Co-Design and Co-Decision: Decision Making on Collaborative Design Platforms
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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
- ORCID
- 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
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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