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

→