IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2014 - 30

centrally imposed and controlled that prohibits generativity, and is not owned by the user whose behavior is
being monitored - raising significant concerns for trust,
privacy and security [13]. The "intelligence," such as it
is, is definitely not "at the edge," nor is it operating on
behalf of the end-user, i.e., the electricity consumer.
Instead, the SmartMeter's intelligence and interconnectedness could be leveraged on the consumer's
behalf through self-organization. For example, in a
local micro-grid, the meters can demand an amount
of electricity for a certain period of time (e.g., for a
programmable appliance). Once it is allocated, they
can exchange these allocations among them to better
satisfy their time preferences. During each exchange,
meters check whether the received allocation is in their
(or rather their consumer's) interest. If so, they count it
as a "favor received" from the other meter. In the opposite direction, they count it as a "favor done" for the
other. Since the calculation of favors is internal for each
meter, an exchange where both meters get an allocation
they prefer is perceived as a favor received by both of
them [14]. The social capital created by such win-win
situations can help to solve collective action problems.

and to provide cues for pro-social behavior, for example reparative action like an apology (see Fig. 1).
In this system, the acquisition of non-market and
non-marketable value, in the form of social capital as a
reward for good "office citizenship," is the key to making the system work. The workplace itself is considered
as a shared resource and the implementation of Ostrom's
institutional design principles empowers the office workers and incentivizes their pro-social behavior.

Affective Conditioning for Shared Physical Spaces
The encouragement of pro-social behavior was also
the aim of the "affective conditioning" system that
has been design and implemented to self-regulate
behavior in open-plan offices. It has been well-documented that the design of workplaces has a profound
influence on work-related issues, such as productivity
and efficiency [15]. However, even an ideal physical
arrangement of machines and workstations can be
undermined by the social and emotional intelligence
(or lack thereof) of the people using them; personnel
churn, i.e., fast-paced turnover in office occupancy
provides little incentive for investing in reciprocal relationships; and interaction through high-tech,
asynchronous communications. The result is uncivil
behavior which displays scant regards for others, and
is considered to be one of the most serious workplace
problems that organizations have to address.
To address the growing problem of incivility in
the workspace, we have designed and implemented
an "affective conditioning" system, which provides
a computer-mediated interaction between people in
a workplace [16]. The interface supports collective
choice arrangements with regard to the norms of office
etiquette: the occupants of the office (i.e., those who
are affected by the workplace norms) get to participate
in the consensual selection of the office norms. These
norms are mapped to a policy-based language and the
violation of norms is reported by individuals anonymously, to avoid lack of participation caused by inhibition. However, interface mechanisms like avatars are
used to promote self-awareness for compliant behavior,

Computational Justice
Various experiments with Ostrom's institutional
design principles have indicated a need for various
forms of justice. For example, Ostrom's first principle of clearly defined boundaries and a third principle concerning participatory selection of collective
choice arrangements indicate a need for a system of
"natural" or "social" justice based on democratic
engagement and empowerment. Similarly, Ostrom's
second principle refers to appropriation and provision rules, and the need for a system of distributive
justice which is "fair," "efficient," and "stable." Additionally, Ostrom's fourth, fifth, and sixth principles
on monitoring, graduated sanctions, and access to
conflict-resolution procedures indicate a need for a
system of retributive justice. However, the institution
members should also participate in the selection of
the rules embodying these principles as well. Furthermore, fully ensuring the congruence of the appropriation and provision rules to the state of the prevailing
environment indicates a requirement for a system of
procedural justice underpinning the second principle.
These qualifiers of justice are deeply entangled and
interdependent. Computational justice [17] is proposed
as an interdisciplinary investigation at the interface of
computer science and philosophy, economics, psychology, and jurisprudence. Its research program is to study
and resolve this entanglement and interdependence
through the formal representation of concepts of justice
proposed in the social sciences. However, it is also concerned with transferring these formal representations
back into socio-technical systems.

Social Capital in Socio-Technical Systems
These examples of creating social capital in sociotechnical systems highlight the attention that needs to
be paid to considering psychological values (like forgiveness) and social concepts (like justice), the userinfrastructure interface, and the role of (and control
of) conventional rules in self-regulating actions and
interactions. A more systematic approach requires
research in (at least) four directions: computational
justice, design contractualism, collective awareness,
and a new institution science. We consider each of
these in turn, and then bind them together in the reinvention of social capital for socio-technical systems.

IEEE TECHNOLOGY AND SOCIETY MAGAZINE

SprING 2014

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of IEEE Technology and Society Magazine - Spring 2014