Cited by 58Smart Cities and TechnologiesInnovative Approaches in Technology and Social DevelopmentLocal Governance and Planning

Co-Design and Co-Decision: Decision Making on Collaborative Design Platforms

Open access
Stelzle, Benjamin, Jannack, Anja, Rainer Noennig, Jörg·2017·Procedia Computer Science

Abstract

On the background of an increasing interest in participatory approaches in urban development, a multitude of participation methods has been created and tested over the past years. They key issue decision making in participatory settings, however, remains an open question, especially in digital forms of participation. While in conventional non-participatory approaches, decisions are made largely without public communication, common-use participatory formats either follow a highly diffuse way of decision making, or fall back onto limited methods such as voting or tally sheets. Responding to the rising demand for digital participation in urban design, this paper investigates effective decision making in participatory non-digital workshop formats in order to translate them into digital formats. The article reviews key challenges in urban design decisions, interprets them on the basis of participatory approaches, and proposes decision making models suitable for translation into digital tools. The paper refers to decision making in contexts such as law, design or engineering and demonstrates how principles borrowed from such realms can be adopted for formalizing the demand description (User Story) for the development of digital interaction tools. This paper is associated to the EU funded Horizon2020 project “U_CODE Urban Collective Design Environment” which creates a new co-design platform for massive participation in urban planning and design.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.procs.2017.08.095

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Trust-building and supporting joint negotiation are important aspects to consider in collaborative design processes.

    “For this to happen, trust-building and supporting joint negotiation have been also recognised as important aspects to consider in collaborative design processes (Robinson & Simonsen, 2012; Stelzle et al., 2017).”

    From Designing learning technology collaboratively: analysis of a chatbot co-design (2023) · cites this paper as Stelzle et al., 2017

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 10 · Cited by 58

Authors
Stelzle, B., Jannack, A., & Rainer Noennig, J.
Affiliations
Technische Universität Dresden (DE)
Corresponding author
Stelzle, Benjamin
Venue
Procedia Computer Science
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017
Volume
112
Pages
2435-2444
ISSN
1877-0509 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2751571485
Cited by
58
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.22
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Procedia Computer Science (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Media Technology › Smart Cities and Technologies
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Management of Technology and Innovation › Innovative Approaches in Technology and Social Development
  • Social Sciences › Geography, Planning and Development › Local Governance and Planning
Keywords
participatory decision-making, co-design, collaborative design platform, digital participation, urban design, participatory urban planning, user stories, decision models, co-decision

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review