Values in Engineering Design

Publisher Summary The aim of this chapter is to philosophically explore the role of values in engineering design. Value is at the heart of engineering design. Design creates value for companies, users and, ultimately, for society. Value statements are statements about whether certain things or state of affairs are good, i.e. valuable, or bad in a certain respect. If things or states of affairs are bad, they often not only lack value but also even have a negative value. Value statements are to be distinguished from statements of preference, i.e. statements about what individuals prefer. Establishing that something is a value or professing it to be valuable means not only claiming that it is valuable to me but also that it is or should be of value to others. Statements about the value of things or state of affairs are evaluative statements: they evaluate something or a state of affairs in terms of a value. Value statements are therefore to be distinguished from descriptive and prescriptive statements.

[1]  Ian Dennis,et al.  Cognitive processes in engineering design: a longitudinal study , 1994 .

[2]  Christine M. Korsgaard.  Aristotle and Kant on the Source of Value , 1986, Ethics.

[3]  M. Franssen.  Arrow’s theorem, multi-criteria decision problems and multi-attribute preferences in engineering design , 2005 .

[4]  Kevin Otto,et al.  Measurement methods for product evaluation , 1995 .

[5]  Behnam Taebi,et al.  To Recycle or Not to Recycle? An Intergenerational Approach to Nuclear Fuel Cycles , 2007, Sci. Eng. Ethics.

[6]  H. Simon,et al.  A Behavioral Model of Rational Choice , 1955 .

[7]  Michael Byron,et al.  Satisficing and Optimality* , 1998, Ethics.

[8]  Batya Friedman,et al.  Value-sensitive design , 1996, INTR.

[9]  Jonathan Baron,et al.  Regular ArticleProtected Values , 1997 .

[10]  P. H. Kahn,et al.  Human values, ethics, and design , 2002 .

[11]  John Broome,et al.  Is incommensurability vagueness , 1997 .

[12]  Donald A. Schön.  Designing as reflective conversation with the materials of a design situation , 1992, Knowl. Based Syst..

[13]  Christine M. Korsgaard.  Two Distinctions in Goodness , 1983 .

[14]  P. Tetlock.  Thinking the unthinkable: sacred values and taboo cognitions , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[15]  H. Simon,et al.  Rational choice and the structure of the environment. , 1956, Psychological review.

[16]  C. Sunstein.  Cost‐Benefit Analysis and the Environment* , 2004, Ethics.

[17]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Structure of Ill Structured Problems , 1973, Artif. Intell..

[18]  Ruth Barcan Marcus,et al.  Moral Dilemmas and Consistency , 1980 .

[19]  Norman Daniels,et al.  Wide Reflective Equilibrium and Theory Acceptance in Ethics , 1979 .

[20]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  Investigating ethical issues in engineering design , 2001 .

[21]  D. Didion,et al.  Quest for alternatives , 1987 .

[22]  Pieter E. Vermaas,et al.  Actions Versus Functions: A Plea for an Alternative Metaphysics of Artifacts , 2004 .

[23]  Peter Kroes,et al.  Design methodology and the nature of technical artefacts , 2002 .

[24]  Gary S. Wasserman,et al.  ON HOW TO PRIORITIZE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS DURING THE QFD PLANNING PROCESS , 1993 .

[25]  Ibo van de Poel,et al.  The Need for Ethical Reflection in Engineering Design The Relevance of Type of Design and Design Hierarchy , 2006 .