IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/telpol/v48y2024i6s0308596124000752.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Key value indicators: A framework for values-driven next-generation ICT solutions

Author

Listed:
  • Wikström, Gustav
  • Bledow, Nona
  • Matinmikko-Blue, Marja
  • Breuer, Henning
  • Costa, Cristina
  • Darzanos, George
  • Gavras, Anastasius
  • Hossfeld, Tobias
  • Mesogiti, Ioanna
  • Petersen, Katrina
  • Porambage, Pawani
  • Stoica, Razvan-Andrei
  • Wunderer, Stefan

Abstract

Technology design, development and evaluation has long been driven by functional performance optimization and estimated market opportunities. Today, societal challenges and sustainable development goals are calling for a paradigm shift towards aligning technology development with a values-based consideration and re-prioritization of different ecological, social and economic outcomes. Values have been identified as key drivers of Information and Communication Technology (ICT) research. They are taken into account in the development of 6G networks, e.g. in the context of EU research funding frameworks, but a clear conceptual framework for values-driven development is still missing. This paper deals with the concept of Key Value Indicators (KVIs) as a method for analyzing the values-related outcomes stemming from ICT developments. Leveraging established definitions, frameworks and value identification methods, the paper proposes a structured KVI framework tailored to the ICT research and development (R&D) sector. The proposed framework comprises five steps, starting from the use case-related identification of values to the assessment of value outcomes. ICT-enabled smart cities are analyzed as an example use case to illustrate how this framework can be applied. The KVI framework is aimed to be a useful tool for the ICT research sector (to be used - primarily but not exclusively - by ICT research projects and programs) to address social challenges in technology design and development phases and to identify and estimate value outcomes from technology use. In addition, the proposed framework aims to assist policy makers to establish value-related targets and set requirements and conditions for ICT developments.

Suggested Citation

  • Wikström, Gustav & Bledow, Nona & Matinmikko-Blue, Marja & Breuer, Henning & Costa, Cristina & Darzanos, George & Gavras, Anastasius & Hossfeld, Tobias & Mesogiti, Ioanna & Petersen, Katrina & Poramba, 2024. "Key value indicators: A framework for values-driven next-generation ICT solutions," Telecommunications Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(6).
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:48:y:2024:i:6:s0308596124000752
    DOI: 10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102778
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308596124000752
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.telpol.2024.102778?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard Owen & Phil Macnaghten & Jack Stilgoe, 2012. "Responsible research and innovation: From science in society to science for society, with society," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 39(6), pages 751-760, December.
    2. Viera Magalhães, João & Couldry, Nick, 2021. "Giving by taking away: big tech, data colonialism and the reconfiguration of social good," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 107516, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. van Dijck, José & Nieborg, David & Poell, Thomas, 2019. "Reframing platform power," Internet Policy Review: Journal on Internet Regulation, Alexander von Humboldt Institute for Internet and Society (HIIG), Berlin, vol. 8(2), pages 1-18.
    4. Johan Rockström & Joyeeta Gupta & Dahe Qin & Steven J. Lade & Jesse F. Abrams & Lauren S. Andersen & David I. Armstrong McKay & Xuemei Bai & Govindasamy Bala & Stuart E. Bunn & Daniel Ciobanu & Fabric, 2023. "Safe and just Earth system boundaries," Nature, Nature, vol. 619(7968), pages 102-111, July.
    5. Kosow, Hannah & Gaßner, Robert, 2008. "Methods of future and scenario analysis: overview, assessment, and selection criteria," IDOS Studies, German Institute of Development and Sustainability (IDOS), volume 39, number 39, July.
    6. Stilgoe, Jack & Owen, Richard & Macnaghten, Phil, 2013. "Developing a framework for responsible innovation," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(9), pages 1568-1580.
    7. Henning Breuer & Florian Lãœdeke-Freund & John Bessant, 2022. "Editorial €” Special Issue: Managing Values For Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 26(05), pages 1-31, June.
    8. Henning Breuer & Florian Lüdeke-Freund, 2017. "Values-Based Network And Business Model Innovation," International Journal of Innovation Management (ijim), World Scientific Publishing Co. Pte. Ltd., vol. 21(03), pages 1-35, April.
    9. Rob Lubberink & Vincent Blok & Johan Van Ophem & Onno Omta, 2017. "Lessons for Responsible Innovation in the Business Context: A Systematic Literature Review of Responsible, Social and Sustainable Innovation Practices," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(5), pages 1-31, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Reichelt, Nicole & Nettle, Ruth, 2023. "Practice insights for the responsible adoption of smart farming technologies using a participatory technology assessment approach: The case of virtual herding technology in Australia," Agricultural Systems, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    2. Buhmann, Alexander & Fieseler, Christian, 2021. "Towards a deliberative framework for responsible innovation in artificial intelligence," Technology in Society, Elsevier, vol. 64(C).
    3. Ibo Van de Poel & Lotte Asveld & Steven Flipse & Pim Klaassen & Victor Scholten & Emad Yaghmaei, 2017. "Company Strategies for Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI): A Conceptual Model," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(11), pages 1-18, November.
    4. Carbajo, Ruth & Cabeza, Luisa F., 2019. "Sustainability and social justice dimension indicators for applied renewable energy research: A responsible approach proposal," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C), pages 1-1.
    5. Beniamino Callegari & Olga Mikhailova, 2021. "RRI and Corporate Stakeholder Engagement: The Aquadvantage Salmon Case," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(4), pages 1-18, February.
    6. Wiarda, Martijn & van de Kaa, Geerten & Yaghmaei, Emad & Doorn, Neelke, 2021. "A comprehensive appraisal of responsible research and innovation: From roots to leaves," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 172(C).
    7. Zhang, Stephen X. & Chen, Jiyao & He, Liangxing & Choudhury, Afreen, 2023. "Responsible Innovation: The development and validation of a scale," Technovation, Elsevier, vol. 124(C).
    8. Paredes-Frigolett, Harold, 2016. "Modeling the effect of responsible research and innovation in quadruple helix innovation systems," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 126-133.
    9. Lehoux, P. & Miller, F.A. & Williams-Jones, B., 2020. "Anticipatory governance and moral imagination: Methodological insights from a scenario-based public deliberation study," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 151(C).
    10. Luciana Maines da Silva & Claudia Cristina Bitencourt & Kadígia Faccin & Tatiana Iakovleva, 2019. "The Role of Stakeholders in the Context of Responsible Innovation: A Meta-Synthesis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(6), pages 1-25, March.
    11. Ivan Ligardo-Herrera & Tomás Gómez-Navarro & Edurne A. Inigo & Vincent Blok, 2018. "Addressing Climate Change in Responsible Research and Innovation: Recommendations for Its Operationalization," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-20, June.
    12. Tina C. Ambos & Katherine Tatarinov, 2022. "Building Responsible Innovation in International Organizations through Intrapreneurship," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 92-125, January.
    13. Genus, Audley & Iskandarova, Marfuga, 2018. "Responsible innovation: its institutionalisation and a critique," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 128(C), pages 1-9.
    14. Agata Gurzawska & Markus Mäkinen & Philip Brey, 2017. "Implementation of Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI) Practices in Industry: Providing the Right Incentives," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(10), pages 1-26, September.
    15. Timotijevic, Lada & Khan, Shumaisa S. & Raats, Monique & Braun, Susanne, 2019. "Research priority setting in food and health domain: European stakeholder beliefs about legitimacy criteria and processes," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 83(C), pages 116-124.
    16. Sophie Bacq & Ruth V. Aguilera, 2022. "Stakeholder Governance for Responsible Innovation: A Theory of Value Creation, Appropriation, and Distribution," Journal of Management Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 59(1), pages 29-60, January.
    17. van Geenhuizen, Marina & Ye, Qing, 2014. "Responsible innovators: open networks on the way to sustainability transitions," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 87(C), pages 28-40.
    18. Jakob Edler & Jan Fagerberg, 2017. "Innovation policy: what, why, and how," Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Oxford University Press and Oxford Review of Economic Policy Limited, vol. 33(1), pages 2-23.
    19. Glover, Dominic & Poole, Nigel, 2019. "Principles of innovation to build nutrition-sensitive food systems in South Asia," Food Policy, Elsevier, vol. 82(C), pages 63-73.
    20. Sara H. Wilford, 2018. "First Line Steps in Requirements Identification for Guidelines Development in Responsible Research and Innovation (RRI)," Systemic Practice and Action Research, Springer, vol. 31(5), pages 539-556, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:telpol:v:48:y:2024:i:6:s0308596124000752. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30471/description#description .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.