This document discusses the role of designers in co-design projects. It explores what roles designers can play, such as design lead, teacher, facilitator and director. As facilitators, designers help guide participants and create an environment for them to generate ideas themselves. Designers bring qualities like creative thinking and an understanding of user needs to a project. However, some designers may find it challenging to step back from being the sole expert and empower participants in a co-design process.

1. Are designers necessary
in co-design:
What qualities do designers bring to a co-design project?
LICA426 Journal Entry
Spring and Summer Term
Student Number: 30261043
E-mail: M.Solaymantash@lancaster.ac.uk
MA Design Management
2013-14
By Michael Solaymantash

2. Content
1. Introduction 3
2. What is co-design? 4
3. The role of the designer in literature 5
3.1 What are the roles of designers in a co-design process? 5
3.2 How and where should the designer facilitate the participants? 6
3.3 What qualities do they bring to a project? 7
3.4 What challenges do they impose on a co-design project? 8
4. Findings 9
5. Conclusion and Critical insights 11
6. References 14
2

3. Introduction
3
1
This journal explores why and how designers facilitate users throughout the design process, and analyses their contribution within co-design projects. It will try to highlight whether their presence within a project is needed and whether they will be helpful or hinder the design process through synthesizing gathered information.
The main research questions in this journal are:
1. What are the roles of designers in a co-design process?
2. How and where should the designer facilitate
the participants?
3. What qualities do they bring to a project?
4. What challenges do they impose on a co-
design project?
To address these questions, co-design was studied in depth through past literature and interviews conducted with co-design team leaders based around Europe. The knowledge gained in this article hopes to feed into the way that various roles are involved in the project, creating a better awareness of how their presence can benefit a co-design project.
Additionally co-designed tools are later evaluated with focus on how the designer facilitates participants. In terms of the complete research process, this work also leads to an improved understanding of what encourages participants to be creative while attempting to unveil their needs.

4. 4
What is co-design?
2
Co-design is an instance of co-creation (Stappers 2008), i.e. co-design is a collective creativity as it is applied across the whole span of a design process. The process is messy and without direction but as the project progresses the final concept will begin to take shape (See figure 1).
It has also been known as the collective creativity of collaborating designers (Sanders and Stappers 2007); although Cruickshank, Coupe and Hennessy believe that Co-design is a well-established approach to creative practice, especially to the public. It is described as an umbrella term for participatory, co-creation and open design processes. Sanders and Stappers also recognise this approach and believe in the use of co-design in a broader sense to refer to creativity of designers and people who are not trained in design, working together in the design development process.
This process means that the designer’s role as an intermediary between the means of production and the ‘user’ is becoming less pronounced (Cruickshank, Coupe and Hennessy, 2009). Between designers, the concept of co-design is debated with varying opinion of who should be involved in these collective acts of creativity, when and in what role they should play (Sanders and Stappers 2007). An example would be the opinions of Koskinen & Thomson (2012) who believe that there should be a “community-centred approach that designers use to enable people who will be served by a design outcome to participate in designing solutions to their problems”. An example of such an approach is the website www.NIKEiD.com which allows people to customize their own shoes with semantic or semiotic aspects such as the colouring and detail.
This method of collaborative designing is a fresh new approach to get new products into an already overcrowded marketplace (Sanders 2005). On the other hand, Von Hippel (2005) and Seybold’s (2006) approach, involves limited participation of the design process to an elite and very carefully selected group of people (Sanders and Stappers 2008), showing there are conflicting views of who and where the external involvement from people participating in the project should be.
The concept of Co-design is relatively new to designers. Its origins date back to the 1970’s when it was known as Participatory design. It was established to increase the value of industrial production by engaging workers in the development of new systems for the workplace (Sanders and Stappers 2007). It has since evolved from then and has taken a more ‘User-centred approach’ to designing for services and industry (Bradwell and Marr 2008). Designers have had trouble adjusting to this less ‘Elitist’ approach to designing and were not used to the ‘lack of control’ inherent in the co-design process (Cruickshank, Coupe and Hennessy, 2009). Figure 1. Sanders and Stappers (2008) model for co-design

5. 5
Role of the designer in literature
3
There are four inter-related and interdependent roles the designer can manage within complex design projects: design lead, teacher, facilitator and director (Howard and Mells, 2011).
The role of the design lead understands the need for design expertise in guiding a team (often not design trained) through a design process as well as accountability for final design outcomes. The design lead recognizes that while all aspects of the project can be co-created they may not be co-designed. Whilst not needing expertise in the specific problem details or content, the design lead needs to be able to ‘bring diverse experts together in coordinated effort’ (Owen, 2006, p.24). The role of design lead moves the designer out of the traditional solo or even isolated design expert role and into being a design subject matter expert leading a multidisciplinary team (Howard and Mells, 2011).
The role of design lead relates directly into ‘designer as the teacher’. The concept of teacher personifies that the designer’s role is one of teaching and capability building (Mells, 2011). You’re not just educating but you’re growing the person’s capacity to learn, their interest, their intrigue about what they came for and their confidence. As well as this, social learning and ‘knowledge transfer’ occur through facilitated conversations and activities developing self-efficacy or ownership (Howard and Mells, 2011).
The facilitator guides the co-design process while also creating a safe environment for people to participate. It is about creating a carefully structured surrounding where participants can experience whilst feeling confident that they are not being forced to attend. Leon Cruickshank (2014) clearly expresses that it is not just about the designers solving the problem but deliberately shaping an environment so people could get there themselves.
Facilitating good conversation highlights the purpose for the conversation, understanding the intent of it, ensuring its progress in the right direction and applying judgment to determine if it’s helping the objective to progress. Interviewee Leon Cruickshank summed this up as understanding the rhythm and energy of the
co-design workshops and the participants involved. In this way, facilitation relates heavily to empathy, active listening, and mindfulness. Golsby-Smith (2007) emphasizes this need for skilful facilitation of conversation where the facilitator is trained in the art of design rather than group dynamics.
Golsby-Smith (2007) states that ‘the design facilitator brings the design skills and methodology; the group brings the design problem and design instincts’. The purpose for this is being able to guide a social co- design rather than private design process. Practitioners from different fields of research and design have understood the importance of involving diverse groups of users in the generation phase of novel artefacts, and thus facilitating participation has become one of the cornerstones of designing (Brandt, 2005).
This leads us to the role of the director. The main aim of this is to create an experience that enables direct participation or engagement as opposed to just watching an activity (Howard and Mells, 2011). Interviewee Jean Schneider speaks about this in reference to a past co-design project he facilitated. He says;
“Break co-design to a set of tools it might be no different than mathematics or Latin or the Italian lessons that you might have taken and they just enter your mind and they come out from the other side because you learn that for the exam but if you don’t put them into practice and doesn’t transfer your attitude.”
Showing that explaining a co-design process to participants rather than experiencing a project with hands on involvement, means that people don’t reap the benefits of understanding a co-design project in a
This section details the research findings relating to the four questions raised earlier.
3.1 What are the roles of designers in a co-
design process?

6. 6
3.2 How and where should the designer fa
cilitate the participants?
Showing that explaining a co-design process to participants rather than experiencing a project with hands on involvement, means that people don’t reap the benefits of understanding a co-design project in a realistic sense. It also shows that giving the participant an enthusiasm for co-design means that they will be more valuable co-designers. This is also supported by Ehn (2008) from his quote, “Envisioned use is hardly the same as the actual use, no matter how much participation has been in the design process”.
The designer’s role during facilitation is bringing together different stakeholder groups, enabling them to collaborate creatively in a process of reflection and invention to work toward solutions that address their challenges (Tan, 2010).
In the field of facilitation, it is important to look at how facilitators lead a process of dialogue (Auvine et al, 2002). Senge (1994) explains that a facilitator is necessary because ‘the process of dialogue is unfamiliar; it can bring up difficult emotions and misunderstandings’.
Rasmussen (2002) expressed value of dialogue as creative cooperation where it can ‘move the process forward toward a common imagination and reflection of desirable futures as well as how to implement these futures’.
Tan (2010) claims that designers are often recognised as facilitators but their value in co-design, is where they expand the facilitator’s toolbox to bring creative and design-based tools to engage many stakeholders in understanding their issues and hopefully creating more innovative responses to the challenge. The Beyond the Castle project worked with a group of designers to create a ‘scaffolding’ which enabled people with a very broad range of experience and expertise to have a creative (not just informational) input into the design process (Sanders, 2002). To this end, the designer was involved right at the beginning of the project to design the workshops in the project and interact with participants.
It is very important to make sure that participants are engaged right from the beginning of the project,
conducting an enthusiasm and understanding of the aim of the workshop. This can be achieved through visual imagery (Cruickshank, 2014) or dialogue (Jan Glaas, 2014) where both help to achieve creative cooperation and collaboration.
Teams leader Jan Glaas (2014) talks about the past projects that he was involved with. Talking about after the development stage and the beginning of the making process, he says
“Three of the selected objects are being produced or are in preparation; and now I leave it to the designer and the company to deal with it. I’m no longer necessary in this project; I’m more of an insulator of something and once it is on track its going by itself”
This demonstrates that a designer is usually involved in the latter stages of the project and the erection of the final concept is paramount on having a designer at some point in the final stages.
Wilber consolidates a framework for understanding, acknowledging, and weaving together different perspectives and worldviews.
Esbjörn-Hargens and Brown describe the application of this framework to solving complex problems of local and global relevance in sustainable development. When applied to design, this kind of framework can help us to conceptualize how different value systems and different onto-epistemological assumptions change our experience of reality, and therefore our intentions for designing something. This changes why we design things and processes we use; in turn, it affects what and how we design (Wahl and Baxter).
The intelligent designer should realize that understanding and using these frames is a very good way of improving their own practice.
Francoise Vos also recommends that facilitators use a strong framework during a co-design project or else the participants may end up not being confident in the way the project is managed. She says
“It’s difficult for people sometimes, because they don’t know where it’s going and that they have to let go. So you have to frame what you want to achieve in the end really well; otherwise it goes everywhere.”
Without a strong framework, results can alter or deviate from original objectives.
Facilitation, works best when certain values are
realistic sense. It also shows that giving the participant an enthusiasm for co-design means that they will be more valuable co-designers. This is also supported by Ehn (2008) from his quote, “Envisioned use is hardly the same as the actual use, no matter how much participation has been in the design process”.

7. 7
3.3 What qualities does the designer bring
to a project?
Creative thinking for designers is directed toward inventing—as opposed to discovering (Owen, 2006). Designers and researchers also situate design activities in a wider complex socio-technological context, where it also matters how a project is approached, and not only its results (Findeli & Bousbaki 2005, Krippendorff 2006). This is important to co-design projects as it helps to gather important information about how people react to aspects of co-design; whether it be visual representations of tools or specific parts of the project that helped to generate better ideas etc. Designers are the ones who will design these interactions for the participants and it is important that they are the ones evaluating these processes to learn from and apply to future projects. Tan (2010) talks about a project that she worked on called the ‘OurNewSchool’ project, which demonstrates that design-based tools can also be used, alongside dialogue, to achieve creative cooperation and collaboration among a community.
Page (1972) makes a suggestion that the user participation with co-design is directly related to the correlation between the world of designers and the world of users,
“The designer lives in the world of design isolation. There are effectively two worlds – the design world and the world of users – and while the real world contains real users, the designer works with abstract users, whose characteristics he invents…Eventually, when the product emerges from this ‘design god’, it exists in the real external world. It makes an impact on the external world but not necessarily a very good one”
Showing that designers in co-design need to be able to become immersed in the world of the participants in order to make a truly effective impact on the final outcome.
There are several case studies, which personify the need to examine the qualities of the designer in the design process to gain a stronger understanding of how users need to be facilitated and mediated between each other. One example of this would Cruickshank, Coupe and Hennessy’ (2013) paper on the ‘beyond the castle project, which touches upon how the project facilitators managed and directed the participants, progressing towards a final outcome. It also exemplifies some of the problems, which co-design projects face with designers not being able to fully facilitate a project to get the best outcome from individuals in the project.
accepted and practiced not only by the facilitator, but also by the entire group in which facilitation occurs.
Democracy is a big issue that the co-design facilitator should be wary of. Each person must have the opportunity to participate without prejudice; meetings should be open and the agenda is designed to meet participants’ needs; i.e. is open to participant related decision changes. This requires that no hierarchical organizational structure be brought into the co-design workshop (Auvine et al, 2002). Hence no one is ‘leading’ the workshop.
The facilitator is responsible for the plans. What and how this planning is done affects the workshop’s content, participation and process. Each member has something to contribute to the group and they should be provided a fair opportunity to do so. The facilitator must understand that they can learn as much from the participants as participants can from them (Auvine et al, 2002). This experience for the designer could be incredibly valuable during all stages of the project as well as after the co-design project. These worldviews provided by the participants allows the designer to evolve their views and become more capable of understanding their target audiences. They can also apply the learned knowledge to future co-design projects and generate a more quality outcome of ideas.

8. 8
3.4 What challenges designers impose on
a co-design project?
During a co-design workshop, there are challenges encountered regarding the Elitist behaviour of established designers. This brings to light the issue of trust, which designers must give to project participants. They must have faith that participants will eventually find the solution without following their lead. One survey respondent from Solaymantash’ (2014) research survey say:
“Co-design requires trusting the intelligence of participants. When people are used to being in control in senior management positions this can be very uncomfortable for them, especially at the start of the process where ideas are generated.”
The problem that designers must overcome is that they are the ones who lead the team and their opinion matters the most during the input stage. Cruickshank (2014) also exemplifies this point by saying:
“Not all designers can be co-designer and it’s about where you see your personal worth; so traditionally designers were taught that they were the special ones. If you think like that, then someone asks you to step back and let other people be creative then that’s a big challenge to your personal view. That’s one reason why designers can’t all be co-designers; because its about stepping away from the ego of the designer as expert and more about being the designer as facilitator.”
This clearly shows that because some designers cannot fully grasp the notion that they are no longer the leader, they begin to affect a project in a negative way by not stepping back and facilitating participants. Instead they try and become too large an influence in the process.
Vos (2014), who conducted her own co-design project in the Netherlands, talks about pre-selection of designers beforehand to avoid this problem but limitations on who could be involved becomes apparent and there is a long and time consuming process of selecting the right candidate from across the globe.
A second, related difficulty is that it is hard for the facilitator to judge when to intervene to revive a topic of discussion: too soon or too often and the situation can become overbearing. (Scaife, et al, 1997). Teams leader and designer Leon Cruickshank (2014) talks about his view on being able to make this connection with participants, saying
“With designers working with co-design, there is a movement between kind of neutral facilitator and active contributor and I think you need to be prepared to make that shift, but equally you need to be careful. You can only step in and stop being a facilitator so many times before you stop being able to be a facilitator and kind of an honest outsider”.
This shows that there is a level of experience needed to facilitate a co-design project that designers may not be familiar with if they do not have the experience in these situations. It goes back to the point of learning co-design as an experience rather than a set of tools. The whole project needs to be looked at through the eyes of the participants and whether they are getting the necessary nourishment to grow as design collaborators.
Thackara (1995) quoted a strong expression by a group of older people, who his team met at the beginning of their ‘Presence’ research project,
“We don’t need your patronising help, you designers. If you’ve come here to help us, you’re wasting your time; we don’t want to be helped, thanks just the same. Yet we do have some interesting observations to make about our daily lives, about our lifestyles, about our communication, and about all of their attendant dysfunctions. If you could kindly change your attitude and help us explore how we live, then perhaps we can do something together.”
This response provoked a re-assessment of the way the team asked the research question and brought an understanding of the distinction between design with and for people: “rather than setting off on a project with a preconceived idea about what we’re going to do, now we’re all committed to working with real people in the real world and starting there, rather than starting with a technology and imposing it on a given situation” (Thackara, 1995).

9. 9
In line with insights made through decades of research, there is a need to recognize that a variety of people, through their everyday activities, are already engaged in a continuous and dynamic process of learning, creative appropriation, domestication and shaping of technology (Shove et al. 2007). The public are learning design thinking for themselves and are growing in experience related to solving problems. This can strongly benefit co-design projects, as there is a greater experience and enthusiasm towards design environments where participants can thrive in. Most extended co-design takes place with social media services, lead users,
geek communities, plus other technically savvy and design-disposed people. Such people
are quite happy to take over work that professional designers used to do, and this may call
for serious reflection on the possible future of the design profession and its core skills
(Sanders and Stappers 2008).
Taking this into account, there is the point that designers are not always involved in co-design projects. Di Biasio Diego (2014) talks about a co-design project he was involved in where he worked with school children to design a car. At no point was there a designer involved in the process; they used an engineer to construct the car model and created the time frame themselves. This shows that the co-design facilitators should be involved throughout the project but this does not necessarily mean that they should be designers. Botero and Hyysalo, 2013) also emphasise that many communities no longer need designers to design for them. They are considered a parasitic professional presence and are not what they have in mind when talking about community design.
Designers sometimes experience difficulties in a project where they find it hard to give up the role as the leader and become the facilitator. Leon Cruickshank mentions this in his article where he says
For the group, the key question was around the notion of ‘normal design practice’. This is clearly
contingent on the traditions of the designers involved in the process, making this somewhat too vague. Related to this was also an acknowledgement that not all designers are suited to co-design.
(Cruickshank, Coupe & Hennessy, 2012)
This becomes a problem for participants who cannot express their view freely and the designer will try to take hold of the team and move it in a direction that they want. Doing this will hinder a projects development by not taking into consideration the viewpoints of all participants involved and hence can not be considered co-design project. The designer becomes a part of the problem rather than the solution. Designers can find the lack of control within co-design processes highly challenging, which in turn can also reflect tension to the participants.
Instead, the case could be made that designers are heavily involved in several other stages of the design process as opposed throughout the whole project. Firstly, allowing them to partake in the research stage would mean that they have first hand knowledge of the problem. This will also allow them to have a better idea of what visual tools or dialogue they will need to portray to participants. Designers can then help find new innovative ways to attract people to events (Wahl and Baxter, 2008).
The second, is that they may also be needed at the end of the project, as there may be a need for designing the final concept which only a professional designer maybe capable of creating.
This brings up the question of, what kind of project the co-design workshop will be aiming to solve?
On the one hand, it could be like the ‘Beyond the castle’ project where the area of focus will be a plot of land and what will be done with it. For this type of project, there needs to be a different kind of designer at the latter part of the project than in the early stages; as the land would need different kinds of specialists to plan for renovation.
This also identifies that throughout a co-design project
Findings
4

10. 10
there is always a need to have a design specialist who can use past experience to solve problems within certain area of the project. But no one designer can facilitate, design and in a sense ‘make’ the whole project.
On the other hand, if it is creating a service with a brand identity then it becomes important to apply design to the final concept through the use of a professional designer who can apply their design expertise in creating an identity which participants will be attracted to. If this is the case then it may be more beneficial for this particular designer to be involved throughout the project. This would mean they would already be familiar with the project and know what qualities the final concept must have. A new designer could potentially not take into consideration all ideas; but design something that misses small but key aspects of which the project focused on during the development stage.
Co-design is a messy developmental process, which can lead in any direction. Thus it is hard to predict what the final outcome will be and what kind of specialists will be required when first conducting the study.
Part of a co-design project is about learning and experiencing something new so that the stakeholders have valuable first hand knowledge of the situation. Also, designer can learn as much from the participants, as participants can from designers. Particularly in sustainability designs, although can be applied to all forms, is not about prediction and control; but about appropriate participation, flexibility, and constant learning (Wahl and Baxter, 2008).

11. 11
Conclusion and critical insights
5
Whilst looking into this subject area it has become apparent that the role of the designer is changing. Designers were once seen as the gateway between the participants and the final concept. This is now evolving to the point where the participants can reach this final concept on their own. This does not mean that the designer does not have a role to play in the co-design process. In fact they play a very important role, which ensures that the project can get the best out of the participants.
I believe that co-design at the moment is reliant on having a designer in certain points of the project and that they play a part in making a project more attractive to the target audience. They are important because of their ability to step outside the box and find new ways to engage the project participants; so that they become more engrossed in the topics being discussed - whether this is visual or through dialogue.
However, there are a very select group of designers who are capable of facilitating a project by interacting closely with participants. This due to the fact that during development stages in workshops, certain designers who are not familiar with co-design projects can become a hindrance to the participants trying to express their creative nature because of designer’s engrained elitist behaviour.
On the other hand it is still important for designers to observe the development of the workshop throughout the project so that they can fully understand and experience the thought process of their target audience. This means that they can identify with the final concept and what they are working towards. This would also mean that they too feel a collective ownership in the work that they are developing and will therefore have more of a personal connection to the project than designers who come in the later stages of the project (See figure 2).
Designers must be more hands on and involved in the project when designing the tools and framework of the project for the participants but should have less of a hands-on approach when participants are generating ideas. As the project progresses towards the final concept, the designer begins to have more input, helping participants to see how ideas might be accomplished and what is feasible. Eventually a specialist designer may be needed at the end of the project to help create the final concept.
Figure 2. Designer involvement model for co-designing.

12. 12
As co-design evolves into a more recognized mainstream approach to design, more and more capable co- designers will begin to emerge. This in turn will generate a larger number of individuals who have the skills to research, design, facilitate, teach, direct and construct the final outcome. Which leads to savings in employment costs both in terms of number of participants needed and also in locating capable co-design project resources. Ultimately this will make co-design much more accessible to wider range of projects and audience.
The significant drawback to this approach is that we will have to wait for this kind of designer to be recognised on a larger scale and there needs to be a more capable way of managing participants while waiting for this kind of professional to become mainstream in design society.
There is the feeling that the role of the designer is evolving to become less specific. In the case
of co-design, they are becoming less involved in designing the final project deliverable.
Instead they are becoming tool designers to give the co- design participants the opportunity to become designers, as well as acting as a co-design participant themselves.
This could be the marking of a different and more efficient professional body involved in the co- design project. Could there be another role that can facilitate the participants more effectively?
The implementation of a ‘facilitator’ as a distinct role could vastly improve the situations, which generally designers find difficult in co-design project. Their different skills and mind set can help with participant idea generation to flow more freely during a project and will ensure that they do not find it overbearing or difficult to express themselves (See figure 3).
Figure 3. Facilitator involvement model for co-designing.
The facilitator should be involved in the project during construction of the tools and framework. This is so that they understand what is going to happen and can proactively plan how they will facilitate the participants as the project progresses. During idea generation and development they should be stepping in and out of the project to facilitate the participants (shown by the dynamic line changes). More at the idea stage to make them more comfortable during the process and make sure they understand their role. They gradually will let the participants get on with the project when they start to work more independently and the facilitator becomes less hands-on the less they are needed.

13. 13
This role would mean that they are involved throughout the research stage to help create the framework, which will be followed throughout the timeline of the project. This would also mean that they understand the project completely having seen it from its roots and would be able to express this to the participants. This in turn would mean that they could create continuity
In time we may find that the public are able to run their own co-design projects and facilitators will become less prominent. The creativity and communal strength will not just be in communities but also in networks generated from technological advances around the world. This is going to bring people closer both in business and personal terms. Face-to-face interaction via technology is becoming much easier and of higher quality across the globe and communication necessitated through travel has the potential to become a thing of the past. This could have the drawback of people becoming more isolated by less real interaction with others; much like the theory discussed by Turkle (2010). But also creates the potential to have much more
throughout the life of the project as different roles join or exit the project at various stages. While ensuring that they will cut out the possible elitist behaviours as well as being able to manage diverse behaviours often encountered during design; so that the project will maintain its momentum throughout it’s timeline.
effective means of creating a self-sustaining community and more meaningful design through co-design.
Even as we progress to this approach, designers will always be necessary. However, the role of the designer could become more specialised to accommodate these new and more specific environments for co-design. In the beginning of the project during research and also the end they should, in my opinion, be recognised as a creative force to encourage participants and to create the final concept. But the relevance in the co-design collaboration stage will always be questioned depending on their expertise with facilitating participants or their ability to allow the design to mature in its own way.
Figure 4 illustrates the synergy of three primary roles in co-design. Designer’s role during ideas and concept phases lessens to more of an observer and then increases once again during the prototyping and product development. The facilitator ramps up during the design criteria and mediate throughout the ideas concept and prototyping phases and then taper to bring more continuity as an observer at the final stages of the project. Meanwhile it can be seen that participants come on board just before the idea phase to form peaks of activities during idea and concept phases; then gradually tapering their involvement during prototyping and departing the project shortly thereafter. The graph demonstrates the roles of participants and designers being inverted during the project lifetime, while the facilitator balances interactions and insulates the two roles.
Figure 4. Potential designer and facilitator involvement combined during a co-design project

14. 14
A
Arvola, Mattias, A. and Artman. H. (2006). “Interaction walkthroughs and improvised role play.” Design and semantics of form and movement. p3.
Auvine et. al (2002). What do we mean by facilitation. New York: Bill Staples, ICA Associates Inc.. 3-5.
B
Bonacorsi, S. (2008). What is… an Affinity Diagram?. Available: http://www.improvementandinnovation.com/features/ article/what-affinity-diagram/. Last accessed 18th May 2014.
Botero, A., & Hyysalo, S. (2013). Ageing together: Steps towards evolutionary co-design in everyday practices. CoDesign, 9(1), 37-54.
Bradwell, P., & Marr, S. (2008). Making the most of collaboration: An international survey of public service co-design. London: Demos.
Brandt, E., Johansson, M., & Messeter, J. (2005). The Design lab: Re- thinking What to design and How to Design. Design Spaces, 34-43.
Britz, Galen C., ed. Improving performance through statistical thinking. ASQ Quality Press, 2000.
Brown, B. (2005). Theory and Practice of Integral Sustainable Development. AQAL Journal of Integral Theory and Practice, 1(2), 2-39.
C
Cantoni L., Marchiori E., Faré M., Botturi L., Bolchini D. (2009). A systematic methodology to use LEGO bricks in web communication design. In Proceedings of the 27th ACM international Conference on Design of Communication (Bloomington, Indiana, USA, October 05 - 07, 2009). SIGDOC ‘09. ACM, New York, NY, 187-192.
Carrie Chan. (2012). directCare: enhancing hospital services. Available: http://thinkcarrie.com/thesis-project/. Last accessed 18th May 2014.
Christiansen, J., & Bunt, L. (2012). Innovation in policy: allowing for creativity, social complexity and uncertainty in public governance. NESTA report.
CQI conference 2012 (2012). The Lowitja Institute National Conference on Continuous Quality Improvement (CQI) in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Primary Health care. Australia: Australian Government Initiative. p2-13.
Cruickshank, L., Whitham, R., & Morris, L. (2012, August). Innovation through the design of knowledge exchange and the design of knowledge exchange design. In International Design Management Research Conference. Boston, USA.
D
Dede, O. M., Dİkmen, Ç. B., & Ayten, A. M (2012). A new approach for participative urban design: An urban design study of Cumhuriyet urban square in Yozgat Turkey. Yozgat: Journal of Geography and Regional Planning. p2 - p9.
Desouza, K. C. (2003). Facilitating tacit knowledge exchange. Communications of the ACM, 46(6), 85-88.
Desouza, K. C., & Awazu, Y. (2006). Knowledge management at SMEs: five peculiarities. Journal of knowledge management, 10(1), 32-43.
Donald W. Emerling, Lynne B. Hare, Roger Wesley Hoerl, Stuart J. Janis,
E
Engaging cities Author. (2014). Engaging cities: Tools for civic activism. Available: Engagingcities.com. Last accessed 21st May 2014
Engine. (2013). Kent County Council: Building a Social Innovation Lab to develop services. Available: http://enginegroup.co.uk/ work/kcc-social-innovation-lab. Last accessed 18th May 2014.
Essex engagement toolkit Author. (2014). What is Public Engagement?. Available: http://www.essexengagementtoolkit.org/ overview/what-is-public-engagement/. Last accessed 30th May 2014.
Ehn, P. (2008, October). Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design 2008 (pp. 92-101). Indiana University.
References
6

15. 15
Esbjörn-Hargens, S. (2006). Integral research: A multi-method approach to investigating phenomena. Constructivism in the Human Sciences, 11(1), 79-107.
European Design Leadership Board, Thomson, M., & Koskinen, T. (2012). Design for Growth & Prosperity: Report and Recommendations of the European Design Leadership Board. EU.
F
Findeli, A., & Bousbaki, R. (2005). The Eclipse of the Product in Design Theory. In Proceedings of EAD’05 conference. Bremen.
Frick, Elisabetta, Stefano Tardini, and Lorenzo Cantoni. “LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®.” (2013).
G
Golsby-Smith, T. (2007). The second road of thought: how design offers strategy a new toolkit. Journal of Business Strategy, 28(4), 22-29.
Gordon, L. (2009). How to Prototype: The Awesome Guide. Available: http://thesquigglyline.com/2009/01/15/how-to- prototype-the-awesome-guide/. Last accessed 18th May 2014.
Greenberg. S, Et. Al (2006), paper, Department of Computer Science, University of Calgary, Canada
H
Hagenaars, B., & Huybrechts, L. (2013, April). Cultivating Communities Participatory scenario making: a tool for engaging and enabling local communities in reshaping their living environment. In Crafting the Future. 10th European Academy of Design Conference. (Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 91-91).
Healthy places and spaces Author. (2014). Healthy places and spaces. Available: http://healthyplaces.org.au/site/. Last accessed 19th May 2014.
Howard, Z., & Melles, G. (2011, November). Beyond designing: roles of the designer in complex design projects. In Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (pp. 152-155). ACM.
I
Iacucci, Giulio, Kari Kuutti, and Mervi Ranta. “On the move with a magic thing: role playing in concept design of mobile services and devices.” Proceedings of the 3rd conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniques. ACM, 2000.
Ingram, J., Shove, E., & Watson, M. (2007). Products and Practices: Selected Concepts from Science and Technology Studies and from Social Theories of Consumption and Practice1. Design Issues, 23(2), 3-16.
Into D’mentia. (2013). EXPERIENCE DEMENTIA MORE REALISTICALLY THAN EVER. Available: http://www. intodmentia.com/howitworks2. Last accessed 20th May 2014.
K
Kara B, Küçükerbaş E.V (2001). Democratic Approach to Design of Urban Squares, http://egeweb.ege.edu. tr/zfdergi/edergiziraat/, Last accessed 18th May 2014.
Ketso Author. (2014). Ketso: The hands on Kit for creative engagement. Available: http://www.ketso.com/examples-case- studies/stakeholder-engagement. Last accessed 20th May 2014.
Kraff, H., & Jernsand, E. M. (2013). Participatory design tools in place branding. In Crafting the Future: 10th European Academy of Design Conference (Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 1-14).
Krippendorff, K. (2006). The diversity of meanings of everyday artifacts and human-centered design. Design and semantics of form and movement DeSForM, 12-19.
L
Lanier, J (2010). You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto. London: Penguin UK . 17-120.
M
M, Roberts and C, Greed (2001). Approaching Urban Design. Harlow: Pearsons.
Morelli, N. & Tollestrup, C. (2007). New representation techniques for designing in a systematic perspective. Aalborg: Aalborg University, Institute of Architecture and design. p2 - p7.
N
NASA Author. (2014). NASA Open Government Plan—Appendix: Citizen Engagement Analysis. Available: http://www.nasa.gov/ open/plan/citizen-engagement.html. Last accessed 21st May 2014.
Northrup, P. T., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2002). A framework for online professional development. In Presentation at the International Conference Ed-Media.
O
Owen, C, L (2006). Design Thinking: Driving Innovation. Illinois: Illinois Institute of Technology. 3-5.
Page, C. et al. (1998). Methods & tools: participatory heuristic evaluation. interactions, 5(5), 13-18.

16. 16
P
Putt, J. (2013). Conducting research with Indigenous people and communities. Indigenous Justice Clearinghouse.
S
Sanders, Elizabeth B-N. Brandt, E, & Binder, T. (2010), “A framework for organizing the tools and techniques of participatory design.” Proceedings of the 11th biennial participatory design conference. ACM.
Sanders, E. B. N. (2002). From user-centered to participatory design approaches. Design and the social sciences: Making connections, 1-8.
Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., & Davies, M. (1997, March). Designing for or designing with? Informant design for interactive learning environments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in computing systems (pp. 343-350). ACM.
Scoobyfoo. (2006). RentAThing: Applied Dreams 2.2 Presentation. Available: https://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobyfoo/ sets/72057594083488682/. Last accessed 19th May 2014.
Senge, P. M., & Suzuki, J. (1994). The fifth discipline: The art and practice of the learning organization (p. 14). New York: Currency Doubleday.
Seybold, P. B. (2006). Outside Innovation: How your Customers will Co-Design the Future of your Business.
Shade. J. (2000). Improving Performance Through Statistical Thinking, McGraw-Hill.
Solaymantash, M (2014). Different methods of co-design: How can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in design around Europe?. Lancaster: Lancaster University.
Soy, S. K.. (2006). The Case Study as a Research Method. Available: https://www.ischool.utexas.edu/~ssoy/ usesusers/l391d1b.htm. Last accessed 8th Aug 2014.
Sui. Et. al (2003). A fuzzy quality function deployment system for buildable design decision-makings. Automation in construction, 12(4), 381-393.
T
Tan, L (2010). Demonstrating the value of design (thinking). London: p2-4.
Thackara, J. (1995). A design guru’s road to The Netherlands Design Institute. DESIGN WORLD, 58-63.
Team. (2008). Designing with lego. Available: http:// www.sketchin.ch/it/blog/design/progettare-con-i- lego%C2%AE.html. Last accessed 18th May 2014.
Tippett, J, Connelly, A & How, F. “You Want Me to Do What? Teach a Studio Class to Seventy Students?.” Journal for Education in the Built Environment 6.2 (2011): 26-53.
Turkle, S (2011). Alone together : why we expect more from technology and less from each other. New York: Basic Books. 18-76.
U
Urban Squares Author. (2014). The world of urban squares: A collection and analysis of rediscovered public spaces. Available: http://www.urbansquares.com/. Last accessed 18th May 2014.
V
Vaajakallio, K (2012). Design games: A tool, a mindset and a structure. Helsinki: Aalto University publication series. p203.
W
Wahl, D, C. Baxter, S (2008). The Designer’s Role in Facilitating Sustainable Solutions. Boston: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. p3-11.
Wittenberg, V. (2012). Test-station Beukenlaan. Available: http://www.vincentwittenberg.com/index.php?/portfolio/ proefstation-beukenlaan/. Last accessed 21st May 2014.
Wagner et al (2009, June). Supporting community engagement in the city: urban planning in the MR-tent. In Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Communities and technologies (pp. 185-194). ACM.
Z
Zamarato, M. (2008). NARRATIVE DESIGN. Available: http:// www.interaction-venice.com/projects/iuav-thesis/2008n/ narrative-design/. Last accessed 19th May 2014.