Shades of co-design
But is it co-design?
People so often ask. Sometimes with a hint of embarrassment or frustration. The thing their colleague or client is calling “co-design” seems so far removed from what they (often rightly) assume I would consider actual co-design.
I used to be pretty hardline about this. So much so, that I gained the nickname of “Co-Design Cop” in one workplace. I cringe at that label, even though I have tried to build a shared definition of co-design, most obviously in my 2018 article on co-design for policy.
I share concerns about the amount of “faux design” out there. I often encourage people to take Beyond Sticky Notes’ But is it co-design? quiz. KA McKercher had heard that question so many times, they created this neat tool to guide us through the characteristics of this unique approach.
These days, I'm less certain that we all need to share the same definition. I take heed of calls to embrace plurality and respect local traditions, adapting to place/context, and avoiding imposing ‘universal’ models in colonial ways.
I still think it’s important to get clear on what you mean when you say “co-design”. We need to be coherent and consistent in order to communicate effectively (while allowing some flexibility and adaptation). It’s helpful for a team to agree on the approach they’re taking. Otherwise, you might all be rowing in different directions.
That doesn’t mean we need one universal, overarching definition of co-design that can apply to every project, sector, issue or country at any time.
There are many forms that co-design can take, and still stay true to its roots:
valuing local knowledges;
seeing everyone as the expert of their own lives; and
offering appropriate spaces, scaffolding and invitations for people to tap into their creativity and work constructively across diversity.
What that looks like will depend on the scale and scope of the initiative, the resources and capabilities available, and the enabling and authorising conditions. In some contexts, it is not reasonable to expect a full-blown co-design process with shared decision-making and generative methods from start to finish.
I've witnessed so many people struggling to lead and implement co-design activities in low-resource settings and hostile environments. Then they beat themselves up for not fully achieving an ideal process or outcomes. If that sounds familiar, I'm writing this piece to reassure you that you are not alone. And to encourage us to take a more nuanced, context-responsive approach to defining co-design. You might even think about this, with tongue in cheek, as “50 Shades of Co-Design”.
Many people are familiar with a ladder or spectrum of participation, and we might visualise that as a vertical axis. This answers the question “how much ‘co’?” On the horizontal axis, I'd suggest we consider “how much ‘design’?”. Another lens we could apply is the scale of co-design…
This is all getting a bit much for a single 2-D matrix, so I elaborate on these three lenses with a separate visual representation for each below. I’m pulling together work from a variety of sources, so I’ve included a reference list too.
One final lens you might apply - not illustrated below - is whether it’s an internal or external process. True believers may shy away from calling something “co-design” if it has only involved staff from within an organisation. But there might be cases where that’s sufficient. Your team might be designing a new workflow. If your team has all the knowledge and skills needed to identify what hasn’t been working, what could be improved, and how to implement it, that could be an internal co-design project. On the other hand, if you’re designing healthcare without patient involvement, or educational programs without students participating, that’s not sufficient. In those contexts, I wouldn’t call it co-design unless it’s an external process, involving people from outside the organisation too.
Three lenses to identify various shades of co-design
Scale: How big is the co-design?
At the start of this spectrum, we have a light sprinkling of co-design principles. Going all the way through, at the other end is a full co-design container, such as a participatory and innovative organisation that enables co-design at every level. Let’s break down each of these dimensions of scale:
Co-design principles are sprinkled throughout the work. For example: meetings are held in more creative or participatory ways than usual; lived experience is centred when analysing research outputs.
There is a co-design workshop or some sort of creative and participatory session(s) that involves key people affected by the issue.
A phase involves co-design. Some stages of the work (e.g. discovery and implementation) may take a different approach. Still, there is a co-design phase within the broader process, where a range of people with lived and professional experience actively contribute knowledge and ideas, and help make decisions about how to proceed.
The whole process takes a co-design approach. From start to finish, creative and participatory methods are used to build shared understanding and take action. There is a core and consistent co-design team driving the process, made up of a mix of people with relevant lived and professional expertise, with appropriate facilitation, creative support and care.
The container is co-designerly. For example, an evolutionary organisation or cooperative network shares decision-making and enables innovation — embedding co-design in organisational activities and governance structures — so that the process is co-designed too.
Level of ‘co’: How deep is the co-design?
I imagine this as a well of participation, building on Arnstein’s (1969) ladder of participation and the IAP2 (2018) spectrum of public participation. I’ve updated this lens based on feedback,* to not only include the three kinds of expertise articulated by TACSI (2020) and innovate change when I worked there (2013-2016).
Some types of knowledge often integrated in co-design are:
lived (or living) experience - e.g. someone directly affected by the issue in their personal life;
practice wisdom - e.g. someone with professional experience in the area;
research evidence - e.g. a specialist or academic expert in the field, or a dataset; and
cultural knowledge - e.g. an Indigenous knowledge-holder or Traditional Knowledge Keeper who has been taught by an Elder or a senior knowledge keeper within their community.
Starting at the top, we can consider the depth at which each of these types of expertise is integrated into a design project or innovation initiative:
Talk to - relevant people are consulted and may be invited to provide feedback on results, options and/or decisions (e.g. via a survey or email).
Listen and respond to - relevant people are included and listened actively to (at key moments), to ensure that their concerns and aspirations are understood and considered (e.g. in interviews, meetings, committees).
Collaborate with - relevant people are active partners in developing ideas, assessing options and making recommendations (e.g. series of inclusive workshops with a co-design team).
Make decisions with - relevant people are involved in making decisions together, with shared responsibilities and accountabilities (e.g. a co-design team follows a participatory decision-making process at key moments).
Delegate authority to - relevant people make the final decision; there is a sincere commitment to implement what they decide (e.g. a citizen’s jury commissioned by Parliament).
“Relevant people” here refers to the type of expertise (lived, professional, research, cultural) held. If we are not involving all the above types of expertise, with at least some collaboration, I wouldn’t call something “co-design”.
There is not an inherently “good” or “bad” end of this spectrum. The depth of “co” should reflect the context, objectives, scope and principles of the initiative. Not everything can or should be delegated.
Update: I’m not including “devolve” on this scale anymore. I previously defined devolution as where relevant people have the resources and authority to lead the process and implement decisions however they choose (e.g. a community controlled organisation or community-managed program). This is an important structure for community-led action, but it does not necessarily involve co-design.
Extent of ‘design’: How wide is the co-design?
To decide whether the “design” part of “co-design” is being fulfilled, let’s consider three different dimensions of design:
thinking,
practice,
order (another way to think about scale).
There are two main ways to understand design thinking (based on Cross; Bijl-Brouwer and Malcolm; and Laursen and Haase):
Design thinking - iterative phases of an innovation process; incorporating empathy, creativity and rationality.
Designerly thinking - abductive reasoning, where: understanding of the ‘problem’ and ‘solution’ co-evolve; shared understanding is created by oscillating between what is being designed and the larger system; and relevant features emerge as tentative concepts.
Identifying three key characteristics of design practice helps us to distinguish co-design from similar but distinct practices of participatory research, community engagement or consultation, and co-production. Among others, these definitions draw on the work of Sanders and Stappers; Cross; and Karpen et al.:
Tangible - using physical materials or visual representations to express ideas, knowledge or stories, in external, tangible and tactile ways (e.g. blocks, clay, cardboard, natural materials, physical models, diagrams, illustrations, maps); often creating experiences or evoking the senses.
Purposeful - aiming to address a particular problem or opportunity, to create better results; guided by goals and abilities of potential users or beneficiaries; imaginative and creative action that is constrained by reality.
Co-creative - methods that empower all kinds of people to generate ideas and explore insights and alternatives, involving active and creative participation (e.g. sketching, prototyping, card sorts, scenario building and mapping); sometimes called ‘generative’.
Finally, as in the Systemic Design Practice Wheel, I draw on Buchanan and Jones’s conceptualisations of the ‘orders’ of design as:
Symbol - Symbolic, graphic or visual communications (e.g. a logo or diagram)
Product - Artefacts and material objects (e.g. a chair or keyboard)
Interaction - Activities, experiences and organised services (e.g. a waiting room or intake process)
System - Complex systems and environments (e.g. an organisation, network or public policy)
In this era of ecological crises, Marlieke Kieboom adds a fifth order — life on Earth — to draw attention to the natural order we all operate within. It’s also possible to see ecosystems as part of the fourth order described above.
Asking ‘how much’ rather than ‘what’ is co-design
These lenses are all different ways of asking: how much co-design is there? I hope they offer a more nuanced response to the question, “but is it co-design?”, finding a balance between purism and pragmatism.
There are more and less “co-designerly” ways of doing things. You might be able to dial up co-design more in one part of the process than another. Sometimes a decision has been made in advance, but there are still things that can be co-designed and co-decided within the design, development, or even implementation, process.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thanks to: Zenaida Beatson for visual design; Alli Edwards for a recent conversation on the “design” bit of co-design; and all my clients, peers and participants who’ve prodded me to refine my thinking on this!
* Additional thanks to KA McKercher and the Traditional Owners whose feedback helped me to improve the “how deep” lens (resulting in the 22 March 2024 update of this article and related image).
Finally, thanks to folks who passed on feedback about the accessibility issues on my site! This article can now also be listened to or read on Medium.
REFERENCES
Arnstein, Sherry R. 1969. “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 216-224.
Bijl-Brouwer, Mieke van der, and Bridget Malcolm. 2020. “Systemic Design Principles in Social Innovation: A Study of Expert Practices and Design Rationales.” She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation 6 (3): 386–407.
Blomkamp, Emma. 2018. “The Promise of Co-Design for Public Policy.” Australian Journal of Public Administration.
Blomkamp, Emma. 2021. “Systemic design practice for participatory policymaking.” Policy Design and Practice.
Buchanan, Richard. 1992. “Wicked problems in design thinking”. Design Issues 8:2.
Cross, Nigel. 2023. Design Thinking: Understanding How Designers Think and Work.
International Association for Public Participation. 2018. “IAP2 Public Participation Spectrum.”
Jones, Peter. 2014. “Systemic Design Principles for Complex Social Systems.” In Social Systems and Design, edited by Gary Metcalf, 1:91–128. Translational Systems Science Series. Verlag: Springer.
Karpen, Ingo, et al. 2017. “A multilevel consideration of service design conditions: Towards a portfolio of organisational capabilities, interactive practices and individual abilities”. Journal of Service Theory and Practice.
Katterl. Simon. 2023. “Co-design or Faux-design? A chat with Jo Szczepanska.”
Kieboom, Marlieke. 2023. “Shapeshifting Design: Imagining an intersystemic space for public service transformation.” Medium.
Laursen, Linda Nhu, and Louise Møller Haase. 2019. “The Shortcomings of Design Thinking when Compared to Designerly Thinking.” The Design Journal.
McKercher, KA. 2020. Beyond Sticky Notes: doing co-design for real.
Sanders, Elizabeth B. N. & Pieter Jan Stappers. 2013. Convivial Toolbox — Generative Research for the Front End of Design
TACSI. 2020. “Co-design Capability Building: Creating Partnerships for Potential - A Peer to Peer Initiative.
