, wealth), 2. Achievement (success, capability, ambition, influence on people and events), 3. Hedonism (gratification of desires, enjoyment in life, selfindulgence), 4. Stimulation (daring, a varied and challenging life, an exciting life), 5. Self-Direction (privacy, creativity, freedom, curiosity, independence, choosing one’s own goals), 6. Universalism (broad mindedness, beauty of nature and arts, social justice, a world at peace, equality, wisdom, unity with nature, environmental protection), 7. Benevolence (helpfulness, honesty, forgiveness, loyalty, responsibility), 8. Tradition (respect for tradition, humbleness, accepting one’s portion in life, devotion, modesty), 9. Conformity (obedience, honouring parents and elders, self-discipline, politeness) 10. Security (national security, family security, social order, cleanliness, reciprocation of favours (Lindeman and Versasalo 2005). Data gathered from individuals along each of these 10 domains have shown to load two bipolar dimensions. These are summarised as: 1. Conservation (whether people resist change and emphasise self-restriction and order) versus Openness to Change (whether people are ready for new experiences and emphasise independent action and thought). 2. Self Transcendence (whether people are willing to transcend selfish concerns and promote the welfare of others) versus Self Enhancement (whether people are more motivated to enhance their own personal interests even at the expense of others). These two dimensions reflect the different motivational goals of the 10 basic values and the two major conflicts that organise the whole value system (Lindeman (2005)). 3. SYSTEMS ENGINEERING AND HUMAN VALUES This paper has already shown that systems engineering, as a discipline, is not morally or ethically neutral (Hersh etc...). Control and automation engineering are embodiments of values associated with, for example, the enlightenment, scientific bases for progress and confidence in certain forms 17th IFAC World Congress (IFAC'08) Seoul, Korea, July 6-11, 2008