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

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.

Full text

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000
www.elsevier.com/locate/procedia
1877-0509 © 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of KES International.
International Conference on Knowledge Based and Intelligent Information and Engineering
Systems, KES2017, 6-8 September 2017, Marseille, France
Co-Design and Co-Decision:
Decision Making on Collaborative Design Platforms
Benjamin Stelzle
a
*,Anja Jannack
a
, Jörg Rainer Noennig
a, b
a
WISSENSARCHITEKTUR Laboratory of Knowledge Architecture, TU Dresden
b
CityScienceLab, HafenCity University
Hamburg
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.
© 2017 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V.
Peer-review under responsibility of KES International.
Keywords: Urban design; Urban development; Decision making; Workflow, Design Science
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +43-463-32210.
E-mail address: benjamin.stelzle@tu-dresden.de

2 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000
1. Introduction
The last years have witnessed an increasing interest in participatory approaches in urban development. Citizens
demand direct involvement in urban development projects beyond the level of mere information. They ask for active
roles in the overall process as co-creators and decision makers. Thus, it has become difficult for municipalities and
governments to carry out large scale development projects without appropriate involvement of civic stakeholders.
Subsequently, research on, and application of participatory methods and tools is increasing, and there is a growing
body of knowledge on the issues of participation, co-creation, and co-design.
A key issue in this context is the question of decision-making. On the one hand, design and planning projects – not
only on urban scale – are to a large extend decision-making problems. Designers and planners need to select
appropriate and feasible solutions from a variety of possible answers to their given problems. On the other hand, many
of the formal procedures established in public and planning law (e.g. building permits or formal public consultation)
were implemented to support efficient decision making in the face of complex planning and construction endeavors.
On the background of emerging participatory approaches in urban planning and design, the established (formal)
decision making processes need to be reconsidered. New procedures are needed that allow quick and reliable decisions
also with the involvement of much large stakeholder and decision-maker groups. The experiences and lessons from a
wide range of participatory projects all over the world have formed a rich knowledge basis for this. While a multitude
of successful methods and tools was created and described already, participatory decision-making still remains an
open question. While there is much research existing on design participation in general, the decision making principles
in participatory approaches are still not clarified. Validated tools and methods to supply decision-making are hard to
find; most of the established decision support systems focus on business decisions by single persons. Nonetheless,
well-established participatory workshop format such as Design Charettes, Bar Camps or Open Spaces more or less
tacitly employ decision-making procedures in order to progress the projects at stake to their next level, e.g. with well-
known instruments such as voting or tally sheets. While they may be effective in creating some solution and decision,
it is doubtful whether the results do fully reflect the necessary levels of knowledge, fairness, and reliability. Further
research is due which shall reflect concepts from social psychology, organization learning, and design management.
The strong demand for participation instruments has shifted the interest of all interest groups to digital formats. As
conventional participation events (workshops, debates, public presentation) suffer from only involving a small and
highly selection-biased participant group, digital tools promise participation on a higher quantitative and qualitative
levels. First, they may enable participation on a massive level by addressing thousands of participants online, thus
turning into genuine crowdsourcing or citizen science. Second, digital tools may reach user groups that are otherwise
out of reach for ordinary participation formats, be it for geographic, social, or cultural reasons. As a consequence much
effort is currently invested in the development of digital participation tools, the U_CODE project being one of them.
In the area of digital participation the above mentioned deficit in regards to decision making attains special urgency
due to the strong effect that such massive participation tools may have. Decisions made on a participation platform
potentially involve thousands of contributors and may lead to forceful impacts on communities and societies. A
thorough understanding of how decisions are prepared, how they come about, and what responsibilities are involved
seems necessary. This paper wants to address this key issue and sketch a first guideline how decision making in digital
participation tools may be conceived. The idea of the paper is to review proven and effective decision making processes
in conventional (non-digital) participatory workshop formats, and translate them into digital tools and processes. The
paper presents ongoing research in the context of the Horizon2020 project U_CODE, which is tackling the issue of
massive participatory design and subsequent decision making problems. The text discusses in how far such a
translation is possible and meaningful, and outlines the limits of the approach.

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 3
2. 2. Problem Description & Theoretical Background
2.1. U_CODE Urban Collective Design Environment
The H2020 project U_CODE aims to create a co-design platform for urban design that allows participation for a
large number of (simultaneous) participants. Besides technological and conceptual challenges ranging from the
implementation of interactive public co-design spaces to the definition of suitable interaction technologies, decision
making emerged as a key issue in the course of the project when a procedural blueprint for the digital platform was
schemed, the so-called Minimal Viable Process (MVP) (Figure 1). The MVP describes the entire process from project
initiation towards the output of a valid design scheme. It comprises the necessary participatory features and functions,
and assigns roles to project stakeholders and participants. The MVP includes following key processes all of which
imply aspects of decision making by one or multiple stakeholders:
• Project Initiation (decision whether a participation project is run or not)
• Co-Briefing (collecting and prioritizing design relevant information)
• Co-Designing (co-creating design alternatives and selecting favorites)
• Professional Design (creating design alternatives and selecting quality solutions)
• Ranking Voting (public assessment of selected solutions)
• Integration (integrating public assessments and results from social media analysis)
• Approving (gaining acceptance on the side of project owners / initiators)
• Formal Assessment (checking proposals against building codes and regulations).
Any of the steps indicated above converges into points where the future development of the project at stake is being
decided. While conventional design practices have established effective forms of decision making such as competition
juries, the case is more complicate in participatory co-design. How decisions are made under circumstances of massive
public involvement demands closer investigation. In order to facilitate the overall co-design process and decision
making on the platform, U_CODE has devised a new management role. The so-called Super Moderator (SuMo) is a
person or a group of persons that manages the platform tool, moderates stakeholder groups, and ensures steady
progress from start to end. To support the SuMo, a decision support tool as well as a process design tool will be
developed within the U_CODE project. The scientific basics for this are outlined in this paper.
Figure 1 Minimal Viable Process (U_CODE)

4 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000
2.2. State of the art
Although only few literature can be found about decision making in digital participation processes, various
researchers have already addressed the issue of design problem solving and decision making [1, 2]. In the field of
architecture and urban design, Christopher Alexander has argued for a rational process in decision making [3].
However, it was Herbert Simon´s systematic description of the design sciences as problem solving processes which
made decision making a central concern in the design field
[4]. Contemporary concepts draw for instance on gaming
approaches where decisions are achieved in a playful and informal manner [5]. In systematic form, Anderson et al.
have described the problem solving process with following steps: 1) Identify and define the problem. 2) Determine
the set of alternative solutions, 3) Determine the criterion or criteria that will be used to evaluate the alternatives, 4)
Evaluate the alternatives, 5) Choose an alternative, 6) Implement the selected alternative [6]. Here, steps 1-5 are
associated to explicit decision making. This present paper focusses on the steps 3-5: criteria setting, evaluation and
selection of alternatives (step 1 represents the initial brief of an urban design project; step 2 can be regarded a basic
activity of any design endeavor).
Another important reference are models that describe the design process as a succession of divergent and
convergent phases. A prominent example is the Double Diamond scheme (Figure ) often used in Design Thinking
[7,
8]. The basic pattern connects a divergent phase dedicated to the production of alternative variations with a convergent
phase which assesses the variations and selects an appropriate solution to continue with in the further process. This
diamond shaped basic pattern can be sequenced to form a chain of diamonds (hence “Double Diamond”) [9], with
some models presenting complex versions of this principle [7]. The divergent stage of design processes is well
described and understood [10, 11]. There is relatively rich knowledge about the stimulation of creativity and the
generation of alternatives [11]. This is represented in Figure by the divergence / ideation stage. The convergence
phase, significantly, is explicitly based on decision making, an aspect often neglected in the literature and practice of
Design Thinking. The selection of “survivor” variations resp. the exclusion of insufficient ones needs a) an act of
deliberation as well as b) decision making criteria and values. Anderson et al. have highlighted the definition of criteria
(step 3) as a prerequisite for any later assessment of solutions. Few theories in the context of design theory have
explicated this critical step on which much the overall process and its results rests.
Jannack et al. [12, 13] have suggested to distinguish three modes of creativity. Beyond artificing creativity (Mode
1) which is about ideation and the production of new objects, there exists also a problem solving and organizational
creativity (Mode 2) which solves problems by re-arranging structures, and, importantly, a value-setting creativity
(Mode 0), which establishes the measures and criteria upon which the pursuit of Mode 1 and 2 depends. It has become
clear that – instead of a creative over-production of ideas or solutions already at the outset as a result of direct entering
into creative Modes 1 and 2 – an early-on definition of success criteria is necessary to ensure that useful concepts and
solutions are being focused upon in the ideation and problem solving modes. While such approach may be less
dynamic and somewhat limiting at the outset, it navigates all later creativity into a valid direction.
2.3. Hands-on decision tools – Decision making in workshop formats
Observations of workshop facilitated by the WISSENSARCHITEKTUR Laboratory of Knowledge Architecture
have provided a resource for the systematization of decision making processes in participatory or co-design settings.
It was observed that the implementation of architectural methods such as sketching, modelling or hands-on building
is a successful way to increase collective creativity and innovation. Yet it is not only the creative techniques that are
influencing the workshop decisions and results. The design of the procedure as well as the pre-arrangement of tools,
methods and sequences has emerged as a key driver for successful interdisciplinary cooperation [12, 13]. Since 2011
the laboratory has tested different workshop formats for participants like technology cluster managers, teachers,
political decision makers, or scientists. The workshops commonly focused on the collaborative generation of scientific
projects or industrial products. Gräning et al. [14] have stated
that the implementation of a so-called “Impulse Team”
to review, edit, and evaluate the generated pool of ideas is a key feature to process successful collaboration and co-
innovation (Figure ). In the specific case, the Impulse Team members of Silicon Saxony´s Cyberphysical Systems

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 5
cluster had to decide upon ideas for technology and business ventures created by technologists and managers. Complex
decision criteria were generated for the assessment e.g. level of complexity, feasibility, degree of innovation,
attractiveness, need for this product, research demand, application areas, competencies, implementation.
Another rich resource for identifying rules for collaborative decision making are co-design workshops on topics of
workplace design. In multiple occasions, researchers of the WISSENSARCHITEKTUR Laboratory of Knowledge
Architecture have motivated employees of software, design, and engineering companies to determine the key features
of their work environment. Here, pen-and-paper methods and well-facilitated face-to-face interactions were sufficient
to enable large groups of people to simultaneously co-design and co-decide. The largest number of people handled so
far were 120 participants co-designing one urban quarter at the same time in one space over the period of 4 hours
(Figure 3, 4). The expertise and knowledge accumulated in such experiments was funneled into workshop designs for
the U_CODE project itself, which is to enable co-design on a massive digital scale. The demand comes from all
stakeholders in participatory urban design – that is: citizens, investors, political decisions makers, authorities, planners
and managers. As face-to-face and pen-and-paper approaches are no sufficient methods here, the insights from above
mentioned techniques need to be transferred to intelligent ICT solutions which can address much larger audiences and
safe resources on scale.
3. Methodology
In order to derive valid principles for decision making in participatory urban planning, the following sections of
this paper will 1) describe a general typology of decisions to be taken in design work, 2) transpose the decision-making
typology to massive co-design context, 3) provide use cases and user stories for a co-design platform component to
be developed, and 4) sketch a decision support tool.
Figure 2 Ideas edited by the CPS Impulse Team Figure 3 Assessment template for CPS challenges
Figure 3 Co-deciding architectural features of a company HQ Figure 4 Co-deciding the U_CODE project roadmap

6 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000
3.1. Typology of Decisions
The decisions that must be taken throughout the stages of a co-design process (see section 2.1) differ in their nature.
In early stages such as the co-briefing, decisions are case-by-case decisions e.g. about items to be included in a design
brief. In the latter (co-)design phase, decisions attain a more comparative character e.g. when from different proposals
a top-runner must be identified. It is noteworthy that complex decision problems may arise with conflicting – if not
paradoxical – situations. For example, a public voting for a design proposal may offensively contradict expert’s votes,
or a public voting contradicts the success criteria that were defined by the same public earlier in the same process.
From the MVP, the following key types of decisions were derived which – explicitly or implicitly – apply to any kind
of design work:
• Priorizing / ranking design information according to pre-set values
• Selecting / unselecting solutions according to pre-set criteria
• Value setting, or definition of decision-making criteria.
• Stakeholder setting to define who contributes to the process.
Priorizing / Ranking: A key type of decisions in any design context is the assessment of the quantity and quality
of information on which the design work will be based. Despite maximum information provides good basis for design
work, the infinity of data of any surrounding context needs to be limited by some criteria. Only a shortlist of items
can be taken into consideration. To establish such a set of constrains for design work, a priorization of information
according to project relevance is due.
Solution Selection: A basic activity of design work is the selection of appropriate solutions from a range of
alternatives. In order to narrow down the number of possibilities generated in the convergent phases of a design
process (e.g. by brainstorming, sketching, test modelling) insufficient alternatives must be excluded, and more proper
ones singled out for further refinement. This process too is based on implicitly or explicitly defined fitness criteria.
Criteria / Value Setting: As shows in the two paragraphs above, the ability to carry out ranking and selection rests
upon the setting of key values and quality criteria for the project intended. Anderson et al. have highlighted the
definition of criteria (step 3 in the list above) as a prerequisite for any later assessment of solutions. The value or
criteria setting contains two steps: 1) different criteria have to be collected, 2) every criterion has to be weighted
(multi-criteria analysis according to Bujis and van der Meer [15].
Stakeholder Setting: A crucial aspect in co-design processes are the stakeholders in charge of decision making, the
contributors of values and judgements. Thus the definition of persons and groups who need to be involved in decision
making is a key decision in itself which determines to large extent the level of participation, transparency and
democracy of the entire process. Next to the definition of involvement, the definition of veto rights is important to
avoid decisions in favor of impossible solutions.
3.2. Adaptation to massive co-design
While experienced designers in a conventional design process can fall back on their own professional knowledge
and rules, co-creative crowdsourcing projects involving a large number of lay participants cannot draw upon such
resources. All of the three decision types described above must be reinterpreted on the background of massive
participation thus.
For decision-making in collaborative projects the criteria setting regards the criteria themselves as well as the
involved parties and stakeholder groups. In order to make public co-creation a goal-oriented process, the criteria
setting must take place before any design information is gathered or solutions are generated. While in small-scale
workshops it may possible to define criteria a posteriori i.e. after a creative process has commenced, such process is
rather dangerous in public co-design settings.

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 7
To create a meaningful digital process with a participants number
>1000, it is very necessary to clearly outline the overall process as well
as the basic criteria to prevent later disruption, and to facilitate a
smooth procedure in general. This approach is displayed in Figure 5
with the first “diamond” – here the value setting happens; whereas the
second “diamond” describes the creation of alternatives. Both
diamonds feature divergent stages of idea creation plus convergent
stages of decision making. The criteria set up in the first diamond is
the basis for the second diamond´s decision making about actual
design alternatives.
It`s important here to juxtapose the different stages of the overall
MVP (initiating, briefing, designing etc.) with the different stages of
the double diamond (divergent ideation / convergent decision making)
as implicated in most of the MVP stages.
3.3. Criteria / Value setting in U_CODE:
To enable reliable decisions on the basis of shared values, design criteria must be defined and weighted prior to the
start of the decision making process. As a value template for the Super Moderator, we have set up a proposal of
(unweighted) criteria (Table 1) for each step of the whole MVP. It may be modified according to the requirements of
each project or even set up completely new. Once weighted, every criterion needs to defined in regards to its degree
of fulfilment. The fulfilment of certain criteria may be mandatory, while others remain optional. This activity of
criteria setting also provides an opportunity for higher-level participation in accordance to the first diamond in Figure
5. Just as the urban design proposals, also the criteria list and weights may be co-developed with the stakeholders, for
example by way of a brainstorming tool. Another approach to the same end is a gaming environment stimulating
stakeholders to weight different predefined criteria. Interestingly, such interaction may reveal the priorities of the
stakeholders, especially of the public whose general value-set is otherwise hard to define. With a more practical
approach, however, the SuMo may define and weight the criteria himself. Table 1 makes a distinction between content-
based criteria, such as attractiveness or also formal quality and process criteria (written in italic) such as emotion level
or the number of winners.
Table 1 Criteria for decision on different project stages
Initial Brief Project volume, duration, brief, project concept, definition of target group, simplicity of description
Co-Brief Content-relation, formal quality, comprehensive as possible, basic project information, multimedia
Co-Design Compatibility to the Co-Brief, originality, attractiveness, level of collaboration
Design Competition Compatibility to Co-Brief, cost-effect, technical integrity, versality, number of top running projects
Sentiment Analysis Influence to design process, level and value of information, Emotion level, publicity, analysis scope
Ranking/Voting Differentiation, level of information, information content, scope of participation
Integrating Coherence with previous decisions
The definition which stakeholder groups need to be involved in decision making shall depend on the stage of the
process, as in different stages different stakeholders are engaged. There is a preset defined with the MVP (Table 2)
but the SuMo may modify the setting according to project context and aims (optional participants in brackets in Table
2). For the actual decision making, the SuMo (or the public) defines prior to the process the influence of the vote of
the different stakeholders, as well as their right to veto. There should be also a procedure of exclusion, e. g. professional
designers who have a vote for the Co-Design are not allowed to join the design competition. With this approach a jury
systems occurs.
Figure 5 Double Diamond of decision making

8 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000
Table 2 involved parties to decision making in different stages of the process
Phase Involved Parties
Initiation Organizers (Super Mediator and Investor)
Co-Brief Super Mediator, Authorities, (Public)
Co-Design Public, Authorities, (Professional Designer), (Project Owner)
Design Competition Professional Designer, Authorities, Project Owner, (Public)
Sentiment Analysis Super Mediator
Ranking/Voting Super Mediator
Integrating Super Mediator, Professionals (Authorities and Professional Designer)
After the different parties have voted with the weighted criteria, the SuMo concludes the votes and determines
whether the output has achieved the required quality. He decides whether a) the project proceeds to the next step, b)
runs through the last step again or c) is cancelled. For example: according to predefinitions, an overall fulfillment rate
of >80% may bring the project to the next step of the MVP, a rate between 80% and 15% may necessitate to repeat
the last step, while a rate below that would stop the process entirely. Obviously these values are subject to discussion,
however, they shall be properly determined by the SuMo and / or the involved stakeholder groups, including the public
and the project owner.
3.4. Use Cases / User Stories in U_CODE:
In order to implement a decision-making component for the envisioned co-design platform in U_CODE, use cases
and user stories were derived. Being a typical approach in software development, they specify the features and
functionality of the future component by lining out specific demands of specific users. Commonly, user stories follow
a descriptive pattern that proceeds from the definition of a role (“As …”) to an activity to be carried out (“… I want
to …”) to a defined output (“… so that…”). Apart from established roles (authorities, project owner, design jury)
decision-making is most crucial in the cases of new decision makers being in charge in the co-design process, i.e. the
citizens and the SuMo. Thus the user stories below describe the components features only from their perspective.
Table 3 User stories for decision making
As I want to so that
Citizen
be presented criteria and value scales that are easy to
understand
I can compare different alternatives without
problem
Citizen
attach relative weights to a list of criteria
I can express which criteria are of importance for
me
Super
Moderator
determine the influence level of stakeholder groups the level of stakeholder influence can be adapted to
individual stages of the process
Super
Moderator
allow citizens to determine the influence level of the
participants
the overall process is as transparent and
participatory as possible
Super
Moderator
determine criteria and their mandatory level, attach
relative weights and a measuring scale
I have a possibility to make a sustainable decision

Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000 9
3.5. Platform Decision Making Tool in U_CODE:
On the basis of the user stories, a first edition of the U_CODE platform´s decision making component was designed
which can be configured by the SuMo in respect to crucial decision-making steps throughout the overall process
(Figure 6). In essence, the tool supports decisions about the further progress of a co-design project (Proceed / Return
/ Stop). Besides the design of the overall process in itself, this is the very responsibility of the SuMo who is in charge
of determining the following decision influencing factors:
•
parties involved
• parties´ degree of influence
• veto rights
• decision making criteria,
•
mandatory degree of criteria
• relative weight of criteria
• type of scale and value
• fulfilment degree of summarized criteria.
It has become clear that the participation level of the entire process depends on how criteria and responsibilities in
the multiple decision making steps are set. Key factors e.g. involved stakeholders, stakeholder influence, decision
rules etc. need to be responsibly defined by the neutral SuMo. For a number of factors, however, it is possible that
citizens too involve in the setting of the decision making tool. While this is a task hard to communicate to a public
audience, it nonetheless maximizes the degree of transparency and participation. Easy to communicate participation
may be possible in the setting of influence, the criteria selection and – before all – the weighting of criteria.
In the concrete tool, the factors above are presented as individual menus to which either the SuMo or other
stakeholders can attach values. Within U_CODE basic settings for the decision making tool will be prepared to
function as fallback option. However, it is the obligation of the Super Moderator to assess the appropriateness of these
pre-sets, and alter or create new settings in accordance to specific projects.
4. Conclusions & Outlook
The paper has presented a decision making tool as part of a co-creative digital platform for urban design. It
addresses an eminent problem in participatory design processes, especially in digital-based format: How to derive
from a multitude of opinions and votes a reliable decision about the path to be taken in a co-design process and which
solutions to follow. The tool enables decision making with a large number of participants (“crowd”) and supports the
Figure 6 Scheme for the U_CODE decision support tool

10 Author name / Procedia Computer Science 00 (2017) 000–000
facilitator of co-design processes (SuMo) in complex decision making situations. For this, the SuMo is equipped with
an instrument that sets all decision influencing factors in accordance to the intended level of participation. The SuMo
can safely derive decisions re. the further progress of a co-design project, while being able to show and explain all
factors in a transparent manner. What is more, the definition of the factors (e.g. setting of influence degree, definition
of stakeholders to be involved etc.) may become in itself a participatory process, as it can be negotiated with
stakeholder groups, especially public citizenship. From the user stories and further technical detailing, a functional
component will be created and tested in near future. The component will possess a GUI custom tailored to the usage
by a SuMo. Further it will possess interfaces to other core components of the U_CODE platform, e.g. ranking / voting
engines, interactive design tools, and social media analyzer. The decision making component will be implemented as
part of the U_CODE platform within project time. Beyond U_CODE, the sketched tool provides a methodical basis
and a beyond-the-state-of-the-art instrument for other crowd-sourced design endeavors. Finally, the project extends
the state of research in problem solving and decision making theory in the context of the design sciences.
References
[1] Irvin, R. A. and Stansbury, J. (2004), Citizen Participation in Decision Making: Is It Worth the Effort? Public Administration Review, 64: 55–
65. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6210.2004.00346.x.
[2] Renn, Ortwin; Webler, Thomas; Rakel, Horst; Dienel, Peter; Johnson, Branden (1993): Public participation in decision making. A three-step
procedure. In: Policy Sci 26 (3), S. 189–214. DOI: 10.1007/BF00999716.
[3] Alexander, C. (1964): Notes on the Synthesis of Form. Harvard University Press.
[4] Simon, H.A., (1992) Sciences of the Artificial, The MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
[5] Tan, E.; https://www.playthecity.nl/ clicked at 2017-05-16.
[6] Anderson, D.R.; Sweeney, D.J.; Williams, TA. (2016): An introduction to management science. Quantitative approaches to decision making.
Fourteenth edition. Boston, MA: CENGAGE Learning. p. 3.
[7] Plattner H. (2012) Design thinking research / studying co-creation in practice. In: Understanding innovation Berlin; Springer ISBN
9783642216428.
[8] Rowe, G. Peter (1987). Design Thinking. Cambridge: The MIT Press. ISBN 978-0-262-68067-7.
[9] Rugman, A.M., D’Cruz, J.R: (1993) The double diamond model of international competitiveness. In: Canada’s experiences. Management
International Journal, 33(2).
[9] Kaner, Sam; Lind, Lenny; Toldi, Catherina; Fisk, Sarah; Berger, Duane (2007): Facilitators Guide to Participatory Decision-Making. Secound
Edition. USA: Jossey-Bass.
[10] Sanders, Elizabeth B.-N.; Stappers, Pieter Jan (2012): Convivial design toolbox. Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam:
BIS Publ.
[11] Jannack, A., Noennig, J,R. (2014) Designing Cross-Disciplinary Innovation – How to program customized Creativity in Teamwork
systematically, In: IFKAD 2014 – 9th International Forum on Knowledge Asset Dynamics: Knowledge and Management, Models for Sustainable
Growth: Proceedings, Matera, Italy, 11-13 June 2014, pp. 3701-3720, ISBN 978-88-96687-04-8.
[12] Jannack A., Noennig, J. R., Gurtner, S. (2013) Programming Creativity: Methods for Empowering Innovation in Interdisciplinary Teams. In:
IFKAD 2013 – 8th International Forum for Knowledge Asset Dynamics: Smart Growth: Organizations, Cities and Communities: Proceedings,
Zagreb, Croatia, 12-14 June 2013, pp. 1858-1869.
[13] Gräning, A., Noennig, J. R., Jannack A. (2013): Triggering Open Innovation in a High-Tech Cluster: A German Cluster Design and
Development Project. In: IFKAD 2013 – 8th International Forum for Knowledge Asset Dynamics: Smart Growth: Organizations, Cities and
Communities: Proceedings, Zagreb, Croatia, 12-14 June 2013, pp. 1170-1185.
[14] Buijs, J. A.; van der Meer, Han (2013): Integrated creative problem solving. Hague, Netherlands: Eleven International Publishing (Delft studies
on innovating), p.70.