measure1.htm

This article is publication pending as a chapter in
"The Measurement of Performance of Social Systems" *
planned by Prof. Fransisco Parra-Luna of the University of Madrid,
Professor of Management Science and Cybernetics.
Publication date not yet set.

                                        Contents:
             Abstract
     1. Introduction
     2. Needs and Values
     3. Values and Ideologies
     4. Values and Performance: Effectiveness and Efficiency
     5. Values: Patterns and Specifics
     6. Creative Possibilities and Vision
             References

The premise of this paper involves a systems view that all human values are the result of evaluative processes, and reflect human needs and perceptions. Human values do not describe the world as it is, but reflect human needs and purposes, as captured by thought and language, and potentially a vision of what might be.

The necessities of human existence provide the impetus to structure values, which may enhance possibilities of choice. Human beings and social groups are faced by many demands, which influence their perceptions of reality.
While they long for security and certainties, sober reflection reveals that the source of reliable values is to be found only through processes of free inquiry. Claims for absolutes which transcend human thought do not escape the need for confirmatory reasoning and empirical tests.

Human needs are given in life and experience, material for but prior to thought. Values can be priorized only in the light and on the basis of experience.

Value criteria are justified primarily by their effectiveness in meeting basic human needs - biological, personal and social - as well as felt needs for more universal or spiritual significance. Values of effectiveness ("doing the right things") are primary, and after these come values of efficiency ("doing things the right way").

A reliable system of values provides for possibilities for growth and freedom, and adaptation to new challenges. Closed systems of presumed truths cannot perform this essential service. "Universal" values (when not used to denote absolutes beyond human ken) are grounded in human observations which take into account responsibility and consequences for all life. Analysis of values provides potential leverage for the wise management of affairs. But the need for continuous measurement, and periodic reevaluation of criteria with respect to evolving open systems, admits of no final resting place.
_______________________________________________________
** Bruce H. Buchanan, M.D., D Psych., is a retired physician who has had a career in medical practice, public health, psychiatry, university teaching (School of Graduate Studies, University of Toronto), and two decades in
governmental policy and administrative work (Director and Senior Policy Advisor, Ontario Ministry of Health), with a lifelong interest in philosophy and cybernetics:

Our theme is the strategic role of values in the systematic guidance of behaviour. Our focus here will be the function of values, and the need for their systematic assessment in terms of relationships and results, rather
than as fixed or arbitrary concepts. The light thrown on values, considered from a systems perspective as decision criteria through which needs are met, makes the challenge of reassessing the nature and role of values eminently worthwhile (Buchanan, 3,4).

In attempting to better understand values we face formidable problems. The subject is close to the hearts of many people, and a diversity of assumptions are defended with vigour and often much anxiety. One of the most eminent of philosophers, Michael Scriven (Scriven, 11), has even described a kind of "value phobia" as a feature of our time.

Nevertheless, values are literally decisive in the shaping of purposes, steering behaviours and achieving results. They inform human affairs at all levels, and values that are covert or misleading can be a source of many problems. Governments and many large organisations are today being guided by values (e.g. social, political and economic indicators) which have not all been adequately appraised in what they purport to measure. (Some of these will be discussed in more detail below, in section 5. Values: Patterns and Specifics)

We may begin by considering the nature and role of values, in relation to system dynamics in general and the performance of social systems in particular. The distinction needs to be clearly made between (1) actual performances in the real world, which determines success or failure in life, and (2) performance *measures*, which reflect abstractions, always less than complete. While measurements are important, it is also vital to recognise the kinds of comparisons involved and their possible limitations. Measures of value require careful analysis, but must be justified by usefulness.

Power, it has been said (Newman, 8), is the production of intended effects. The factors involved in the exercise of power may be usefully described in terms of systems. A system is usually defined in terms of the specific factors which determine its outcomes. Thus the elements and relationships which comprise systems are identified for their contributions to the purposes and criteria, or values, which shape results. Inputs and components are controlled by feedback from criteria based upon governing values. (The environment is usually defined in terms of factors beyond the boundaries of the system and not under its control, but which may have important effects upon it.) Of course, power may also be described in terms of force and coercion (the implicit model being that of a machine),
but the responsible exercise of social power must be transparent with respect to values and results if it is to be effective and efficient in the long run.

Social systems may pose problems of many kinds. Turning around a company that is losing its markets and is structurally impaired is difficult. It may be even more difficult to turn around a political entity damaged by its history, customs, and fears. It is especially difficult if such bodies are saddled with false certainties, convinced of the worth of faulty values. Finding creative directions for a world besieged by such problems may be hopeless without a vision based upon values which recognise needs for planning and change.

Peter Newman writes: "Inheritors often lose their nerve and are frightened of responsibility" (Newman, 8) Since fear and ignorance block communications, "telling the truth" to the power-that-be may not be possible, Finding a common ground and language is a prerequisite. But many basic assumptions may need to be challenged and revitalised, and no side has all the answers. At least since the times of Socrates and Jesus, this has been a dangerous kind of activity.

Of course, values do not describe an actual world "as it is". They reflect the use of abstract language, in terms of which alternative possibilities may be envisioned. Human evaluative processes also reflect biological and unconscious needs. To the extent that "universal" values may be described they are the product of the same kind of consensual validation as is involved in any scientific inquiry. Validation based upon shared experience is a more trustworthy foundation than imagined absolutes. Values are always provisional, i.e. subject to revision in the light of experience.

We live in schizoid societies, in which values, societal programs and daily activities are often in conflict, which may or may not be recognised. Leaders often do not "walk their talk". Thus, it is of the utmost importance that the values which govern performance in various areas be open to assessment. Effective values cannot be adopted prematurely and fixed; both the world and human needs change. Nor should one set of values be used for purposes of public relations, another set for self-promotion, and real responsibilities treated as an afterthought.
Performance criteria should be able to distinguish such uses.

Among the most important values which influence human lives and events we know that power looms very large. Some philosophers (e.g. Nietzsche) have seen the "will to power" as the primary drive. Other thinkers (e.g. Freud) and many professionals engaged in the arts of manipulating consumer choices, exploit human interests in sex. Certainly desires for power and sex are major motivating forces. And the desire to retain power far beyond
security needs is perhaps a major obstacle to social change. However, it is beyond the scope of this paper to deal in any further detail with these values, important as they are. Our attention will be on the measurement of more pedestrian values.

What are the sources of values? They stem from the necessities of life and requirements for normal human development.All people have "rights" to life, to what they need to maintain their existence (Adler, 1). Such human
rights have been described in terms of universal values which, in various forms and degrees, must be present in all enduring human societies. Yet even "universal" values can only be the product of consensual validation - as involved in any scientific inquiry. In addition, and relative to time and place, there are cultural values which reflect local and traditional habits and expectations, but are not as vital to life itself.

Parra-Luna's Axiological Systems Theory (Parra-Luna, 9), identifies nine "universal" values for consideration and possible measurement. (These will be discussed below - section 5. Values: Patterns and Specifics)

In a hierarchy of values the final or ultimate terms depend upon process, and entail freedom of inquiry into new developments and possibilities rather than formal concepts - which depend more upon context, at lower levels, Values are reflected in the functions of living systems and cannot be entirely captures in words and concepts. Indeed, the formalisation of any system of beliefs has the inherent disadvantage of closing the system to further consideration. In relation to human thought, language and values. it is essential to keep our ideas open to learning and new experience.

Our purpose here is to consider values in their potential role as measures of performance at various specified systems and levels (individual, group or institutional). We should also be clear about what may be seen as the
major requirements for performance measures at any level. These include:
1) effectiveness of the system (whether an individual or social group) in doing what is required to meet the needs;
2) goals that validly reflect real human needs;
3) goals that take account of systemic limitations e.g. requirements for sustainability;
4) methods that take into account political factors involved in implementation;
5) aims that do not foreclose on novel and creative possibilities.

It is not the purpose of this paper to provide specifics by which values may be measured. The first requirement is to consider an adequate intellectual framework for dealing with systems and action programs. In effect we are addressing the design requirements for a communication system with appropriate controls rather than specific programs; We are considering the design of a possible video-cassette recorder (VCR) to facilitate viewing, rather than characters and plots of programs to be watched.

Human needs are the primary source of our values. Both individuals and social group have essential requirements. These needs influence their perceptions of the realities within which they live.

These real and pressing needs reflect the biological, psychological and social necessities of normal life and development. When these needs are not met, human life is impaired. There may be disagreements about where to
draw precise lines, but basic necessities for life are recognised by all.

Values and goals may, however, serve a variety of purposes, and may have more to do with wants or desires which have no natural end-points. The problems involved in defining and measuring such values have not all been
well described, and certainly have not been solved. Efforts are required in this direction in the interests of transparency and perceived fairness.

Needs and effects that are obvious may not be the most important, and what is easiest to measure may not be the most significant. Convenient measures of economic activity, such as the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) may be
inadequate as measures of economic health. Within the totals of such an index there may be components which in reality are opposed in their effects e.g. commercial activities which may add to costs for health care, or armaments which negate rather than add to useful production.

Societal ideologies such as "free enterprise" capitalism and democratic socialism are seen by their advocates as justified by their results. However, an ideological conviction is not evidence, and decision processes must be guided by facts. And it is less than honest to select only that evidence which proves a case, and to neglect facts which point to problems. In particular, it is vital to avoid the kind of restrictions which block feedback necessary for adapting to real world conditions. Systems must be open to be effective in the long run.

As used in this paper, values refer to decision criteria which steer behaviour, in particular towards the kinds of results intended to meet specified needs. Values are defined in terms of outcomes which can be described in operational terms, i.e. which can be clearly understood and experienced by others. Ideologies, in contrast, are abstractions which cannot always be described or tested in terms of experience and results.

While there is a valid role for faith in unseen possibilities, the test of truth lies in evidence, and particularly in predicted fruits of action. Ideologies are often used as the basis for claims to authority and power which are usually shown in the event to be arbitrary, whatever the beliefs of their proponents. History provides many examples of such distortions, both well-intentioned and cynical.

Claims or intellectual justifications on behalf of ideologies - e.g. capitalism, socialism, or fascism, etc. - tend to make selective use of evidence. From a systems perspective a valid or scientific approach must take into account all the relevant data. Elements of importance cannot be arbitrarily ruled out of consideration as "externalities", of no concern - as too often done by apologists for "free enterprise".

Ideological positions, like other intellectual hypotheses, are only as good and useful and the evidence which supports them, and as the enhancements of knowledge that they bring. Many previous generations sought intellectual security in ideological absolutes. But genuine security requires responsibility - in examining evidence systematically, in making responsible evaluations. (Scriven, 11) and in the discriminating use of intelligence, no holds barred. This is the only process by which enduringly useful values can be established. It also means that in principle there are no arbitrary limits to be imposed on developments in human affairs.