Value-Driven
Digital Identity Future
Value Sensitive Design Approach
Master Thesis Strategic Product Design / Melissa Kramer
Graduation Company: INNOPAY Management Consultancy, Amsterdam
​
#value tension #digital identity #ecosystem #transisiton design #value sensitive design
How might we create a digital identity future that embeds the values of various users and stakeholders, while using technology responsibly?
The Situation
The EU Commission is revisiting the current regulation eIDAS 2.0 on
identification and trust services and building an Architecture Reference
Framework (ARF) for future Digital Identity Wallets. This creates the outline for the emergent ecosystem for future transactions in Europe.
​
The Consequences
Many sectors that rely on the identification of users have to accept Digital Identity Wallets as verification means for their users. The development process makes the Digital Identity Wallets the future facilitators of the emergent ecosystem in which stakeholders have different preferences for the solution. Many value tensions arise.
Social
Economical
Design Process
1 Focus Groups User + Experts | Current feelings and experiences with digital identity in reflection with digital ethics
Tool: Envisioning Cards, Prototype
Process: Gamified Research with cards that foster conversations
Final Reflection
2 Stakeholder Research | Value Stream from System to Product
Digital Identity Experience + Balancing Technology Ethics
Tool 1: Sensitizer for Users, Verifying Parties & Experts
Tool 2: Value Cards for Experience and Ethical Reflection
Tool 3: Draw it out
Tool 2: Ecosystem Map
Design Intervention | Transition Design
Based on transition design, the final design aims to create a framework that can be used over time to balance values and provide an ethical technology foundation.
Strategic dialogues help stakeholders to form a shared understanding of their value differences and value tensions, and take responsible technology action.
Welcome to the Common Ground
Storytelling
Thesis Synthesis Map
Reflection
I see many experts talking about unethical practices and that we should create a better way of dealing with personal data and work on data privacy. However, the complexity of digital identity from a technical perspective makes it hard to generate a common understanding of where confidentiality and security is created.
To find a common language, I saw the common ground as a necessary outcome of my research, as talking about change starts with a reflective process. Having a framework and process in place in which conversations take place and all different perspectives are taken into account helps to talk about the important factors from the start without talking only buzzwords 'like privacy' without putting it in the verification context and the stakeholders involved in that process and the mechanisms used.
Therefore the Common Ground can be a framework for a diversity of verification experiences or value tensions between stakeholders in general.
The Common Ground is also a brand.
It showcases that value tensions need to be solved from the start. This way, nobody needs to lose their energy on making that point because everyone is there to understand what is happening.
> Iterations and tests need to happen to see if it is working sufficiently
​
​
​