Meeting Six | Rubric (Factor and Weighting Confirmation)
In the previous five meetings, the following GTI Scoring Template / Rubric was created.
GTI Scoring Template (Draft 1.0)
What is the Good Technology Index (GTI)?
It is an attempt to quantify technological benefit. Assisting in answering how our pathway to knowledge supports humanity, and how we should conduct ourselves and govern ourselves.
“Once a new technology rolls over you, if you’re not part of the steamroller, you’re part of the road.” — Stewart Brand (1938–)
Meeting Six – Finalization of Scoring Template
The next meeting (29 May 2021 – 9am AEST) is convened to finalize the factor names and weightings, and the initial question framing of the scoring rubric. Completing the initial test draft of the Good Technology Index (GTI) model, ready for test application to specific technologies, technology businesses and products.
GTI Factors/Rubric – Detailed Descriptions
HUMAN (Human Impact Measures)
HUMAN BENEFIT (-8 to +8 points)
How beneficial is the technology to human’s impacted by it? (From -8 for contemptuous treatment to +8 for placing human benefit as the focus of the technology).
QUALITY OF EXPERIENCE (-6 to +6 points)
What is the dominant experience for users of the technology? (From -6 for creating frustration, sorrow or other negative emotional outcomes to +6 for joy, enjoyment, fulfillment or equally positive outcomes).
INCLUSIVITY AND DIVERSITY (-4 to +4 points)
Is the technology equitable in its human inclusivity and diversity? (From -4 for unfair exclusivity, non-diverse homogeneity or radicalizing outcomes to +4 for diversity and equitable inclusivity).
HEALTHY (-2 to +2 points)
Is the technology beneficial to human health outcomes? (From -2 for negative physical or mental health outcomes to +2 for positive impact on physical and/or mental health).
ENVIRONMENT (Environmental Impact Measures)
SUSTAINABLE (-8 to +8 points)
Is the development and environmental outcomes for the technology sustainable? (From -8 for wasteful and destructive to +8 for sustainable, renewable or environmentally productive outcomes).
PROTECTIVE (-6 to +6 points)
Is the technology protective of its environment at large? (From -6 for harmful or willfully careless to +6 for environment conserving, protecting or restorative outcomes).
BIO-DIVERSE (-4 to +4 points)
Does the technology recognise, encourage and protect bio-diversity? (From -4 for actively homogeneous and reductive, to +4 for encouraging and supporting environmental bio-diversity).
PRECAUTIONARY (-2 to +2 points)
Does the technology take precautions to ensure unintended or collateral harm is prevented? (From -2 for negligent and uncaring to +2 for cautious, consultative and researched approaches).
FUNCTION (Core Technology Functionality and Utility)
POWER AND UTILITY (-8 to +8 points)
How significant is the technology solution in overall functional power and utility? (From -8 for uselessness and triviality to +8 for transformative power, depth of utility and functional significance).
NOVELTY AND INNOVATION (-6 to +6 points)
Does the technology have significant impact from innovation, novelty or advancement? (From -6 for derivative, copied, stolen or insignificant progress to +6 for significant advancement).
QUALITY OF PRODUCTION (-4 to +4 points)
What is the production quality of the technology? (From -4 for inferior, unreliable or unsafe production to +4 for superior quality including safety, reliability, workmanship and overall quality of delivery).
FLEXIBLE AND ADAPTABLE (-2 to +2 points)
Is the technology flexible, adaptable and changeable to suit its range or purpose? (From -2 for inflexible, unadaptable or um-modifiable to +2 for flexible, adaptable and suitably modifiable).
TIME (Longevity, Availability and Other Temporal Measures)
EFFECTIVE AND EFFICIENT (-8 to +8 points)
Is the technology effective and efficient in delivering its intended benefits? (From -8 for time-wasting, time-sapping or inefficient in delivery to +8 for significant time-saving and efficiency benefits).
LASTING IMPACT (-6 to +6 points)
Will the technology have a significant duration and scope of impact? (From -6 for brief, weak or outdated impact to +6 for significant longevity, range and scope of impact and future derivative benefits).
AVAILABLE AND RELIABLE (-4 to +4 points)
Is the technology available for use and reliable in its delivery of benefit? (From -4 for unavailable or unreliable, to +4 for available, accessible and reliable in outcome delivery and utility).
MAINTAINABLE (-2 to +2 points)
Is the technology easy to maintain, retain, upgrade and support? (From -2 for decaying utility and high-cost of sustaining benefit, to +2 for ease of maintenance and benefit sustainability).
ETHICS (Stated, Transparent, Communicated and Fulfilled Values)
MORAL INTENT (-8 to +8 points)
Are the values and ethical intent of the technology beneficent or maleficent? (From -8 for clear harmful intent and disregard for broader morality to +8 for clear beneficial intent and moral aims).
TRANSPARENCY (-6 to +6 points)
Is the technology, its benefit, its aims and ownership clearly and accurately communicated? (From -6 for secrecy, dishonesty and obfuscation to +6 for clarity, openness and quality of communication).
GOVERNANCE (-4 to +4 points)
Is the control, sovereignty, and governance of the technology of high integrity? (From -4 for corrupt, dictatorial or malevolent, to +4 for high integrity, clear process and quality governance).
ACCOUNTABILITY (-2 to +2 points)
Is there quality oversight, accountability and review processes for the technology? (From -2 for inflexible, dominant and other poor accountability to +2 for oversight, review and clear accountability).
GTI Rubric – Process and Results
There are Twenty (20) Factors and associated questions, divided into Five (5) Key Areas of Human Benefit, Environmental Benefit, Functional Benefit, Time Considerations and Ethical Considerations.
Each Key Area has Four Factors, weighted as follows: The first factor (heaviest weighting) scores from minus eight (-8) points for severe, deliberate or negligent under-performance to positive eight (+8) for superior performance as a continuum with each other score available. The second factor scores from minus six (-6) to positive six (+6). The third from minus four (-4) to positive four (+4) and the last from minus two (-2) to positive two (+2). Creating a total from minus twenty (-20) to positive twenty (+20) for each one of the five key areas.
The five key areas are combined for a total score that can range from minus one-hundred (-100) to positive one-hundred (+100). This is further simplified for an overarching and simply communicated star-rating from negative five-stars (potentially the ‘poo’ emoji) to positive five-stars, as follows:
STAR / NEGATIVE-STAR RATINGS
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (+81 to +100)
⭐️⭐️⭐️⭐️ (+61 to +70 with +71 to +80 as 4.5 stars)
⭐️⭐️⭐️ (+41 to +50 with +51 to +60 as 3.5 stars)
⭐️⭐️ (+21 to +30 with +31 to +40 as 2.5 stars)
⭐️ (+0 to +10 with +11 to +20 as 1.5 stars)
💩 (-1 to -10 with -11 to -20 as 1.5 negative stars)
💩💩 (-21 to -30 with -31 to -40 as 2.5 negative stars)
💩💩💩 (-41 to -50 with -51 to -60 as 3.5 negative stars)
💩💩💩💩 (-61 to -70 with -71 to -80 as 4.5 negative stars)
💩💩💩💩💩 (-81 to -100 … which should be close to impossible).
There is likely to be little point comparing dissimilar technologies, products and technology producing or deploying organizations. For example comparing military-technology with sustainable-energy or health-technology is going to deliver clearly different results without even applying the GTI rubric template.
Utility is more likely between similar product or technology groups, as well as over-time to see improvement or worsening of focus on quality outcomes and considering broader issues and values in our ever-growing advancement of technical development and deployment. We could look at new release products compared to competitors or past developments, or look at related technologies and different organizational producers to obtain a quantitative insight for qualitative discussion and evolution. The primary aim is to drive consideration of ‘good technology’ principles and allow for informed discussion within a quantifiable framework.
For this reason, the ‘star-rating’ has little value beyond a ‘headline’ metric.
It is in the five key category scores and the twenty individual factor assessment that meaning will rest, and comparison and active progression can also occur. If a technology scores only minus-4 (in the -6 to +6 range) on the Ethical Transparency metric, then it should be aiming to be more communicative and open, aiming to increase that particular factorial score in any future reviews. This is utility in the sense of creating a framework for good technology progression, beyond simple functionality alone.
The next Good Technology Index (GTI) Club Meeting on Clubhouse (9AM AEST on Saturday 29 May 2021) will review and adjust the factor names, weightings and questions for the final time prior to test use.
Following meetings and activity will be in applying the GTI template (Factors and Rubric) to selected technologies, technology producers and products, in order to test the ‘Good Technology Index’ (GTI). Examining the structure for applicability and usefulness, with a view to further refinement before a broader roll-out and expansion in application of the GTI.
Please join the group or provide feedback to this article, all input welcome.