Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in design around europe final

1
DIFFERENT METHODS OF CO-DESIGN: HOW CAN
DIFFERENT DECISIONS IN CO-DESIGN AFFECT
THE OUTCOMES IN DESIGN AROUND EUROPE?
LICA426 Major Research Project
Spring and Summer Term
Student Name: Michael Solaymantash
Student Number: 30261043
E-mail: M.Solaymantash@lancaster.ac.uk
MA Design Management
2013-‐14

2
DIFFERENT METHODS OF CO-DESIGN: HOW CAN DIFFERENT
DECISIONS IN CO-DESIGN AFFECT THE OUTCOMES IN DESIGN
AROUND EUROPE?
Student Name: Michael Solaymantash
Contents
1. Introduction…………………....……………………....………..………….…………………… 3
2. Research approach…………………....……………………....………..………….………….. 4
2.1 Research objectives……………………....………..………….………………………….. 4
2.2 Research methodology……………………....………..………….………………………. 4
3. Literature review……………………....………..………….…………………………………… 5
3.1 An introduction to co-design……………....………..………….………………………… 5
3.2 Public participation……………....………..………….…………………………………… 6
3.2.2 Participatory design……………....………..………….……………………………. 8
3.3 Creative tools for facilitating citizen engagement……………....………..………….…. 8
4 Case Studies……………....………..………….………………………………………………... 11
4.1 Co-design in Europe – PROUD Projects Case Studies……………....………..……... 11
4.1.1 Into D’mentia……………....………..………….……………………………………. 11
4.1.2 Proefstation/Test Station NS Beukenlaan……………....………..………………. 12
4.1.3 Beyond the castle……………....………..………….………………………………. 13
4.2 Unsuccessful Engagement……………....………..………….………………………….. 17
5.
Co-design tools……………....………..………….…………………………………………….. 20
6. Initial Findings……………....………..………….……………………………………………… 20
7. Field Research……………....………..………….…………………………………………….. 20
7.1 Citizens and stakeholders……………....………..………….…………………………… 20
7.2 PROUD project team members……………....………..………….…………………….. 21
8. Research findings……………....………..………….…………………………………………. 21
8.1 Field research findings……………....………..………….………………………………. 22
8.2 Conclusion and critical insights……………....………..………….……………………... 27
9. References……………....………..………….…………………………………………………. 32
10. Appendices……………....………..………….……………………………………………….. 35
10.1 Interview transcripts…...………..………….……………………………………………. 35
10.2 Co-design Stakeholder Surveys……………....…….…………………………………. 67

1. Introduction
It is possible that co-design is used differently across Europe due to many different
aspects. Cultural differences, social developments, environmental considerations and
changes as well as the political agenda of companies and governments etc. By
researching co-design to better understanding its reasoning and its effect on different
parts of Europe, we may be able to not only better understand why these differences in
our co-design methodologies occur but to also become more involved with these
methods on a more personal level. This could help us find out how they can be more
relevantly applied to our own methodology to see where we could ‘co-develop’ a more
efficient, effective and sustainable future for Europe.
The project will also be researching stakeholders in the co-designing process between
the 26th May and 19th August. Gaining more of an insight of other cultures’
stakeholders may give us information that could be different from our beliefs and
opinions and possibly open the door to another way of thinking that could be of a
greater benefit to other cultures. After all if we challenge citizens to re-evaluate a
situation from their personal and emotional opinion then it makes them really take into
consideration what the problem is and enables their perspective and even their
behaviour to change.
3
Field research presents several key findings
• Media attention and political culture can prevent making important decisions in a co-design
project.
• Location of the activity and how well participation is received can depend on the public and
the population gathering in an area.
• For stronger public participation, it would depend on knowledge of co-design becoming more
aware.
• Elitist behaviour in designers can tend to affect a project in a negative way.
• Particular people go to consultations but its not always the relevant people.
• Diversity plays a significant part in building relationships with stakeholders. Once they’re
involved, you need to be able to incorporate these personalities into the project.
• The level of trust between stakeholders can sometimes become weakened by lack of proof of
a project progressing or differing views. People who challenge the project may potentially
harm the flow of the projects progress.
• In mainstream society, if you don’t have an enthusiasm towards co-design you may not make
an emotion connection to its method of tackling issues or the final outcome.
• Time management, framing the project and facilitating stakeholders’ beforehand need to be
looked at more thoroughly in a proactive sense to make sure the project keeps its rhythm and
momentum. The project needs momentum or it will lose its energy and drive.
• Implementing the project may be a problem as the final outcome reached by the participants
may not be applicable to the budget, the attention of the people who can potentially make it
happen or the landowners of where a project could be materialised.

4
2. Research approach
2.1 Research objectives:
• Investigate methods of building relationships between stakeholders.
• Investigate the role which stakeholders play and who should be invited to participate.
• Find out what tools partners use and how they encourage people to work.
• Investigate how the projects encourage stakeholders to be creative.
• Study the main challenges faced by stakeholders in Co-design.
• Find out how the processes of some outcomes are evaluated.
2.2 Research methodology:
The research methodology of this study is a case study. Case study research excels at bringing
us to an understanding of a complex issue or object and can extend experience or add strength to
what is already known through previous research. Case studies emphasize detailed contextual
analysis of a limited number of events or conditions and their relationships. Social scientists, in
particular, have made wide use of this qualitative research method to examine contemporary real-life
situations and provide the basis for the application of ideas and extension of methods.
Researcher Robert K. Yin defines the case study research method as an empirical inquiry that
investigates a contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context; when the boundaries
between phenomenon and context are not clearly evident; and in which multiple sources of
evidence are used (Yin, 1984).

3. Literature review
3.1 An introduction to co-design
A workshop was held in September 2007, which was attended by researchers, service designers and
other interested parties including members of the government’s transformational government group.
The group created a working definition of co-design, one that recognises the interplay of different
factors, which come together in the participative design process (Bradwell and Marr 2008).
Participation:
It was defined as collaboration, which designs with the people and not
merely for the people. The breadth of input from all parties is wide
ranging, ensuring a multiplicity of viewpoints and building wider
community relationships between those involved.
Development:
It involves the exchange of information and expertise relating to both the
subject of the design processes and the process itself.
Ownership and power:
It’s a framework that defines and maintains the necessary balance of
rights and freedoms between participants. There is equality of legitimacy
and value in inputs from all those involved. There is an empowerment of
those in a traditional ‘client’ role and serves to create a sense of
collective ownership.
Outcomes and intent:
Co-design activities are outcome based and seek to ensure a shared
creative intent between all participants.
This definition meets all the requirements and specifications to create a co-design process and
companies have been increasingly open to approaches that define the product based on what the
people need (Sanders and Stappers, 2007). A co-design methodology would help to support this
philosophy of user-based product development with the help of this working definition. It bases the
involvement of users at the very heart of the design of a service as opposed to engagement, which
can simply involve getting people thinking and talking about a service or policy (Bradwell 2008).
Co-design is also described by Stappers as a collective creativity as it is applied across the whole
span of a design process. Because of this, co-design is an instance of co-creation.
Co-design 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 In the public sector and is used as an umbrella
term for participatory, co-creation and open design processes which all involve close and detailed
interaction with the user of a system they may or may not be related to. Sanders and Stappers also
back up this theory and believe in the use 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).
Co-design is a development of systems thinking, which according to C. West Churchman, "begins
5
A
working
definition
of
co-‐design
as
portrayed
at
the
workshop.

when first you view the world through the eyes of another”. It is clear that between designers, the
concept of co-design differs on the opinion of who should be involved in these collective acts of
creativity, when and in what role they vary (Sanders and Stappers 2007). An example would be the
opinions of Koskinen & Thomson (2012) who believe that there should be a “community-centered
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 allows people to customize their own shoes with things 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), therefor there are conflicting views
of who and where the external involvement from people coming into the project should be applied.
The concept of Co-design is relatively new to designers. Its origins date back to the 1970’s when it
was identified 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). One comment was taken from an interview with
one of the co-designers employed by PROUD named Lotte Van Wulfften Palthe, saying:
‘I’m finding it difficult and I want to test what for me is the limit or the boundary when I still
think its design. I think it still is after doing this project now, its just that its that part of design
that were creating objects that are aesthetically really well thought out but that’s not the
issue that we’re facing at the moment, that’s not really important so that’s not what I want to
focus on because its not fulfilling’.
3.2 Public participation
When it comes to the relationship between councils and citizens, public participation is arranged to
interest the public in the policy-making process, and this can lead to better policy and public services
(Brown and Keast, 2003). We have already established that Co-design places the participant at the
very heart of the public service but also that it is ideally conducted ‘upstream’, meaning that it helps to
identify the kinds of problems to which a service responds rather than just giving people a say in the
answers to predefined problems (Bradwell and Marr 2008).
In ‘A ladder of citizen participation’ (Arnstein 1969), Arnstein makes a clear link between participation
and power: ‘Citizen Participation is citizen power’
She created a benchmark in this kind of planning when describing an eight-rung ladder running from
non-participant (and zero empowerment) to full participation (and citizen control). Using Carson
(2008) and Good Practice Participate (2011) to reconsider Arnstein’s idea, it can be illustrated with
levels of citizen engagement (Figure 2). From the beginning in planning a policy, it needs to be
considered what levels to which citizens will be involved, and some projects may entail a mix of these
levels (Good Practice Participate, 2011).
Johansson and Messeter’ understanding of design and “present-ing the user” in the process, takes
as one starting point a constructivist perspective on understanding the design situation, in line with
Schön (1983) and Bucciarelli (1994).
Figure 2.
6

Public participation conclusively aims at extending and improving the trust in local councils and
stimulating local active democracy of citizens (Woodward, 2000). The governmental departments
invite the public in order to collect their opinions, influencing the decision-making on particular issues,
and in this event, people are encouraged to express their positions which is used to create policy
(Lee, 2006).
Public participation in design
Since the beginning of the 1960’s, public participation has encouraged and empowered citizens in
design and planning public spaces, and led to public spaces to be ‘more socially and environmentally
responsible’ (Francis 1999).
This follows from Sanoff’s point, which is that “better public decisions happen when the public is
involved in the decision-making processes. People have more ownership for the program’s success if
they have had a part in creating it”. To obtain local interest and the necessary political support for
planning of public spaces, it is essential to promote public participation (Schmidt and Németh, 2010),
especially in the early stages (Roberts and Greed, 2001).
Benefits of public participation
There are four benefits that public participation can bring to the planning and designing of a public
space. The first is that the local council are able to meet peoples needs and offer them opportunities
for political participation and will facilitate them to be more involved in larger political issues (Sanoff,
2002). The second positive is that designers are able to collect more recent and relevant information,
creating various design ideas (Sanoff 2002). Thirdly, public participation allows planners to produce
better outcomes, which meet users needs (Sui, 2003). Finally the citizens benefit as users can
represent an increased citizen awareness of having an influence on the decision making process
(Sanoff, 2002).
To make sure that the process implements all these benefits, methods for helping design activity of
the public will be applied, which clarifies the user-centred approach (Roberts and Greed, 2001).
Adding to this, a range of techniques contributes to making citizen engagement effective by leading
collaboration of designer and citizens to be creative (Sanoff, 2008).
Public participation methods
In order to access local knowledge, councils should keep people well informed about services and
policies, listen and respond to people’s views and concerns through consultation, engage people in
decisions about changes to services and policies, improve the accessibility and accountability of the
council to local people and lastly, to build trust (Goulding, 2009). With these challenges, councils
should develop platforms of working which make people to be more active in the decision-making
process about their environments (Goulding 2009).
The degree of Engagement, divides the methods of participative design into six steps
7
1. INFORMATION GIVING-Fact sheets, Websites, Exhibitions
2. INFORMATIONGATHERING-Surveys, Questionnaires, Focus groups
3. CONSULTATION-Consultation papers, Public meetings, Surgeries
4. PARTICIPATION–Deliberative workshops, Stakeholder dialogue processes
5. COLLABORATION-Advisory Panels, Local Strategic, Partnerships
6. DELEGATED AUTHORITY–Ballots, Referenda, Delegated decision-making
Steps provided by Dialogue by Design, 2012

8
In addition, recently, the participative forms have also been developed for design intervention to
support human interactions among the various stakeholders and users in real complex public
environments (Wagner, et al., 2009).
3.2.2 Participatory design
Participatory design tools contribute to creating and managing places for people with the power to
change (Sanoff, 2008), and provoke citizen engagement as the design practice for “collective
creativity”(Sanders & Stappers, 2007). Further more, designers need design tools to consider the
users before integrating the users into the design process (Kraff and Jernsand, 2013).
Participatory design has been a practice led by Scandinavian countries since the 1970s; people as
users are actively involved in the whole process of design from the early design steps (Sanders,
2006). In participatory design, early researches were conducted in designing ICT systems for users
(Bødker, 1996). It was then developed to cover broader areas, such as product design, space design,
service design and transformation design (Sanders and Stappers, 2008).
3.3 Creative tools for facilitating citizen engagement
Participatory design focuses on the ways to articulate design proposals of non-designers in order to
develop it into a professional work (Sanders, Brandt and Binder, 2010). This is because the tools
enable participants to be out of the stage, which deals with abstract images, and can move toward
tangible and practical results (Kraff and Jernsand, 2013).
Sanders has developed tools for participatory design and says that “preschool children (as well as
their teachers and parents) could be useful partners in the design development process if we give
them appropriate tools with which to express themselves” (Sanders, 2000:3).
Sanders (2001), also argues that every person has creative potential and can take part in the design
process, so she developed research tools. Subsequently, tools for participatory design have been
used not only to explore participants (emotional responses, interests and personal experiences (Kraff
and Jernsand, 2013)), but also to generate ideas, design concepts, future scenarios and prototyping
(Sanders, Brandt and Binder, 2010).
Creative facilitation
Participatory design tools were adopted to develop toolkits to collaborate with non-designers in order
to help them express their feelings, ideas and dreams about the future (Sanders, 2000). Because of
this, when participants encounter these materials, they can provide designers and researchers with
valuable information, which can be translated into “meaningful designs” (Hagenaars and Huybrechts,
2013). In this regard, it would be difficult for direct participation to involve every group of people in an
intended process without forcing them (Tippett and Connelly, 2011).
Also, to create better outcomes for stakeholders, more explorative and creative processes are
needed, considering productivity and potentiality of local knowledge, based on creative facilitation
(Christiansen and Bunt, 2012).
Therefore, several researchers use different approaches, representing a movement beyond the
restrained participation process such as Co-design: ‘Meta-design’ (Fisher, 2003),‘Creative Thinking’
(Tippett and Connelly, 2011), ‘Design Thinking’ (Cruickshank and Evans, 2012), ‘Democratic
Innovation’ (Von Hippel 2005),and ‘Knowledge Exchange’ (Cruickshank, Whitham and Morris, 2012).
Knowledge exchange
Knowledge exchange is a two-way process between researchers and the users of research, in which
research is used to change how things are done (Lowitja Institute, 2012). This leads us on to saying
that, knowledge exchange plays a strong role in any collaborative, productive or creative process
involving more than one person (Cruickshank, Whitham and Morris, 2012).

Knowledge should be supported by the use of digital technology, such as the Internet and computer
systems. This is so that it can be managed more successfully (Desouza, 2003b). On the other hand,
IT solutions often cannot stimulate knowledge exchange to what it is expected (Desouza, 2003a).
Although people are able to move regardless of time and place through the use of the Internet, it
cannot facilitate sharing of knowledge between people (Desouza, 2003a). Therefore, Desouza
(2003b) suggests a people-centered approach to encourage people to talk and share their
information. Knowledge exchange is also considered as a human-to-human interaction, which can be
observed without communication technology (Cruickshank, Whitham and Morris, 2012).
In terms of the vision, design for knowledge exchange can propose a platform and process to
promote the transition from individuals’ ideas and experience to knowledge which can be shared,
associated with creative facilitation (Cruickshank, Whitham and Morris, 2012). It can move toward a
new approach for allowing others to design their own methods or tools for knowledge exchange
(Cruickshank, Whitham and Morris, 2012).
There are examples of where knowledge exchange has not been strong enough between the
designers and the stakeholders to the point where generation of non-feasible ideas become more
common because of low level of knowledge exchange and direction. One such example is the NASA
Open Government Plan appendix on the ‘Citizen Engagement Analysis’. This analysis of the of the
exchange of knowledge between the two stakeholders showed that ‘By having an open dialogue, this
has increased internal collaboration as some people were working independently on different
solutions to a similar problem. Some of the ideas submitted to the site were infeasible or otherwise
unpractical for NASA to address, yet received a high number of votes. Moving forward, it is important
to establish a framework and procedures for strategically implementing ideas, including ways to work
with idea authors when their submissions are, for various reasons, not able to be accomplished by
the Agency’.
Creative Tools
To address more complex challenges in modern society, expectations and needs of residents with
reduced budgets, many local governments are moving toward innovative practice, demanding toolkits
for supporting it (Engine, 2012). Engine was involved in a project of Kent Council, ‘SILK – Social
Innovation Lab for Kent’ (Engine, 2012). Kent Council’s belief is that, “the best solutions come from
the people who are closest to the issue, so the SILK Methodology provides creative and innovative
ways to engage with people and approach projects, and enables a collective ownership and
responsibility for project design, delivery and outcomes” (SILK, 2014.).
This tells us that to generate creative thinking and synthesis of ideas within and across groups, tools
for facilitating peoples engagement need to provide energy and enthusiasm; remove the peoples fear
of not having their say, and serve its purpose clearly with fun (Ketso, 2012). These tools aid in
leading people to collaborate effectively, helping to resolve communication difficulties from the
beginning (Tippett and Connelly, 2011).
According to Essex Engagement Toolkit (2014), for effective public engagement, people are involved
in ‘creative activities, such as games, role-play, graffiti walls, and taking photos’, and the activities
provide information and a framework for drawing responses and helping them think creatively. In
these activities, toolkits help people demonstrate a wide range of abilities and communicate with
others, and think creatively and produce innovative ideas and solutions (Essex Engagement Toolkit).
‘Engaging cities’ website held an “Innovative Community Engagement Tools” session exploring
planners’ options for moving beyond “traditional” outreach methods and towards creative alternatives
that respect the unique character and scale of communities. In an attempt to garner more citizen
participation in San Diego’s planning projects, speaker Diego Velasco created POP-UP engagement
sites, believing that “to attract people you have to have something attractive.” Morton Brown, Public
Art Manager for the Pittsburgh Department of City Planning, similarly embraced creativity as a
fundamental outreach tool in his recent work for PlanPGH. The result was TalkPGH, a mobile talk
show that traversed all 90 neighborhoods interviewing residents for local news. Placing planning in a
context community members could relate to — regardless of neighborhood — allowed for more
comprehensive feedback while generating enthusiasm for Pittsburgh’s initiatives. The common theme
with these practices was that what was needed was to create outreach initiatives informative but still
fun, resulting in high citizen engagement by attracting vaster and more willing members of the public
which then creates more interest and more meaningful communication through the use of these tools.
9

Engagement Catalyzers
In order to reinforce design, add to it, play with it, open up new horizons, make fun of it, unveil its
subtleties and inspire dreams in our communities as opposed to merely represent or mimicking it,
Hummels and Trotto (2014) propose the use of Engagement catalysers. These can be used to create
new approaches and tools to start designing from interaction and to enable people to engage through
their skills. Skills open up new perceptions of the world, transforming human understanding and
engagement with the world itself (Hummels and Trotto, 2014). The need for transformative
collaboration with cross-disciplinary stakeholders is becoming essential, due to rapid increase in
complexity of design of systems, products and services within the last decade (Trotto & Hummels,
2013). Outcome of these authors’ experience resulted in building the foundation framework for design
approach that elicits rich and meaningful interaction. They allow for designers to be able to tap into,
explore, be sensitive to, experience, apply, enlighten, facilitate, share, discuss, reflect upon and
communicate towards the richness and subtleties of skillful coping and embodiment (Peeters et al,
2014)
1. Reflecting on own skill
Participants are asked to choose a personal skill to focus on (e.g. accordion playing or knitting), thus
taking a first-person perspective. Every participant, who we call as of now Person 1, makes a short
documentary on the meaning of his skill. In this way, he can directly explore his own point of view
and skill, and prepare himself for transferring the findings to another participant.
2. Mirroring skill
A fellow participant, Person 2, after conversing with Person 1 and trying out his skill, makes a
documentary of Person 1’s skill, offering his point of view on its meaning. By watching such a
“mirror”, Person 1 can scrutinize meaningfulness and his point of view again. This mirror sharpens
Person 1’s perception and understanding of his skill.
3. Design choreography
In order to properly identifying and richly describing the perceptual motor qualities of the skills, the
third step is based on bodily explorations and design choreography. The process of merging skillful
points of view is not an oral discussion but a physical conversation, in which statements can be
supported by the bodily experience of the single qualities. The main purpose of this ‘creative body’
step is to emphasize the importance of using ones own body during the design process.
4. Designing enabling tool/space
Person 1 merges the points of view into one or more key aspects of his skill. Based on it, he designs
an enabling space or an enabling tool, to let Person 3 experience Person’s 1 meaning of his skill.
Since unskilled Person 3 can never experience Person 1’s skill in the same way, they’re encouraged
to explore all senses and to design their enabling tool beyond the boundaries and context of the
original skill. Person 3 makes a documentary about his experience of the enabling tool or space.
Reflect on and react to multiple skills, thus crystallizing the core of their own skill and moving toward
experiential richness in the combined tool or space.
5. Experiencing enabling tool/space
Person 3 now experiences Person 1’s enabling tool. Based on a discussion between the two people
and on a reflection-movie that Person 3 made about his experience of the tool, Person 1 draws
more material for further reflections about his own skill.
10
1
2
3
4
5
Diagram overview of the different steps within the DiS framework. Images provided
by Hummels and Trotto, 2014.

11
4 Case Studies
4.1 Co-design in Europe – PROUD Projects Case Studies
4.1.1 Into D’mentia
Location: Tilburg
Aim:
Into D'mentia allows carers to experience in a unique way what it means to have dementia. By means
of a simulation in a surprisingly realistic environment they can experience the feelings and emotions
of someone who has dementia (Into d’mentia, 2013).
Using a kitchen-diner, virtual reality, interactive techniques, physical objects, sound effects and
gaming technology are used to reconstruct a lifelike experience. This allows people to experience a
story based on real life. By an inner voice that comes out of a speaker vest, the visitor experiences
the life of a person with dementia. All the experiences that are part of the dementia process - both
cognitive and psychosocial - are included, such as confusion, anxiety, alienation, fear, aggression
and insecurity.
The process:
Simulation
The visitor begins the simulated experience by entering their kitchen-diner and experiencing a day in
the life of a person with dementia. The experience lasts approximately 25 minutes and in every
instance an employee of Into D’mentia is always on hand.
Debriefing
Visitors then have the opportunity to discuss their experience with a trainer from Into D’mentia.
They’re encouraged to explain how they feel about the simulation, what benefits they have gained
and what feelings and emotions have been triggered.
Group session
Visitors finally take part in a group session, which goes deeper into understanding people with
dementia and improving carers relationships with them.
D’mentia believes experiencing something first-hand is the most persuasive and therefore the most
effective form of learning. It creates more understanding and compassion for people with dementia.
Relationships are strengthened and negative feelings and stress are reduced. It ensures that caring
becomes less burdensome and stressful which may lead to better care for sufferers.
Planned period of time:
It took 3 months for the co-design sessions and a year for the total project.
Positive reactions:
Responses were overwhelmingly positive. Visitors confirmed what they experienced moved them and
sometimes they became quite emotional. The debriefing that follows the simulation has proved to be
very valuable in determining which elements of dementia simulation have been most beneficial. And
the group sessions provide effective guidance to visitors on how to adjust their behaviour in relation
to the person with dementia they are caring for. Research shows that after three months visitors
continue to experience the beneficial influence of their training on their own ability to provide good
care.

12
4.1.2 Proefstation/Test Station NS Beukenlaan
Location: Eindhoven
Aim:
The aim of the project was to improve the perception of the railway station and its area by travellers
and residents.
The process:
Ideas were tested and passengers were interviewed, in order to gather ideas about possible
solutions. March 2012: co-design workshop with about 20 representatives from the neighbourhoods,
travellers, landowners, businesses and housing cooperation’s.
In reaction to common complaints about this unmanned train station the team gathered volunteering
residents helped travellers with finding their way (no clear signage), lifting their bikes or baby
carriages (no elevators) providing shelter against the rain (no roof, broken windows) and walked
travellers home (desolate, feeling of un-safety). We also invited a mobile coffee bar (Vincent
Wittenberg, 2012) and these services were efficient for the public (as you can see in figure 22).
Graphic signs were then used to better point out the way clearly visible at the station and the
environment; volunteers were clearly visible at work.
Figure 22: Participants providing services for the public. Provided by
‘VincentWittenberg.com, 2012’.

There were several complications (political, financial, organizational) that occurred during the design
process. There were huge time gaps in the timeline of the process. After the workshop, only the
results of the workshops were communicated to the participants. Uncertainty about what solutions
might be applied made it hard to communicate more. The process was very time consuming.
On the other hand this led to a larger generation of ideas and gave the possibility to check what ideas
were feasible, what was needed for realization and what ideas really met the user needs.
13
4.1.3 Beyond the castle
Location: Lancaster
Beyond the Castle’ was a project for regenerating a large green space around Lancaster Castle in
the heart of the city of Lancaster.
‘Beyond the Castle’ is a co-design project, involving over 700 members of the public during 12
months from February 2012 for future development of the public space. I was part of the PROUD
project funded by the European Union through the INTERREG IVB programme. It presented a
challenge in the transition from current Lancaster City Council’s City Park project to a creative
process. Therefore, people aged between 3 and 92 participated in a series of diverse activities
generating hundreds of creative ideas, drawings, stories, models and proposals.
Five events took place, using various tools, allowing people to collaborate and contribute creatively.
The process:
The first event to offer information on the project was held for people in the central shopping square
in Lancaster. It represented the area ‘Beyond the Castle’, so passers-by were invited to the activities
with washing line and a wooden icon to improve on a three-meter model of the area. People chose
and put wooden icons on the grass to symbolize themselves, and wrote how they wanted to use the
space in the future. The washing line and wooden icon helped the team to explain the concept of
‘co-design’ to many passers by and market future events they could participate in (Imagination
Lancaster, 2013).
Beyond the Castle: washing line, wooden icon. Provided by Imagination Lancaster.

Just Imagine All The Stories and the Shape of the park:
Eight interconnected activities were undertaken in the green field behind the Castle and connected
the studio in The Storey Creative Industries Centre - a centre for arts and education in the
community. This event brought out issues from the past by using story telling and talking about a
living Roman centurion and a swamp fairy. Participants then drew out ideas from the History and
Heritage by use of a map, and could attach their comments about where they felt they’d
orientate it. This was intended to obtain a deeper interaction, targeting families and the young.
14
Documenting their story with map (Imagination Lancaster, 2013
Next, taking the results of activities in the park, and developing them in a studio of the Storey
Building, participants made clay models of their ideas from the map for the future of the Castle
area. In this, people, aged 3 to 92 stayed for over 30 minutes working on their models. People
physically engaged in the event with natural materials such as clay, cardboard and paper.
Clay model making (Imagination Lancaster, 2013)
Visioning:
As an open event in which everyone could participate without any registration, participants organized
the more than 1000 ideas gained from previous events through labelling them as ‘don’t forgets’. This
activity kept people involved in the process. In addition, with different coloured stickers, people were
guided to vote for each theme: heritage and industry, culture and leisure, landscape.

15
Analysing and curating all the ideas with stickers (Imagination Lancaster, 2013)
This means that when people looked at them, they can identify themes by the colours and
analyse the data with the colour-coded stickers.
Interactive Co-Design Exhibition:
This is a good example of co-designing an activity with the elements. The analysis of the co-design
process at previous events showed that there were not only a large number of similar opinions on
wishes for the site, but also overlapping ideas about the development of the space. PROUD team
arranged some activities in which visitors were asked to participate in co-designing solutions and
proposals for the area that had been created by that time.
“Participants selected a sticker of one of the core values from the pyramid that they feel best
represents their interest in the area. They then selected a sticker from the themes wall, which
contained a summary of the ideas to enhance the site as well as the contradictions in the data. The
final step asked them to select a sticker question” (Imagination Lancaster, 2013).
After that, participants exercised alone or with others to propose a solution with the stickers and the
cardboard box on which they could write their ideas and the final solution on the side (Figure
15). Thus, these were displayed in the central part of the exhibition.
Co-designing at the Exhibition (Imagination Lancaster, 2013)
For each event described above, tools were adopted for collaborating with citizens, and experts of
‘Beyond the Castle’ showed how they were used, what they contributed to and what they showed
(Figure 1)

16
Physical tools of ‘Beyond the Castle’
The tools were useful for people not only participating in co-design events, but also to
generate their ideas.

4.2 Unsuccessful Engagement
Cumhuriyet urban square - Yozgat, Turkey
Defining the area:
Urban squares continue to have an importance throughout ages. In addition to their social
functions, urban squares also have a role in the evolution of urban image (Kara and
Küçükerbaş, 2001). Urban squares could be defined as spaces that form focal points in the
public space network, providing a forum for exchange, both social and economic, and a focus
for civic pride and community expression (healthyplaces.org.au).
The evaluation method for the squares could be based on the factors like; sociability, uses
and activities, Access and linkages, comfort, image and tourist value (urbansquares.com).
Well-designed and well-organized urban squares have a number of benefits for the users as
well as the urban setting in which they are located ranging from personal and community
health to encouraging economic investment (healthyplaces.org.au).
Cumhuriyet square – Yozgat:
Yozgat is a mid-size city located in central Anatolia with a population of approximately 85.000
by 2008. The square is an important place for formal ceremonies as well as festivals. It is the
area for elderly people to spend time with friends. From the bus stop adjacent to the square,
the inner city buses reach every district of Yozgat. With its unique characteristics, the square
plays an important role for the social life of the city.
Cumhuriyet square in Yozgat-2007 (Yozgat Municipality, city photographs archive 2010).

Four main stages of the theoretical design study of Yozgat urban square.
Dede et, al., 2012
18
The design process:
There were four main stages in the design study of the square:
1. Gathering information on peoples’ perceptions and judgments on the current situation
of the square by questionnaires. Moreover, those who want to take duty on the later
stages of the project are determined in this stage,
2. Generation of at least two alternative urban design projects of the square by
designers depending on their design capabilities, and in line with the views gathered
by the questionnaires,
3. Presentation of these alternatives to the participants and ask them to chose one of
the alternatives,
4. With common agreement on the chosen project, the designer re-evaluates the
chosen project according to the suggestions of the participants. The designer should
persuade participants about the decisions that are not applicable in the project. An
important issue is to achieve the “least common denominator” between the designer
and the participants. Once reconcilement is achieved on the final stage of the project,
then the application of the architectural details in the project suggested by the
participants becomes the responsibility of the designer. In the final production stage,
as a consensus is achieved, there would be no obstructions for the application of the
project coming from the public.
Citizen questionnaire:
The questionnaire was used to learn about the attitudes, habits and perceptions of
participants about the square. At this stage people were then asked whether they wanted to
take part in the later stages of the participative practice. Most of the participants of the
questionnaire have inhabited Yozgat for more than five years. The square is used by most of
the people for daily activities. In addition to this, the primary users of the square are retired
people and students. In addition, the square seems to be a place for killing time for the elder
and people are not regularly employed.
Although it is a focal point in the city, few people think that it is a visual image element of
Yozgat. All participants pointed out several problems in the square. ‘Participants expressed
common problems such as the lack of cultural and art facilities in the square, lack of
vegetation, security and lightning problems during the night, lack of urban furniture, inefficient
urban furniture and accessories, low quality of pavement material that makes it hard to walk,
lack of shelters in the ceremonial area, etc’ (Dede et, al., 2012).
The unsuccessful participation process:
The number of participants who accepted was eleven, which comprise only 6% of the total
number of participants. Afterwards, eight of eleven people who previously accepted to take
part in the participation stated that they could not take part in the later stages and declared
several excuses.
For this reason, participative urban design workshop of the square was cancelled. The
participation rate of the questionnaire in the square, only 27% is overwhelming combined with
the overall rate of 6% who accepted to participate in following stages of the study.

Conclusion:
• There isn’t simply one accurate way to ensure public participation in planning or urban
design, as there is no method or a model of participation applicable in every locality or
society. The characteristics of both urban design and participation, and the distinct
characteristics of different societies are the reason for this.
19
• Participation is closely related to the culture of societies and should remember the
cultural, social, economic and traditional values of societies. Citizen participation could
be divided into passive and active participation where active stands for intense
communication with designers.
• One of the most important expectations was that everyone would have a consensus on
the end product of the design process. It is not possible to ask participants to design
themselves but there should be no tyranny of the design throughout the design
process.
• Citizen participation goes on from the very beginning until the end product and the
designer is the one to lead the whole design process.
• Providing users with full information about the process and evaluate and implement
their expectations from the project could be considered the best way to integrate them
with the design process, which was also the intention of the urban design workshop of
Cumhuriyet Square. User-designer relations should be intense throughout the process.
• The whole process depends on the skills of designers and the attitudes of local users
regarding what they want to see in the project. This can be achieved through strong
communication.
• Using participative design in the urban square at Yozgat was unsuccessful. The
sociocultural problem is strictly related to the social, economic and cultural
characteristics of Yozgat. Although, its population is over 80.000, the society in Yozgat
could be mentioned as insecure. This could be why only 27% of citizens wanted to
participate in the questionnaire and 6% of this group carried on participating in the later
stages. Eventually, the study failed in the stage of active participation.
• It seems the people in Yozgat have other primary problems to deal with. Most of the
citizens tend to be indifferent about their democratic and socio-economic rights and
there is a lack of social and public consciousness possibly due to high cost of living or
fear from the authority.
• The second reason for failure is organizational issues. In the model, the public
authorities, policy makers and local politicians were not included in the process.
Existence of an authority could be an incentive factor for the participation of citizens in
such a project.
• Ensuring participatory processes in planning or design seems to be the primary duty of
local authorities, as they are possibly the best promoters between the user and the
designer in participatory planning and urban design processes. Moreover, the
necessary legal arrangements should be done to obtain a legal basis for participatory
planning or urban design in developing countries like Turkey.
• The first condition for citizen participation is willingness of local people to participate in
such projects or activities. This is highly related to the participation culture of the
society and this culture depends on a series of multifaceted factors. This is a rather
complex issue that again needs close investigation and analyses.
(Points from the conclusion are drawn from Dede, 2012)

20
5. Co-design tools
Designers should be able to provide active methods for people to engage with each other as
well as instruments to communicate, be creative, share insights and envision their own ideas
(Service design tools 2014). The co-design activities can support different levels of
participation, from situation in which the external figures are involved just in specific moments
to situations in which they take part to the entire process, building up the service together with
the designers (Sanders and Stappers 2008).
Users and other figures can become intertwined with the design process as experts of their
experience, but in order to take on this role they must be given appropriate tools for
expressing themselves. (Service design tools 2014). There are a range of tools that are
currently being used manifested further to benefit the creative facilitation of the stakeholder all
over the world and an external chapter on Co-design tools can be found connected with
this paper to show how effective and engaging they have proven to be so far.
6. Initial Findings
Goulding (2009) says that the design tools would be developed to enable people to be more
active in public participation for their environments. These tools for the user-centred
perspective, and many researchers have studies that are supportive for design intervention to
support human interactions between the various participants in public spaces (Viña, 2010;
Wagner, et al., 2009; Kraff and Jernsand, 2013; Hagenaard and Huybrechts, 2013).
For more practically, some papers propose focus towards a more creative facilitation for
public participation. Knowledge exchange is also one approach, contributing to a
collaborative, productive or creative process of public participation (Cruickshank, Whitham
and Morris, 2012). This study attempts to employ a platform of knowledge exchange for
active participation; it provides information for people and effectively draws responses from
them. In addition, in the context of creative tools, these toolkits help people think of creative
and innovative ideas by making them aware of potential abilities, and to communicate with
others (Tippett and Connelly, 2011). Therefore, tools were suggested as final solutions for
facilitating knowledge exchange to generate better ideas and solutions in public consultation
events.
7. Field Research
7.1 Citizens and stakeholders
Survey:
Through online questionnaires, a survey was conducted between 26th June and 29th July
2014. Design managers, Council officials and Project team leaders took part in the survey
during the four weeks. The questions were designed to understand stakeholder’s views on
Co-design in Europe, their experiences of public consultation for public spaces and opinions
about new tools of public consultation.
Three questions in the first part are related to participants’ background. The results are
available in Appendix 2.

21
7.2 PROUD project team members
Interviews:
Interviews with five participants of the PROUD project organization were conducted from the
1st – 21st July. One attended face-to-face and the others were conducted by Skype online
face-to-face video communication software.
8. Research findings
Based on the literature review and the field research there is a clear indication that co-design
is still a developing principle in modern society. There is a difference of opinion based on
people who have experience using co-design about how co-design is defined. In truth, based
on the projects of the past and opinions there is are degrees of co-design and cannot be
isolated to one meaning. For example interviewee, Cruickshank (2014), defines the co-design
level in the ‘Beyond the Castle’ study as being more on the more strict and collaborative end
of co-design as he says
“We employed designers to construct structures or processes that allowed non-designers
to be creative and within the literature and within the project that’s on the
radical end of co-design. Many of the other projects were more closer to user-centred
design in that they employed designers and there were non-designers part
of the process but it tended to be that designers cam up with the clever ideas and
they reported back to the stakeholders rather than getting the stakeholders to
actually be creative.”
Another Interviewee Francoise Vos (2014) also follows this philosophy of co design, which is,
“Co-design involves all stakeholders and starts from the beginning of the process. No
direction to follow and no elitist behaviour.”
Whereas CEO, and interviewee, Di Biasio Diego (2014), talks about the designers and claims
that
“They develop something on their own and in certain moments they go out and try to
get feedback from other users or developers to complement what they have already
started to build to become a finalised product or service.”
This type of design is more focused towards the other end of co-design where there is less
collaboration from the start of the project with the participants and could be considered more
as User-centred design as collaboration is not executed from start to finish during
participation. Bradwell and Marr (2008) have acknowledged this confusion and say that it has
“evolved from then and has taken a more ‘User-centred approach’ to designing for services
and industry”.
This shows that there is no one clear definition of co-design as each interviewee gave a
different level of what they believed was a co-design project. Further projects will better define
how co-design will be executed in the future and projects are always in progress to contribute
to this.

8.1 Field research findings:
Through conceptualizing of the surveys and interviews, there were recurring key findings in
co-design projects.
Co-design as we’ve already established is a developing method of really tackling the issues
of a project from a more personal and potentially wider perspective of design. But co-design
also gives people the skill set and experience to apply it to different situations. Knowledge of
the process and its benefits could be applied to new scenarios, as interviewee Jean
Schneider talks about where he says:
22
“Now they say they will always use design and we always have it now in the back of
our head.”
“Now they understand a little bit about the power it has and this for me is a real
success for me when for the people it is not a question anymore.”
Showing that, once all the concepts were understood by the stakeholders, it has the potential
to be applied to other areas of design. Consequently, designers can further evolve the
thinking behind what good design should be.
Communication is incredibly important to receive quality outcomes in a co-design project but
miscommunication is also a familiar occurrence in co-design. Designers need to be familiar
with the process of a co-design workshop or else they will not be able to facilitate the project.
Vos (2014), talks about how she best handles this occurrence, which is:
“We preselect them and brief them very well before hand. We make sure they are
familiar with the principles of how it works and what they should look after.”
Which shows that it is a problem that is being addressed but the drawback from this is that
because there are limited designers around the world who are familiar with co-design, it
becomes a longer process and becomes costly and time consuming trying to find and pay for
people who can facilitate the project. Packages are available and people can be taught about
co-design but as Jean Schneider (2014) 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.” I think we cannot be conveyed by
just learning the technicalities.”
This demonstrates that yes co-design can be taught but to truly know what co-design is you
must experience it first hand and then to know what a co-design project is really like and if
you are the right person for its facilitation. Some people may be great designers but not great
co-designers.
This in turn highlights the issue in co-design regarding the Elitist behaviour of established
designers and also brings to light the issue of trust, which designers must make sure to show
towards participants to find the solution without following their lead. One survey respondent
says:
“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 out there ideas are generated.”
This is an indication that there is a problem that designers must overcome from their
teachings which 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 when someone asks you to step back and let other people be creative then
that’s a big challenge to your personal view and so that’s one reason why all designers
cant all be co-designers because its about stepping away from the ego of the designer
as expert and more about the designer as facilitator.”
Highlighting the point that because some designers cannot fully grasp the notion that they are
no longer the leader of the operation, they begin to affect a project in a negative way by not
stepping back and facilitating participants and instead try and become too large an influence
in the process.
Vos (2014) 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 these people from all across the globe.
Another problem is in some cases, sufficient participation of consumers, and members of the
public not being adequate. This could be due to several reasons such as the public personas,
which means they are too shy or too busy to join in on the project. Also there could be issues
relating to the participation culture of the society and this culture depends on a series of
multifaceted factors (Dede, 2012). As discussed in the Yozgat case, this is a complex
concern with close investigation and analyses needed to further develop this study. Another
element to this could be opportunity to the public of co-design and insufficient locations could
play a part in exposure of co-design to them more regularly. This is the case for participant
Diego, who expressed that the location of activity base should depend on the population and
their focal point of congregation. Regarding his business he explains:
“We are known more as a business incubator than a co-design hub etc and its also
probably due to the fact that we are in a new location. Today there’s the main activity is
in the city centre Luxembourg City and we are based in the South of the county so it’s
on the French border”
“It would also get more visibility once all of these actives are on the same site.”
Showing that there is less exposure for people who might want to potentially contribute
towards the project in the less populated outskirts and affects their public awareness by not
being able to allow their work to be portrayed large enough to the general public.
Location can also cause a disruption when working with external stakeholders when working
on a piece of land, as there is the potential for something to go wrong regarding an
agreement with the landowners. Vos (2014), talks more about it saying:
“Some parts are council and some parts are private so a lot of things that people came
up with are not really feasible because it is difficult because there was no agreement
between land owners”
This creates a problem with the intended outcome as co-design can generate lots of ideas
and does not restrict people to a certain way of thinking. The problem with this is that an idea,
which involves the land, might not be feasible and the final outcome reached will be fruitless.
This then becomes a problem for the organisations as they now realise that their project will
not be able to get the outcome they wanted because it is not feasible. A survey respondent
added this to one of the problems in co design by adding one of the challenges is:
23
“Finding the right resources to well coordinate and proceed with the project”.
This means that planning before the project begins and knowing as much about the
restrictions as possible before the project has started can hopefully reduce the risk of
generating a project, which is not feasible.

Also because of the outcome not being clear till the end of the project, there is a problem
where people who would be able to help execute the final proposal may not be involved in the
project but also that their resources and time are not convenient for them. This is shown
where Vos (2014) says:
24
“There was some really nice ideas but then the people who should actually take it up
and do it execute it they were not involved or they didn’t have the money or the time”
Which shows that there can be segregation between the people who want to start the
proposal and the people who are able to start it.
This can be related to stakeholder agendas where people do not invest in the project as team
leaders would like them to and decide against helping it because of concentration on other
issues of more dominant concern. This is shown when Schneider (2014) states:
“The people running the project are not necessarily those who are going to implement
it. That and that unit might have other priorities that might jeopardise your project.”
Meaning that there is a level of strenuous involvement with participants because of their
limitations on what they can do with their time and resources, which could be a potentially
damaging result for the end proposal.
As previously discussed the clear distinct difference between User-centred design and Co-design
is that level of communication with the participant throughout the process. The more
personal the project is at working in a user centred environment for their idea generation, the
more of a co-design project it is. Due to people not yet being familiar with this type of design
there is a danger that they may try to challenge the project with their own ideas, conceptions
and philosophies. This has the potential to affect the outcome in a negative way. Schneider
(2014) talks about this by saying:
“There is the diversity which is trying to bring to the table people who actually might
potentially be unpleasant or even threaten your project because they are going to
challenge your conceptions and might even challenge the process.”
“This is also the challenge of diversity. You might bring people who threaten your
project its not only saying the core that would be unhappy or the youngsters that would
challenge you its also the institution that would challenge you because if someone
comes from the institution at a senior level says ‘actually I don’t believe in this’ your
dead as well.”
This suggests that if a participant with a strong influence decides that they don’t agree with an
area of the project or the whole project in itself, and then it can potentially affect the flow and
in turn the outcomes that are generated. This may not even be necessarily related to
believing more in another form of design and just not believing in co-design.
Vos (2014) made a reference to a project she worked on in the past that took this into
consideration where they used a theme in the project. She believes that this adds more
personal value for the customer so that the tool can create a better and more focused
connection with the project. She states:
“They mostly work best if they really spoke to people’s imagination so we had like an
animal. People need to kind of use that symbolising their stock or a building
symbolising what they would like in the future with trees then they would like it to be
more natural more ecological and energy saving so we really had the symbols that
were really kind of familiar to people and not too abstract”.
This could imply that the participant can make a direct connection with the project from a
deeper and more experienced perspective as they would able to take into consideration the
details of the project that might affect its success. Also being so close to the project, using a

theme which they know really well, it may help them to bring something to light that they didn’t
realise before which is the aim of a co-design project.
There are a lot of differing views around co-design, which need to be counselled so that a
direction can be established further on in the project. Jean goes on to say:
“It breaks down to private interests conflicting. I think the problem is truly to bring these
different cultures at the table and my role there is to mediate between these”
Therefor managing these problems and conflicting views is a constant in co-design and being
able to work around this challenge is key to a successful project. A project needs to be well
framed so that the participants understand what is required of them and will know what the
project is aiming to do and how to do it. If a participants is not confident with how the project
is managed it can result in the operation becoming so off focus from what the leader wants to
achieve then the project become far removed from the desired outcome. Vos (2014) talks
about this saying:
“Its difficult for people sometimes because they don’t know where its going and that
they have to let go so you have to frame really well what you want to achieve in the end
otherwise it goes everywhere.”
25
Showing that a weak framework will not give the participants that confidence.
Another problem that could occur during a project is a failure in communication between the
team leader and the designers who are facilitating the participants. Cruickshank (2014)
provided a previous predicament where a dislocation in communication leads to the final
results not providing the final results as intended.
“Communication between me and the person who was the champion for the project
and the communication between that champion and the people who were being invited
to this workshop were dislocated so my conversation.”
“There was a dislocation between what I thought we were going to cover in that
workshop and what the attendees thought they were going to cover and the result was
that we didn’t do anything that I had planned which is fine but it absolutely wasn’t
ideal.”
This dislocation can therefor result in the outcome not assisting in the goal of the project.
Within the collected surveys there were several issues that came up regarding to the
Co-design workshops are slower, more expensive and uncertain about the final result, which
commissioners find repelling but large and complex challenges really benefit a lot from
participants multiple points of view. The problem with this is that it is hard for the stakeholders
to trust in a project that will take up so much time for what could be fruitless when they can
apply user centred design to the same situation. Vos (2014) goes on to say:
“For commissioners its still difficult to really grasp the added value because they think
its easier to hire a company and have user-centre design which I can understand
because its quicker and you can steer the outcome a little bit but I think if they really
see the value of if you have big challenges which are very complex you need a lot of
perspectives. I think that goes between their ears.”
So for bigger challenges, to have more of the publics view and a more personal approach to
the design of a proposal would mean a more meaningful operation for the public but
commissioners want to be able to examine the results more promptly and cost efficiently
which would not be more beneficial for the public.
Media attention can also play a part in the erection of a project because of the pressures that
the political hierarchy is under. They require a project that will work which tests their level of
trust with the team leader, as they require results. Interviewee one, Jan Glaas (2014)
explains:

“That is something that needs to really be clear on from the start with the client or with
the public institutions - that you can start a project that doesn’t really get results in the
beginning”.
26
Explaining that part of the job is trying to convince the stakeholders involved that the project
may not get the results hoped for but looks bad from the media perspective. It can be seen
as a large waste of time and money for nothing to show for it, as you don’t know what the
outcomes are going to be. You need trust and to make them feel better about the project as
Cruickshank (2014) says:
“The council actually said ‘Were really happy for it to be an open process as long as
you can tell us what the outcome is going to be’ and you cant have both of those things
so my role was to have quite vigorous discussions or arguments almost about keeping
the project open and not knowing where the outcomes going to be but not
communicating those tensions to the designers so the designers are in this calm water
where they can be creative and where they can do things and I’m having battles with
the council and not telling them about it so they’re relaxed and they’re having fun and
they’re doing these things.”
This tells the team leader that creating a separation between the commissioner and the
designer (or public facilitator) could be important due to the trust issues. This comes from the
fact that the project does not have any results as of yet and creating that separation and
finding ways to restore their faith in the project is important to ensure that all stakeholders are
as content as can be with how the project is going. Cruickshank (2014) explains this by
saying:
“One thing we found out afterwards that we did but was very useful was the use of high
quality images was found to be very beneficial so there would be senior people in the
council who couldn’t come to an event but they could get some nice images of people
really having fun and really engaging in an event and that calmed them.”
In Cruickshank’s case it was using imagery to show that things were happening in the beyond
the castle project and that they were working towards something even thought they still had
yet to figure out what that was. Even so it created an almost façade that the project was
moving in a direction when in fact it was still at the messy stages of co-design thus making
parties more satisfied.
The problem with longer projects is that they lose momentum, which is vital in a co-design
project to build on to the next event or what the facilitator has planned next. If a project loses
this it can weaken the energy and drive of the task. Vos (2014) talks about a past project he
worked on saying:
“The project lasted two years and I think that was a mistake in the sense that the
momentum was really difficult to build. If I had to run something again I would do it at a
much more compact manner not to lose the momentum and then to go and see the
people more often”.
Illustrating that visiting people more often and in a shorter space of time creates a faster and
more dynamic project on which to build momentum on projects. Diego (2014) also sees there
can potentially be a problem with the momentum of a project as they try to counter this by
being proactive in their approach, saying:
“For the real concrete project itself I think it started probably one month before with the
event and they brainstorm, had some long nights and they did the project and prepared
the project for them so they were already in the workshop style.”
There is always a pressure for momentum in a project to make sure that it is always moving
and according to Cruickshank (2014) it is extremely important to conduct this in a fast moving
and dynamic timeframe, saying:

“We talked about there being a rhythm so what you would choose is you would choose
to do and event analyse it evaluate it start thinking about the next even in response to
that plan it and then deliver it so from that point of view would choose to have the
events very far apart but the idea of rhythm is that people want to keep up momentum
so there was always pressure to do events more quickly so we were developing events
in an overlapping way so someone would deliver something but they were already
different sub team were already planning the next event”.
Due to the fact that momentum is so important, it creates the dilemma of time management
becoming a problem because if the project is not facilitated properly, the schedule will not be
punctual. Schneider (2014) talks about this and explains:
27
“I think the time issue is very difficult to manage in co-design project because it’s the
time issues of the institutions of the regulations versus the need to solve something
that is really felt as urgent because you cant anticipate that.”
This is evidence that this in turn can cause problems for the shape of the workshop but also
for the convenience of the other stakeholders who may find it unsuitable in their own time
frame. This is a common occurrence in co-design as it is hard to take into account the many
variables that go on in day-to-day existence around a co-design project and it is hard to
anticipate these arbitrary diversions. Diego (2014) has experience trying to facilitate this when
discussing the matter, saying:
“It was a major challenge as on the technical side it was between the second and third
workshop there was not so much time to really program and then develop a new car so
in the end it was quite kind of a challenge to finish but we managed it.”
Showing that planning beforehand of the organization between workshops should also be
taken into much more consideration in case the workshop will not be able to actively facilitate
participants.
8.2 Conclusion and critical insights
Looking at the problems facing co-design in modern society, it is vital to try and create a
better procedure or framework to tackle the problems so that future projects can learn from
this and receive better outcomes. If co-design expands, it can become a way to tackle issues
on a more personal perspective and tackle the real issues creating better products, stronger
economies, apply it to political situations and improve our current standards of living.
Creating positive media attention towards co-design
Because of the media attention focused on high profile organizations to create something that
is productive for their consumers, co-design is a risk-taking project which companies have
trouble in trusting because of the need for getting results. This is a positive for the project
because there is more pressure to create a quality outcome but the problem with this is that
there is added pressure and restrictions on the project to the completion date and a facilitator
is needed to handle the stakeholders if they do not trust in the project. A way to approach this
problem could be to look at how fashionable co-design is compared to other more popular
forms of design. Using famous spokes people who can persuade participants to believe in the
process can help to paint the process in a more effective light for the general public. The
factors, which help to do this, are either their expertise in the field, trustworthiness as a
person or likability, which will attract people and build their interest in co-design and even
instill an enthusiasm. This can also be directly linked to Schneider (2014) who was
questioned whether co-design could be implemented at an earlier age of a participant to not

only develop these tools earlier in the persons life but to also give them more trust in the co-design
28
process. Schneider (2014) did not agree with this point believing that co-design is a
set of tools and you need to be enthusiastic about co-design to create a more authentic and
personal development in the project. Encouragement using a trustworthy media source could
create more of a buzz around co-design promising genuinely personal results but also
generating an enthusiasm towards the practice.
Another way to generate a better media attention around co-design is to conduct smaller
groups with lower scaled projects with company officials. This would mean that the project
would be giving the people in charge of companies the experience and knowledge of a co-design
process and why the project is beneficial to the organization. These people can then
vouch for co-design and help to generate a better manifesting of positive media feedback.
Facilitating the elitist behavior in designers
The way that elitist designers act during a co-design project is almost reminiscent to
roleplaying during childhood where they would constantly try to steer the direction of the
activity the way they think it should go. This is based on being taught more of a user-centered
design approach during education. In co-design this is not what is supposed to happen and
the participants should use the co-design methodology until a direction is found. Whilst this
creates a faster project flow, the results are not as tailor-made to the users and lose some of
its personal approach to creating a final product. A way to look at this dilemma would be to
create workshops across the globe to discover which designers are good co-designers. To
conduct this experiment with as many designers as possible would mean that the final
outcome would generate more co-designers who are capable of facilitating a project. It would
also mean that the hiring process of finding capable facilitators would be much more efficient
if they are recognized as qualified co-design facilitators and would also be more time and cost
effective than the current hiring process. Specialist designers can also be found for particular
fields e.g. creating a product would be more efficient with a product designer or creating a
jewelry store would require a jewelry designer etc. This would generate a much more detailed
and focused effort on the task.
It is a difficult issue to specify on because of the behavior of the designer and trying to
generate an enthusiasm for co-design but co-design is a growing methodology and having it
integrated in modern society could begin to change the mindset that ‘longer but more
personal’ processes have the potential to manifest more meaningful and personal results to
the user.
Future developments in technology are also aiming to bring together people from long
distance to better connect across the globe and inventions such as the ipad, android and
other leading communication devices. They are aiming at finding ways for better interaction
for the public (Turkle, 2011). Therefor, time and money costs have the possibility of
decreasing because of bringing co-design facilitators to a group through networking and
online communication and reduces the cost of travel and taking their time up. It also gives the
possibility for co-design to be conducted anywhere with a computer and opens the door to
seeing how more and more cultures can handle a co-design environment.
Location of activity base
The previous paragraph brings up the issue of the location of where co-design is conducted.
Most of the interviewees were situated in areas where the base of their operations was not
apparent to the public. Having this isolation from potential participants can affect the
possibilities of gathering feasible information. If they are not able to gain willing participants
then the project may not be able to identify suitable or even attainable results. Being situated
in populated areas where the target audience is based would help to increase productivity in
projects. This could be done through the use of the aforementioned networking of participants
through face-to face, real time communication on handheld or domestic devices. People who
are bored on their computers often find online distractions to peak their interest and can
sometimes feel obligated to fill their time (Lanier, 2011). Creating an online co-design
application will potentially bring in more people to partake in the project, generate an
awareness through transferring of knowledge and widens the scope of where co-design can
reach. Potential considerations are being able to keep participants interested, which could be
done by offering an incentive at the end of contribution.

Maintaining the momentum within projects
A large problem with long running co-design projects is that there can be breaks in the time
frame, which can kill the momentum of the project. Communication and meetings are required
to make sure that this momentum keeps moving but because of the large timeline it can be
difficult to drive the project if it is on a large scale. Momentum is also lost when stakeholders
find there have been little progress and the delivery team become disillusioned if they are not
facilitated in the right way (Locconsulting.co.uk & Cruickshank 2014).
Larger time frames with lots of issues can often be susceptible to this issue. If this problem
occurs, there could be a proposition to counter the problem by defining the critical issues
throughout the delivery schedule and focus workshops firstly around these main concerns.
This will try to ensure the ‘scope creep’ is eliminated so that critical issues are tackled whilst
momentum is in full flow. This will firstly ensure that the issue sees immediate improvements
and will retain stakeholder confidence by finding results at an earlier stage in the process.
Another means of looking at the issue would be to create an online timeline of what is
happening in the project so that participants can look through generated ideas from their own
home or own devices. This will give them access anytime to the project to make contributions
and means they can keep up momentum once the workshop in public spaces is over.
Through the use of images, descriptions and comment boxes, this could be another way to
feed information into the project. This will also keep the project flowing so some form of
momentum is maintained.
Smaller and more compact groups are also described as more beneficial as these allow
momentum to keep flowing (Schneider 2014). Therefor more workshops for the same projects
split into smaller and shorter time frames would ensure momentum is maintained which will
keep the participants in the ‘rhythm’ of the project.
Participants who challenge the project
Several co-design projects tend to experience a relative diversity of people. It is indicated that
sometimes there are people in these diversities who don’t trust in the philosophy of co-design
and can harm a project if they are in a position of influencing other people. This could be
because they don’t believe in the philosophy or that they don’t like the ideas generated. This
gives a different perspective of the challenge of the project but also can affect other people’s
decision making if they are influenced easily. A concept for dealing with this would be to
create a hierarchy of groups later in the project based on the experience level within industry.
This means that if somebody has had experience with either a project like this or with the
subject matter they can be placed in a group and the person who is challenging the project
conceptions can be placed in this group as well. This will give them time to be around people
who could possibly help to change their perspective by collaborating to navigate through
these issues and get them on board with the direction of the project or even have them steer
the project in a more practical or efficient direction. You also have to acknowledge the point
that there may be people who challenge the conceptions of the project to the point that they
definitely cannot be an asset to the project and will eventually effect it in a negative way but
challenging their conceptions give the possibility of finding something completely different
within the project to creating a better solution. Of course technology can help with facilitating
these people by providing real-time evidence of issues that have been dealt with in past
circumstances in other projects with which they can learn from and become more confident in
the way the direction is moving. Having information readily available to gain trust in
participants could be vital to them contributing to a design project.
29

Conclusion and reflection
As show in the literature and research findings co-design is very much used differently across
Europe and the many factors in the findings, which can affect a co-design project, accentuate
this. Cultural differences, social developments, environmental considerations and changes as
well as the political agenda of companies and governments all play a role in how a co-design
project is manifested and what challenges may arise depend on the different manifestations
of these occurrences. Throughout the path of a co-design project, there is the potential to
more capably accommodate these problems.
To create co-design, as a more fashionable vision in media would make it more popular in
mainstream organisations, drawing attention to a positive vision of co-design. Also trust is a
large factor in choosing to do a co-design project and implementation at an early age would
not create an enthusiasm. Hence making it more fashionable through the use of
spokespeople or positive media attention would make implementing co-design at an earlier
age more possible if participants are interested in the project. In relation to this, testing a co-design
project out with projects where there is less risk would help to instil more confidence in
governing bodies to attempt a project like this if they see positive results. Creating small scale
workshops to develop spokespeople for co-design would be a relatively quicker method of
gaining popularity amongst the design community than current methods of gaining interest
and would generate more devotion to the idea of co-design.
A way to generate more co-designers in mainstream businesses is be to create workshops
across the globe to discover which designers are good co-designers. This gives the
opportunity to generate more co-designers who are capable of facilitating a project reducing
cost and time whilst finding someone who can facilitate a project. Locating designers within a
specialist field would help a co-design project by contributing their specialist opinions to work
out details or provide experienced information on related subject matters. Technology in the
future will hopefully play a part in bringing people and organizations closer as well as co-design
30
projects and gives the opportunity to create global workshops operating in real time.
As well as this, it also helps to speed up communications and maintain relationships between
stakeholders. This would potentially mean that locations of activity bases become less
important as participants can communicate and generate their ideas from anywhere and are
not limited to commuting to workshops. Co-design apps and online workshops can be created
to gain more potential participants and also widens the scope of where a co-design project
can reach. Communication over the web can also contribute to projects by creating an online
timeline of what is happening in projects so participants can revisit workshops and contribute
with their own ideas online. It also means they can keep up momentum outside of the
workshop hours or if they do not attend. Another observation of maintaining momentum would
be to facilitate smaller and shorter time frames in workshops would ensure momentum is
maintained which will keep the participants in the rhythm during the project.
In addition to mentioning collaboration, creating a hierarchy of groups with somebody whose
had experience with similar projects and a negatively challenging participant could potentially
help navigate the challenged participant towards the right direction for the project.
With regards to the specialists, using people who have experience in a particular field, which
is related to the co-design subject, could result in much more relevant and personal results to
something, which are explicitly linked to their profession.
In light of these potential considerations in co-design it is important to understand in more
detail how we can create personal communication from long distance so that co-design can
retain its intimate nature between participants and other stakeholders. Looking at
technologies and what future methods of communication in future society, can help to
establish a meaningful connection so that long distance projects to become a success.
Another consideration would be the trend of co-design and to what extent can it be made a
‘must-have’ accessory for new generations and organizations so that they adopt this style of
design. New trends and phases in generations creates new opportunities to grasp these
possibilities and convince us to reevaluate what are the important aspects of design which
need to be taken into consideration. Global warming is a prime example of this where
materials, environment and other mitigating factors can affect the appeal of a product if it is
not beneficial to use in a society where energy use and material wastage are under stricter
observation. More personal products are the way forward in creating products that we need
as opposed to products that we want and identifying this change in mentality in design is very

important in my opinion to create a better understanding of what societies need and how we
can apply design to them. Co-design has the potential to help create more meaningful
products but also to establish stronger communities, which can help to build societies creating
a cycle of growth in communities. Taking these things into consideration would go some way
into evolving into not just an efficient but an effective culture of design.
31

32
9. References
A
Arvola, Mattias, A. and Artman. H. (2006). "Interaction walkthroughs and improvised role play." Design and
semantics of form and movement. p3.
B
Bonacorsi, S. (2008). What is… an Affinity Diagram?. Available:
http://www.improvementandinnovation.com/features/article/what-affinity-diagram/. Last accessed 18th May 2014.
Britz, Galen C., ed. Improving performance through statistical thinking. ASQ Quality Press, 2000.
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.
F
Frick, Elisabetta, Stefano Tardini, and Lorenzo Cantoni. "LEGO® SERIOUS PLAY®." (2013).

33
G
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.

Scoobyfoo. (2006). RentAThing: Applied Dreams 2.2 Presentation. Available:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/scoobyfoo/sets/72057594083488682/. Last accessed 19th May 2014.
Shade. J. (2000). Improving Performance Through Statistical Thinking, McGraw-Hill.
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
34
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
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
Z
Zamarato, M. (2008). NARRATIVE DESIGN. Available: http://www.interaction-venice.com/projects/iuav-thesis/
2008n/narrative-design/. Last accessed 19th May 2014.

Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in design around europe final

Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in design around europe final

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (19)

Similar to Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in design around europe final

Similar to Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in design around europe final (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in design around europe final