Welcome to another issue of Labrys Insights, your biweekly newsletter on technology design and policy.

Today, we'll cover:

What is technology design and policy; and
How it relates to human-computer interaction (HCI) and public interest technology (PIT).

Hello, everyone! We're back with another more existential piece about who we are and what we do here at Labrys. If you've been following us for a while now, you know we've been long working on the definition of the field we operate in. Since before founding this company, we've been working on the intersection of technology and regulation but without a clear definition of what that space really is. This is our 31st issue of this newsletter and we're ready to share a clearer image of what technology design and policy is. We appreciate you following us on this journey and, as always, do reach out if you have any comments.

Now, let's get to it.

M. and J.

Technology design and policy in a nutshell: a “new” field between computer and human sciences

A few weeks ago, we introduced the concept of the Systemic Approach to Technology, our take on how we should perceive, interact with, and build technology. In that article, and in many other occasions, we mention the term technology design and policy. You may have also noticed it in some of our short updates and on our website.

We never had the chance to explain in more detail what we mean by that, though. So today, we dig deeper into the novel field of technology design and policy, its synergies with adjacent fields in computer science and human sciences, and how it defines the scope of Labrys’ work.

Technology design and policy

Technology design and policy is the field of research and application of information and communication technology on topics related to the public interest or public policy. It was born from the assumptions that there are aspects of public policy that can be improved with the use of good ICT design and that there are issues in the tech industry that technology alone cannot solve without the assistance of public policy and/or public interest considerations. In any case, no policymaker can comprehend the range of possible solutions to a problem, nor can a technologist choose the best design for an application without being able to effectively transit between the policy and the technology domain with ease.

Take Brazil's Pix as an example of a public policy enabled by good technology design. Pix is the most successful account-to-account instant payment rail in the world. It was built on top of a custom-made communication layer. The design of this communication system was made considering all the payment system's regulator's concerns in mind. They minimized the cost, made sure the technology was widely available to any interested institution to join, it made sure all its core functions could operate 24/7/365 and made it extremely reliable for users.

Another example in the private sector is Nubank's savings account. Nubank is, of course, the largest digital bank in the world. Before it hit dozens of millions of clients, however, Nubank started as a digital credit card without an account service offering. By the time they decided to launch a digital account, they realized the regulation in Brazil mandated them to invest the totality of all account deposits in public bonds as a way of guaranteeing all deposits were securely backed. That meant Nubank, with a light-weight operating license, could not leverage the money on the accounts to extend loans to other clients, as full-fledged banks typically do. Nor could Nubank offer the typical low-yield savings service because they could not offer investment products as they were.

However, Nubank realized they would be sitting on a low-risk investment that would yield something close to the national standard interest rate every month. So they decided to give the interest yielded by the compulsory investment back to their clients, mimicking the experience of a banking savings account but with a substantially higher yield. So they designed an account service that could compute the yield, income tax, and all other complexities around paying interest to each of their clients. Now, it's worth mentioning that paying the interest yielded by the compulsory investment back to end-users was not explicitly authorized by the regulation. However, the fact is that Nubank was fulfilling the policy goals of increasing competition, financial inclusion, and sustainably paying their clients more money than anyone else would at the time. So the design of Nubank's technology service was shaped by their understanding of the governing public policy and the public interests at play.

Identifying business opportunities in the regulation is a crucial part of operating in a regulated market. The ability to surf the wave of big regulatory trends and to identify gaps to offer differentiated products are the marks of truly innovative technology companies. At the same time, the ability to understand the impacts of decisions about technology design on public policy goals is equally determinant in the success of policymakers’ efforts today.

When we talk about technology design and policy that's what we want to convey: that separating tech design on one side and policy on the other, as two separate worlds, is not sustainable anymore — and arguably never was.

Synergies with related fields in computer and human sciences

There are two fields in computer science that share remarkable resemblance with technology design and policy. So much so that we could say TDP should be seen as deeply nested in one or the other. Since we are specialists of neither, though, we'll take the safest path of calling these “related” or "adjacent fields” until someone from the area invites us in — or we decide to move into their turf anyway, tech bro style.

These fields are human-computer interaction (HCI) and public interest technology (PIT).

If you're thinking "human-computer interaction” sounds like a 1980's term for "UX”… well, you're not wrong. HCI has existed for almost as long as personal computers exist. It was created to study and apply the knowledge about the “easy to learn and use computer systems” (Yvonne Rogers, HCI Theory, Classical, Modern, and Contemporary, p. 21). Originally, the discipline was related to the constraints that cognitive psychology found on human behavior and how computer design should incorporate those limitations. Soon, however, the field evolved to research more than what happens between an individual user and the computer's graphic interface. It evolved to encompass many interdisciplinary studies with sociology, psychology, anthropology, etc., and to extend the object of study to groups and computing systems (check out Yvonne Rogers, HCI Theory, Classical, Modern, and Contemporary, p. 3-20).

Today, the traditional Carnegie Mellon University Human-Computer Interaction Institute hosts laboratories focused on "further[ing] our understanding of design, politics, and justice” (Tech Solidarity Lab) and on "understanding and designing for the challenges people face working and participating in a highly connected, data-driven society” (CoEx Lab). And we have academic publications on the need for "Designing Technology and Policy Simultaneously”, defining frameworks to interact with policymaking, and understanding its boundaries with policymaking.

So we could say technology design and policy goes in exactly that direction applying the Systemic Approach to Technology to the whole concept of Human-Computer Interaction. Did I lose you in this one? Let's recap, then. HCI evolved from “one user - one computer” and all factors that influence that relationship to "user groups - computer systems” and all limitations and expectations inserted in that relationship. So what happens when we consider a system of users (a market, society, etc.) and a system of computing technology? Well, you start considering all constraints and requirements derived from the system itself and how it impacts the design of any given computer solution. This is exactly what we mean by technology design and policy here at Labrys.

So we're quite convinced tech design and policy is well within the realms of HCI in its latest — and considerably wider — version. But what about public interest technology (PIT)?

The first reference we could find about the field was from this Ford Foundation blog post. The term was rapidly adopted by Bruce Schneier, the cybersecurity superstar who wrote: "We Must Bridge the Gap Between Technology and Policymaking. Our Future Depends on It”. He is the only security engineer we know to teach public policy courses at one of the most prestigious universities in the world.

Today, many major universities are involved with the Public Interest Technology University Network. Depending on who's asking, the definition of Public Interest Technology can focus more on the ethical responsibilities of the technologist or on the interaction between the fields of policy and technology itself. In this second perspective, both the Systemic Approach to Technology and the Technology Design and Policy discussions at Labrys are also well within the subjects of PIT.

TL;DR

At the end of the day, the important thing to remember is that Labrys’ applied research and development on technology design and policy and the systemic approach to technology position us at the forefront of a very recent effort to bridge technology, policy, and business interests. The point is to have an approach that is multidisciplinary and systemic by nature, and that is supported by theory but entirely driven by the practice. That's what enables us to pursue opportunities to develop technology and design systems that will advance the public interest in a sustainable way. We're so glad you joined us on this ride! Let's move forward!