Collaborate to innovate
                                               Putting co-design to work at Vodafone

Contents   4

                    Co-design Sprints: Our experience with co-design

Co-design Sprints:   We took 4 themes from idea seed stage to prototype
                         in 16 hours of co-design....
Introduction                                               This exploration was supported by additional
Selecting a co-design organisational model   The methods for organising co-design vary. In The key motivator for me gettin...
Co-design organisational models*
Designing with

Organising                                                are the most productive. Generally, groups become
Leveraging online
Understand the best medium for communication.                It is important to bear in mind that the ability of remote
Managing                                        What we learned:

Adopt these ground rules and make sure they are          Be clear about IP. We maintained tight control over
                                               teams enga...
We concluded that our collaborators could design           An X-factor style ‘reveal’ of the winners introduced
     with ...
Finding the
     ‘sweet spot’

     We were interested in establishing whether certain        We simply d...

Co-design, as focused collaboration with consumers,
     Conclusion   has the potential to support Vodafone’s current
Each of the four seed ideas was used as the basis
     for a four hour ‘co-design sprint’. Final output from
     the work...
Developing personas for services
     for added realism

Presenting ideas to the whole group
                                        added realism to the sessions         From co-...
40   41
We would like to leave you with some hints for getting the most
     out of the co-design process; this concerns the appro...
Vodafone Collaborators          Claire Awramenko

     Acknowledgements                                   Steve Wolak
Thank you.

Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Practical co design guidance-workshop lessons


Published on

Vodafone publication reporting on Co-Design Workshop Lessons learned and guidance for practitioners

Published in: Design, Business
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Practical co design guidance-workshop lessons

  1. 1. Collaborate to innovate Putting co-design to work at Vodafone Co-design for practitioners (flip for “Co-design for strategists”) 1
  2. 2. Contents 4 6 Co-design Sprints: Our experience with co-design Introduction 8 Selecting a co-design organisational model 12 Designing with non-designers 14 Organising co-design teams 16 Leveraging online collaboration opportunities 20 Managing co-design teams 24 Keeping co-design teams engaged 28 Finding the co-design ‘sweet spot’ 32 Conclusion 34 Our process: a visual journey 43 Hints for getting the most out of co-design 44 Acknowledgements 2 3
  3. 3. Co-design Sprints: We took 4 themes from idea seed stage to prototype in 16 hours of co-design. On the way, we co-designed Our experience and subsequently had to discard over 100 idea seeds, of which at least 30 would have benefitted form with co-design further assessment and development. When managed and organised correctly, the co- design process can demonstrably deliver massive innovation opportunities driven by customer’s needs, desires and values. One of these opportunities is evidenced at the end of this section. 4 5
  4. 4. Introduction This exploration was supported by additional discussion with the Lego Group. They agreed to share the benefits of the experience they have gained whilst pioneering co-design in their own product development process. This helped us validate our own findings and Vodafone’s Progressive Design Team wanted to gather additional insights. explore the potential that co-design had to support the delivery of innovation around the concept definition In common with Lego’s experiences, we found that stage. The Progressive Design team invited a team of small, consolidated teams, the principles of self- London based progressive collaborators to work with organisation, tight project boundaries, schedules, them in the definition and design of a suite of services constraints and clear objectives are all beneficial to the based around the theme of ‘Micro-futures’. ‘Micro- co-design process. We found that providing individuals futures’ is the umbrella term for a series of concept with simple to follow, but accurate guidance on factors seeds that emerged from an internal programme of such as feasibility, technology, business objectives, ideation focussed on services for 2012. The aim of brand etc., provided the necessary constraint to allow this practical co-design initiative was to help Vodafone effective design to take place; without constraints identify through practice: there is no design. We found that as each party brings their own skills to the table, it is important to identify • The potential of co-design to deliver value to these specific skills to ensure that co-design yields the Vodafone greatest benefit. • The ‘sweet spots’ in the design and definition In this section, we share our experiences of co-design process where co-design could deliver the and the supporting insights we have gained from our maximum benefit to Vodafone conversations with thought leaders at Lego. • Operational lessons that we could employ in future The information provided here are not intended to co-design initiatives be prescriptive, but offered as practical hints to help ‘would be’ practitioners get the most from co-design. • How to co-design as sprints, in line with the move to adopt more agile methodologies within We have found inspiration and insight in several Vodafone Internet Services sources which we have used to inform the strategic theory and practical work reported in this document. These are acknowledged in the acknowledgements sections of this book 6 7
  5. 5. Selecting a co-design organisational model The methods for organising co-design vary. In The key motivator for me getting involved was the communication, obviously Vodafone has a reputation general, your objectives and desired outcomes for being a communicative ” enterprise; that’s what they do. will define the most appropriate“method for your particular project. There are two central axes that define types of co-design: • Openness: Can anyone join in or are there selection criteria? • Ownership: Is the outcome owned by just the initiator or by the contributors as well? OPEN-NESS These two dimensions differentiate the four main types of co-design. As we shall see, different organisational models map closely to the co-design continuum as described in ‘co-design for strategists’. OWNERSHIP 8 9
  6. 6. Co-design organisational models* “ Club of experts model The crowd model Coalition of parties Community of kindred spirits The ‘‘Club of Experts” style of co-design is best suited The crowd model, or “crowdsourcing”, exercises In certain situations, a coalition of parties can team The “Community” model is most relevant when to specific, time-pressured challenges that demand the latent power of the crowd and allows anyone to up to share ideas. Each of the parties brings a specific developing something for the greater good. Groups expertise and breakthrough ideas. Contributors meet contribute. It recognises that for any given challenge, asset, knowledge or skill to the group. Technical of people with similar interests and goals can come certain specific participation criteria and are generally there may be a person ‘out there’ with a brilliant idea breakthroughs and the realisation of standards together and create. This model (so far) works mostly found through an active selection process. Quality of that deserves considering. Using online platforms, often happen only when multiple parties collaborate; in software development and social innovation input and chemistry between participants are the key people can propose initiatives and rate and respond to however, the engagement could be as brief as one initiatives, (a good example of this is provided by the to success. Motivated, innovative thinkers are the most each other’s suggestions. There is often a marketing day. This approach is currently being explored KashKlash forum and it effective collaborators in this model. It is important and seeding component/objective attached to the by Vodafone User Experience Team with other leverages the potential force of a large group of people to manage these teams and be open with them. Lego process. Crowdsourcing often takes longer than more organisations working at the social software edge or with complementary areas of expertise. The Vodafone used this approach as the preferred organisational managed approaches; however, the costs of entry are where significant common ground and synergies are User Experience Team is exploring this approach model to achieve their objectives. This is the model we low for all, the prize can be great and the organisation found. Key success factors include sharing knowledge, through their Code EcoMo09 Dev Camp initiative, in used in the project reported here. (or initiator) can cherry-pick from contributions. creating common competitive advantage, clarifying conjunction with Betavine. This is a 24-hour dev camp Cuusoo is a great example of an enterprise that objectives, managing expectations, building an coding competition that will let developers put their exercises this model of collaboration on behalf of atmosphere of trust and the appropriate “green” coding skills to the test in creating prototype other organisations. management of IP. mobile software tools designed to help people reduce their impact on the environment. ( *Derived from, and extending work described in the Fronteer Strategy document referenced elsewhere in the ‘Strategists’ Acknowledgements section. 10 11 ION ION ION ION ION ION ION NT ION NT ION ION ION NT ION NT ION ION N N N N N T N T N N N N N N T T T N N N
  7. 7. Designing with non-designers Choosing to work with a progressive team Support the skills gaps. We were confronted by of collaborators means working with bright the fact that structured design thinking and visual and connected individuals who are able to communication are skills often taken for granted by think openly and spot opportunities. This designers. At the same time, we realised that these group is not a conventional set of creatives, are the very skills our customers do not have, so nor is it representative of our customer we decided to equip each collaboration team with base, yet it offers a unique perspective a trained visual communicator. This worked well, that is invaluable. Connecting the right enabling higher quality deliverables and better individuals to the challenge at hand, communication between teams. bringing these talents together in the right way and enabling creative processes are all Encourage a visual approach. We initially designed vital routes to successful co-design. sessions that were based on discussion and debate. Communication was verbal and ideas were largely represented by text and system like diagrams. What we learned: This, however, favoured those who were better able to articulate their thinking and tended to stilt Understand competencies and allocate tasks the overall flow and energy of the session. We appropriately. We found that we easily slipped into reformatted sessions, making the primary medium of making unrealistic assumptions about what our communication visual rather than verbal by using tasks progressive customers could bring to co-design that encouraged visual representation (personas, ideas sessions. We relearned that our customers are not as pictures and products/services as storyboards). (necessarily) design professionals and that what Not only did this allow us to draw the most from our they bring of value is their inherent customer-ness, collaborators, but it also created a more accessible Understand competencies and allocate tasks appropriately realising that this was something we wanted to keep working environment and effective stimulus for and encourage. communication. Support the skills gaps Encourage a visual approach 12 13
  8. 8. Organising are the most productive. Generally, groups become unmanageable when they exceed the threshold of co-design 16. It should be noted that Lego’s teams were almost exclusively composed of customers. teams Find the balance between numbers and group dynamics. We found that teams of four generally worked well. However, we were concerned that The most effective co-design sessions after some time together, some collaborators were happen when the right collaborators are becoming overly comfortable with each other, reducing placed in the right teams. Forming the right the overall ‘energy’ of the group. We subsequently co-design teams ensures a dynamic flow reduced teams to two (a pair of collaborators), which of ideas and makes the process easier to successfully addressed this issue. However, as a manage. For longer projects, the challenge consequence, we found that there was an associated of finding the correct balance between risk if the collaborators didn’t ‘click’ (e.g., they didn’t a consolidated team, whilst maintaining get on well as a team); their productivity and the quality the ‘buzz’ of a fresh team, relies on smart of their output diminished. engineering of those teams and the co- design process. We explored online and co- Ensure team consolidation. Throughout the studies, located team options and found that online we maintained a core consolidated team but allowed collaborators can successfully work as around 20% churn of collaborators in each workshop. remote groups or part of a co-located team This approach is supported by Lego’s findings that as long as they have rich, multi-channel consolidated teams are most effective when striving methods of communicating amongst their to achieve specific outcomes over the course of a team. project. We noticed a marked development of skill, understanding and team spirit over the period. What we learned: However, we also noticed that ‘buzz’ started to ebb towards the end of the workshop series as individuals Find the right group size. We maintained a stable found their comfort zones. Maintaining consolidated working group size of around 16 collaborators, teams, with a limited turnover of collaborators within divided into four groups of four. In each session, four those teams, allows the best synergy and ensures that Find the right group size of the participants were remote workers, sometimes the teams focus on achieving specific outcomes. working as a remote collective or sometimes within Find the balance between numbers and group dynamics a co-located team. The ratio of external to internal collaborators was always around 1:1. Our experiences Ensure team consolidation with this group size are supported by Lego’s best practice findings that suggests groups of around 12-15 “‘ Its exciting that brands want to hear from their customer and its exciting that that’s us!” 14 15
  9. 9. Leveraging online collaboration opportunities The project offered an opportunity What we learned: to understand the possible effect of remote, online collaboration on the co- Make sure co-located teams ‘adopt’ remote members. design process. Throughout the study we When working ‘within’ the co-located teams, the maintained an online team of four members remote participants actively contributed to productivity working with the same tasks and challenges as long as they felt included. This required at least as the co-located team. Although we always one member of the co-located team to ‘adopt’ a had four remote collaborators, we varied remote member (e.g., ensured their web cam could the way these members worked with the see and hear visual stimulus materials or people co-located team. Initially, we allocated an talking/presenting, etc). Interestingly, the ‘adoption’ online team member to each co-located relationship manifested itself in the session as the group. Then, we formed the remote adopter walked around holding the laptop displaying members into a coherent team to tackle the ‘head’ of the adoptee, pointing it and the laptop the same brief as the co-located teams. We web cam towards visual/auditory stimuli. observed several interesting socio-dynamic outcomes as a consequence of these Provide sufficient ‘presence’ tools. Working within manipulations. co-located teams required the remote member to have sufficient natural presence to insist their opinions were heard. They were given sufficient ‘presence’ tools, e.g., a ‘voice’ to communicate with sufficient volume to “ ‘ The key motivator for me getting involved was the communication, obviously Vodafone has a reputation for being a communicative interrupt conversations and a two-way web cam link. enterprise; that’s what they do” Make sure co-located teams ‘adopt’ remote members Provide adequate presence tools 16 17
  10. 10. Understand the best medium for communication. It is important to bear in mind that the ability of remote It was initially decided that the remote team would members to actively contribute to sessions also communicate verbally, through a facilitator nominated varies according to the capability of their personal as their communicator. We found that this led to some technology solutions. Our remote participants were frustration from the remote team as the competitive distributed throughout Europe and bandwidth and nature of the sessions made it important for the teams service levels varied, and we discovered that in a to communicate their thinking effectively, passionately remote distributed team, progress was dependent and persuasively; something that the ‘disinterested’ upon the speed of the technologically weakest communicator didn’t bring. In time, we found it useful member. (and necessary) for the facilitator to be dedicated to the team (in the same role as the adopter considered Ensure ‘flat’ and inclusive working style. Within a before) to help explain tasks, access visual material single remote team, we noted that a dominant and and take the role of visual communicator – whilst directive team member adopted the role of driving letting the remote team present their ideas themselves. and organizing the rest of the remote team. This had The online group was afforded some advantage by a counterproductive effect, as other team members the fact that their conversations could be reviewed by contributed and communicated less and less as the themselves and this certainly helped the facilitation session continued. We chose to intervene to resolve role. this and instructed the team to use IM text instead of voice communication. This intervention effectively Understand the role of technology. We noted that changed the dynamic; ‘flattening’ communication to the richer the technologies, the more effectively the allow for a more egalitarian, inclusive and efficient participants were able to communicate their ideas (as dialogue to emerge. Members could no longer use long as the technologies worked reliably and close verbal inflections, tone, volume and interruptions to real time). At its most technologically mature, our to dominate. As in co-located teams, it is important remote team used a powerful set of tools comprising that no one person drives a team to the detriment of a shared online digital whiteboard (Twiddla), Skype, others, and all members are given the opportunity to an IM application and web cams. However, due to contribute. bandwidth issues this combination tended to slow down the process. Furthermore, these tools were “ difficult to set up and recover when they failed. In later ‘ The fact we know its Vodafone, its not for sessions, we chose to drop the whiteboard to alleviate some evil corporate company who we don’t Understand the best medium for communication bandwidth problems. know who it is, they wont go off and ruin the whole world or anything” Understand the role of technology Ensure ‘flat’ and inclusive working style 18 19
  11. 11. Managing What we learned: co-design Decide on a suitable session duration. We decided at the outset of the project that we would run four seed ideas each through a four-hour session. We wanted to see whether we could create ‘incubators’ in which concepts could be ‘hot-housed’ to a useful level of We found that providing a clear structure description - this being one that a professional design to the sessions and setting the parameters team could take away and work with to create service and rules allowed creativity whilst and product prototypes. In selecting the time frame maintaining focus on a specific objective. we needed to take into account factors such as the We achieved this by treating the team as resources that would be required, people’s ability to a ‘project team’ that needed planning, understand and execute tasks and communicate their support and reporting throughout that work, facilitation overheads and maintaining the right needed appropriate resources and level of energy throughout. information, understood the real project objectives and the business and technology In essence we created co-design sprints that took constraints they were working within. ideas, worked them up, evaluated them and iterated Thinking about the details is as important as them over an accelerated time frame. The search the macro structure of the workshop, and for the best concepts, or at least those that most understanding how to reward contributors closely met the task objectives and the elimination of fairly for their efforts and choosing the weakest was a consistent theme throughout the appropriate levels of control over IP (or sessions. otherwise) is critical. People perform best when they know what is expected of them Find the right facilitation style. We initially allocated a and when they feel part of the process. facilitator to each team in the group but soon realised Therefore, it is important to ensure we give that this encouraged team members to sit back and clear directions and maintain a level playing let the facilitator do the work. The facilitator’s role field between all collaborators. also seemed to drive the solutions, making the team members less accountable for the session outcome. In subsequent sessions, we removed facilitators from the teams, and encouraged the teams to self-organise around clear objectives with precise time boundaries. Decide on a suitable session duration “ ‘ For me the motivation was the challenge. I felt I couldn’t come up with answers, but The facilitators then took a central role more akin to roaming project managers. Find the right facilitation style working alongside others we did, and I came out thinking “that’s brilliant! I can’t believe I thought of that”” 20 21
  12. 12. Adopt these ground rules and make sure they are Be clear about IP. We maintained tight control over clearly understood IP, not attempting to share ownership, instead participants under one-way NDA’s. Lego, for example, • Impose tight and clearly defined (and enforced) have never let go of their IP, and their collaborators schedules have accepted this, possibly due to the iconic nature of their product and the loyalty of their 1%ers. • Explain why help is needed and set clear objectives We do think, however, that there may be other IP • Make sure reporting is regular and public models that may be of value to us; this is considered more fully in the Vodafone document Co-Design State • Constrain the focus of tasks to ensure relevance of Play 2009. • Keep tasks fresh and simple, and set tangible Provide a way to reward contribution. Remote and objectives (not just the session) co-located collaborators were rewarded for their attendance at each workshop. We also recognised • Communicate clearly when divergence or that offering involvement in other initiatives or giving convergence on solutions is needed recognition for contributing can be another valuable way of ‘giving back’. • Insist that teams communicate their ideas persuasively and competently to the group We do think, however, that using a more sophisticated incentive scheme tying in outcome or service success • Articulate the business objective to reward could be usefully explored in the future; this is considered more fully in the Vodafone document Co- • Introduced the brand Design State of Play 2009. • Provide defined, constrained personas “‘ It makes you feel like you’re making a difference, but also makes you feel good that brands are actually wanting to listen to their Be clear about IP customers rather than trying to think what they might like” Provide a way to reward contribution 22 23
  13. 13. Keeping co-design teams engaged Having the right people, in the right teams What we learned: and with the right structure does not guarantee success. Teams often need a Use the brand to focus the session. We decided catalyst to inspire creativity and maintain to introduce the Vodafone Brand as a design motivation, encouraging closer engagement consideration in the third workshop. Insights from an between collaborators and the task at earlier project showed that (at worst) this was likely to hand. Tactics such as uncovering the have a marginal effect, although we hoped for a more brand, introducing elements of friendly positive outcome. In fact, we found that introducing competition and developing realistic the Vodafone Brand had a very positive impact and personas add a sense of purpose, energy our collaborators reported becoming more motivated and flow to the sessions that are necessary upon its introduction. The presence of the brand made for an effective outcom the task feel real and valuable for our collaborators, adding energy and focus. The process no longer felt like an academic exercise; it became apparent that the designs may actually be built. “ ‘ It makes you feel that your opinion really does matter, you’re not just a fish in the pond” “‘ There’s something cool about knowing its for Vodafone; they’re like, wow, Vodafone, it’s a really big cool corporate brand” Use the brand to focus the session 24 25
  14. 14. We concluded that our collaborators could design An X-factor style ‘reveal’ of the winners introduced with the brand in mind and for the brand, making positive tension into the workshop that resulted in each judgments as to whether their concepts fitted with session ending on a ‘high’. Collaborators reported their perception of Vodafone’s brand values. This that the competition element of the process was very was very valuable and enhanced the quality and positive. We found it very important that ‘success’ appropriateness of the solutions. criteria, or the ‘rules of judging’ were clearly defined throughout. Provide collaborators with the same resources you’d expect to do the job. After our first co-design Exploit the value of pre-work. We found that moving session we realised that our collaborators had not ideation online as a pre-work activity meant that we truly emotionally engaged with the product definition; could set the parameters for the ideation activity and the process had seemed like more of an intellectual then use a subset of the material generated online exercise. On reflection, we realised that we had not in the sessions. Before each session, we asked provided personas for the services, implicitly expecting collaborators to ideate from a specific service seed customers to design for themselves. Providing a idea and then populate an online shared blog with very persona creation exercise proved effective in building concise visual and textual material to illustrate their emotional engagement and focus for the design ideas. This allowed greater focus and prevented off- activity. topic ‘wild goose chases’ developing in the sessions. Introduce a healthy competitive spirit. We introduced explicit competition between the teams in the second and subsequent workshops. We used a ‘blind’, peer voting schema to ensure that tactical voting couldn’t be undertaken. Ties were resolved by the facilitation team’s casting vote. This was very effective in raising “ ‘ I was so amazed by the level of detail and the incredible variety of ideas, the real creative thinking and total outside of the box energy and focus during the session. The small prizes stuff – on each task the range of ideas was that were awarded to the winning team (Amazon really broad” vouchers) added only a slight edge, as the participants readily engaged with (and enjoyed) the spirit of competition. Provide collaborators with the same resources you’d expect to do the job. Introduce a healthy competitive spirit Exploit the value of pre-work. 26 27
  15. 15. Finding the co-design ‘sweet spot’ We were interested in establishing whether certain We simply defined the design process phases of design process activities lent themselves more readily interest to us as being the activities usually undertaken to co-design than others. We had made the decision during concept development: that the phases we were interested in examining ranged from ideation to communication of a design • Ideation (e.g., storyboard). Throughout the sessions, we moved • Ideation selection ‘our’ window on the design process in order to identify the ‘sweet spot’ for co-design. • Persona development In this project we were unable to address whether • Concept formulation detailed downstream activities such as functional or • Concept development visual design, (usually the preserve of information architects and visual designers) could be effectively • Concept selection co-designed, instead allocating these tasks to a team of professional designers who worked with the session • Concept visualisation output to create prototypes. • Concept communication (as storyboard of actor(s) interacting with a service 28 29
  16. 16. CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO PE PE C OP E PE PE PE C OP E PE PE PE C OP E PE PE PE C OP E PE CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CO CONN CON CON CONN CON CON CONN CON CON CONN CON CON C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C WORKSHOP 1 Text converted to outlines outlines Text converted to outlines Text converted to WORKSHOP 2 WORKSHOP 3 WORKSHOP 4 What we learned: Shift ideation online. We found that this was best wild and unrealistic. We found it helpful to ask the Allow the team to moderate concept selection. We Support communication with expertise. During managed online as ‘blogged’ pre-work. This afforded teams to create a ‘dark secret’ for their personas as a found that it was useful for the team to make concept concept visualisation and selection we found that us greater control over the breadth and nature of way of managing and containing the more amusing and selections at different stages in the process in different the communication of ideas was most effective when the topics that were addressed before collaborators deviant, but ultimately unproductive suggestions that ways. For example, we allowed individual teams teams had a visual design professional embedded entered the co-design session. could emerge during persona creation. to decide which of their concepts they would take in the team. Without this, team members struggled forward and at the end of the sessions we introduced a to formulate and communicate their ideas with the Ideate in advance. We also found that ideation Develop concepts with constraints. Working up brief blind voting system so that the group could collectively precision, clarity or level of granularity that was selection and filtering could usefully take place concept descriptions (concept formulation stage) vote for the overall winning concept. Both of these required. before the workshop. However, we established that from the raw ideas was effective when time for this strategies were effective, raising energy levels and collaborators could also accomplish further selection activity was constrained, clear objectives were set and generating focus. We found it very important that the as an initial exercise in the workshop. solutions had to be presented to the group. Personas, evaluation criteria were explicit. awareness of the brand and other constraints (e.g., Develop focused personas. It became clear that it was platforms, customer propositions) were all helpful to important to provide a fairly constrained and directive the collaborators at this point. persona framework for our collaborators; we found that We shifted the focus of each workshop further towards concept visualisation too much freedom allowed the personas to become and communication. We found that the further towards this end we shifted the better the output. 30 31
  17. 17. Co-design, as focused collaboration with consumers, Conclusion has the potential to support Vodafone’s current product and service development process. If we are to put co-design to work in our business, we must be clear about what we want to achieve, what can be realistically achieved and ensure that our customer collaborators are engaged as equals throughout the process. The co-design sessions must be tailored skillfully to ensure that the culture, organisation, teams and tasks are such that all collaborators are encouraged to be incredibly creative, productive and energised, yet within a framework that focuses the output to ensure the greatest value for the business. 32 33
  18. 18. Each of the four seed ideas was used as the basis for a four hour ‘co-design sprint’. Final output from the workshops was then refined and developed by professional designers. The finalised service and product propositions were then visualised as animated stories. The following pages visually capture this process. Selecting ideas for further development Full details of the final output of the co-design process is given at Initial ideation in teams and online 34 35
  19. 19. Developing personas for services for added realism Working as a group to select the best possible propositions Working online and in teams to formulate concepts Working in teams to develop concepts 36 37
  20. 20. Presenting ideas to the whole group added realism to the sessions From co-design to pro-design Participants used templates to describe their service scenarios We worked alongside professional designers to refine concepts and visualise final solutions. Film trailers and Flash animations were produced, examples of which can be seen overleaf. 38 39
  21. 21. 40 41
  22. 22. We would like to leave you with some hints for getting the most out of the co-design process; this concerns the approach not the methodology and we have taken the inspiration from the from the Open Sauce document acknowledged elsewhere in this book. • Be open to letting the customer take the lead. • Speak to your customers authentically in their When they do, support this and join in, don’t own vernacular. Otherwise, you will alienate them block their initiatives. irrespective of what you are saying. • Don’t expect customers to be interested or • Making mistakes is human, admitting them makes impressed by passive advertising anymore. you seem more human and you’ll be forgiven. Instead, give them something useful (branded utility). • Co-design is about people, not technology. If you want people to get involved, then make it easy for • If you want your customers’ help, then them to do so. communicate clearly - vagueness doesn’t encourage engagement. • Try not to hide the messy reality of day-to- day working. Behind the scenes views are far more • The best way to get your customers’ attention is engaging to collaborators than polished corporate by giving them a platform that will help them look productions and can build trust. good. • Treat your customers to some ‘inside info’ and • Make your offer fun. People like to congregate make them feel special. around objects, play with them and create their own meaning. • Prepare to be changed by the experience of co- design; where and when this happens, let it show. • Be savvy about what you are doing. Don’t act out of character or expect excitement because of who • Try and link the people in your company to your you are or what you do; instead, understand your customers – make it human and make it personal. customer and the way they relate to you and lead • Listen carefully to the small minority (the 1%ers) with that. of your customers who appear passionately • Whatever you are asking your customers to do, interested in your product; they are likely to make sure that you are doing it, too. Don’t expect know far more than you about your products and your customers to play along unless you appear services. committed. 42 43
  23. 23. Vodafone Collaborators Claire Awramenko Acknowledgements Steve Wolak Damon Clarke Mike Tate Dug Falby Mark Hicks Sense Worldwide Collaborators Steven Heron Tom Wynne-Morgan Jess Charlesworth Raj Panjwani Members of the Sensor Network PDD Collaborators James Steiner Shayal Chhibber Ian Housham Liza Makarov Paul Scrase Jason Cooper WriteByte Lisa Moore 44 45
  24. 24. Thank you. 46