A framework for designing for divergent values

Abstract

Designers increasingly collaborate with other actors to deliver designs that address diverse stakeholder needs. Such multidisciplinary design processes revolve around integrating various, often divergent values, including the ideals that collaborating actors have, and the different kinds of worth that they attempt to realize. As values are multidimensional and continuously in flux, the process of designing for divergent values requires conscious action. Existing theories of values and methods for integrating diverse, possibly competing values are still scattered across disciplines, leaving designers with little overview and handles for what they have to deal with. Synthesizing insights from workshops with architects and literature from a wide range of scholarly domains, this paper presents a first step towards an integrative framework that can help designers and design students to effectively discuss and reconcile divergent values in multidisciplinary settings.

Full text

39
BOS-DE VOS
This work is licensed under a
Creave Commons Aribuon-NonCommercial 4.0 Internaonal License.
1. Introducon
To successfully co-create value for clients, users, government, society and other stakeholders,
divergent values need to be integrated in the design process. On the one hand, a design
needs to generate dierent kinds of worth to stakeholders who may have diering values
(Boradkar, 2010). On the other hand, collaborang actors will bring various underlying ideals
and movaons to the table that have to be reconciled (Bergema, Kleinsmann, & Valkenburg,
2011). Actors oen refrain from idenfying, explicang and discussing the values that play
a role in their design process, or only focus on specic types of values, thereby overlooking
others that may also be important (Van Onselen & Valkenburg, 2015). This may lead to
tensions in the process or a result that is less desirable to certain stakeholders.
Designers could play an important role in opening up discussions about values, as they are
able to analyse and visualize complex phenomena and processes, and connect dierent
disciplines through their designs (e.g. Dorst, 2011; Manzini, 2009). Although designers
are trained to operate in increasingly collaborave and muldisciplinary processes, and to
A framework for designing for divergent values
Marina BOS-DE VOS
Faculty of Industrial Design Engineering, Del University of Technology, The Netherlands
m.bos-devos@tudel.nl
doi: hps://doi.org/10.21606/drs.2020.374
Abstract: Designers increasingly collaborate with other actors to deliver designs
that address diverse stakeholder needs. Such muldisciplinary design processes
revolve around integrang various, oen divergent values, including the ideals that
collaborang actors have, and the dierent kinds of worth that they aempt to realize.
As values are muldimensional and connuously in ux, the process of designing for
divergent values requires conscious acon. Exisng theories of values and methods
for integrang diverse, possibly compeng values are sll scaered across disciplines,
leaving designers with lile overview and handles for what they have to deal with.
Synthesizing insights from workshops with architects and literature from a wide range
of scholarly domains, this paper presents a rst step towards an integrave framework
that can help designers and design students to eecvely discuss and reconcile
divergent values in muldisciplinary sengs.
Keywords: values; value co-creaon; value framework; muldisciplinary collaboraon

40
BOS-DE VOS
design soluons that sasfy diverse stakeholder needs (Bergema, Valkenburg, Kleinsmann,
& de Bont, 2012; Calabrea & Kleinsmann, 2017); they have limited knowledge and tools
to oversee and handle the mulple, possibly compeng values that underlie these design
processes. An understanding of the plethora of divergent values that can play a role in
muldisciplinary design processes can be highly benecial to designers. It could assist
them in opening up discussions about actors’ values and movaons, to avoid or migate
conicts and collecvely work towards a successful design process and end result from the
perspecve of all actors and stakeholders involved.
Exisng research on how to design for values has either predominantly focused on the
human values at stake, such as work on Value Sensive Design (Friedman, Kahn, & Borning,
2013); or the worth that is co-created, such as in value-centred design (Cockton, 2006) and
Bocken, Short, Rana, and Evans (2013)’s value mapping tool. Even though authors have
argued that human values and worth are both present in design processes and connuously
inuence each other (e.g. Den Ouden, 2012), work that departs from and integrates mulple
perspecves towards value into one overarching framework, such as the work of Den Ouden
(2012), is rather complex and can be challenging to use in daily work sengs or design
educaon (Bocken et al., 2013).
In this paper, empirical insights from 24 workshops with architects and theory from dierent
strands of literature are synthesized with the aim to provide a simple, integrave overview
of values that designers can easily employ in their projects. The following research queson
was answered: Which types of value play a role in muldisciplinary design processes? The
resulng framework disnguishes between ‘values as guiding principles’ and ‘values as
qualies with worth’, and presents three degrees of value specicity. It raises awareness
of and understanding for the dierent value perspecves and values that can play a role in
muldisciplinary collaboraons, thereby enabling designers and design students to become
more recepve to potenal value conicts and opportunies for enhanced value creaon.
2. Theorecal background
As Den Ouden pointed out in her book Innovaon design: Creang Value for People,
Organizaons and Society the term value is “widely used but barely understood” (2012,
p. v). Denions of value are numerous and dier across domains. While it is evident that
dierences between actors’ perspecves on values exist, these dierences are also quite
oen overlooked in a design process. Value is rarely explicitly discussed, or discussions are
either very abstract or overly specic (Van de Poel, 2013). As a consequence, actors may
think that they speak the same language and have the same goals, while they actually
pursue dierent things. This can lead to submerged and sustained value conicts that can
quickly escalate when the collaboraon process is subjected to a sudden change, such as
the departure of one of the actors or a change in design requirements (Van Onselen &
Valkenburg, 2015). To prevent this from happening, actors need to be aware of, and discuss
the values that play a role in their collaborave design process.

41
A framework for designing for divergent values
According to literature, two core perspecves towards value can be disnguished: 1)
considering value as guiding principles, and 2) considering value as qualies with worth. A
detailed understanding of these two perspecves and how they relate to each other, can be
instrumental for designers when working in muldisciplinary contexts, as both perspecves
will be present and connuously inuence each other. The two perspecves – which have
also been described as ‘values as ideals’ versus ‘values as worth’ (Marnsuo, Klakegg, &
van Marrewijk, 2019) or the plural form ‘values’ (i.e. ideals) versus the singular form ‘value’
(i.e. worth) (e.g. Boradkar, 2010) – are presented in more detail below. By adopng both
perspecves towards value, this study aims to embrace the dierent perspecves with
which one can look at the theorecal construct of value, rather than searching for consensus
regarding its denion.
2.1 Considering values as guiding principles
A rst core perspecve towards value in a design process, is to consider the values of actors
as guiding principles. Scholars of psychology (e.g. Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987),
sociology (e.g. Williams Jr, 1968), anthropology (e.g. Kluckhohn, 1951) and philosophy (e.g.
Grin, 1986), use the noon of value to refer to the ideals that people have. They argue that
values represent criteria or guiding principles that people use to evaluate and select their
behaviour and give meaning to what they consider important in life (Cheng & Fleischmann,
2010; Friedman et al., 2013; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987).
In their seminal work, Schwartz and Bilsky (1987) disnguished several movaonally
disnct values that people use as guiding principles for their acons and acvies, such as
enjoyment, security, achievement, self-direcon, social power and maturity. They used the
term ‘human values’ to refer to these universal types of values, which stem from people’s
individual biological needs, the requirements for interacon with other people, and the
needs of groups to survive and be well (Schwartz, 2006a; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987).
Values that are used by people as guiding principles do not only stem from human needs,
they can also originate in the social relaons of individuals. ‘Cultural values’ are values that
naons, regions, but also professions, organizaons and teams may share, such as autonomy
or embeddedness, egalitarianism or hierarchy, and harmony or mastery (Schwartz, 2006b).
According to Schwartz, emphases on certain cultural values shape and jusfy the beliefs,
acons and goals of individuals and groups, making them part of a certain culture. The fact
that certain values share the same underlying assumpons, makes it easier to arm and act
on them simultaneously (Schwartz, 2006b).
Rokeach (1973) argued that human and cultural values can be categorized into two sets of
values: ‘terminal values’ and ‘instrumental values’. Terminal values are desired end-states
that individuals or groups of people wish to achieve. Instrumental values are dened as the
preferable modes of behaviour, or means to achieve a desired end-state (Rokeach, 1973).

42
BOS-DE VOS
2.2 Considering values as qualies with worth
In contrast to conceptualizing values as guiding principles, value can also be considered a
certain quality with worth that is or could be realized by means of a design. Economists (e.g.
Smith, 1776), management scholars (e.g. Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000; Laursen & Svejvig,
2016; Lepak, Smith, & Taylor, 2007; Vargo, Maglio, & Akaka, 2008); and certain design
scholars (e.g. Boradkar, 2010; Den Ouden, 2012) view values as qualies inherent in objects,
projects, or ideas that represent a certain amount of worth. Extending on classical works
from economy and management, this worthiness can not only be monetary – which will
be referred to in this paper as economic value – , but also non-monetary, including values
such as use value, social value and ecological value. Worthiness is perceived dierently by
each individual, as people value dierent things. The common consensus nowadays is that
this worthiness is also uid. It is the eect of mulple, constantly changing factors in the
interacon between diverse actors (Boradkar, 2010; Ramirez, 1999; Vargo, Akaka, & Vaughan,
2017).
‘Economic value’ is the worthiness of a certain product, service, or idea in monetary terms.
Boztepe (2007) uses the similar term ‘economy value’ to refer to the economic benets
something has. Economists and management scholars oen use the term ‘exchange value’
to refer to the price that a customer pays at the moment of exchange for a quality or set of
qualies inherent in a purchased product or service (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000). While
these scholars specically focus on the pursuit of monetary worth by commercial rms
through the exchange of goods or services; economic value is also important at the individual
level (i.e. pursuing a good salary), group and societal level.
The term ‘use value’ is employed by classical economists and strategic management scholars
to refer to a customer’s subjecve percepon of the qualies or ulity that the acvies,
products or services of a rm generate (Bowman & Ambrosini, 2000). It has been widely
acknowledged that this focus is too narrow to represent everyday reality, as use value is
not only created for a customer (e.g. Vargo et al., 2008). Each design or design process may
also represent qualies with worth for others, such as cizens, organizaons, or society at
large. It is important to acknowledge the broad range of values that underlie the concept
of use value. By referring to perceived quality and ulity, the use value of a design should
not be seen as narrow as mere ‘ulity value’ (i.e. being appropriate for a certain use), which
is expressed in values such as funconality, convenience, eciency or durability (Boztepe,
2007; Den Ouden, 2012; Ramirez, 1999). A design also results in benets that can be derived
from its quality. For example, it can contribute to well-being or have symbolic meaning,
because it expresses identy, signals social status or has certain historic or aesthec qualies
(Boztepe, 2007). Designs can also lead to emoonal meaning. Referring to Desmet and
Hekkert (2007), Boztepe (2007, p. 60) describes ‘emoonal value’ as the aecve benets
that may be generated through sensory experience, meaning that comes from personality or
character related experiences, and provoked emoons.
Worth can also be realized in the form of social value. Den Ouden (2012, p. 42) refers to
the Oxford Diconary of Environment and Conservaon in dening social value ‘as the

43
A framework for designing for divergent values
non-economic value that society puts on a resource and that is recognized by most, if
not all, people, such as the benets to human health of clean air and water’. Thompson
and MacMillan’s study (2010) was one of the rst works in the eld of management that
discussed the role of businesses in the generaon of societal wealth improvement. They
argued that visionary businesses could open up new markets through the creaon of
social value, such as addressing challenges of poverty and human suering. The idea that
organizaons can gain economic value by creang value for society has also been echoed in
other works (e.g. Porter & Kramer, 2011; Yunus, Moingeon, & Lehmann-Ortega, 2010).
Finally, ‘ecological value’ and the broader term ‘environmental value’ refer to worthiness
that is created for the physical environment. Ecological value is typically seen from a holisc
perspecve, covering also the social relaonships of people. However, to avoid confusion,
ecological value is here dened as the value that is created for the planet (cf. Den Ouden,
2012). Ecological value is oen driven by movaonal goals of environmental prosperity
or preservaon of the planet. Values that may play a role are emission reducon, re-use of
exisng materials and sustainability.
2.3 Dealing with divergent values
When collaboravely creang qualies with worth in a muldisciplinary design project,
actors may have dierent opinions of which worthiness should or could be created (and
eventually captured), and how to do this. The ideas, decisions and acons of actors are also
heavily inuenced by their guiding principles, which may dier from one person to the next
(Rindova & Marns, 2017). This all leads to a plethora of divergent and possibly compeng
values that are of importance at the same me, and that actors somehow have to reconcile.
Working towards a ‘value hierarchy’ can support actors in developing an approach for the
situaon they are in. Scholars propose two dierent ways in which a value hierarchy can be
employed. These are not mutually exclusive and can, especially when used together, build
a strong value framework to support decision-making. First, a value hierarchy can be used
to priorize certain values over others, such as placing instrumental business values below
values of the individual, society, and economic system (e.g. Bernthal, 1962; Friedman et al.,
2013). Second, a value hierarchy helps to translate abstract, general values into concrete
design requirements. Van de Poel (2013) uses the term value hierarchy to discuss how
overarching values (top of the hierarchy), via norms (middle), can be operaonalized into
design requirements (boom of the hierarchy) and vice versa. He argues that construcng
a value hierarchy requires systemac discussion and reecon of values and related
judgements, which allows actors to collecvely establish clear links between the values they
pursue and the design decisions they make (Van de Poel, 2013).
Some scholars argue that overarching values should not be specied with concrete
examples, as each situaon is dierent and involves dierent values. Over-specicaon
may limit actors’ creavity in the design process (Friedman, 2020). Yet, others have shown
that dicules in design projects can oen be brought back to values that have not

44
BOS-DE VOS
been explicated or discussed; and that designers frequently struggle to engage in such
conversaons due to a lack of overview and experience with this (Bos-de Vos, 2018). This
paper therefore aims to provide a simple, integrave overview that designers can use as a
theorecal backbone and inspiraon for their projects, while encouraging them to tailor it to
their own specic situaon.
3. Methodology
To arrive at an integrave framework, it was chosen to study both literature and design
pracce, so that dierent theories of value could be connected to designers’ daily work. In
this secon, the methodology for the development of the framework is described, paying
aenon to the collecon of literature, the collecon of empirical data, the analycal
procedures that were followed to synthesize insights from both types of sources, and the
development and validaon of the framework. The dierent parts of the methodology are
described separately for the purposes of clarity, but in reality coincided.
3.1 Collecon of literature
Value-related literature sources were gathered during three consecuve phases. In phase 1, a
previous research on value co-creaon in the creave industry was revisited by re-reading all
relevant sources and the notes that were taken during interacons with other researchers,
students and praconers. In phase 2, addional readings were gained in mulple iteraons
by checking the sources that authors had used in their discussions of value. In phase 3,
conversaons with researchers from other academic disciplines were organized. These
researchers were asked to provide what they considered to be key sources of value literature
in their respecve elds. These were then studied and used as a way to nd addional
literature. The three phases of literature collecon resulted in an overview of scholarly work
from a variety of academic elds, including philosophy, psychology, anthropology, ethics,
sociology, economics, strategic management, project management, markeng, service
science, engineering and design.
3.2 Collecon of empirical data
During phase 2 of the literature review, also empirical data were collected in 24 workshops
with architects from diverse types of rms (17 in-company workshops and 7 workshops as
part of a professional training program). In each workshop, which lasted approximately three
hours, parcipants were asked to jointly ll in the Project Value Modelling Blueprint (Bos-de
Vos, 2020) for one of their ongoing projects (see Figure 1). This method, which consists of an
ordered set of quesons, helped parcipants to idenfy and discuss which values could or
should be created in their project, and come up with concrete steps for how to do that (Bos-
de Vos, 2020).
Parcipants were given post-its or erasable cards to ll in the blueprint, encouraged to
engage in connuous discussion about their answers, and change or further specify answers

45
A framework for designing for divergent values
over the course of the workshop. The in-company workshops were moderated jointly by an
external facilitator and the author. The other workshops were moderated by the author. Over
the course of the workshop, several pictures were taken of the lled-in Blueprint (see Figure
2) and the discussion was documented with video-recording (expect for the professional
training workshops) and an event log. In each workshop, the moderator(s) followed the
proposed order and quesons of the Project Value Modelling Blueprint closely, which led to a
robust empirical data set with a high level of comparability.
Figure 1 Workshop Figure 2 Intermediate result
3.3 Synthesis of theorecal and empirical insights
The analysis of the literature and empirical data was executed in three iterave steps that
were performed while data collecon was sll ongoing. To enhance qualitave rigour in
the analysis and synthesis process, a qualitave coding procedure inspired by the Gioia
methodology was used (Gioia, Corley, & Hamilton, 2013). Although the Gioia methodology
is specically designed for developing interpreve theory from interviews (Gehman et al.,
2018), it proved parcularly helpful for the purposes of this study, as it helped to cluster
values menoned in literature or the workshops into overarching categories.
For the literature, a rst step consisted of close readings of the sources and ltering out parts
in which authors menoned or discussed specic types of values. Based on these parts, a list
of ‘informant-centric 1st-order’ values was generated, including the sources and scholarly
domains in which the respecve values were menoned, and how they were dened. In
phase 2, a similar list of informant-centric values was deducted from the end results of the
workshops. The event logs were used to play back specic parts of the video recordings and
gain more detail of how parcipants had exactly described the values.
Next, the analysis focused on searching for similaries and dierences between the values
in both lists to arrive at ‘researcher-centric 2nd-order’ themes (see Gioia et al., 2013).
This led to a categorizaon into three ‘degrees of value-specicity’ (cf. Van de Poel, 2013):
1) overarching value dimensions, 2) underlying movaonal goals, and 3) specic value
examples. Examples of values that parcipants or authors gave were clustered when it
appeared that they shared the same movaonal goal. For example, several architects
menoned that ‘developing new tools’ or ‘establishing a commercial relaonship’ allowed

46
BOS-DE VOS
them to generate a dierent type of economic value than money. This was labelled as the
movaonal goal ‘other economic value’. Together with the movaonal goal ‘money’, it was
captured within the overarching dimension ‘economic value’, which described the type of
value it actually concerned.
Finally, the analysis focused on nding aggregate dimensions that could, on a higher level
of abstracon, explain dierences between the values, and why certain values seemed to
belong together (cf. Gioia et al., 2013). The empirical data clearly indicated that actors not
only considered the values that could be realized for the stakeholders of their project, but
also values that served as a compass to guide their decisions and acvies in the project.
For example, parcipants oen described trying to do ‘what is best for the client’, thereby
expressing altruisc moves. Values such as ‘conforming to what is expected of designers’,
‘happiness at work’, or ‘an equal relaonship with partners’ were also frequently menoned.
On the one hand, the emergence of idealisc values was surprising as the Project Value
Modelling Blueprint only focuses on the value that actors wish to co-create and capture (Bos-
de Vos, 2020). On the other hand, it is not that unexpected as architects and designers work
on the basis of professional code-of-conduct, which translates into all their work-related
acvies and decisions. It clearly indicated the importance of integrang both perspecves
towards value in the framework.
3.4 Framework development and validaon
The process of framework development was executed concurrently with data collecon
and analysis and consisted of several iteraons in which dra versions were evaluated
with researchers, students and praconers and further developed. A rst dra version
was developed during phase 1 of the literature review on the basis of a previous research
in which literature and empirical data were studied from a value co-creaon (i.e. qualies
with worth) perspecve (Bos-de Vos, 2018). The aim of this conceptual framework was
to raise awareness of the dierent values and potenal value conicts involved in value
co-creaon in design projects to oer pracsing designers and design students handles to
idenfy and deal with these conicts. It visualized three crucial phases in generang qualies
with worth: the value proposion, value co-creaon, and value capture phase (e.g. Clauss,
2016), as well as the important types of values that these phases concerned. The exisng
theorecal concepts ‘use value’ – which according to the empirical data should also refer to
other stakeholders than the paying customer, such as users, government and society –, and
‘exchange value’ were complemented with an addional concept ‘professional value’, which
emerged from the analysis of empirical data. Parcipants menoned reputaon, professional
development and work pleasure as underlying movaonal goals (see Bos-de Vos, Wamelink,
& Volker, 2016). Dra version 1 is shown in Figure 3.

47
A framework for designing for divergent values
Figure 3 Dra version 1
The conceptual framework was presented and discussed at several meengs with audiences
of academics, students and praconers. Parcipants referred to the framework as insighul
because it captured many struggles present in design projects and allowed praconers to
consider the origins of and potenal soluons to these struggles more consciously. Despite
this posive feedback, the rst dra version of the framework also evoked discussions
beyond its original aim. Academics from other disciplines raised quesons about the
denions of values and why certain values were or were not included. Many quesons
seemed to originate from a moral perspecve towards values instead of an economic/quality
perspecve. It became evident that this perspecve needed to be included in the framework
to avoid confusion or miscommunicaon in value-related discussions with people from
dierent disciplines. This was also supported by the empirical data, which indicated that
designers’ acons and decisions related to value creaon were strongly inuences by their
professional beliefs.
In dra version 2, the ‘values as ideals’ and ‘values as worth’ perspecve that were used
by (Marnsuo, Klakegg, & van Marrewijk, 2017) were taken as two disnct perspecves
towards values that were both visualized in a separate secon of the framework. For the
‘values as ideals’ secon, a disncon was made between human values and cultural
values, as two overarching types of values that are commonly represented in scholarly work
from mulple domains (see Secon 2.1). Also professional values were included, as the
workshops in pracce had shown that parcipants were oen driven by their professional
morals and ideals. For the ‘values as worth’ secon, use value, social value, ecological value,
economic value, and professional value (the laer referring to professional worth instead of
professional ideals) were included. These values resulted from the comparison of the list of
values menoned in literature and the values that emerged from the empirical data. Since
in literature, specic value labels somemes have dierent denions, or dierent labels

48
BOS-DE VOS
are used for values with the same denion; labels were chosen that best represented the
empirical data. Dra version 2 also included a disncon between three degrees of value
specicity (see Secon 3.3), which appeared to be a helpful way to structure the many values
that were menoned. Dra version 2 is presented in Figure 4.
Figure 4 Dra version 2 Figure 5 Feedback session with peers
(top) and praconers
(boom)
Dra version 2 was discussed with peers from mulple domains, who are all working on
value-related topics, such as value operaonalizaon, value conicts, value dynamics, and
value assessment. Also teaching sta, students and praconers were asked for feedback.
Over the course of a year, 16 individual meengs and ve feedback sessions with larger
groups of people were organized to validate the structure and contents of the framework
and to explore potenal use-scenarios (see Figure 5). People were asked if they missed
things, if the framework raised any confusion, and if they would organize the framework
dierently and why. Parcipants were also asked which benets the framework could
potenally have for them, if any, and which suggesons they had for working towards these
benets.
Based on the feedback received, a new version of the framework was made. As the
disncon between the terms ‘values as ideals’ and ‘values as worth’ was oen not or not
directly clear to people, these were changed into the more descripve labels ‘values as
guiding principles’ and ‘values as qualies with worth’. For the values as guiding principles
secon, a disncon was made between individual-level values, which are embedded in a
single person; and group-level values that are shared by a certain community of people, such
as a family, organizaon, profession, or society. The values as qualies with worth secon
came to disnguish between people-related and environment-related values.

49
A framework for designing for divergent values
Finally, the professional values, which were a bit of an odd-duck and confusingly menoned
in both secons of the previous framework, were redistributed and placed in categories that
they ed with.
4. An integrave framework for designing for divergent values
This secon presents the framework in which empirical and theorecal insights from
dierent academic disciplines are synthesized. The framework, which is shown in Figure
6, provides a rst step towards helping designers successfully facilitate and parcipate in
processes of designing for divergent values, by encouraging conversaons and reecons
about the values at stake in a project. By providing concrete examples of values that may
play a role in the eld of design, it provides inspiraon and a comprehensive basis for actors
to understand which values to discuss. The matrix structure of the framework allows users
to focus on specic parts that are relevant to them, while being aware of the bigger context
that they leave out.
On the vercal axis, the framework is subdivided into a secon ‘value as guiding principles’ –
which disnguishes between guiding principles that stem from human nature and principles
related to social interacon –, and a ‘values as qualies with worth’ secon, which includes
values to be co-created for people and planet. As discussed in the theorecal background,
the two secons of the framework are highly interconnected. Acons and decisions related
to co-creang worth (boom part of the framework) are connuously inuenced by actors’
guiding principles (top part of the framework) (Rindova & Marns, 2017). In turn, the guiding
principles of actors are also shaped by the value creaon opportunies and constraints that
actors encounter in their work (Wright, Zammuto, & Liesch, 2017).
On the horizontal axis, the framework consists of three degrees of value-specicity, making
a disncon between overarching value dimensions (le), underlying movaonal goals
(middle), and specic value examples (right). In this way, the framework provides designers
and other actors with the means to recognize and discuss connecons between higher-
level value-related issues and the specic design opportunies and constraints of a project.
Although some scholars argue that specicaon of values may not necessarily be needed
nor good, the framework helps students and praconers to oversee what may be important
based on concrete examples and then select, develop and customize the parts that are
relevant to them.

50
BOS-DE VOS
Figure 6 Framework as a basis for designing for divergent values.
5. Discussion & suggesons for further development
This paper presents a rst step towards the development of an integrave framework for
designing for divergent values. Designing for divergent values can be seen as a temporal and
fragile process. Contexts, involved actors, and their percepons of value connuously evolve
over me. As Vargo et al. (2017) argue, value is always muldimensional and emergent. To
accommodate actors’ dierent perspecves on values, interests and movaons, as well
as the uidity and interconnectedness of values; an integrave and reecve approach
is needed. The research and framework presented in this paper oer a way to beer
understand and oversee the complexity of muldisciplinary collaboraon from a value-
perspecve, which is currently sll underemphasized in literature, educaon and design
pracce. This novel contribuon has benets for three areas in which design work is
manifested.

51
A framework for designing for divergent values
First, it can help design researchers to further develop their understanding of
muldisciplinary design processes by focusing specically on the values, linkages between
values and potenal value conicts that are involved. It helps researchers to more clearly
posion their studies in relaon to other value-related work, discuss how it connects with
other studies and what its core disncve features are. Second, it allows educators to teach
design students a basic understanding of values in design and develop exercises/projects
that let students pracce with designing for divergent values and reect on their process.
Third, the framework can serve as a theorecally informed, easy-to-use overview, that
pracsing designers can employ in their projects to idenfy, discuss and translate dierent
noons and priories of value that people from dierent disciplines have, thereby avoiding
miscommunicaon and bringing any underlying dierences to the surface. It may also
support designers in helping muldisciplinary teams deal with the complexity of value co-
creaon, thereby strengthening their own posion as a linking pin in the interacon of these
diverse actors (e.g. Bohemia, 2002).
The work presented in this paper is by no means exhausve nor complete. It is meant to
serve as a rst stepping stone towards future research and the development of tools or
guidelines for designing for divergent values. To further develop the theorecal basis, a more
extensive and systemac literature review is needed. It should also be invesgated how
the framework could exactly be used in design projects. An interesng direcon for further
development is to build, test and iterate dierent types of tools, which could, for instance,
be dynamic to allow for nuance and overlap between certain values or include dierent me
horizons.
Acknowledgements: I would like to thank the parcipants of this study for their enthusiasm,
willingness to share and discuss their strategies, and insighul reecons. A special thanks
to all students, close colleagues and members of the Del Design for Values Instute who
contributed signicantly by providing crical notes and ideas based on their own elds of
experse. And of course to the DDfV management team for inspiring this work and providing
support to further develop it.
6. References
Bergema, K., Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2011). Exploring collaboraon in a networked
innovaon project in industry. DS 68-3: Proceedings of the 18th Internaonal Conference on
Engineering Design (ICED 11), Impacng Society through Engineering Design, Vol. 3: Design
Organisaon and Management, Lyngby/Copenhagen, Denmark, 15-19 August 2011.
Bergema, K., Valkenburg, R., Kleinsmann, M., & de Bont, C. (2012). Exploring networked innovaon;
Results of an exploraon and the setup of an empirical study. Conference Proceedings; ServDes.
2010; Exchanging Knowledge; Linköping; Sweden; 1-3 December 2010.
Bernthal, W. F. (1962). Value perspecves in management decisions. Academy of Management
Journal, 5(3), 190-196.
Bocken, N., Short, S., Rana, P., & Evans, S. (2013). A value mapping tool for sustainable business
modelling. Corporate Governance, 13(5), 482-497.
Bohemia, E. (2002). Designer as integrator: reality or rhetoric? The Design Journal, 5(2), 23-34.

52
BOS-DE VOS
Boradkar, P. (2010). Valued Possessions: The Worth of Things. In Designing Things: A Crical
Introducon to the Culture of Objects (pp. 45-74). Oxford: Berg.
Bos-de Vos, M. (2018). Open for business: Project-specic value capture strategies of architectural
rms. Retrieved from hps://journals.open.tudel.nl/index.php/abe/arcle/view/2399
Bos-de Vos, M. (2020). Project Value Modelling. In A. G. C. Van Boeijen, Daalhuizen, J.J., & Zijlstra, J.J.
(Ed.), Del Design Guide. 2nd edion (pp. 133-134). Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.
Bos-de Vos, M., Wamelink, J. H., & Volker, L. (2016). Trade-os in the value capture of architectural
rms: the signicance of professional value. Construcon Management and Economics, 34(1), 21-
34.
Bowman, C., & Ambrosini, V. (2000). Value creaon versus value capture: towards a coherent
denion of value in strategy. Brish Journal of Management, 11(1), 1-15.
Boztepe, S. (2007). User value: Compeng theories and models. Internaonal Journal of Design, 1(2).
Calabrea, G., & Kleinsmann, M. (2017). Technology-driven evoluon of design pracces: envisioning
the role of design in the digital era. Journal of Markeng Management, 33(3-4), 292-304.
Cheng, A.-S., & Fleischmann, K. R. (2010). Developing a meta-inventory of human values. Proceedings
of the 73rd ASIS&T Annual Meeng on Navigang Streams in an Informaon Ecosystem-Volume
47.
Clauss, T. (2016). Measuring business model innovaon: conceptualizaon, scale development, and
proof of performance. R&D Management, 00(00), 1-19.
Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth designing. Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on
Human-computer interacon: changing roles.
Den Ouden, E. (2012). Innovaon Design: Creang Value for People, Organizaons and Society.
London: Springer.
Desmet, P., & Hekkert, P. (2007). Framework of product experience. Internaonal Journal of Design,
1(1), 57-66.
Dorst, K. (2011). The core of ‘design thinking’ and its applicaon. Design Studies, 32(6), 521-532.
Friedman, B. (2020, January). Key note speech during Dies Symposium: Design for Values, Del.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., & Borning, A. (2013). Value Sensive Design and Informaon Systems.
In N. Doorn, D. Schuurbiers, I. Van de Poel, & M. Gorman (Eds.), Early Engagement and New
Technologies: Opening up the Laboratory (Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 16, pp.
55-95). Dordrecht: Springer.
Gehman, J., Glaser, V. L., Eisenhardt, K. M., Gioia, D., Langley, A., & Corley, K. G. (2018). Finding
theory–method t: A comparison of three qualitave approaches to theory building. Journal of
Management Inquiry, 27(3), 284-300.
Gioia, D. A., Corley, K. G., & Hamilton, A. L. (2013). Seeking qualitave rigor in inducve research:
notes on the Gioia methodology. Organizaonal Research Methods, 16(1), 15-31.
Grin, J. (1986). Well-being: Its meaning, measurement and moral importance. Oxford: Clarendon
Press.
Kluckhohn, C. (1951). Values and Value-orientaons in the Theory of Acon: An Exploraon in
Denion and Classicaon. In T. Parsons & E. Shils (Eds.), Toward a General Theory of Acon (pp.
388-433). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Laursen, M., & Svejvig, P. (2016). Taking stock of project value creaon: A structured literature review
with future direcons for research and pracce. Internaonal Journal of Project Management,
34(4), 736-747.
Lepak, D. P., Smith, K. G., & Taylor, M. S. (2007). Value creaon and value capture: a mullevel
perspecve. Academy of Management Review, 32(1), 180-194.

53
A framework for designing for divergent values
Manzini, E. (2009). New design knowledge. Design Studies, 30(1), 4-12.
Marnsuo, M., Klakegg, O.-J., & van Marrewijk, A. (2019). Introducon: delivering value in projects
and project-based business. Internaonal Journal of Project Management.
Marnsuo, M., Klakegg, O. J., & van Marrewijk, A. (2017). Call for papers: Delivering value in projects
and project-based business. Internaonal Journal of Project Management, 35(8), 1655-1657.
Porter, M. E., & Kramer, M. R. (2011). Creang shared value. Harvard Business Review, 89(1/2), 62-77.
Ramirez, R. (1999). Value co-producon: intellectual origins and implicaons for pracce and
research. Strategic Management Journal, 20(1), 49-65.
Rindova, V. P., & Marns, L. L. (2017). From values to value: Value raonality and the creaon of great
strategies. Strategy Science, 3(1), 323-334.
Rokeach, M. (1973). The Nature of Human Values. New York: The Free Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006a). Basic Human Values: An Overview. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006b). A theory of cultural value orientaons: Explicaon and applicaons.
Comparave Sociology, 5(2-3), 137-182.
Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53(3), 550-562.
Smith, A. (1776). The Wealth of Naons. New York: The Modern Library.
Thompson, J. D., & MacMillan, I. C. (2010). Business models: Creang new markets and societal
wealth. Long Range Planning, 43(2), 291-307.
Van de Poel, I. (2013). Translang Values into Design Requirements. In D. Michelfelder, N. McCarthy,
& D. Goldberg (Eds.), Philosophy and Engineering: Reecons on Pracce, Principles and Process
(Philosophy of Engineering and Technology, Vol. 15, pp. 253-266). Dordrecht: Springer.
Van Onselen, L., & Valkenburg, R. (2015). Personal values as a catalyst for meaningful innovaons:
Supporng young designers in collaborave pracce. Proceedings of the 20th Internaonal
Conference on Engineering Design (ICED15), 27-30 July, Milan, Italy.
Vargo, S. L., Akaka, M. A., & Vaughan, C. M. (2017). Conceptualizing value: a service-ecosystem view.
Journal of Creang Value, 3(2), 117-124.
Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creaon: A service systems
and service logic perspecve. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145-152.
Williams Jr, R. M. (1968). The concept of values. Internaonal Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences, 16,
283-287.
Wright, A. L., Zammuto, R. F., & Liesch, P. W. (2017). Maintaining the values of a profession:
Instuonal work and moral emoons in the emergency department. Academy of Management
Journal, 60(1), 200-237.
Yunus, M., Moingeon, B., & Lehmann-Ortega, L. (2010). Building social business models: Lessons from
the Grameen experience. Long Range Planning, 43(2-3), 308-325.
About the Author:
Marina Bos-de Vos is Assistant Professor of Strategic Design for
Ecosystem Innovaon at TU Del. Her work focuses on developing
knowledge and tools that facilitate design students and professionals
to successfully address value-related tensions and opportunies in
complex, inter-organizaonal design projects.