Towards a formal axiology for sustainable infrastructure development

Transcription

1 icccbe 2010 Nottingham University Press Proceedings of the International Conference on Computing in Civil and Building Engineering W Tizani (Editor) Towards a formal axiology for sustainable infrastructure development Nora M. El-Gohary Dept of Civil and Environmental Engg, University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, USA Azzam Qari Det of Civil Engineering, University of Manitoba, Canada Abstract There is an increasing demand for maximizing the economic, environmental, and social value of our infrastructure systems as a means for developing sustainable infrastructure. Sustainable infrastructure development requires collaborative planning and coordination among key stakeholders. Project stakeholders have usually varied and possibly conflicting definitions and prioritization of values. Joint understanding and alignment of values among stakeholders is essential to avoiding potential conflicts, improving cooperation, and facilitating joint decision-making that maximizes the collective value of our infrastructure systems. In the context of collaborative sustainable infrastructure development, an axiology is a model that represents and reasons about values and valuation. It addresses core questions, such as: What are the processes or products that add or may add value? How to valuate the values of these processes or products? Formal axiology is a branch of axiology that uses mathematical formalism to define value and value systems. It attempts to model value principles with mathematical rigor. Modeling axiologies in a formal format is a key to semantic (computerunderstandable) axiologies. Semantic representations facilitate intelligent reasoning for the development of intelligent decision-support systems. This paper starts by discussing the need for a formal axiology to support collaborative sustainable infrastructure development. It follows by providing a brief overview of the meaning of axiology and the approaches previously used to develop axiologies in other domains. The paper, then, discusses a set of potential applications of formal axiologies in the infrastructure domain. Finally, the paper presents the initial modeling efforts towards a formal axiology for the infrastructure domain. The formal axiology is a semantic model that conceptualizes and reasons about values and valuation, considering different stakeholder perspectives. Keywords: collaborative design and construction, sustainability, axiology, decision-support systems 1 Introduction The development of sustainable infrastructure is a key objective in planning, designing, and developing sustainable cities. Sustainable development involves the pursuit of solutions that are socially-equitable, economically-effective, and environmentally-viable (known as the three dimensions or the triple bottom line). Recent studies are calling for maximizing the lifecycle economic, environmental, and social value of infrastructure as a requirement for developing a sustainable infrastructure over its lifecycle (Levitt, 2007) and are advocating the adoption of performance-driven, stakeholder-centric processes that ensure full satisfaction and value to all stakeholders (Rezgui, 2007). However, these stakeholders have usually varied and in many cases

2 conflicting definitions and prioritization of values (what is of worth, merit, utility, or importance). Joint understanding and alignment of values among stakeholders is essential to avoiding potential conflicts, improving cooperation, and facilitating joint decision-making processes that maximize the collective value of our infrastructure systems. Various value approaches ( Engineering, Analysis, and Management) have been implemented for many years as a means of improving the value of products, projects, or processes. However, these value approaches are mostly function-focused analyses that express value as a ratio of function to its cost (Kelly, 2007). Their main purpose is to accomplish the essential functions at the lowest total cost, consistent with the required levels of performance and quality., from a holistic perspective, is a more complex concept that carries rich and varied meanings depending on the person perceiving the value and type of value being considered (economic, environmental, social, technological, ideological, etc.). Existing value approaches have, thus, in reality been focusing on function and cost, rather than value. As such, a major gap still exists in the areas of value assessment of infrastructure systems and value-sensitive infrastructure development. In the context of sustainable infrastructure development, we need to better understand, conceptualize, model, and reason about value in its complex and holistic sense and considering different stakeholder perspectives. The aim is to maximize the collective value of our infrastructure systems by clarifying each stakeholder s values, supporting partial agreement and/or alignment of values among stakeholders, and selecting/designing the entities (processes, products, actors, etc.) that maximize those values. To address this need, this paper proposes a contemporary use of a philosophical theory of value (axiology) as a value model that aims at conceptualizing and reasoning about value and valuation in the infrastructure domain. In this paper, the term value is used in its broad meaning, which is what a person or group of people consider of worth, merit, utility, or importance. In the remainder of the paper, we introduce axiology by providing a brief overview of its meaning, approaches, and applications; we briefly discuss a set of potential applications of axiology in the construction and infrastructure domain; and finally, we present our initial modeling efforts towards the development of a formal domain axiology. 2 Axiology: A brief overview of meaning, approaches, and applications Axiology is a general theory about values, their origins, interrelationships, and dynamics (Macedo et al., 2006). The term axiology is derived from the Greek word axios, meaning worth or value. Researchers have been considering and analyzing axiology and value systems from two main, distinct perspectives (Macedo et al., 2006): 1) a pure economic perspective: assumes that value represents monetary value or worth of a product or service; and 2) a socio-psychological perspective: defines value as a set of shared beliefs and ideologies on moral or ethical principles. However, recent studies argue that axiology cannot be reduced to moral philosophy or monetary-based value/worth (Echeverria, 2003; Filipe, 2003). Formal axiology is a branch of axiology, introduced by Robert Hartman, that uses mathematical formalism to define value and value systems. It attempts to model value principles with mathematical rigor (Hartman 1967, 1973). Hartman (1973) defined value in terms of logic-based axioms, stating that value can be objectively determined according to a one-to-one correspondence between the properties of a given object and the meaning specifications contained in its concept (Abreu et al., 2008). He also introduced three dimensions for value based on their concepts: 1) Systematic is the fulfillment of the formal concepts and has two values; either perfection or non-value, such as laws, policies, and rules; 2) Extrinsic is the fulfillment of the abstract concepts and concentrates mainly on comparisons and relatives; and 3) Intrinsic is the fulfillment of the singular concepts. This is the dimension of uniqueness (persons or things as they exist in themselves).

3 Applications of axiology and value systems have been proposed and studied by researchers in several domains such as education, healthcare, organizational management, and information system design. Goguen and Linde (Goguen, 1994) developed a method that determines the value system of an organization from a collection of naturally-occurring stories that are told by the members of the organization on informal occasions (e.g. coffee breaks). The value system is represented as a value system tree, in which higher level nodes correspond to higher level values. Filipe (2003) modeled organizations as a multi-agent system, where an agent could be a collective agent (an organization) or an individual agent (a member of the organization). The organizational model includes an axiological component (that includes the values of agents) for solving eventual conflicts of interest (Macedo et al., 2006). Gordijn and Akkermans (2003) developed a value model that supports e-commerce business processes. The model represents actors who are exchanging things of economic value with each other. The model includes a set of e-commerce-related concepts: actor, market segment, value activity, value interface, value offering, value port, value exchange, and value object. Camarinha-Matos and Macedo (2008) proposed a conceptual model of value systems in collaborative networks. The main objective of this model is to encourage a joint understanding among different types of stakeholders in a network. The model includes a definition of seven elements: value, evaluation object, evaluator, evaluation, evaluation dimension, degree of importance (of an evaluation dimension for a given evaluator), and evaluation perspective. 3 Potential applications of axiology in the infrastructure domain Collaborative sustainable infrastructure development is driven and/or hindered to a significant extent by a set of values and motivations. In the context of collaborative sustainable infrastructure development, formal axiology is proposed in this paper as a science that can be implemented to provide a framework for understanding and reasoning about values, and consequently facilitate valuebased decision-making. This paper proposes a set of potential applications of formal axiology in the infrastructure domain a set of axiology-based decision-making support systems: Infrastructure planning: Infrastructure planning has become more complex due to the number of standards and regulations that must be met and taken into account, and the involvement of different stakeholders in the infrastructure planning process (Niekerk and Voogd, 1999). Transportation systems, especially in urban environments, are among the critical infrastructure that requires complex planning. The development of transportation systems involves a multitude of stakeholders from different disciplines with varying interests and concerns. Stakeholders decisions, which are influenced by their values, have impacts that last for decades or even centuries. An axiology-based value system (a decision-making support system) would support the sustainability of our infrastructure systems by considering stakeholders economic, environmental, and social values during the planning process. The system would represent stakeholders individual values that are relevant to the transportation project. Given a set of proposed alternative solutions, the value system would analyze each solution, based on stakeholders individual and common values, and recommend a solution accordingly. Public-private partnerships (P3s): The differences in stakeholders (public and private) sets of values and the interrelationship between them play a major role in P3s. Several P3 initiatives have faced public opposition, which ultimately led to infrastructure project failures (El-Gohary et al., 2006). For instance, public mistrust was a key factor in public opposition and the concomitant failure of new hazardous waste disposal site construction projects in the United States (Ibitayo, 2002). Accordingly, P3s could be facilitated and supported by developing an axiology-based value system that models and analyzes the concerns and expectations of public and private sectors. The system would promote joint understanding among both sectors and provide the required transparency throughout the entire infrastructure development lifecycle.

4 Process integration: Our ability within the infrastructure domain to collaboratively blend individual processes into an integrated process remains limited due to the complexity of integration and the lack of a formal, systematic integration method. -based process integration, as suggested in this paper, aims at integrating individual processes in a way that maximizes the collective values of a set of collaborating stakeholders (a network). From a value-centered perspective, the cornerstone of a process integration system is developing a network (integrated) axiology that defines the values that are added by each process to the network and integrates those processes in a way that maximize its collective values what are the processes that add value, what are these values, how are these values measured (valued), and how are these processes integrated in a way that maximizes its collective values? Global projects: The construction industry is one of the industries facing the current wave of globalization with several studies investigating the ensuing challenges (Ngowi et al., 2004). Some of these challenges arise from working on infrastructure projects in foreign countries and within unfamiliar environments with different norms, cultures, and regulations. One way to mitigate these challenges is to implement a value system that aims at clarifying local values and valuation mechanisms. It would assist stakeholders (local and international) by highlighting their conflicting values and their differing valuation mechanisms, and proposing means of aligning those values and/or mechanisms. The aim is to minimize unexpected delays and/or additional costs in global projects arising from differences in norms, cultures, and regulations. Partner selection: The selection of the right partners is crucial for the success of any collaborative network. An axiology-based partner selection tool would assist a collaborative network in evaluating and selecting a potential partner (individual or organization) in a way that maximizes the value added to the network. The system would identify value-adding processes, define methods of measuring the value added by these processes, analyze the core competencies of each potential partner and assess the value(s) contributed by each, and accordingly evaluate different candidates and promote those who would best contribute to the collaborative network s value system. This system could be a tool for evaluating contractors/subcontractors/suppliers and selecting those who add higher value to the network. Conflict resolution: Conflicts might occur among stakeholders as a result of value misalignment. It is natural that each stakeholder would have his/her own set of values and/or value definitions. For instance, the definition of reliability might be different from one stakeholder to another. Similarly, cost might be a top priority for one stakeholder (e.g. the developer) but not for another (e.g. a public stakeholder affected by the project). An axiology-based value alignment tool would facilitate the creation of a joint definition of values among stakeholders. It would also assist in reaching a partial agreement on the prioritization of common values. The intent is not to totally eliminate conflicts or completely align the values of stakeholders, but rather to create a shared understanding of values and value measures, and consequently to better understand the causes of conflicts and work on reconciling the differences in conflict situations. 4 Preliminary axiological model for the infrastructure domain The axiology models the most fundamental values in the infrastructure domain in a structured, extendable, and flexible format. This will facilitate future evolution and extension of the axiology for representing enterprise-specific or individual-specific values. This paper presents the initial modeling efforts towards developing the formal axiology. Future work will present the formal axiology and illustrate its application in the area of infrastructure planning through an axiology-based decisionsupport system for collaborative transportation planning. This application focuses on the three main sustainability dimensions: economic, environmental, and social values. These are identified,

5 Axiological Concept Characteristic Valuation Activity Assessor Va34eeeeeeeeee Bearer Valuation Mechanism Valuation Control Modality Attribute Comparativeness View Absolute Relative Environmental Analysis Measurement Judgement Individual Organization Provenience View Individual Organizational Industry Sustainability View Economic Innateness View Intrinsic Extrinsic Social Project Product Actor Resource Mechanism Action Event Process Guide Strategy Best Practice Method & Technique Measure Test Metric Technical Contractual Practical Regulatory Law Standard Code Air Quality Water Quality Soil Quality Noise Level Infrastructure Cost Employment Rate Business Improvement Land & Property Health & Safety Community Cohesion Cultural Heritage Quality of Life Figure 1. Upper-level preliminary axiological model for the infrastructure domain modeled, and utilized to support value-sensitive multi-stakeholder decision-making during transportation planning. The axiology is structured into axiological concepts, inter-concept relations, and axiological axioms. An axiological concept (see Figure 1) is a valuation activity, a value assessor, a valuation mechanism, a value, a value bearer, a valuation control, or a valuation characteristic. A valuation activity is performed by a value assessor using a valuation mechanism to assess the value of a value bearer and is controlled by a valuation control. A value has a value characteristic, which could be a value attribute or a value modality. A value attribute is a characteristic that describes a value. A value modality is a characteristic that describes a value and denotes its belonging to a particular category of values (e.g. environmental versus economic versus social values, extrinsic versus intrinsic values, individual versus organizational versus industry-wide values, etc.). A value is a relative or absolute worth, merit, utility or importance (e.g. sustainability, quality, safety, profit, knowledge, technological advancement, etc.). A value bearer is an entity that adds or holds value actual or potential to the system, such as an actor, process, product, resource, or project. A value assessor is an individual or organization that assesses the value of the value bearer. A valuation activity is performed to valuate the value of a value bearer (e.g. an analysis, measurement, judgment, etc.). A valuation mechanism is a guide, method/technique, or measure that is used to valuate a value. A value control is a regulatory, technical, contractual, or practical control that directs or constraints the valuation activity (e.g. environmental regulations, codes, standards, stakeholder requirements). Axiological axioms are a set of formal rules defined using axiological logic that establish the relative or absolute values of

6 value bearers. Axiological logic is a type of modal logic that deals with values, using notions such as good, bad, indifferent, etc. 5 Conclusions This paper discusses the need for a computer-understandable value model (a formal axiology) for the infrastructure domain to support collaborative sustainable infrastructure development. Initial modeling efforts towards a formal domain axiology are presented. The model addresses a set of key questions: What is of worth, merit, or importance to the stakeholders (the values)? What are the things that add or may add value to the stakeholders (the value bearers)? How to valuate the value(s) of these value bearers? For example, how to valuate the sustainability of a specific product, process, or potential partner? Being formal and semantic, the axiology supports automated reasoning about values and valuation to serve as a foundation for developing intelligent axiology-based decision-support systems. An axiology-based decision-support system for collaborative transportation planning is currently under development. The originality of the research stems from proposing a contemporary use of a philosophical theory (axiology) for semantically modeling values and valuation, thereby presenting the first axiological modeling effort in the construction domain. References ABREU, A., MACEDO, P., and CAMARINHA-MATOS, L.M., Towards a methodology to measure the alignment of value systems in collaborative networks. In: A. Azevedo, ed. Innovation in Manufacturing Networks. Boston: Springer, pp CAMARINHA-MATOS, L.M., AND MACEDO, P., A conceptual model of value systems in collaborative networks. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing, Available online: Last accessed: November ECHEVERRIA, J Science, technology, and values: Towards an axiological analysis of techno-scientific activity. Technology in Society, 25, EL-GOHARY, N., OSMAN, H., and EL-DIRABY, T., Stakeholder management for public private partnerships. International Journal of Project Management, 24, FILIPE, J., The organisational semiotics normative paradigm. In: Camarinha-Matos, L.M., Afsarmanesh, H., eds. Collaborative networked organizations. London: Springer, pp GOGUEN, J., Requirements engineering as the reconciliation of technical and social issues. In: Requirements engineering: Social and technical issues. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Professional, Inc., pp GORDIJN, J. AND AKKERMANS, J.M., based requirements engineering: Exploring innovative e-commerce ideas. Requirements Engineering, 8(2), HARTMAN, R., The structure of value: Foundations of a scientific axiology. Carbondale, IL: South Illinois Press. HARTMAN, R., The measurement of value, Available online: Last accessed: November IBITAYO, O., Public-private partnerships in the sitting of hazardous waste facilities: The importance of trust. Waste Management and Research, 20(3), KELLY, J., Making client values explicit in value management workshops. Construction Management and Economics, 25, LEVITT, R., CEM research for the next 50 years: Maximizing economic, environmental, and societal value of the built environment. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 133(9), MACEDO, P., SAPATEIRO, C., and FILIPE, J., Distinct approaches to value system in collaborative networks environment. In: Camarinha-Matos, L., Afsarmanesh, H., Ollus, M., eds. Network-Centric Collaboration and Supporting Fireworks. Boston: Springer, pp NGOWI, A.B., PIENAAR, E., TALUKHABA, A., and MBACHU, J., The globalisation of the construction industry-a review. Building and Environment, 40, NIEKERK, F. AND VOOGD, H., Impact assessment for infrastructure planning: Some Dutch dilemmas. Environmental Impact Assessment Review, 19, REZGUI, Y., Knowledge systems and value creation. Industrial Management and Data Systems, 107(2),