On the questions of participation in design, it may be that addressing the question, “is participation in design even possible”, entails a tension from two different design scenarios, which may have some common roots (and technologies) … and, to be determined … some common ways to address. These scenarios/tension are not new but have been gaining ground at least since the industrial revolution.

One class of scenarios are the designs of systems that automate and make ever more efficient and “human labor free” transactional and operational systems. These scenarios entail standardization of the products and the processes of human productive systems, e.g., historically, the springfield rifle case. As these design scenarios spread across human economic and social practices, they often spur productivity and allow for diffusion of innovation, the “generative” effects that Yoo et al like to talk about. And more and more activities are drawn into the maw of the automation efficiency scenario. e.g., the history of customer service is to separate CS from production, standardize scripts, then automate the interactions first with automated “menus” and increasingly with AI chatbots that emulate some sort of responsiveness (but fail IMO). In these scenarios the whole technosystem – the technology, the markets, the administrative systems are all subject to the same technological code.

The other class of design scenarios are, as you say, artisanal, with flexible, adaptable technologies, though also some highly specialized technology tools (or perhaps those are locally constructed?). This may be the domain of “shadow IT” in terms of organizational systems. Artisanship may be expanding as more “talented amateurs” share insights, ideas, technology advances, etc. Think of Youtube (or I image, Tik Tok) to share experiences and uses of technology! While the artisan tool user has some constraints that are imposed by distanced technology design, and certainly technology platforms try to capture these designers/users in their platform spider web, there is significant room to navigate, innovate, locally customize and apply.

In the first class of scenarios, technology futures are directed and constrained by participation-limited design occuring at a distance, guided by certain technical codes, logics. Yet the distanced/top down design makes technology (and teh technosystem) fragile when implemented locally. In the second class of scenarios, scaling is problematic as design is highly localized/contextually customized – if scaling aka diffusion of innovation is desirable. Welfare that could result from technology innovation is limited, if only localized.

It would seem that the first scenario necessarily wins the future, because “big is powerful” vs “small is beautiful”. Yet I think we could argue that the future(s) that emerge will depend on both scenarios, and how the tensions and interactions between them evolve.

So back to participation generally, and reflective judgements specifically, Where and how can contextualized artisanship pierce the integrated technosystem “machine” of design, and how can the advantages of the technosystem machine support diffusion of contextually developed innovation without injesting it into the “maw” of automation?

There are common technological roots – even with today's GenAI tools, they can be applied in either class of scenarios. But are flexible technologies the answer, an answer? I would guess not alone, for sure, as we see in the irst statement about GenAI.