composing futures together

#
>

Paper

→
#
>

introduction and motivation (10k words)

→
#
>

epistemology of ethics

→
#
>

what matters?

→
#
>

partial orders as a universal structure of value

→
#
>

realizing shared futures (20k words)

→
#
>

how we realize shared futures

→
#
>

realizing: meant to communicate both “discovering” and “implementing”

→
#
>

shared: meant to communicate both “negotiated” and “common good”

→
#
>

future: meant to communicate both “outcomes” and “fictions”

→
#
>

why we choose co-design to realize futures (10k words)

→
#
>

We can extend co-design to create a tool for collaborative, legible design processes.

→
#
>

Existing methods of community engagement are naive.

→
#
>

they do not show communities how their opinions change outcomes

→
#
>

they do not show tradeoffs in a clear and legible way

→
#
>

Co-design allows for multiple levels of detail to exist as interconnected design problems.

→
#
>

The implementation of some design problems in co-design structures are subjective and are dependent on stakeholder values, i.e. opinion-oriented

→
#
>

e.g. at a bus stop should we install a longer bench without a shelter, or a shorter bench with a shelter?

→
#
>

while technical functionality is impacted (number of people who can sit),

→
#
>

the opinions of those who use the bus stop would ideally be considered in the implementation of this design problem

→
#
>

Existing collective prioritization tools lack integration with usable design frameworks

→
#
>

Generalized collaborative design can be used in contexts outside of government and policy.

→
#
>

Grassroots projects

→
#
>

extending co-design for collaboration (10k words)

→
#
>

Co-design provides the structures to build a generalizable, collaborative, and legible design process.

→
#
>

Co-design has structures that can be generalized for any type of design problem.

→
#
>

Applied category theory can be used to create structures that are interoperable.

→
#
>

Co-design uses applied category theory to provide a multi-layered solver that connects design problems using partial orders

→
#
>

this multi-layered capability allows for it to be generalizable to any level of detail and decomposition

→
#
>

Posets as structures for representing value

→
#
>

All design problems are fundamentally a negotiation of resources and functionality

→
#
>

Opinion-oriented design problems can be opened to input

→
#
>

Opinion-oriented design problems can be surfaced for stakeholder opinions to create design problem implementations in the form of joint posets.

→
#
>

Use methods to efficiently extract partial orders with a voting system (e.g. Bradley-Terry Model)

→
#
>

Integrate democratic community engagement methodologies

→
#
>

Tradeoffs can be visualized and surfaced to the user, making the design process and the impact of different priorities legible.

→
#
>

Plausible fictions as a use an example of a generalization use case for this new framework.

→
#
>

omnicat: software for collaborative poset management (15k words)

→
#
>

A repository for storing partial orders and design problems

→
#
>

Allow users to create partial orders

→
#
>

Allow users to propose design problems that connect partial orders

→
#
>

An engagement tool for voting on priorities

→
#
>

Allow users to vote on orderings in partial orders (participatory prioritization)

→
#
>

Support partial orders enriched with distance

→
#
>

Allow users to vote on priority of design problems

→
#
>

Load and visualize design problems from this repo in co-design problems

→
#
>

stretch

→
#
>

Case Studies (15k words)

→
#
>

urban co-design (5k)

→
#
>

a scenario that involves local government making urban planning decisions, with both technical and opinion-oriented design problems.

→
#
>

Designing a public park using co-design: https://github.com/mit-zardini-lab/urban-codesign

→
#
>

Surface specific design problems through participatory prioritization process (e.g. layout x cost joint poset)

→
#
>

Show how varying priorities lead to different outcomes of design process, and surface tradeoffs to users

→
#
>

data slots (5k)

→
#
>

extension of work in Senseable City Lab

→
#
>

show how user preferences on privacy and benefits can be integrated into a co-design problem

→
#
>

plausible fiction (5k)

→
#
>

a scenario that imagines a new, more grassroots design problem

→
#
>

decomposes it into technical and opinion-oriented design problems

→
#
>

Conclusion

→
#
>

Lit Review

→
#
>

Participatory Design & Co-Design Theory

→
#
>

Zardini, Gioele; Lanzetti, Nicolas; Censi, Andrea; Frazzoli, Emilio; Pavone, Marco (2023). Co-Design to Enable User-Friendly Tools to Assess the Impact of Future Mobility Solutions. IEEE Transactions on Network Science and Engineering. Link

→
#
>

Furter, Marius; Lorand, Jonathan (2021). Modeling Choice in Co-Design. Link

→
#
>

Zardini, Gioele; Frazzoli, Emilio; Censi, Andrea; Pavone, Marco (2023). Co-Design of Complex Systems: From Autonomy to Future Mobility Systems. Link

→
#
>

Censi, Andrea (2016). A Mathematical Theory of Co-Design. Link

→
#
>

Luck, R. (2018). Participatory design in architectural practice: Changing practices in future making in uncertain times. Design Studies. Link

→
#
>

Kpamma, Z.; Adjei-Kumi, T.; Ayarkwa, J.; Adinyira, E. (2017). Participatory design, wicked problems, choosing by advantages. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management. Link

→
#
>

Velden, M.; Mörtberg, C. (2015). Participatory Design and Design for Values. Link

→
#
>

Brazier, F.; Delft, Tu; Nevejan, C. (2020). Vision for Participatory Systems Design. Link

→
#
>

Maja van der Velden; Christina Mörtberg (2015). Participatory DesignDesign participatory and Design for Values.

→
#
>

Toni Robertson; Jesper Simonsen (2012). Challenges and Opportunities in Contemporary Participatory Design. Design Issues.

→
#
>

Rachael Luck (2007). Learning to talk to users in participatory design situations. Design Studies.

→
#
>

Tools and Platforms for Engagement (e.g., pol.is, deliberation)

→
#
>

Small, Christopher (2021). Polis: Escalar de la deliberación mediante el mapeo de espacios de opinión de alta dimensión. RECERCA. Link

→
#
>

Flanigan, Bailey et al. (2021). Fair algorithms for selecting citizens’ assemblies. Nature. Link

→
#
>

Bour, Raphaëlle et al. (2019). DEMOS: A Participatory Design Approach for Democratic Empowerment of IS Users.

→
#
>

Agger, Annika; Löfgren, Karl (2008). Democratic Assessment of Collaborative Planning Processes. Planning Theory.

→
#
>

Horgan, Donagh; Dimitrijević, Branka (2019). Frameworks for citizens participation in planning: From conversational to smart tools. Sustainable Cities and Society.

→
#
>

Blomkamp, Emma (2021). Systemic design practice for participatory policymaking. Policy Design and Practice.

→
#
>

Preference Modeling & Value Structures

→
#
>

White, Chelsea C.; Sage, Andrew P. (1983). Multiple objective evaluation and prioritization under risk with partial preference information. International Journal of Systems Science.

→
#
>

Pini, Marco et al. (2006). Computing possible and necessary winners from incomplete partially-ordered preferences.

→
#
>

Riella, Gil (2015). On the representation of incomplete preferences under uncertainty with indecisiveness in tastes and beliefs. Economic Theory.

→
#
>

Xia, Lirong; Conitzer, Vincent (2011). A maximum likelihood approach towards aggregating partial orders.

→
#
>

Beliakov, Gleb et al. (2017). Aggregation and consensus for preference relations based on fuzzy partial orders. Fuzzy Optimization and Decision Making.

→
#
>

Moskowitz, Herbert; Wallenius, Jyrki (1990). Preference‐Order Recursion for Finding Relevant Pure, Admissible and Optimal Statistical Decision Functions. Decision Sciences.

→
#
>

Wang, Haibin et al. (2022). Multi resource allocation with partial preferences. Artificial Intelligence.

→
#
>

Integrating Values into Design

→
#
>

Kerr, Jeremy et al. (2022). A Model for Co-designing with Multiple Stakeholder Groups from the ‘Fuzzy’ Front-end to Beyond Project Delivery. Link

→
#
>

Moura, A.; Campagna, M. (2018). Co-Design: digital tools for knowledge-building and decision-making in planning and design. Link

→
#
>

Moghimi, Vahid et al. (2017). Incorporating user values into housing design through indirect user participation using MEC-QFD model. Journal of Building Engineering.

→
#
>

Piela, Peter et al. (1992). Integrating the user into research on engineering design systems. Research in Engineering Design.

→
#
>

Iversen, Ole Sejer et al. (2012). Values-led Participatory Design. Codesign.

→
#
>

Marimuthu, Malliga et al. (2022). Integrating community value into the adoption framework: A systematic review of conceptual research on participatory smart city applications. Technological Forecasting and Social Change.

→
#
>

Boshuijzen-van Burken, Christine et al. (2023). Value Sensitive Design meets Participatory Value Evaluation for autonomous systems in Defence. IEEE ETHICS Symposium.

→
#
>

Compositional / Mathematical Structures

→
#
>

Voskoglou, Michael Gr. et al. (2023). Use of Soft and Neutrosophic Sets for a Mathematical Representation of the Ethical Rules. Advances in Computer and Electrical Engineering. Link

→
#
>

Lefebvre, Vladimir A. (1980). An algebraic model of ethical cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

→
#
>

Freund, Michael S. (2020). Ordered models for concept representation. Journal of Logic and Computation.

→
#
>

Urban / Planning / Civic Applications

→
#
>

Cooney, Sarah; Raghavan, B. (2022). Opening the Gate to Urban Repair: A Tool for Citizen-Led Design. Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction. Link

→
#
>

McCabe, Annie; Halog, Anthony (2018). Exploring the potential of participatory systems thinking techniques in progressing SLCA. Int. Journal of Life Cycle Assessment.

→
#
>

Molnar, Stefan; Palmås, Karl (2021). Dissonance and diplomacy: coordination of conflicting values in urban co-design. Codesign.

→
#
>

Healey, Patsy (1997). Collaborative Planning: Shaping Places in Fragmented Societies.

→
#
>

Ruíz, Alexandra et al. (2018). Participatory design method: Co-Creating user interfaces for an educational interactive system. Proceedings of the XIX International Conference on Human Computer Interaction.

→
#
>

Zhilyaev, Dmitry et al. (2022). Best Fit for Common Purpose: A Multi-Stakeholder Design Optimization Methodology for Construction Management. Buildings.

→
#
>

Smith, Rachel Charlotte et al. (2018). Participatory design for sustainable social change. Design Studies.

→
#
>

Ocampo, Lanndon et al. (2020). Integrated multiphase sustainable product design with a hybrid QFD-MADM framework. Sustainable Production and Consumption.

→
#
>

Peng, Gongzhuang et al. (2017). A collaborative system for capturing and reusing in-context design knowledge. Advanced Engineering Informatics.

→
#
>

Hart, Jason et al. (2022). End user engagement in refugee shelter design: Contextualising participatory process. Design Studies.

→
#
>

Mertens, Audrey et al. (2022). Interactions between architects and end-users during housing design processes: a systematic literature review. ArchNet-IJAR.

→
#
>

Speculative & Futures-Oriented Design

→
#
>

Laplace, Ricelli; Letkemann, Joel (2022). Science Fictioning Participatory Design. Proceedings of the Participatory Design Conference 2022 – Volume 1.

→