Representing Value Function Capability and Role Fumiaki Toyoshima

Representing Value: Function, Capability and Role Fumiaki Toyoshima JOWO 2019 @ Graz, Austria September 24, 2019

Background • Value plays an important role in the contemporary economics. • E. g. , Companies need to understand what consumers really take to be valuable in order to develop an effective marketing strategy to sell their products. • A rigorous conceptualization of value would benefit both the providers and the customers concerned. • But the concept of value remains elusive. 2

Goal and scope • Goal: To give a close ontological investigation into value 1. Exchange value • Roughly, what the consumer is willing to pay for something • E. g. , the exchange value of Mary’s car is 30, 000 dollars 2. Use value (which we’ll focus on this time) • The worth of something that is manifested in a close connection with the satisfaction of the user’s desires or needs • E. g. , the use value of this car is fairly high to Mary because it allows her to have only a short commute to work 3

Scope (cont’d) • The value ascription relationship between • the value beholder: an agent who ascribes value to something • and the value object: the object of the value beholder’s valuation • We’ll restrict the value beholder to a single individual • We’ll leave aside collective agents (e. g. , companies) • We’ll restrict the value object to economic resources • the things that can be used to satisfy certain needs in a wide array of economic activities • E. g. , goods (e. g. , cars) and services (e. g. , transportation services) 4

What we’re going to say • Main claim: The value object is primarily a function which the value beholder believes can be manifested by some capability • Corollary: Talk of the value object as another entity (e. g. , objects and events) than functions makes sense only in virtue of its relevant (even if implicit) connection with some function 5

Basic ontological framework • Universals (types, classes) such as Human • Particulars (tokens, instances) such as Mary • Continuants such as objects and properties • Occurrents such as events (in which continuants participate) • For simplicity, we won’t use the terms “process” and “state”. • Independent continuants such as objects: e. g. , stone • Dependent continuants (properties): e. g. , hardness 6

Ontology of functions 101 • (Dependent) Continuant : A function should not be conflated with its manifestation (functioning). • Functions as (dependent) continuants, their functionings as events. • E. g. , the heart bears the function to pump blood and its functioning is the event of blood pumping • Teleology : A function plays a vital role in explaining the existence of the function bearer. • E. g. , the function of the heart to pump blood tells us why the heart came into being (through evolutionary processes). 7

Ontology of functions 101 (cont’d) • Normativity: The performance of a function bearer can be evaluated normatively (i. e. , as good or bad). • E. g. , we speak of a ‘good hammer’ when it greatly helps to hit nails. • Malfunctioning : An entity can have a function, although it may fail to perform according to that function. • E. g. , a light bulb doesn’t emit light of the expected intensity. • Support: A function should be, in some sense, ‘supported’ by the physical structure of the function bearer. • E. g. , the function of chopsticks is supported by their thinness. 8

Value objects as goods • Transferable objects fall into the category of objects • E. g. , Mary sold her car to her friend James, hence his ownership. • Goods are typically designed to have functions • E. g. , the function of Mary’s car to carry a few passengers • Goods are value objects in virtue of their functions’ value • E. g. , James bought Mary’s car mainly because he took its function to carry passengers to be valuable. 9

Value object as functions of goods • Value is directly affected by the intrinsic properties of the value object Ø Explained by Support of functions. • Value is context-dependent Ø Explained by Normativity and Malfunctioning of functions • The value of goods would depend heavily upon how well the goods perform their functions and thereby satisfy the value beholder’s desires and preferences. 10

Further thoughts • An agent finds functions of goods valuable when she expects their functionings, especially when she expects someone (her included) to be able to activate those functions • E. g. , Mary’s car would have no value for James when nobody around him holds a driving license. • The value beholder assigns value to goods when she finds herself in the situation in which their functions can be manifested when they’re combined with some agent’s (e. g. , her own) capability to activate them. 11

Value objects as services • Services are classified as events • Non-transferable and unownable • e. g. , in enjoying transportation services, Mary is paying for nonrepeatable events of moving from one place to another 1. The eventness of services is well explicable in terms of functionings of goods • Sumita et al. ’s (2012) definition of a service as “a function that is expected to be nicely executed in the predesigned environment” • Smith’s (2018) observation that services typically involve goods 12

Value objects as services (cont’d) 2. Services as functionings are paradigmatically enabled by the provider’s capability to activate them • Guarino et al. (2017) focus upon the availability of ‘capabilities to honor the service commitment’. • Corollary: Services are valuable when both functions of goods and the provider’s capability to activate them work well and they’re valueless otherwise • E. g. , fire-and-rescue-services would be of poor quality when there are only broken fire extinguishers available and/or when firefighters are not well-trained enough to have mastery of extinguishers. 13

Extension to value (co-)creation • Value (co-)creation: An important topic in value modeling • In the traditional ‘goods-dominant logic’ of economy: Ø Economic value is created exclusively through the provider’s production process. • In the contemporary ‘service-dominant logic’ of economy: Ø Economic value is co-created by the manufacturer and the customer: it is determined only when the consumer experiences use value by using goods actually in her own life. 14

Design and use functions • The design function: the function of an artifact that is produced with the plan to be used for its performance Ø E. g. , the function of a screwdriver to turn screws • The use function: the function of an object that the user actually uses for its performance Ø E. g. , the function of the screwdriver to open paint cans when Mary employ it for her use purpose 15

Design and use functions (cont’d) • The design and use functions of an object are essential and accidental to the object. • The object would cease and continue to exist if it lacked (rather than failing to perform) the design and use functions, respectively • Use function is problematic from an ontological viewpoint Ø Can we take use function with ontological seriousness? • It would fail to meet the. Teleology desideratum of functions Ø Difficult to distinguish between design and use functions 16

Some general features of roles • Playability: A role can be played by something (‘player’). • E. g. , Mary can play a student role. • Temporariness/Contingency/Accidentality: Role-playing is a temporary, contingent, and accidental phenomenon. • Compare Mary’s playing of a student role e. g. , with Mary’s being a human: a permanent, necessary, and essential matter. • Linkage with contexts: Roles are connected to contexts. • E. g. , Mary plays a student role in the context of the ABC school. 17

Use functions as roles • E. g. , the use function of a screwdriver to open Mary’s paint cans • Conceptualized as a role that is played by the screwdriver in her ‘use context’: a specific scenario in which she is accidentally using the screwdriver to open paint cans • Note: In ontology of value, we often speak of social roles (e. g. , consumers) • Because the value beholder’s social roles influence greatly the value ascription relationship • But use functions as roles is are not social. 18

A functional view of value (co-)creation • Value (co-)creation can be explained by the provider’s design function and the customer’s use functions • In the goods-centered society: Ø The consumer’s (i. e. , the value beholder’s) use functions of goods is basically identical with the supplier’s design function of the goods Ø The latter is the main value object 19

A functional view of value (co-)creation (cont’d) • In the service-centered society: Ø The purchaser (e. g. , the service provider) may assign value to her use function of the same goods Ø This doesn’t trivialize the manufacturer’s design function Ø It constitutes the essential nature of the goods (Teleology), which the consumer’s use function of them depends entirely upon. u Value in the service system is co-created, i. e. , created both by the provider’s design function of goods and by the customer’s use function (i. e. , her value object) of the goods. 20

Conclusion and future work • As far as it is economic resources (goods and services), the value object is primarily a function which the value beholder believes can be manifested by some capability • Explaining value (co-)creation in terms of design and use functions • Future work • Modeling value based on some established upper ontology • Extension of our functional view of value to ontology of risk • Examination of the relationship between our functional approach to value and e. g. , the Resource-Event-Agent (REA) ontology 21

Thank you for your attention! • Fumiaki Toyoshima: toyo. fumming@gmail. com • (Note: All the abbreviated references in this presentation can be found in my paper. ) 22