Talk:Co-design

Doubtful claim and reference

The text claims that Co-design has recently become popular in mobile phone development, where the two perspectives of hardware and software design are brought into a co-design process C.f. [4]. It seems, however, that this reference, except for its title, does refer neither to the stated co-design "philosophy" not to any of the involved people who (without any supporting references) are listed as having contributed to the field. It refers further to a book but this book and the involved authors again do not seem to have anything in common with this particular co-design philosophy and its people. If no further evidence is given, the claim and perhaps the whole article should be deleted. DIS (talk) 13:22, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Co-design c.f. coproduction

I came to this article via a link to Russell L. Ackoff. I was surprised to see a link to term co-design on Ackoff's page. In On Purposeful Systems, Ackoff does a strong development of the word coproduction -- that term would have to be disambiguated. The idea of coproduction seems to have direct ties back through pragmatism -- I'm a reader, not a philosopher! -- to C. West Churchman and Edgar A. Singer, Jr., since similar content appears in Experience and Reflection (Singer's book completed posthumously by Churchman).

To be constructive, the idea of co-design is no so much wrong as underdeveloped. Daviding (talk) 16:18, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for deletion

User Mdd removed suggestion for delete. User Mdd has also contested quick deletion of Lars_Albinsson. User Mdd is, along with Lars Albinsson, one of the main contributors of content to this page. User Mdd could be linked to Lars Albinsson and Co-Design.

Note that points raised below on this talk page have not been answered.

User:92.244.27.135 22:15, 29 January 2010 (UTC) - sign added by Mdd (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi, If this template is removed, it should not be replaced. -- Mdd (talk) 22:23, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

(sorry for forgetting to sign) Note also that there is a scientific journal named Codesign (http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/titles/15710882.asp) which however does not seem to be related to Co-design as presented here. A google search for co-design shows no results that are not related to Lars Albinsson. --92.244.27.135 (talk) 22:27, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for adding the template again -- I am new and at least learned something now. :)

However, I still do not think that "this page has been here for years" is a valid reason for keeping it. There are many ideas in management that are championed by one or more consultants and not used by many others. These should not be in wikipedia. I would like to see references that are not written by Lars Albinsson or colleagues or students that use the term and explain it. The list of people who have contributed to the field should be substantiated. Has, for instance, Singer actually used the term in any book or article? --92.244.27.135 (talk) 22:34, 29 January 2010 (UTC) (small edit to change Singe to Singer --92.244.27.135 (talk) 22:37, 29 January 2010 (UTC))

Wikipedia and co-design

Dear all,
The reference to codesign magazine should be added to the article as another example of co-design thinking. (Which seem to be a wikipedian way to do things...)

Of course wikipedia itself is another good example of co-design. A group of researchers (I am a Ph D student at Linköping university), some of them are listed in the articel, are promoting the term co-design to capture the collaborative design quality driven by a debate. Some of us have been working rather closely with Churchman, Ackoff and other more well-known researchers. Some of the research around co-design have received awards in the academic community.

I agree that the article should be developed and I hope I will have time rather soon to add more to it. (Especially references.)

So please do not delete this article! If you have more references and ideas, add to it!

Best regards,

Lars Albinsson (albinsson)

By the way I am not "mdd", I choose not to be anonymous.

Designed with a purpose

"In co-design there is an understanding that all human artifacts are designed and with a purpose." Is this sentence trying to say that "all human artifacts are designed and they are designed with a purpose"? Or is it saying "all human artifacts are designed with a purpose"? If latter the word "end" needs to be deleted. Zeyn1 (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved speedily as non-controversial. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:40, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

---

Co-Design → Co-design –

Per WP:CAPS and the article text. Tony (talk) 10:43, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Recommend deletion of this page

I agree with earlier criticism of this article in talk-contributions of 13 March 2009, 29 January 2010 and 20 October 2011. It is an extremely poor page that should be deleted. For the time being I only deleted e.g. the absurd unmotivated claim that co-design is a "philosophy", and a "field" to which great historical luminaries like William James or West Churchman would have "contributed to". Co-design is at most a trend in systems development, and very poorly documented, at that, if one cares to read the references as I did. Please check by yourself. If anything, the content of this article should be incorporated to other articles on e.g. systems development or such. 80.59.67.181 (talk) 10:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

'Poorly written article' has never been a valid rationale for deletion. Co-design (short for collaborative design) is an active field in web design and online communities; I'm also glad to read this article and find that it has historical roots (though I'm not sure yet of the relation between pragmatism and co-design). It's not hard to find online sources if you look for them [1],[2],[3]. If you're interested in the article's status, why don't you try to improve it instead of using deletion as cleanup? Diego (talk) 11:56, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with 80.59.67.181 who by the way was erroneously quoted by Diego: it is not a 'poorly written article' but indeed an 'extremely poor page'. To substantially improve it would be to give content to its claims and do the job that its creator and the supporters of co-design have been unable to do. It should be deleted or incorporated as a marginal trend in, say, Systems design. And Diego ignores that the proposal for deletion he criticizes was indeed accompanied by an improvement in the form of alleviation of some excessive rhetorical claims supported by the extreme name-dropping and reference-dropping on the page. The article, after wholesale reference to the name of Kant claims, for instance, that objectivity is regarded to be meaningless (sic, cf. the page ratings at the bottom of the article), that truth should be 'useful', which is not mainly William James' pragmatism but utilitarianism, and may explain why Diego himself is 'not sure yet' of the relation between pragmatism and co-design. And Diego himself in his claim to see co-design as a short for collaborative design links this other term to an inconclusive or irrelevant 'secret page'. Etc., etc. I repeat and support others' proposal for deletion or move with a modest incorporation into systems design. 90.227.135.75 (talk) 15:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I also support that the page should be deleted or its edited content moved into System design. It is surprising that no responsible administrator has followed up this discussion and taken a decision up to now. I would formally request this if I had the time to refresh my memory about the right procedure for such a request. The page does not keep up to Wikipedia quality standards, as already explained in detail by others above.217.128.249.81 (talk) 14:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way, it should be clarified and emphasized that this page should be deleted not because it is poorly writted and layouted (which it is) but because its claims are not substantiated by its references, as shown in the discussions up to now. It is not legitimate to leave to readers and critics the task to "improve" the article by substantiating the claims that were made by the article's original creators. For the rest, this is shown also in the poor ratings at the bottom of the page.217.128.249.81 (talk) 13:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)