measure2.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 performance or results of an enterprise or social system must be measured against relevant criteria, which include values, objectives, goals and priorities. A variety of measurements can provide feedback guidance to various contributing operations, to modify processes as necessary to improve performance. (Drucker, 6)

A measurement is a comparison, normatively to some standard. The standard may be be clear, but is often vague or implied. For example, rates of crime and/or imprisonment, in comparison with other countries, or as trends over time within one jurisdiction, may be offered as objective indices of social justice, or effective policing, or as support for some other possible value or objective. The validity of such claims must rest on empirical evidence which considers not merely various correlations of data but system dynamics e.g. policies, intended effects and actual results. It may be said that, from a systems perspective, the lowering of crime rates represent success for values which guide policy and actions. (Of course, all statistics must be open to scrutiny. The lowering of crime rates by falsification of reports and failure to register and pcute crimes would be a perversion of the claimed values.)

Information which is readily available may or may not not be significant as a measurement. Statistical information can be meaningless and/or misleading. The validity and usefulness of the comparisons are empirical questions. The relevance of measurements may be illuminated by considering the relationships of values to actions and effects from a systems perspective. Not just any measures will serve,

Values may be termed "objective" when they meet criteria which are agreed upon by different observers. Many measures in current use, e.g. statistics of crime, income levels, child mortality, etc., carry implied comparisons in relation to other jurisdictions and have been studied in many ways. Of course, values may be objective without being useful.

The question of "subjective"values are more complex. This category may include whatever people feel or assert to be their values. These may be indeterminate for an observer. They may be used to justify actions regardless of outcomes e.g. on the basis of duty (deontological values.) But they may be important in their effects, and folk wisdom and scripture agree that "actions speak louder than words" and "by their fruits ye shall know them".

We are here using the term value to describe criteria involved in the evaluation of actions and events. Thus, purported values which are held to be absolute, i.e. not subject to any further assessment, might also, and perhaps more clearly, be identified as Ideals or Principles. (These often reflect a Cartesian dualism which separates mind from body, thought and action, and is at odds with the non-dualistic views of integral systems being advanced here.)

Of course values based on personal opinions can be assessed in various ways e.g. by questionnaires and interviews, etc. These may be important in their own ways., and may also be important as aggregate public opinion. However, it has been one of the tasks of social scientists, in attempting to describe such values, to bring the evidence for them into a realm of discourse which is consensual, that is, to objectify what is being described.

Subjective values may be more strictly said to be incommunicable, not yet formalised for inclusion within the conceptual framework of scientific description and measurement. Thus, the burden of proof of the meaning of
subjective values lies on the proponent, who has the obligation to demonstrate their meaning.

Our consideration here will be limited to two kinds of "objective" comparisons which reflect the requirements of a systems perspective. Within the relationships which define any system there are two aspects of decisive import- ance. The first is the system EFFECTIVENESS in achieving the effects or outputs that are required to provide for its continuing existence - e.g. animals must obtain food and warmth, etc., social groups must perform the functions for which they are being supported, companies must provide services which meet market needs, and so forth.

Effective performance may be described in terms of achieving intended goals and meeting real needs, the outcome(s) which it is the business or purpose of a system to produce.

The second key consideration is the EFFICIENCY of energy and resource utilisation in achieving the intended outputs - e.g. the ratio of costs to presumed benefits will be influenced by waste, corruption, or diversion of efforts away from agreed intentions. This distinction has been recognised in the management literature (Drucker,6)

Efficiency is improved as the ratio of output/input is increased. Efficiency involves doing better what is already being done. It may be noted that, if methods actually entail very different requirements and/or side-effects, simple comparisons may be misleading. For instance, apparent efficiencies which really depend upon external conditions, such as social changes for educational and transportation inputs, tax subsidies, waste disposal, etc., may require open and detailed accounting for a proper evaluation of efficiency and even effectiveness. In such cases simplistic comparisons may be of limited interest, and their advocacy may be suspect.

The global description of a society in terms of all its inputs and outputs, including those internal to it, involves many complex paths and relations. Outputs of various components are in fact inputs to other components. Overall prosperity, i.e. effectiveness in meeting needs of people and markets, can only be judged in terms of a great variety of interests, as by electorates, where the key measures have to do first with effectiveness i.e. "doing the right things".

Measures of effective performance involve the comparison of what is achieved to what is needed and intended. Performance is grounded in values and outcomes which meet human needs and requirements, including a healthy
and sustainable environment. To establish such needs depends upon empirical inquiry.

Effective performance cannot be assessed solely in terms of process - e.g. of rules of law, duties, roles, or functions alone. These are no more than means to end-values involved in meeting real needs. Constitutions and the
role of law are not absolutes, but abstractions to be assessed ultimately by how well they serve the preponderant needs of a people.

Parra-Luna has described A REFERENTIAL PATTERN OF VALUES (Parra-Luna, 9) which provides a useful focus for discussion here.

Nine values described are: Health, Material Wealth, Security (Law and Order), Knowledge, Freedom, Justice, Environmental Conservation, Quality of Activities, and Prestige. According to Parra-Luna, we all pursue these
end-values, but differ in the relative emphasis given to them. Such values are deeply embedded in our social fabric and growing in global importance. Precise definitions are subject to debate. Some values may lead to conflicts in practice (e.g. security vs freedom), and/or have been interpreted in ways that encourage behaviours which are unsustainable, (e.g. material wealth vs environmental conservation) .

Ordinary observation reveals other values - particularly power and sex - which frequently confound logical approaches. Moreover, the real values which determine actions are seldom to be known directly, and usually can
only be inferred from the activities which they govern. To some degree such values are really products of analysis, and lie in the eye of the beholder. Ascribed values sometimes reveal as much about the observer as about what is being observed.

In any case, any formalised schema or list of presumed values in the form of abstract concepts require assessment in relation to the phenomena to which they point.

The identification of various specific indicators may be a useful way of pointing to unmet needs or to undesirable comparative standings e.g. in health, education, social justice or economic well-being. Few governments are happy to be seen as ranking low on such lists in comparison to other jurisdictions. Such indicators may be a kind of general spur to further analysis and political action. However, to translate such indicators into values, with criteria useful for management decision-making, requires that another step be taken.

This step is that of examining existential considerations - tests of experience which condition the meaning of abstract concepts and measures and provide for ongoing checks on such realities. The freedom to correct errors, and to assess and correct systems processes, to minimise the risks of future errors, must always be a premium value.

An epistemological position is involved here. It is the case that any fixed list of values must, in principle, be incomplete. Specification of particular values in measurable terms can only be approximate and provisional, subject to endless improvements (Popper, 10).

Such considerations bear upon measurement criteria, including those described by Parra-Luna, used to try to quantify values. The usefulness of convenient statistical indicators may be somewhat limited, and attention should be directed to performance measures which provide for feedback. The following remarks are intended as points deserving of clarification, not as insuperable obstacles to progress The values mentioned involve different dimensions, levels and relationships. The clarification of each is really a major undertaking.

HEALTH as a concept is inherently ambiguous. It presupposes certain norms and expectations, and the absence of illness and disorder. Terms and measures are no more than approximate. Of course, health is relative to such factors as age, adaptive challenges and compensatory adjustments. Every organism is constantly learning and reorganising in various ways, such flexibility being a sign of health. Healthy stability at one stage may be maladaptive at another. Indicators which reveal and track needs for change may have special value, but no absolute measures are possible.

MATERIAL WEALTH must also be seen as relative to expectations and conditions of existence. Economic criteria which take for granted ever increasing growth (e.g. Gross Domestic Product) and by implication present
this as acceptable strategy, are sending misleading signals. It is likely to be just as important to identify and track changing conditions conditions which bear upon the creation of wealth, including natural resources and ecology, climate, and human resources. Measures which anticipate needs may be more useful than even current leading indicators.

SECURITY (LAW AND ORDER) may be measured by global indices (e.g. by crime statistics, etc.) but effective management must really take into account the many conditions which shape human behaviours. Prevention as well as remedial actions, and insurance for damages, are required. In addition to law enforcement, social policies need to meet needs for education, support of family life, employment and other conditions found to be relevant. Societal values which may promote social pathology require a systems strategy for their management. Many such factors are well known, and their relevance needs to be made more explicit.

KNOWLEDGE, in the widest and most important sense, involves information which is reliable and relevant, Specific knowledge is the basis for sound judgments in all areas of human life. The validity and relevance of
knowledge is not self-evident but requires value judgments. High performance in any field requires the continuing pursuit of improved knowledge and skill. A notion of knowledge per se as providing a fixed and reliable basis for ongoing measurements may be misleading. Once again, there are no absolutes.

FREEDOM has many meanings (the term is often used simply to obfuscate and avoid unwanted restrictions). In practice, when used as a signal or slogan to elicit unthinking response, appeals to "freedom" may be in effect opposed to responsible freedom. Freedom as a value stands for an increase in options for choice. Freedom is a kind of superordinate value, related to responsibilities, desicions and results, The exercise of such freedom contributes to conditions which help to realise other values e.g. health and security. Careful specifications are required.

JUSTICE depends upon knowledge, along with rules of law and due process, freedom of enquiry, and the enabling conditions of a healthy society. In addition to such formal protections, social justice also requires educational and work opportunities and political freedom. Here again, specifications for measures are complex and cannot be given in absolutes.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSERVATION also involves values of knowledge and justice. The appropriate utilisation of natural resources is based upon science. Despoilation of the commons which is not the result of ignorance may be criminal. The knowledge, rules of law and measures required for long term sustainability present problems of the greatest ethical importance. Many values such as material wealth and human rights cannot be measured in the absence of this larger context i.e. an adequate "ecological" and social systems perspective..

The QUALITY OF ACTIVITIES, as these contribute to the potential for human development, are both influenced by, and contribute to, other values, such as knowledge, or individual or environmental health and well being. Like issues of prestige, they are closely tied to cultural expectations which may be involved in proposed measures.

PRESTIGE, as a proxy for values of respect and influence, may also include power, whether of individuals or states. The values by which prestige may be assessed are of great systemic importance in reinforcing other values.. And to be measured, and found wanting or even undeserving, is not without consequences. It is also desirable to distinguish the prestige of demagoguery from the statesmanship of a Nelson Mandela. Here again the
operational implications of the value are of the essence.

To summarise, the most useful reference pattern of values should be seen as providing a structure and opportunity to assess the individual and social criteria by which human lives are being guided., and to reevaluate these on a continuing basis. These are assessments of great complexity, and any attempt to find simpler measures may run counter to Ashby's Principle of Requisite Variety, and to that extent be dangerously misleading. A first principle is still "Do no harm"

Another value is that of CREATIVITY, particularly in solving problems, A deep understanding of the actual operations of an existing system is a necessary preliminary for considering how elements may with advantage be rearranged. Points of strategic leverage include the consideration of more effective goals as well as more alternatives from which to choose.

At the dawn of history in Mesopotamia, royal courts were conceived as systems, patterned on the bodies and cycles of the universe - the life-giving sun, the supporting moon and planets, with priests and others through rituals transmitting the powers to govern life (Campbell, 5). The systems had utility in societies based on agriculture. Mythologies gave structure and support to societal functions, and concepts systematised to provide unity and purpose.

But a system of social unity cannot simply be imposed, Many values take on their meaning and power only from the "bottom-up", in terms of real and effective contributions to others. At a minimum what is required is an integrating vision supported by undistorted feedback concerning the business of the whole.

A major obstacle to the serious consideration of values is a kind of phobia (Scriven 11), which may indeed reflect realistic fears of vulnerability to arbitrary powers. And hisotry teaches that any serious strategy for change must deal with values of aggressive self-promotion that maintain arbitrary powers in place.

An adequate strategy requires both conceptual and empirical methods. A systems approach can provide language and models of relationships which can be examined for effectiveness. Clear description of an actual system in all of its known relationships may provide clues. There may be faulty relationships at the levels responsible for integration - such as discrepancies between real intentions, stated goals, and actual results. There may be lack of information, or a lack of the specific feedback necessary to correct errors in direction. Disagreements may arise from different assumptions and mental maps, as shaped by values. A redesign may be possible, but would require much wisdom and commitment (Beer, 2)

The final terms in the hierarchy of values which can be known to human beings have more to do with processes of free inquiry than with formal or conceptual truths. Formalisation of any system of beliefs has the inherent disadvantage of closing the system to possible further knowledge. These limitations are ever present for human thought and social life.

With respect to the possibilities for creating really adequate governmental structures we are perhaps in the position of mediaeval physicians ignorant of germs and physiology. While knowledge of management and systems
sciences is growing, we still have much to learn about political power, the blindness induced in most of those who seek such power, and integration of distributed powers of governance. We need societal arrangements which better provide for mutual coercion, mutually agreed upon. (Hardin, 12)

Above all we need to combine intelligence and responsibility in the service of values which reflect the conditions and requirements of the universe which supports us. To meet these requirements we need a much more precise
and useful understanding of all the terms of this challenge. We need improvements in accounting, but must be ever mindful of the oversimplifications inherent in all abstractions.

In summary, this paper makes a plea, and sets out grounds, for considering values not as fixed or absolute, but as provisional concepts, subject to validation by observation and trial, intended to both reflect outcomes and guide action. The tasks and problems of measuring values in this sense can only be a cooperative enterprise guided by principles of a systems science (second order cybernetics) which takes human observers into account.

(1) Adler, M. (1985) Ten Philosophical Mistakes. New York: Macmillan.
(2) Beer, Stafford (1994), Platform for Change, John Wiley & Sons
(3) Buchanan, B.(1997a) "Assessing Human Values", Kybernetes, Sept/97 -
                also see: ceptualinstitute.com/genre/buchanan/homepageBB.htm
(4) Buchanan, B.(1997b) "Values, Systems, and Consciousness", The Noetic Journal, Vol 1 No. 1 June, 1997
                also see: ceptualinstitute.com/genre/buchanan/homepageBB.htm
(5) Campbell, Joseph (1959) The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology. Viking Press (New York)
(6) Drucker, Peter F. (1973) Management: Tasks - Responsibilities - Practices. Harper & Row (New York)
(7) Mesthene,Emmanuel, G.(1968), 'How Technology Will Shape the Future' in Purposive Systems:
                First Annual Symposium of the American Society for Cybernetics, p.67 ff. Spartan Books.
(8) Newman, Peter C. (1998), Titans. Viking/Penguin
(9) Parra-Luna, F., Axiological Systems Theory: The role of Values in the Evaluation of Social Systems
                (Universidad Computense do Madrid)
(10) Popper, K. (1992) The Open Universe: An Argument for Indeterminism. London: Routledge
(11) Scriven, Michael (1987), Theory and Practice of Evaluation.
(12) Hardin, G. "Tragedy of the Commons.", Science, and many reprints.