Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in...

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: [email protected]

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

3

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 polit ical 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 wil l 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 i f we challenge cit izens 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. 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).

5

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).

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

A working definition of co-‐design as portrayed at the workshop.

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.

6

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.

7

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

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).

9

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.

10

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.

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’.

13

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. 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.

14

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.

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.

Just Imagine All The Stories and the Shape of the park:

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).

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.

Four main stages of the theoretical design study of Yozgat urban square. Dede et, al., 2012

19

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.

• 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.

22

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:

“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:

23

“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:

“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.

24

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:

“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

25

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.”

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:

26

“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”.

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:

27

“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:

“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

28

only develop these tools earlier in the persons life but to also give them more trust in the co-design 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.

29

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.

30

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 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

31

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.

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.

34

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 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.

35

10. Appendices 10.1 Interview transcripts: 1. Jan Glaas – 1st July 2014

---------- Easy questions to get them relaxed

Who are you? What do you do (what’s your job)?

I’m Jean Schneider and I’m and the European projects coordinator within UPCI which is a design promotion body. Its probably guild as far as I know in France because we were created 30 years ago to promote design towards French businesses but economical factors in the broad sense so institutions as well and promote French design approaches so that was our original mission and we more or less still stick to it and within that small entity we happened to be involved in a few European projects and I’m quoting our contribution to those projects so that my current role. Besides that I am a designer by training and also by practice so I don’t only do the administration of the projects but sometimes a really get actively involved in them. Especially in proud because although we subcontracted and now challenge the co-design work I was very much involved in monitoring what they were doing and eventually contributing to some of the activities as well saying like ‘we should do this in that way or this material should be used in that way’ etc but now I’m purely doing administration.

Could you give me an example of where your conflicting view might have applied to a co-design project?

Well I wouldn’t say it was conflicting views it more the fact that I don’t take everything in the field for granted so for instant the challenge were running in the bree region which was focused more or less about ageing, for instant I kept a rather tight eye on the personas that were defined and the kind of visual materials that was attached to that because as you know I think the basic of our job is that every picture, shape, whatever form in the generic sense conveys meaning. That’s our expertize so in another case I would say ‘I think this image is misleading’ or can be misinterpreted by the people around the table so ‘I’m happy to see it there’ or ‘I would prefer this kind of presentation being used to avoid prejudice’ in some cases or to ‘open up for all this kind of population such as immigrant and things like that’ so that’s one thing. Another thing could be to talk about the graphics and talk about the contents of the material that we used provide and the way we do the announcements as well so its not conflicted its just saying that because I have some experience in that activity I sometimes question what you propose not questioning the competent I think we can be sharper here rather than use a little bit standard assumptions so that’s not conflicting really, but can end up with some conflicts as I disagree with some people quite strongly but I think that part of the job.

You talked about not being prejudice in your projects and there could be cultural differences, could you say that diversity is a big part of co-design then?

I think that diversity is a key issue but there are two ways to look at it. There’s the diversity that we include in the discussions that we should include to be polite that says ‘All the people should be represented all nationality and look. There’s this kind of common acceptance of ‘Okay there should be diversity’, which is true towards an extent but the way to gain this and to make the diversity effective in the project is a bit more complex because you might bring people from different backgrounds around the project yet the mind-set is so framed by the same expectations or representations of what is good or what is a good society or what is a good neighbourhood or what is a good house, what is a good city. The people might look diverse in terms of gender origin history etc yet they have exactly the same mind set so you don’t go very far with that.

Then there is the other 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. I think that there are two layers of diversity that you at least have to have knowledge because I think that most co-design processes (and that may be where we depart a little bit from the Anglo-Saxon culture but at least a little bit in the southern countries are quite important. I think it’s the same up there but it not said in the same way) we all as ordinary people we are all extremely aware of what is expected from us and who has the really power. I think when you run a project with stakeholders that are usually institutions of course people are aware that is an asymmetrical situation. 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.

36

How could you facilitate something like that?

I think it’s very difficult. If I had the answer that would be great. I think it’s very difficult because at this point I see different things. First of all (and this comes from discussion I try to have with people who have been involve di t he project so I’m running a little bit of what you are doing just because I have to develop a tools kit so I’m talking to people who have been though some of the projects) I think there are different means to facilitate this. The first thing is to select the people rather than make it plainly open. It doesn’t mean that its always the same group of people that go’s from the beginning of the project to the end and its doesn’t mean that when I say its not open doesn’t mean you cannot open up on certain phases. You can open the doors I.e. for a workshop or presentation or exhibition or something like that). But a project is first of all in my view like a cruise. Its going to last very long, and not everybody has the capacity to stand the length of the project. Some people are able to burst with energy for a week and their really necessary at the moment of the project you really need these people who come with a lot of energy who throw things on the table who discuss or challenge etc. But you also need people (like in any team) who ensure the continuity, who are going also to attribute and your going to say well actually we’ll go for the second one. Not that the first one is necessarily bad or not that the third one is unfeasible its just that within the resources that you have they will be too difficult to manage. So as the people were going to do that might not be the people who are going to contribute inside the sessions. There might be a slightly different team but they’re going to ensure the continuity of the project, which doesn’t mean they are going to ensure that you reach the result because everybody has a result in mind beforehand. Everybody has an idea of how it should be. How the neighbourhood should be how the garden should be how the healthcare should be everybody has ideas. And hope that the project is just going to deal with the technicalities of their idea. What is difficult is that the project is never going to do that and its purpose is not to do that. I’ve done both sides. So you need people who are going to say ‘ I don’t know where were going but were going somewhere for sure’ and this is a very complex and difficult attitude and I think that you need these different personalities all though the co-design process. The co-design process makes this even more necessary in an ordinary design process because ordinary design processes have this factor. You have some people in the business world for the project of some people, against the project some people who have a time line and say ‘well we need to have this in three weeks or six month because we need to have this on the market. I know we have something that is designed for summer either you have it in the shelves in may or next may but your certainly not giving a timeline where you say ‘we need to have this in October November December’. So they’ll pour that pressure on. So I think you always find this in different ways expect that in the co-design process because the team itself that challenges require or have the potential of being more conflicting. All these roles become more critical.

---------- Their role in proud overall

How are you involved in Proud, what project or activities?

I think that in PROUD I haven’t been very much involved in the sense that we're a rather small organisation. We had a challenge like Lancaster had or Eindhoven. I think that the specificity of our challenge was that it was addressing private businesses so it was not directly dealing with the public sphere. But in a way it had the public dimension because it touched upon tourism in a small region and in a way we were dealing with the network of very small business basically one or two persons business except for a few SME’s. Not addressing each business individually but rather trying to look at synergies. That was maybe the main difference applying our project and the other projects. For me the challenge was for me to figure out if this open innovation or co-design (I would except any definition of that at the moment as long as there is a little bit of mess in the process) were these feasible to produce some results for networks of small business because a lot of co-design or open innovation that comes from the enterprise side is for these very large companies and I know that it doesn’t cascade that easily towards SME’s because the dynamics of the results are profoundly different. So to me it was also a test was can we bring something. If we can bring something to microbusinesses then ill know something better about the issue.

What does co-design mean to you?

There are different aspects there. I would say It means an open ended project vs. a closed ended project. Closed ended project is a typical design project where the assignment is well defined so ‘design me this or this interface new car or this new whatever or improve this existing design or design my brand or weave graphics for this application’ so there I would say the assignment might be captured in those terms but profoundly what you are touching on in the project or though the project is more qualitative meaning by that you’re more touching on the relationships that people have with something. That’s in a way what you want to touch upon. I think in design it’s always there expect that in co-design maybe not. It is latent in the standard design project. That becomes more explicit. I think its more explicit because if people require or think of co-design and want to trigger a project about, I don’t think its because they like the idea. Its both because they visualise ‘Nobody holds the answer’ and there is a need to do something in common. Or you can say well ‘we’ve had so many issues with the acceptance of the decision that the society doesn’t except any more’ then an expert comes and says ‘destroy these five houses and build this kind of building and make a public square with this kind of games for the kids in that place’. So somehow society has changed and people might say ‘We can’t work like this any more.’ So that’s one of the triggers and that one is interesting if people say ‘well we truly need to develop something with the people.’ The answer, which is sometimes a bit connected and is a bit cynical, is ‘Why suddenly co-design becomes trendy?’ Its historically connected to the fact that there is no money and its cheaper ultimately to send designers and to put a few people to work around the table to give their ideas

37

about the project, then to have the experts who are going to do studies and tell you what to do. Its not black and white but I’m pretty sure because I’ve talked with people in municipalities that there is a strong correlation between the lack of public funding and the call for co-design because in a way you don’t pay the time of the people who contribute. The fact is you ask designers who are rather cheap people to run a process in which they find value and ultimately who generally find ideas which have pre-acceptance so it’s a kind of win win thing (although I don’t like this win win because there never a lose lose but okay) there is a value there for all parties. But I think its good that designers accept to get involved into that even if they don’t make much money. Because something’s that makes you happy in life and have more value and are not translated in financial income then this is great. So for me these are the triggers at the moment that the necessity of co-design that drive the trend of looking at co-design as an interesting alternative to design.

What are the most important qualities of your co-design management style?

I think it’s to be clear with the issues all the time. That’s the first thing. And especially if I had to work with projects that deal with the public sphere or public interest it’s also to acknowledge the prejudice of the people who’s ideas or options cannot be embedded in the final project. In the project that is realised. To me that is one of the most interesting issues to consider which means also ‘How do you discuss’ (And I have not answer or experience about that) Most of the projects are always initiated by the institutions not by the people. But the people didn’t wait for us and need to be able to organise themselves and organise a comity which says ‘We are unhappy y with this proposal’ or ‘We don’t like the idea that you are going to change the neighbourhood’ So they don’t need us you’ve always been able to do that and de-flow solution and challenge proposals. They didn’t wait for co-design when they wanted to de-flop alternatives to a proposal. Institutions have lots of means to impose their choices. They are able to implement things without waiting for the people and they have lots of regulations and impose things. I don’t see this as negative. Because institutions represent the public good. Public good is not the sum of the private interests. Its very important to explain this to the people for instance if we are going to put people around a table. What I see happening at least here is ‘My interests is there’ and no one will say ‘My interest is there’ etc and it’s a kind of scapegoat of being hostile without heart. Truly administrative. If you go and talk with civil servants and listen o them they say ‘were not here to solve your problems jean or the problem of your neighbour’ who are actually completely conflicting and both of you forget that there is a law and the law has not been decided by me and the civil servant, the laws has been decided by the community. For instance you cannot just go out and have parties at 2 in the morning and disturb everyone or you know the law is that you cannot leave your car in the middle of the street then go home and cook a couple of eggs and go back. The public interest is defined and goes beyond the private interest. Institutions are also made of that and sometimes its really necessary that they impose things so for instance they can deal with the long term so for now we are planning for the next 20 years for instance and certainly it means you will be evicted or the school shifts from that place to that place but yes fair enough that’s exactly the job. I might be very unhappy because it was very convenient where the school was being next door to my kids but if nobody is going to say no there’s a reason behind that and you try to explain the reason behind that, we’ll end up with guns in every house. You know 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 to which means mediate between time of the long term of the institutions but the short term of the people who say ‘you need to solve this happening in my back yard now’ because for the last six months I think I’ve a case in the city very far from where I’m living where there are Romanian people who just settle widely in a piece of land and have been settled there for the last 3-4 months and they packing more people in, there no water there, no toilets so of course you know they go to other places to pick up water. Of course they shit and they pee right in front of people. They burn copper or wires to sell the copper. They don’t necessarily steal the copper but find it and they burn it so that was a nice little neighbourhood of people living in the street and they are not necessarily very hostile. They aren’t racist and even help them in the beginning. And they go to me and they say now this is really an issue. It stinks, we get the smokes of this plastic burning overnight, we have to live with our windows closed and I live in the south so its really hot at the moment so there’s a short-term issue I think but how can we solve that?

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. You could blame the institutions who say ‘you should have thought three years ago that Romanian people would come in the city and find this piece of land that is abandoned and sell some toilets and water etc but nobody anticipated that. This will be for me an interesting co-design case. Extremely difficult I mean ill probably break my teeth on that but yes. Can we bring something to these kinds of issues?

---------- About Projects

Tell me about the project you have managed…

Other projects I have been managing have had very little to do with co-design I guess but I’ve been in the last year supporting small business in integrating design so it goes a little bit beyond advocacy so I would say technical support or how to formulate how to procure properly how to find a designer these kind of things. This is mostly what I’ve been doing. And I’m involved in a few other projects that have to do with more within he institutions. How to better integrate design for instance and innovation support and things like that. More id say with the institutions. Are better integrate design and innovation supports that.

38

Did you have to cooperate with any external people to make sure that the project would run smoothly?

Yes. First of all because we would procure if we had to run other projects we would still procure to a design consultancy the execution of the project. Which is also part of management but we would still manage it and now I would say our manage rather firmly because I’ve had more experience, because I’ve benefitted also from the experience of the other proud partners so it would be more strict in terms of management of the project other than just subcontracting and leave the design consultancy running it.

Would you consider the project to have a more passive or active participation (where active stands for intense communication with designers)?

Do you mean looking at the quality of the communication between the parties or looking at the experience of the different parties have with the topic before?

The qualitative communication between the parties.

I think that’s certainly a key issue and my view nowadays would be at least in my context for sure is to look for social occasions. Less formal meeting. You need them but they are a kind of ritual to make sure that we are working. I think that the real work especially when you are looking for something that is highly qualitative happens because we realise that we share rather similar values, which doesn’t mean that we share the same values. All participants should consider that dialogue is a key issue and the best way to check that you share these values is to have dinner together or to break up have a beer. It cannot happen within the time of the workshop so I would look for the opportunities to have social events. Not as a counter power. A small group of people who would shadow projects, predating the other one. But making sure that you have between all the stakeholders a few people who trust each other. You can disagree with people you trust but if you disagree with people you don’t trust then you are in the conflict. There snot reason to stay together around the table. I don’t see any reason why I would stay with someone I don’t trust or with whom I disagree. I would just go out or go to the beach. Why spoil your life? It’s so frustrating. Unless you have a contract but if you don’t have a contract in a co-design project. You’re begging people to come.

How did you go about your co-design activates, what processes or tools did you use.

We used very classic service design type of tools with a little bit of tools to set up the context like stakeholders mapping, swat analysis, surveys and things like that so that to set the context. Then to drive the process was more different mapping tools like ‘describe an ideal stay’ or ‘describe your last vacation’ or ‘bring in personas to help people identify and tell something which will be the ideal service for you. So I would say nothing really specific. What I learned from that is that it’s good to very carefully prepare the activity. It’s extremely important but it’s also extremely important to look at what is going on rather than look at the results. That’s maybe something where I departed a little bit from the design consultancy. The design consultancy was gathering all the material and then was evaluating the results and I was more interested and actually I fought a little bit with them about it was more important to look at he dynamics and to look at what the words might really mean. I think people for instance (that would make Leon extremely upset but he knows it) people are not creative. Most of the people are not creative. Everybody has more or les the same thing like when you ask people what your ideal house they all want a door, a roof, windows, a bedroom, a living room a kitchen and a bathroom. You don’t see anyone saying well actually I want to be under the sky or picking anything extreme. When they give a second thought to it like ‘What would be your dream life’ then they might describe it but when you tell them what should be in your house, most of the people have the same thing. I don’t blame them for that. That’s a necessity because if everybody had completely different representations behind the word ‘house’ there would be no towns. If another person built an idea house they would be squatting it would be a bit challenging. I rather look at it as a recipe. But what is interesting for me is to look at the little differences that people are going to put at some point and these differences point really at what deeply motivates them. So I don’t care because (to say it simple) people say ‘okay everybody wants a house or a flat like this like 90% of people we invited around all the stakeholders decided and we send it them with an optimal compromise and they agree on that so that’s really what they need and I think that’s not true. I think you need to look at what does it say profoundly behind that which means taking the distance from the output, not looking strictly at the output but looking at especially in my view the clients. The little thing that is a bit odd. Looking a little bit at what is a bit outside because this in my view my open to the real challenge. The challenge that we might have failed but you haven’t been able to form relate and again I don’t expect the people to be able to define the problem. Some are able but it will always be a few so I rather look or try to look at these little gaps and try to figure out if people at the event out of all this could it make sense could it make sense of the issues that we are trying to recap. Afterwards if you want to discuss this again we can discuss it if needed.

39

How did you plan the schedule for a project? What variables came into light?

The project had a timeline that was set by the key stakeholders, which were these small business and these small businesses because they are operating in the field of tourism there are six months every year in which they are not available. From late may until mid October they are very busy because they like bed and breakfast or small hotels and thing like that so it’s the only moment of the year where they have most of the visitors because that region is near Paris. That was the time where it was very difficult. 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 so that’s in a way I think the a mistake we’ve made. Well one of the big mistakes I’ve made. Because it was a lack of experience and a lack of understanding of the dynamics.

How did you motivate your participants to join in?

Well I didn’t need to be so much in touch with recruiting the participants because one of the project partners were head of the network so this person was also bridging with the few businesses and us. Even though there was this person we did make a couple of meeting in the beginning to present the process, to explain it etc. What we realised was that explaining the process the way we did it was quite abstract for the people. What also the reason why we did a video so that if we had to convince people about what goes into the design workshop and what’s the kind of output needed etc. Because when you start explaining it with words, either it becomes a bit theoretical or it falls at the level of the anecdote. Then people say ‘Yes but brainstorming…yeah! What do you call co-designing? Brainstorming, games, creative’ many projects nowadays have these creative activities so suddenly they think ‘what’s this about calling it co-design and these consultancies have paid a lot to sell us something that we know already?’ so I think its very difficult to explain really and I think we failed a bit in that as well. Tried to make it more sophisticated and it’s confusing to the outside because I think there’s a lot of sophistication but the sophistication is behind. We need to be encouraging of the activities and the analysis in the evaluation that we de-flop all the time but you can go round a table with plenty of post its or magazines to cut or Lego figures and say okay now imagine the ideal afternoon or in the park or something like that. We don’t need to discuss this you just need to put the people around and tell them well playing is something enjoyable. Don’t think more than that just enjoy it and do it.

What type of contingency planning did you do for the project?

That was more when we prepared the application for co-financing because the project was partly funded by proud and we had to look for co-financing that’s why we focused on ageing because there was the opportunity to get to answer to a call from someone from industry on aging. Actually that came (the issue of tourism came) partly because I had met some people who were interested in design and were project managers focusing on territorial de-flopment and to me that was also something interesting so focusing on rural areas because France is a very big country with a lot of rural areas a=with a few main cities and a lot goes on towards the cities and less goes for the smaller cities or villages. So its interesting doing something for rural areas so we started to discuss and in terms of proactive things I think I proposal we discovered a little bit about tourism and then I had an intuition, I propose to them to consider was to not look at tourism simply in terms of selling nights which was the original project. We were thinking could design help us to sell more nights In the sense of could we have a better communication strategy and I said well I think with the issue of aging and especially the call of the misère of industry was the baby boomers as a generation which had changed the vision of aging that we used to have not only elderly people but the people who are still healthy, quite wealthy actually compared to the rest of the population, who feel young although they are in their sixties but its not because they retired that they fall the elderly population. I said there is an opportunity to investigate a change of values and therefor to look at tourism not in the same way but what would be another form of residents and that where we started to work together and I thought of the idea of saying ‘well we should look at hospitality in a completely different way, look at council things, look at this house exchange which not only for economical motivation that’s also because some people say ‘well why go to hotel?’ I want to have a different experience and also look at the economical issue because although many of them a wealthy if you have a close look at statistics then in a city like Paris then a lot of significance in terms of market. Significant market of people who have low pensions and cannot afford to go for real holidays. But because area we’re working for its about half a kilometre outside of Paris so you can got there with a cheap ticket on metro because its still part of the great Paris region so you have reduced fares. So I try to weave together these different elements. I say well ‘maybe that will be the plural of our project to investigate it for the study. That was out second proactive thing it was really to put on the table things that people didn’t put things on the tables and they were looking a tourism as these conventional forms of ‘we had nights we want some more nights and better’ so the first thing you say is ‘well let redo a leaflet lets redo a website lets redo the booking’ something like that. That was the tourist approach. The requirements of the ministry to de-flop new services or products for an ageing population that has new values. To me that was also ‘not everybody’s wealthy, what do we do for the people who are in their sixties with not much money and live in cities like Paris where they cant afford to go out so to give you an idea, 50% of the women who are more than fifty in France don’t go on holiday because they don’t find anything that suites us and then when you go deeper into the studies we try to cross different things because most of these women have actually another person they have to take care of, typically an elderly parent like and not necessarily their mother or father it can be an elderly neighbour of some type that they take care of and this person might not be able to really travel or travel in conditions where it becomes extremely expensive. Or they have to take care of grandchildren. So they don’t find any tourist offer that suits them. Of course it doesn’t look very much if you think women over 50 and only 40% or 50% of them but if you look at Paris suddenly it become more than a couple of hundreds of people. So all this brought together helped to formulate the project and helped to formulate the help for the whole thing.

40

---------- Evaluation of how it went

What was the most challenging aspect about your project?

I think the analysis of the outcome of the workshops that was a difficult phase and a critical phase and the other thing that was complete failure was that our first kind of workshop the second co-design because we had two sessions and each had two co-design workshops so we had four co-design workshops actually in the project. So we decided to embed the offer in something concrete and it needed a graphic design support to present the offer, promote it etc I asked a graphic designer to make us a proposal that could be tested afterwards and I think he did a great job honestly but some of the people not all reacted very negatively because the codes he was using were not the codes they expected and that’s also a lesson that I learnt when I was talking in the beginning about the representations I should have discussed the issue of representation at the beginning and not waited for the crisis it created because people were puzzled because they liked the thing and said that these are really nice pictures. He made pictures he was not representing the countryside in the usual it was not presenting in an ugly way but it was different pictures, different map and things like that and I think they really didn’t know what to do with that. Its not that they were hostile in the sense that they don’t like it, they ended up saying ‘we don’t like’ it but when we interviewed them and presented the thing individually they liked it and said oh that’s great oh we like this wording and we like this graphics or we like this typography we like the picture’ but they didn’t know what to do with that. So that also in terms of evaluation what was very difficult to have to deal with a negative reaction so something which I knew was truly relevant was really interesting to the project and the challenges of the project

What was the most successful aspect about your last project?

I think the most successful aspect of the project is that some of the partners that were involved who are the people who are involved in territorial de-flopments. Now they say they will always use design and we always have it now in the back of our head. It doesn’t mean that we will use it in each and every project but they say okay now we 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. This is the first thing. The second thing is that there were new offers and new services that were de-flopped that are not new individually but it was the first time that that region had different business that they cooperated to de-flop something meaning that people who get bed and breakfast have de-flopped something with say tourist gardens and taxi driver and that can buy a comprehensive stay where you come out at the train station and the taxi picks you up and you come to the bed and breakfast and you get your nights and food and whatever and if you want to go to the garden the taxi comes and picks you up at that time and picks you up etc and details like this and this had never happened before.

Could co-design be implemented at an earlier age?

No I don’t know. I’m not convinced no because I think ultimately if you are to do co-design its because you have an attitude towards that and an interest towards that. You could provide more information etc that’s great but if ail ok at the French context where education is extremely authoritative it would be such a revolution so its not the age that is really important its really the attitude that we have in the institutions in the school in the businesses or whatever that I think is key. The age I don’t think is the answer because you have in France I guess you have the same in the UK you have some alternative schools but the kids have a much more proactive attitude towards the way they asked and become involved in the things and are less passive. Suddenly we have enough time now to look at the effect of this and the people who come out of this kind of education are usually have a sense of autonomy which is strong which probably gives them a better professional life and are more open etc. that’s really the attitude to promote but if you 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 it will be a set of tools and you wont use them. Do you use Latin? No? I don’t know maybe you had Latin at school but if you look backwards lots of things that you’ve learned are rather useless. Although I could easily disagree with what I’ve just said because I think they’re useful to shape you or to broaden your view on things but the transformative aspect of co-design, I think we cannot be conveyed by just learning the technicalities.

41

Have you worked on a co-design project that didn’t receive the outcome that was hoped for? What happened?

I would say in a way that the project we have been running in proud didn’t get the outcome that was expected. If I look at the expectations of the people of different stakeholders that people who were literally hoping that they would sell more nights and I’m not sure that ever happened. Other things have happened which I found and if I look at a few other projects on which I’m keeping an eye on or which I sometimes a little bit involved through one meeting or things like that, I think the other projects tend to have an outcome. But it would be very difficult to figure out especially with projects that involve the institutions. Providers of the final resources, they not only finance the projects but ultimately that’s it for instance if it was hospital then the social security would pay for the co-design study but they also pay for the implementation of the results if any. Something of these kind of cases I’ve been following, if the budget is not directly attached to the project (if its not very small) its difficult to say because the people who are running the project are not necessarily those who are going to implement it. Like if you re plan for a hospital, if you have like £50.000 aside for redesigning and using co-design to redesign the entrance of the hospital or waiting room or something like that, you have the money there but if you redesign the whole patient flow you need to reshape the hospital interior so you might run the co-design project and you might design he thing but (at least in France and many other places), the people who are going to say ‘OKAY no we adopt this were going to rebuild the hospital to have a major intervention in this hospital and maybe in the others’ the amount of money that is involved there is so big and that is usually inconvenient a different unit that’s going to deal either that and that unit might have other priorities that might jeopardise your project. I think a project that had the outcome implemented on which the small budget was attached to it from the very beginning so its not completely answering your questions because I’m not so sure but maybe that’s how I can contribute to your work.

42

2. Francoise Vos – 3rd July 2014



Okay well my name is Francoise Vos and I work at Capital D in Eindhoven as a project manager. Capital D is actually a corporation for design in the region here in Eindhoven and one of the projects organised is Dutch design week. Maybe you’ve heard of it and Dutch design awards. It’s the major project we organise. Besides that we have two European projects and Proud is one of them and that’s all about co-design.



Capital D is league partner in Proud so there actually doing al the organisation, administration with the European union. And with that concern we one of the partners in proud so we all connect also regional challenge and we apply co designing sessions and lectures and everything.


Yeah its really for me it’s a process between all stakeholders and especially for end users. Right from the beginning in the process so really you go in with a blank canvas you don’t really steer the participants in a certain direction but everyone is equal in the creative process and together you come up with very kind new ideas and perspectives.

How do you feel your philosophy towards co-design is different from other people’s philosophy?

There’s a lot of confusion between user-centred design and co-design and that’s sometimes a fine line but there’s a lot of confusion there but lot of times designers ask users for their opinion and in our opinion that’s more user centred design I think co-design is rally when you all start blank on a table and start designing. I think that’s the way to go.

What’s your role & responsibilities in co-design projects you’re involved with?

We have several projects we did one here with the station because it was not very well perceived so we kind of organised teams to work on that with the cyclists, with council, with people who lived there, people who come in and out of the station so its more like an organisation role that we have.

What were the main problems with that project?

The fact that there were lots of landowners. Its very difficult regulation on it so 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. That was quite difficult

So were they the main problem in the project getting them on board and getting them to trust you judgement as well.

Yes but also the process afterwards like 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.

43

Is there anything else you could tell me about that relating to the reason or values they had that conflicted with getting involved?

I don’t know really I think we started not really from the co-design as we now know how it works so we really started with a team of designers who work with the people and local people there in finding really nice solutions and then going on this process we discovered that some parts of the land were owned by somebody else so then plans that were made were not possible. It was a kind of a complex site for that.


I think that we learned through proud because it evolved a little bit .We started off differently but now we have a really nice space here design innovation hub we have here in the building and we have a toolbox with really nice specialised tools for people to work with. We do a co-design process with designers who are facilitating these sessions. Now we have this process, which is very good with co—design that we can facilitate the process here.



Dutch design week there was a big project with agriculture with farmers and designers and government and really seeing how design and agriculture can merge to come up with new concepts for projects or services or a new way of branding for example, milk or a lot of different topics like topics farmers are dealing with at the moment. Farmers get together at a table with the design and members of the community and they really came up with new ides to help them move forward.


We hired external designers to facilitate the project as well

What was their job role whilst facilitating the project?

They stimulated the participants to be creative mostly to really help them use the tools.


Yes I think very active yes.


A bit the same as we used normally so we really have figures like money sign and piece of paper that people can put them on and so this was an agriculture theme so the symbols had to do with agriculture so we had animals we had arms we had pictures we had mostly these kind of figures or symbols.

44


Actually they give u a different group each day so it was very short sessions. It was really also for them to get acquainted for them to get comfortable with co-design and put their own kind of problem on the table. The same designers came more often but the farmers were different people so we would teach the process every day. It was quite quick but I heard from the designers the tools were kind of speaking for themselves that it was quite easy for people to really dive in to it very quickly and they stopped playing with the tools which were there to come up with creative ideas.

Did anybody have any problems such as designers loosing their elitist mentality?

No it was okay here but we preselect them and brief them very well before hand.

How did you brief them? Were they familiar with the process before hand?

Yes because proud is a kind of a long project already we started in 2011 so we have a community of designers who use co-design sometimes and also Leon Cruickshank comes here to give Master classes to them as well so they are familiar with the principles of how it works and what they should look after.


There was talks not with me but with the colleague between the province and how to tackle this problem or this kind of sessions but I think that was not really any barriers we have the space here we have the tools developed specially for these sessions.

What kind of tools did you feel were most appropriate?

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 so that really helped.

How did you monitor and manage risks to the project?

There were reports written afterwards and the designers kept an eye on how it as going and at the end there was a presentation that was recorded on more paper.

Were there any limitation or problems that you had to face? Were there any communication issues?

Some farmers knew to design so they had to grasp the concept but that’s good in this kind of thing.



I think that 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. We were going to start a new co-design challenge in September with school kids so I’m really wondering how that is going

45

Is that the Essen project?

They’re involved were doing one here but the designer from Essen; she’s coming over here to train the teachers and the designers. I think they have to frame it and there’s going to be an exhibition for Dutch design week so we really have to aim for something that is exhibit-able. I think that’s typical of co-design that it can go in any direction and it’s difficult to plan anything beforehand.


I think the new insights you get. I think it’s nice when normally like when the commissioner asks the designer to do something then they know a bit on the project but maybe they tackle the real problem that was there and sometimes you really get surprising answers to challenges that you never thought of I think that it adds great value towards co-design.


Not really but also because in the sessions we don’t really have any expectations in that manner so maybe the next challenge is really only outcomes. I think its good when it comes up from the people who need to use it, it cannot be undesirable.

Is there anything you feel your particular company that should be valued in a co-design process and you feel is different from other departments in proud?

We do this big festival Dutch design week its really in co-design way but I think though proud we also had a workshop from Leon and used the tools from Lancaster to map out the needs and everything so its going well.

Is there anything you feel is important that should be added to the progression of co-design?

I think that 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 but I think that it really helps.

46

3. Leon Cruickshank – 14th July 2014


I am a reader in design at Lancaster University. My involvement with proud s I help to write the BID and UK lead for the proud projects so I have been running I’m in charge of the projects the proud have done in the UK

What does being in charge of involve doing in the proud projects?

Well there are a number of work packages or actions that we have to do in the project I think there are six so I lead the master class work package which is about delivering new types of master classes across Europe also I lead the UK Co-design projects which I think is work package or ‘action 5’ but any way every nation has a co-design project they run with their local community or local public space actually so I lead the development of the UK local co-design project that was called beyond the castle.

What kind of things do you entail with the work packages?

In the BID they’re actually called actions but I think there are six work packages or actions. One of them around business models, one of them is around master classes, one is about co-design projects, there’s one about tools and I can’t remember the rest.

What separates the co-design packages from other packages?

They’re all lead by different people. They all communicate and relate to each other but they’re all separate deliverables in the project.

What are the differences between the tools packages as well?

Well the tools packages is being developed by Jean Schneider but that’s been passed more to Eindhoven and capital d to work at so it’s still coming to focus but its kind of drawing together the processes that we developed throughout the proud projects to do co-design.

How has this tools package developed over the years and what insights could you say have developed to make it more capable to facilitate a co-design environment

I think the active bit of that package has only just… its drawing on the co-design projects that have happened so far so it couldn’t really get into high gear before the projects were starting to come into a conclusion so that has become a very active bit of the project now where as before it was more about laying the ground work for the literature reviews and that kind of thing so its only just really becoming active and because someone else is leading it we don’t really know what they’re doing apart from talking to a few designers to design a toolbox or we’ve had conversations about designing a game or… there are lots of ideas but I’m not sure what ideas they’re going to take forward yet.

47

Is there any particular reason that they should take other ideas before other ideas so do some ideas facilitate engagement better than others do you feel?

Yes for sure but also there’s also a wider question about what approaches are transferable between contacts so they’re might be something that’s very specific to a geographical area so for instance in beyond the castle we employed a roman centurion to get people or help people think about the history underneath their feet in the area we were looking at. That would make no sense at all in Essen because they don’t have much roman archaeology so there is a question about the effect of tools as they’re reused and there a question about the transferability of tools across the proud project but ultimately across the wider context so notion is that we produce something that other people can use.

Would you say that it is more important that the people are immersed in the culture of their surroundings when involved with the project?

I don’t see how people cannot be immersed in their surroundings

You said that the centurion was used was to give people feedback on the history of the area where roman centurions used to be a part of the English history so would you say that were people more involved in their history and more involved in their own culture it can benefit when conducting a co-design experiment to bring history from their own culture into the co-design project?

I think I agree in that every co-design project is different from co-design another project recognising and drawing on the specific nature is important but equally there will be some transferable things that can be used to draw out those differences so when I think about co-design I think about on one hand very specific things that are designed particularly for that context like the roman centurion and there were about 7 different tools or activities that joined together to form that day and they were all quite specific to the area, so you’ve got those on one hand and one the other hand you’ve got more generalizable tools and its worthwhile just thinking what a tool it. What a physical tool is. You go to a toolbox and you’ve got things that twist, things that grip, things that cut, maybe things that mark and that’s it so there are these fundamental things so a screwdriver is something that turns something else. So the question is in for co-design what is those fundamental things and those fundamental things can be used so if you have a physical toolbox you can use the tools in that tools box to make all sorts of amazing things and those things can be very much tailored to a specific environment or a specific context so specific tools for co-design, you can use those tools to make something really specific for things like roman centurions or a train station or to a museum so there are two ways of thinking about tools. There’s the kind of tools that are more like mechanisms or processes that you use with people and there are the fundamental tools that you use to create those mechanisms.



Well Proud was about developing new types of knowledge exchange actually through co-design so it was about building a collaboration. About understanding how other people approach co-design across Europe and then about using and exchanging best practices or interesting practices between partners and applying that to Lancashire contexts so that’s Proud.

Beyond the castle was really about trying out those new things and really exploring how quite radical I think co-design approached could be employed. It feels like were more open and more co-design than the other parts of the proud project in that we didn’t have designers coming up with ideas for outcomes. We employed designers to construct structures or processes that allowed non-designers to be creative and that is quite… 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.

48

What’s your role & responsibilities in co-design projects you’re involved with?

So I employed the designers and my role was (actually I’ve written about this in some of my papers) to act as an insulator between the politics of the local government and the designers themselves so we get on really well with the city and county engagement officers but one or two of them literally said at one point ‘ were really happy for it to be an open process as long s 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 have this… they’re relaxed and they’re having fun and they’re doing these things. Council quite anxious so my job was to smooth they’re feathers tell them it will be okay, keep them on side but act as a break with the designers and the outside world.

When communicating between the council and the designers do you feel there is any particular way to improve that communication between them so that they become less anxious or improves the facilitation and the communication between the two parties?

The council weren’t the clients in this case so they were used to being in charge of the project and so this time they weren’t in charge so it wasn’t that there was a communication problem between them but the council were playing a different role to what they normally play. They had to trust us more than usual they were participants rather than leaders. 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. That made them think ‘actually they are doing interesting things with people look have you seen these pictures? That looks brilliant. Yeah. Good.’ So that positive feedback is really important. The problem is to design a process properly we had to have 6 weeks where on the surface there was nothing visible because we were employing designers and they were designing processes so for six weeks they really had to trust us that something interesting would come out and no one in the world - no one! - Knew what that outcome of that design would be in that six weeks because it hadn’t been designed so that is where they took a real a leap of faith.


Being happy with ambiguity. It’s really about the facilitating. So its about doing what you need to do to facilitate the process as a whole and sometimes that facilitation its productive to be quite firm and sometimes its about encouraging but a lot of the time it was about stepping back and giving up control so I would fight the council and say essentially this is our budget were spending it you cant tell us how to spend out money so that was being quite authoritarian but were immediately giving that power to the designers saying ‘I trust you go for it draw on my expertise if and when you need to but I’m happy to be surprised and giving them the power to express themselves and explore things and try things they didn’t work

And what potential risks do you see with that kind of facilitation towards the designers?

Well it could have been terrible but you’re a good facilitation doesn’t allow it to become terrible.

How?

They didn’t work in isolation, we had conversations and there was guidance so three weeks before the interactive co-design exhibition, no one knew what this could be. We had a meeting in Eindhoven and there were five of us there and that was where I stopped being a hands off manager and started being a collaborator to make it come into reality because it was clear to me that it needed to be, so for that meeting I wasn’t ‘hands off, do it yourself’, I was ‘this is what I think we should do, that’s interesting’. So I became a design for that meeting. And when the shape was more or less there I stepped back out and let the designers run with it so I think one of the interesting things with designers working with co-design is that the movement between kind of neutral facilitator and active contributor and I think you need to be prepared to make that shift but equally you need to be careful. You can only step in and stop being a facilitator so many times before you stop being able to be a facilitator and kind of an honest outsider so that’s a balance that you have to be aware of.

49



We had to cooperate with the people who were the stakeholders or contributors and participants. So they worked with lots of different groups but they were also individuals. So about 2000 people saw the project. About 700 people really worked actively on the project. We had about 20 volunteers that id say about 12 of those really put in maybe 20 hours of work that was volunteer work. Then we had designers and also a design manager (MYSELF) so it was quite complicated the people we had to work with and different agendas. Residents groups, ecological groups, the designers themselves all brought agendas so it was quite complicated so many different groups of stakeholders.

Facilitating the designers, how did you keep the designers interested in the project?

I dint find keeping their interest into the project a problem at all they were all very interested in the project. We put out a tent and we paid them. They were professional designers. I think you shouldn’t compare other projects to this because they WERE the project and they were leading the project so they were each leading one of the events that were did and it was their projects so there wasn’t about consulting them it wasn’t about them. They were leading each intervention and it was their baby and they drew on other people like myself and Gemma as they needed and they were I guess you would say empowered to lead and we supported they leadership and that empowerment was to help them to create structures to help other people to be creative within. So the issue with respect and consultation wasn’t really an issue people they were leading.

Would you say you had a good relationship with the designers throughout the project?

Well like every project it flows. There are some designers who through the process found out they weren’t great co-designers and I’m not going to say who that is. So I think if the question is about respect then your already being disrespectful .o they al did the job in a different way and was different to the way I would have done it but that’s the whole point of co-design that its remiss about difference and accepting that people are creative in different ways even in designers.


I would say it was very active so the number of people who were involved, there was a interactive co-design exhibition and then there was a kind of creative co-design element and quite often people would spend over 40 minutes, some people spent 90 minutes being creative and working on ideas as part of that so to get people to be create, the average would be to spend an hour. That is very difficult to achieve that level of engagement and intellectual activity so I think it was very active.


There were about twenty-five – thirty tools. Depending on definition of tool so I cant go though them all but there were a whole range of things that were developed to help people engage from very simple tings like to get people to think like a roman so we gave them waxed tablets to draw on with a stick so they had to think about how would a roman express themselves. Through to making models, making a big model in the space though the approaches though the modelling workshops through the training facilitators so there were a very rich range of tools and approaches we developed.


It took us a while to procure our designers. There’s a process you need to go through to employ designers. That took longer than we’d liked and it took a while. Then we invited the designers to all come together in a two-day workshop and as part of that they planned what the series of events should be. 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

50

already different sub team were already planning the next event so we had an event sort of every three weeks or every month and that was really exhausting but it was necessary to keep this idea of rhythm and this idea of momentum. Those were the things that effected what we did.

Was there a reason it took so long with the designers?

As a formal procurement process we have to use for the EU but also for the university. Essentially it’s a very long form that people have to fill in and then we have to go trough a formal assessment process with someone who’s independent for the project and we have to mark every run against 15 criteria and so its just a long process. It’s really designed around buying a very big piece of machinery. That’s what the process is so that’s the route of the process so we had to go through that process so we had to advertise right across Europe and we had to have time for people to respond to that advert and submit then we had to go through the process and there snot way to do it quickly.


Some of this was about time and space. The council at the very beginning started work on this project and they’d called a series of consultation meetings and it takes a very particular type of person to chose to go to a consultation meeting and we wanted to engage with those who wouldn’t go to a consultation meeting so the first thing we did was we took over a corner of the main square in Lancaster all day on Saturday so we were engaging with people who wouldn’t go to a meeting but had a view. We designed the contribution structure in such a way that thirty seconds was enough for them to have a contribution or if they wanted to talk and do it for longer they could do it for longer. We also had some good word of mouth (that’s important) it was good marketing so posters advertising flyers. We also wanted to attract teenagers to an event we offered free pizza which was very effective and we got people to invest and got people interested so we said any idea at all throughout this whole process will be represented will be exhibited in the final exhibition so everyone had a view. Or rather had a voice in the exhibition and that attracted people to it. So there are quite a few difficult characters in Lancaster (as well as everywhere) but no one said I haven’t had an opportunity to contribute to this and that’s a major achievement because often people say ‘no one asked me’ and no one came up to us and said that because we were so open about what we were doing and we did everything we could to draw people in we ran events with smaller groups, we ran particular workshops for local residents to help them feel like they had a voice. We also ran a workshop for high-level strategic people in the city so they could speak freely amongst themselves without having people from outside being part of that discussion.

Was the whole process conducted within the park or the area?

Much of it was in the park and most of the rest of it were in the storey institute, which is right next to the park. We ran one event here where we worked with our fifteen most active participants and they curated and organised the exhibition for us. We ran that even here but mostly it was almost completely in town but half in the park and half in the story institute. Each event was designed for the particular purpose so it was designed to be where it was. The projects we did on different days were on different aspect of the park and we would never do an event that was designed for the park and try and do it at the storey because it obviously wouldn’t work. Participants were told what was going on but we found that different people wanted to contribute in different ways. Some people came to all events. The outside event was more geared towards children or people with families really. Some storey events were more geared towards teenagers so the intention wasn’t that everyone came to every event. The intention was that we would engage with lots of people in different ways and we designed the event to engage with the people we wanted to engage with that intervention.


It was broadly set in the first two-day workshop and that’s what we worked to. We did have contingencies with things like weather but that’s a different sort of contingency that just a logistical thing.

How did you monitor and manage risks to the project?

We had weekly meetings and we just had good communication and then Gemma and I would talk probably three times a week about what could go wrong how things were going is it on track, those sorts of things but there wasn’t a formal risk reporting process.

51

Were there any risks that occurred that you had to resolve?

There was a designer who couldn’t stop being a designer in the kind of old school elitist way of thinking so we used that designer less than we could have because we didn’t try and change that designer. Other designers were just offered more work and more money and that designer wasn’t because they weren’t suited to co-design so we used them less. Other designers who showed that they really were comfortable with being co-designers were used more.

What characteristics made him different from not being able to join in on that co-design process?

My opinion is that I think (this is more generally about design) 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. They sprinkle their magic creative fairy dust over things and made things wonderful. That is very outmoded but 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 giving up… its about stepping away from the ego of the designer as expert and more about the designer as facilitator.



The fact that we didn’t really know what co-design was when we started. It was an exploration. We all went on the journey.

So would you say that it’s almost an investigation of your own skills as well as the co-design process - a new process of co-design that’s still in development?

Well no because it’s not about me. The project is really genuinely a co-design project so it was about a group and really that group is 2000 people with different levels of engagement finding out what really genuinely innovative co-design processes are through going really genuinely open co-designs processes.

What was the most interesting or shocking thing to you when conducting the co-design process that came to light?

There was nothing really shocking. I think it was interesting that we got to a point with the ideas people were coming up with were at east as good as if we’d just employed the designer to do the creative work. For me that’s the holy grail of co-design. That the outcomes of the co-design process need to be as good or better than if we’d done a user centred process than if we just employed a designer to do it. For me that is the gold standard of co-design process the process needs to be inclusive but the outcomes need to be as good or better than if you had just employed some designers.


I think actually that was very good but actually the way that the city and county council engaged with people changed radically so Helen Ryan who’s someone who worked on the process with us said it gave her a whole new way to trust people. So they are really good at their job but beyond the castle showed them a new dimension into how they could engage with people and that has really fundamentally changed how they work and that it a very big impact in the long term very big impact so for me the outcomes were strong and good and in terms of describing a co-design project if we talk about what we’ve done I haven’t come across a projects that’s been done In the way that we’ve don’t it which is great but I think we have fundamentally changed the way the city council and also some people in the county council engage with their stakeholders and that’s the thing that I would say ‘that’s changed the world a bit’. The outcomes changed the world but even though they were really good, its based on one square kilometre of Lancaster but how the city council engages, that will change for almost forever.

52

So would you say that the co-design process has almost created a stronger community?

It’s created new ways of the council engaging with communities.


I have yes. A small project/ one-off event and the reason that it didn’t work is the 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 with the champion was in one dimension. He invited ten other people to come to this workshop and that was in another dimension and then at the last minute he couldn’t come to the workshop so 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.

How could you say that process could have been improved?

Its about the communication between the champion and being clear about the expectations of people who were a part of the process so being clear about those expectations would have meant a different event and a more successful event.

Was the framework good enough for the project?

It was an excellent framework but it wasn’t the framework that the people were expecting and they came and said ‘No I don’t want to do that I came to do this’ so we ended up doing this rather than the framework I designed so the framework wasn’t designed to meet their expectations or they weren’t briefed in the framework so that’s that disconnect.

So communication is very key to the beginning of the project?

Yes so managing expectations.

53

4. Jean Schneider – 18th July 2014










I think it’s very difficult. If I had the answer that would be great. I think it’s very difficult because at this point I see different things. First of all (and this comes from discussion I try to have with people who have been involve di t he

54

project so I’m running a little bit of what you are doing just because I have to develop a tools kit so I’m talking to people who have been though some of the projects) I think there are different means to facilitate this. The first thing is to select the people rather than make it plainly open. It doesn’t mean that its always the same group of people that go’s from the beginning of the project to the end and its doesn’t mean that when I say its not open doesn’t mean you cannot open up on certain phases. You can open the doors I.e. for a workshop or presentation or exhibition or something like that). But a project is first of all in my view like a cruise. Its going to last very long, and not everybody has the capacity to stand the length of the project. Some people are able to burst with energy for a week and their really necessary at the moment of the project you really need these people who come with a lot of energy who throw things on the table who discuss or challenge etc. But you also need people (like in any team) who ensure the continuity, who are going also to attribute and your going to say well actually we’ll go for the second one. Not that the first one is necessarily bad or not that the third one is unfeasible its just that within the resources that you have they will be too difficult to manage. So as the people were going to do that might not be the people who are going to contribute inside the sessions. There might be a slightly different team but they’re going to ensure the continuity of the project, which doesn’t mean they are going to ensure that you reach the result because everybody has a result in mind beforehand. Everybody has an idea of how it should be. How the neighbourhood should be how the garden should be how the healthcare should be everybody has ideas. And hope that the project is just going to deal with the technicalities of their idea. What is difficult is that the project is never going to do that and its purpose is not to do that. I’ve done both sides. So you need people who are going to say ‘ I don’t know where were going but were going somewhere for sure’ and this is a very complex and difficult attitude and I think that you need these different personalities all though the co-design process. The co-design process makes this even more necessary in an ordinary design process because ordinary design processes have this factor. You have some people in the business world for the project of some people, against the project some people who have a time line and say ‘well we need to have this in three weeks or six month because we need to have this on the market. I know we have something that is designed for summer either you have it in the shelves in may or next may but your certainly not giving a timeline where you say ‘we need to have this in October November December’. So they’ll pour that pressure on. So I think you always find this in different ways expect that in the co-design process because the team itself that challenges require or have the potential of being more conflicting. All these roles become more critical.





There are different aspects there. I would say It means an open ended project vs. a closed ended project. Closed ended project is a typical design project where the assignment is well defined so ‘design me this or this interface new car or this new whatever or improve this existing design or design my brand or weave graphics for this application’ so there I would say the assignment might be captured in those terms but profoundly what you are touching on in the project or though the project is more qualitative meaning by that you’re more touching on the relationships that people have with something. That’s in a way what you want to touch upon. I think in design it’s always there expect that in co-design maybe not. It is latent in the standard design project. That becomes more explicit. I think its more explicit because if people require or think of co-design and want to trigger a project about, I don’t think its because they like the idea. Its both because they visualise ‘Nobody holds the answer’ and there is a need to do something in common. Or you can say well ‘we’ve had so many issues with the acceptance of the decision that the society doesn’t except any more’ then an expert comes and says ‘destroy these five houses and build this kind of building and make a public square with this kind of games for the kids in that place’. So somehow society has changed and people might say ‘We can’t work like this any more.’ So that’s one of the triggers and that one is interesting if people say ‘well we truly need to develop something with the people.’ The answer, which is sometimes a bit connected and is a bit cynical, is ‘Why suddenly co-design becomes trendy?’ Its historically connected to the fact that there is no money and its cheaper ultimately to send designers and to put a few people to work around the table to give their ideas about the project, then to have the experts who are going to do studies and tell you what to do. Its not black and white but I’m pretty sure because I’ve talked with people in municipalities that there is a strong correlation between the lack of public funding and the call for co-design because in a way you don’t pay the time of the people who contribute. The fact is you ask designers who are rather cheap people to run a process in which they find value and

55

ultimately who generally find ideas which have pre-acceptance so it’s a kind of win win thing (although I don’t like this win win because there never a lose lose but okay) there is a value there for all parties. But I think its good that designers accept to get involved into that even if they don’t make much money. Because something’s that makes you happy in life and have more value and are not translated in financial income then this is great. So for me these are the triggers at the moment that the necessity of co-design that drive the trend of looking at co-design as an interesting alternative to design.







56









57






That was more when we prepared the application for co-financing because the project was partly funded by proud and we had to look for co-financing that’s why we focused on ageing because there was the opportunity to get to answer to a call from someone from industry on aging. Actually that came (the issue of tourism came) partly because I had met some people who were interested in design and were project managers focusing on territorial de-flopment and to me that was also something interesting so focusing on rural areas because France is a very big country with a lot of rural areas a=with a few main cities and a lot goes on towards the cities and less goes for the smaller cities or villages. So its interesting doing something for rural areas so we started to discuss and in terms of proactive things I think I proposal we discovered a little bit about tourism and then I had an intuition, I propose to them to consider was to not look at tourism simply in terms of selling nights which was the original project. We were thinking could design help us to sell more nights In the sense of could we have a better communication strategy and I said well I think with the issue of aging and especially the call of the misère of industry was the baby boomers as a generation which had changed the vision of aging that we used to have not only elderly people but the people who are still healthy, quite wealthy actually compared to the rest of the population, who feel young although they are in their sixties but its not because they retired that they fall the elderly population. I said there is an opportunity to investigate a change of values and therefor to look at tourism not in the same way but what would be another form of residents and that where we started to work together and I thought of the idea of saying ‘well we should look at hospitality in a completely different way, look at council things, look at this house exchange which not only for economical motivation that’s also because some people say ‘well why go to hotel?’ I want to have a different experience and also look at the economical issue because although many of them a wealthy if you have a close look at statistics then in a city like Paris then a lot of significance in terms of market. Significant market of people who have low pensions and cannot afford to go for real holidays. But because area we’re working for its about half a kilometre outside of Paris so you can got there with a cheap ticket on metro because its still part of the great Paris region so you have reduced fares. So I try to weave together these different elements. I say well ‘maybe that will be the plural of our project to investigate it for the study. That was out second proactive thing it was really to put on the table things that people didn’t put things on the tables and they were looking a tourism as these conventional forms of ‘we had nights we want some more nights and better’ so the first thing you say is ‘well let redo a leaflet lets redo a website lets redo the booking’ something like that. That was the tourist approach. The requirements of the ministry to de-flop new services or products for an ageing population that has new values. To me that was also ‘not everybody’s wealthy, what do we do for the people who are in their sixties with not much money and live in cities like Paris where they cant afford to go out so to give you an idea, 50% of the women who are more than fifty in France don’t go on holiday because they don’t find anything that suites us and then when you go deeper into the studies we try to cross different things

58

because most of these women have actually another person they have to take care of, typically an elderly parent like and not necessarily their mother or father it can be an elderly neighbour of some type that they take care of and this person might not be able to really travel or travel in conditions where it becomes extremely expensive. Or they have to take care of grandchildren. So they don’t find any tourist offer that suits them. Of course it doesn’t look very much if you think women over 50 and only 40% or 50% of them but if you look at Paris suddenly it become more than a couple of hundreds of people. So all this brought together helped to formulate the project and helped to formulate the help for the whole thing.








59



60

5. Di Biasio Diego – 21st July 2014









61


I think it’s very difficult. If I had the answer that would be great. I think it’s very difficult because at this point I see different things. First of all (and this comes from discussion I try to have with people who have been involve di t he project so I’m running a little bit of what you are doing just because I have to develop a tools kit so I’m talking to people who have been though some of the projects) I think there are different means to facilitate this. The first thing is to select the people rather than make it plainly open. It doesn’t mean that its always the same group of people that go’s from the beginning of the project to the end and its doesn’t mean that when I say its not open doesn’t mean you cannot open up on certain phases. You can open the doors I.e. for a workshop or presentation or exhibition or something like that). But a project is first of all in my view like a cruise. Its going to last very long, and not everybody has the capacity to stand the length of the project. Some people are able to burst with energy for a week and their really necessary at the moment of the project you really need these people who come with a lot of energy who throw things on the table who discuss or challenge etc. But you also need people (like in any team) who ensure the continuity, who are going also to attribute and your going to say well actually we’ll go for the second one. Not that the first one is necessarily bad or not that the third one is unfeasible its just that within the resources that you have they will be too difficult to manage. So as the people were going to do that might not be the people who are going to contribute inside the sessions. There might be a slightly different team but they’re going to ensure the continuity of the project, which doesn’t mean they are going to ensure that you reach the result because everybody has a result in mind beforehand. Everybody has an idea of how it should be. How the neighbourhood should be how the garden should be how the healthcare should be everybody has ideas. And hope that the project is just going to deal with the technicalities of their idea. What is difficult is that the project is never going to do that and its purpose is not to do that. I’ve done both sides. So you need people who are going to say ‘ I don’t know where were going but were going somewhere for sure’ and this is a very complex and difficult attitude and I think that you need these different personalities all though the co-design process. The co-design process makes this even more necessary in an ordinary design process because ordinary design processes have this factor. You have some people in the business world for the project of some people, against the project some people who have a time line and say ‘well we need to have this in three weeks or six month because we need to have this on the market. I know we have something that is designed for summer either you have it in the shelves in may or next may but your certainly not giving a timeline where you say ‘we need to have this in October November December’. So they’ll pour that pressure on. So I think you always find this in different ways expect that in the co-design process because the team itself that challenges require or have the potential of being more conflicting. All these roles become more critical.





There are different aspects there. I would say It means an open ended project vs. a closed ended project. Closed ended project is a typical design project where the assignment is well defined so ‘design me this or this interface new car or this new whatever or improve this existing design or design my brand or weave graphics for this application’ so there I would say the assignment might be captured in those terms but profoundly what you are touching on in the project or though the project is more qualitative meaning by that you’re more touching on the relationships that people have with something. That’s in a way what you want to touch upon. I think in design it’s always there expect that in co-design maybe not. It is latent in the standard design project. That becomes more explicit. I think its more explicit because if people require or think of co-design and want to trigger a project about, I don’t think its because they like the idea. Its both because they visualise ‘Nobody holds the answer’ and there is a need to do something in common. Or you can say well ‘we’ve had so many issues with the acceptance of the decision that the society doesn’t except any more’ then an expert comes and says ‘destroy these five houses and build this kind of building and make a public square with this kind of games for the kids in that place’. So somehow society has changed and people might say ‘We can’t work like this any more.’ So that’s one of the triggers and that one is interesting if people say ‘well we truly need to develop something with the people.’ The answer, which is sometimes a bit connected and is a bit cynical, is ‘Why suddenly co-design becomes trendy?’ Its historically connected to the fact that there is no money and its cheaper ultimately to send designers and to put a few people to work around the table to give their ideas

62

about the project, then to have the experts who are going to do studies and tell you what to do. Its not black and white but I’m pretty sure because I’ve talked with people in municipalities that there is a strong correlation between the lack of public funding and the call for co-design because in a way you don’t pay the time of the people who contribute. The fact is you ask designers who are rather cheap people to run a process in which they find value and ultimately who generally find ideas which have pre-acceptance so it’s a kind of win win thing (although I don’t like this win win because there never a lose lose but okay) there is a value there for all parties. But I think its good that designers accept to get involved into that even if they don’t make much money. Because something’s that makes you happy in life and have more value and are not translated in financial income then this is great. So for me these are the triggers at the moment that the necessity of co-design that drive the trend of looking at co-design as an interesting alternative to design.







63









64






That was more when we prepared the application for co-financing because the project was partly funded by proud and we had to look for co-financing that’s why we focused on ageing because there was the opportunity to get to answer to a call from someone from industry on aging. Actually that came (the issue of tourism came) partly because I had met some people who were interested in design and were project managers focusing on territorial de-flopment and to me that was also something interesting so focusing on rural areas because France is a very big country with a lot of rural areas a=with a few main cities and a lot goes on towards the cities and less goes for the smaller cities or villages. So its interesting doing something for rural areas so we started to discuss and in terms of proactive things I think I proposal we discovered a little bit about tourism and then I had an intuition, I propose to them to consider was to not look at tourism simply in terms of selling nights which was the original project. We were thinking could design help us to sell more nights In the sense of could we have a better communication strategy and I said well I think with the issue of aging and especially the call of the misère of industry was the baby boomers as a generation which had changed the vision of aging that we used to have not only elderly people but the people who are still healthy, quite wealthy actually compared to the rest of the population, who feel young although they are in their sixties but its not because they retired that they fall the elderly population. I said there is an opportunity to investigate a change of values and therefor to look at tourism not in the same way but what would be another form of residents and that where we started to work together and I thought of the idea of saying ‘well we should look at hospitality in a completely different way, look at council things, look at this house exchange which not only for economical motivation that’s also because some people say ‘well why go to hotel?’ I want to have a different experience and also look at the economical issue because although many of them a wealthy if you have a close look at statistics then in a city like Paris then a lot of significance in terms of market. Significant market of people who have low pensions and cannot afford to go for real holidays. But because area we’re working for its about half a kilometre outside of Paris so you can got there with a cheap ticket on metro because its still part of the great Paris region so you have reduced fares. So I try to weave together these different elements. I say well ‘maybe that will be the plural of our project to investigate it for the study. That was out second proactive thing it was really to put on the table things that people didn’t put things on the tables and they were looking a tourism as these conventional forms of ‘we had nights we want some more nights and better’ so the first thing you say is ‘well let redo a leaflet lets redo a website lets redo the booking’ something like that. That was the tourist approach. The requirements of the ministry to de-flop new services or products for an ageing population that has new values. To me that was also ‘not everybody’s wealthy, what do we do for the people who are in their sixties with not much money and live in cities like Paris where they cant afford to go out so to give you an idea, 50% of the women who are more than fifty in France don’t go on holiday because they don’t find anything that suites us and then when you go deeper into the studies we try to cross different things because most of these women have actually another person they have to take care of, typically an elderly parent like and not necessarily their mother or father it can be an elderly neighbour of some type that they take care of and this person might not be able to really travel or travel in conditions where it becomes extremely expensive. Or they have to take care of grandchildren. So they don’t find any tourist offer that suits them. Of course it doesn’t look very much if you think women over 50 and only 40% or 50% of them but if you look at Paris suddenly it become more than a couple of hundreds of people. So all this brought together helped to formulate the project and helped to formulate the help for the whole thing.

65








66



67

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��"��

��

��!��#��$��!�� %&'�$!��(��

�!��"�� #��$��

)��$��(��*��(�� *��+�� ++�� (��++��$��"�� $!��!��(� �� (��(�� !�� !��

�%��& �$�� '�� $��#� ��

,�� +��(��$��!��

�(��)�#��#� �� *�� #��+,��-�� .� �� /

)��$��%&'�!�� +�� -�� $.��/��

�0��*�� #��#��1

.��/0��1�� *�+�� +��1�� !��!�� $��2��+��

�2��

3��2��

�3��.�� #�� #��

0� ��!��*�� 4��+��$�� $��

��4��.� ��#�� $�� #��5�� $��#��

��#��++�� $(��+��+�� +��

-67,89:9-67,89:9

-�� -�� 3�(5��3�(5��43�(5��643�(5��6

;�� ;�� .��$7��8$98�:�1�:1;<��.��$7��8$98�:�1�:1;<��

8��7��8��7��.��$7��8$98�:�1;�1�9��.��$7��8$98�:�1;�1�9��

:$��;��:$��;��881�=1�:881�=1�:

*,�<�� *,�<�� <<��;>��;<�?<<<��;>��;<�?<

,<=9��

>�

10.2 Co-design Surveys

68

��

9��

��)��$��$�� +&� ��'�$�� -�� /

��

��)��#��#��+/�

�� (��"��!��

��$� ��5�� $��#�� #��

��

��!�� $�� #��#�� #��$��

!��!��++��!�� $!�� 2��

��%�� #��#��

��+�� !+��!��

��(�� $�� #��#�� *�� '��

)��$��(�+��+�� !��

��0�� '�� +,��$�� /

'��!��!�� $

.��(�� +��$

'�� !�� +!��$

�� !��!�� +�� $

'��(�� $��$�"��$

.�� !�� $

3��!��+��

��2�� $�� $�� #��

.�� (��(��

��3��

@��(�� $!��+�� +��!��

69

��

��

��

��

��

�� !��!�� "��#�� !��

��

��"� ��$�

�!��"�� #��$��

��%!��"��"�� &��'��!��"��!�� !��!��!��""��'��"'�� '��!�� !��(��

�%��& �$�� '�� $��#� ��

��"�!��"��"��"��"��)��*��'��!��'�� +��'!��!� �'�� !��"��"��,

�(��)�#��#� �� *�� #��+,��-�� .� �� /

-��.��'��'��!�� !�&��!��#��

�0��*�� #��#��1

�� !��"��!��!��"��

/�!��#��!� ��!�� "�� !��

�2��

&��!��/�!��#��#��

-34,5676-34,5676

-�� -�� 0�� 0�� +0�� ,+0�� ,

8�� 8�� (1��2(3$�245�$536��(1��2(3$�245�$536��

5��4��5��4��(1��2(3$�245225�2��(1��2(3$�245225�2��

7$��8��7$��8��$$5��524$$5��524

*,�9�� *,�9�� 3�7��2�8��23�7��2�8��2

,9:6��

;�

70

��

3��

�<��.�� #�� #��

��!�&��!��"��

��!��!� �"��(��

��=��.� ��#�� $�� #��>�� $��#��

��

��)��$��$�� +&� ��'�$�� -�� /

�� !��!��)��'��!�!�"��'�"��

��)��#��#��+/�

) �� !��!��(��9��"��""��+��"��'�� .��,

��$� ��>�� $��#�� #��

�� !�'��"��!��'�� '��!��(��!��!��,

��!�� $�� #��#�� #��$��

�

��%�� #��#��

��!��'��"��!��!��'��""��"��

��(�� $�� #��#�� *�� '��

��

71

��

��

��0�� '�� +,��$�� /

:��'�� '��!��#��(

%!��!��!� ��"�!��#��(

:��'�� "'��!��(

�� '��!��'�� "��(

:��!�� (��(�.��(

%!� ��'�� (

0�� '��!��"�!��#��

��2�� $�� $�� #��

��"��'��!��"��!��"��#��!��"��

��<��

)!� �!��'�� "��!�� (��)!��)��!��#��

72

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��!��

�!��"�� #��$��

"�� #�� $��#$� ��% ��%&��

�%��& �$�� '�� $��#� ��

'��$��$� �� %(�� )��%�%*��%

�(��)�#��#� �� *�� #��+,��-�� .� �� /

"��$��

�0��*�� #��#��1

� ��$��$��#��

�2��

'��$��

�3��.�� #�� #��

��+�� $��$��

��4��.� ��#�� $�� #��5�� $��#��

,��-��%,�� #��)��

-67,89:9-67,89:9

-�� -�� .��/�#.��/�#�.��/�#��.��/�#�

;�� ;�� 0��$1��2$�3�24+56+74*00��$1��2$�3�24+56+74*0

8��7��8��7��0��$1��2$�3�2�3+��+�3*00��$1��2$�3�2�3+��+�3*0

:$��;��:$��;��33+�7+2�33+�7+2�

*,�<�� *,�<�� 82%7�%�78%�3282%7�%�78%�32

,<=9��

>�

73

��

��

��)��$��$�� +&� ��'�$�� -�� /

,��#��

��)��#��#��+/�

,��+��9�� 9��

��$� ��5�� $��#�� #��

,��#��

��!�� $�� #��#�� #��$��

,�� +�� #��

��%�� #��#��

,��

��(�� $�� #��#�� *�� '��

"��#��

��0�� '�� +,��$�� /

:��#��%$

:�� %$

�� %$

:�� $��$�)��%$

,�� %

��2�� $�� $�� #��

��%��.�� 9��%,��

��3��

��

74

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

��

�!��"�� #��$��

��

�%��& �$�� '�� $��#� ��

��

�(��)�#��#� �� *�� #��+,��-�� .� �� /

�� !��

�0��*�� #��#��1

�� "��"��

�2��

��#��$��

�3��.�� #�� #��

�� %�� %��

��4��.� ��#�� $�� #��5�� $��#��

��

-67,89:9-67,89:9

-�� -�� &��'��&��'��#&��'��$#&��'��$

;�� ;�� (��)��*�+,�-+��-�./(��)��*�+,�-+��-�./

8��7��8��7��(��)��*�+,�-+�+��*0./(��)��*�+,�-+�+��*0./

:$��;��:$��;��,,��,��,,��,��

*,�<�� *,�<�� -* 1- �-* 0*�-* 1- �-* 0*

,<=9��

>!

75

��

+��

��)��$��$�� +&� ��'�$�� -�� /

�� 2

��)��#��#��+/�

�� "��

��$� ��5�� $��#�� #��

�� "��3��

��!�� $�� #��#�� #��$��

��

��%�� #��#��

��"��

��(�� $�� #��#�� *�� '��

�� 4��

��0�� '�� +,��$�� /

5��"��

(�� "��

5��

��

5�� 3��

(��

&��"��

��2�� $�� $�� #��

�� #��$ �� "��$

76

��

��

��

�� !!��

��

��"��

��

#��!�$��%��&��$!�'(!�$!�)!�#�!��#��#��*��!�� $�#*�!��#��%��!$!�

�!��"�� #��$��

+��,�!��!��"��-��!�� *��.+�� #*��*��!��$��*!�� !��$��!��*��!��!$ ��!.

�%��& �$�� '�� $��#� ��

/�""��!��!��"�� ,��-��"��$��!��,...

�(��)�#��#� �� *�� #��+,��-�� .� �� /

��,%�$��

�0��*�� #��#��1

��!��$��!��%��!�0�$!��*� ��!��*��$��1��!�!"�"��$��#��*!�� "��!�$� ��$��.

�2��

��!��

�3��.�� #�� #��

&�*�� $�,��!�� '".�1.#!$��,(�1��,%�� ,��1*��,...

-45,6787-45,6787

-�� -�� 2��3��2��3��'2��3��)'2��3��)

9�� 9�� 4��!�,5�$��6,78�9:�96�8�&�4��!�,5�$��6,78�9:�96�8�&�

6��5��6��5��4��!�,5�$��6,78�9;�89��&�4��!�,5�$��6,78�9;�89��&�

8$��9��8$��9��88��;��788��;��7

*,�:�� *,�:�� ;�.�:�.9<.��<;�.�:�.9<.��<

,:;7��

<%

77

��

7��

��=��.� ��#�� $�� #��>�� $��#��

&�*�� $�� $��!��!��"�*��#�"#��*�*��$!�� ,"��!��!�!��!�� !��!��#��*��""��$�.4*�"�1��! ��#��#*�!��$��*��"�$��$��$�!�!��!��*��"��!��$��"��*��.

��)��$��$�� +&� ��'�$�� -�� /

&"�# ��*�'!��7��!�)

��)��#��#��+/�

2��*$�!"$��,��*��,!�� !�!-��,(!��,#��,...

��$� ��>�� $��#�� #��

(!��!�"!��"!�� !��

��!�� $�� #��#�� #��$��

/�=��*��>��*�!�� !$��"��#��*�!��!��$��!��.?� ��*�$��,/�=��$�� #��*��*��$��"��$� �.

��%�� #��#��

4*��!��*�� #�$$!��*��*��*��*��.

��(�� $�� #��#�� *�� '��

+��#��*�� *��*��$� "��/�=�!��*��"��$$! ��""��$�!��!�*#��*��*��.��!��!��$$��!$��,�*�� *��!��$� "��*� .

��0�� '�� +,��$�� /

4*��$!��*��!!��*� ��!��"�*��.,

�� #�� !��!��!$�"#��*�.,

��!�� $�!��#��*��#!�� !��"�� .,

2��!��!��!��!��#��*��"�*��

��2�� $�� $�� #��

&��*��""��$�,�*��!��*�$��'".�1.��$)�!��*��$��"�*��

78

��

��

��3��

�*��!��!��"�*��-��$��!�!��!#!��! �!��"�*�� !��!� !��.

79

��

��

��

�� ! �� "��"�#$

��

%��""�#�� !�� &��#��&��&��#�� " ��"��#"��!�� $

��

�� "�&��'��!#��&��"��"�&��""�#��&�� "$

�!��"�� #��$��

�(��"��"� ��$)��&��"��"�� "��#"��&��"��"��$)��*�� "��$+��(��"�!��,�� "�� "�� -.//��""�� .��$0�� #��#��'�� &��'��&��#�"��"��!��(��"��$

�%��& �$�� '�� $��#� ��

)��"��!&�� $��#"��&��'��&��#"��#��&��#��'&��" ��#"��$��#��#��&��#"��$)��'��"��"��&��&��(��$)��#"��#�&��""��&��$��*��""��$1��"��#��"��#� ��#"��!��""��&��$2��"�#��#��""��(�"��#"�� #��3�� &��"��&��"��#��3��#��3&��"��3�� "��"�� &�� "��#��#��!�"��&��$

�(��)�#��#� �� *�� #��+,��-�� .� �� /

4��"��""��""��2��"��"��""��$

-01,2343-01,2343

-�� -�� 1�# �'1�# �'51�# �'651�# �'6

5�� 5�� )��!7�"��8!9/��9:;<:/=%�)��!7�"��8!9/��9:;<:/=%�

2��1��2��1��)��!7�"��8!9/��9:�/:�/%�)��!7�"��8!9/��9:�/:�/%�

4$��5��4$��5��/�:��:/9/�:��:/9

*,�6�� *,�6�� 9$<8$�/=$9/>9$<8$�/=$9/>

,673��

8(

80

��

9��

�9��*�� #��#��:

)��&��#"��#�� 3��"�$)��&�� "�($��"��&&��"��"��#�"�&��&��#��$1��"��"��&�"�"��'��(��!��#�"�� "�#��$� ��#��&��'��&��&��#��#"��(�"��""�� "!��"��!��#"��&��&��!��#�"��&�� $)��&��"�� "��"��$)��&�� "�� "$

�;��

)��""�#��&��"��&��"�$)�"��"��"��&�� $)��&��""��""��(��$1��&�&��'�� #�� '�&"��" ��#"��!�� &��&��'��&��&��$��"��"��'�� &��&��"��&��"��&��"��&�&��'��"� ��"��"� ��#"��$)��&��"��(��$%"��(��'�&"��#��"��&��"�&��#��$

�<��.�� #�� #��

1��"��"��&��"��&��"�"�'��'��!��"��&�!.��"��'�� '!��""��&��$1��&�� (��#��&��&��"��#��#�(��$1��"��"�&��"�#��#"�&�� "��#��#�(��&��"��!��""��(��#��&��""��"��3��""�&��$

��=��.� ��#�� $�� #��>�� $��#��

%�� &��!��'�� '��0*�� &�� &��.��#��'32��"�3��&��$��#"��"��#��"��'*��&��"��#��""��"�� '&��&��$)��'�&�� &�� "��#"��"��$1��"��"�'��??��&��"��'�� )��0��&��0��&��&��"�� $0��"�"� ��""��!��""��"��!��"��&�&��$1��"��&��#��"��"�#�� &&�� "��$��&��"��(��#��&��"�&�&��""�3��3!��&��""��#��&��"��&��'��"��!��$2��&��"�3�� (��#��$)��&��"�� &�� #��"�� "��(��#��$

��)��$��$�� +&� ��'�$�� -�� /

��&��&�""��$1��&�&�� "��&��#�� !��"� ��#"��"��$)��&��"��&�&��&��'��"�(!��"�� &��32��3��&��""�#��!��&�&��#"��"�� !�� " ��"��"��'��&��$

81

��

.��

��)��#��#��+/�

)�#��&��&��"��"��"��"�&�� $2��&�&��&��"��!�"��&!�"��"��"��!��"�!+��#��'��)&��5�&#��#��"��(��6$1�� "��&��&��"��"��'��&��"�$1��"�� "��&�� $

��$� ��>�� $��#�� #��

)��""&��'��&��$0��"��"��#�??�#��&��"��&��"�� $%� ��"��"��!�� &��'��&��&��"��#��"�&��&��"��$��&�� ??��"�&��'��@A�"�� "��"��"��&��'��&�""��"�&��"��"�� " ��$B��"��C)� 2��"��"��"��'�� &�""�� $

��!�� $�� #��#�� #��$��

1��"�� !#��$�&��"�� "�'�� '�� !�"��"��&��"��'��"��$)��#�� &��$1��"��"�� $1��"��"��>��"��"��"��&��#��&��"��"��#"��$

��%�� #��#��

B�� #��&�� &��&�� $��&��#"��&��&��!��"�� 3��""�&��"��""��&��'��#"�� !��$

��(�� $�� #��#�� *�� '��

��"��$��""�&��#"��"��3��"��3��#�� " ��&�� $�� " ��&��"��""��#��'��&��&�""#��#�&�� $

��9�� '�� +,��$�� /

)��"��#�� $!

��&�� "��&��$!

�� "��&��&�� $!

1��'��&��

82

��

��

��;�� $�� $�� #��

��"��'��&��$0�� "��&��'��&��"��$1��"�� &��&��&��$)��"�� "��$)��&5&��6��""��'��&�� " ��'��!��'�� &��&�� " ��$)��"�� &��-;<'��C�� =��(��2��"�!��&��"��!�� '��"�� " ��$��:��$"��$��$�'��&��2��D��"�D��DC��D ��D+��

��<��

%��2��"��&��&��#��"��"��&��&��$%��&�"��#��&��&��&��(��&�""��#"��&�&��""��?��"�(��"��$��"��&��"�#�#��*��(�"��"��!#�#��#"��""�� ""�&��"��#�� $��&��3��"��"��"��&��"��&��"��"��""�&�� $

83

��

��

��

��

��

� � ��!�� "��

��

��" �

�!��"�� #��$��

��#��

�%��& �$�� '�� $��#� ��

$�� %��

�(��)�#��#� �� *�� #��+,��-�� .� �� /

&��

�0��*�� #��#��1

&��

�2��

'��

�3��.�� #�� #��

(�� )��"��

��4��.� ��#�� $�� #��5�� $��#��

(��"��

-67,89:9-67,89:9

-�� -�� *�"+�!*�"+�!,*�"+�!-,*�"+�!-

;�� ;�� .��/0��/�0�)�1)1/�..��/0��/�0�)�1)1/�.

8��7��8��7��.��/0��/�0�)�2)//�..��/0��/�0�)�2)//�.

:$��;��:$��;��//)��)1///)��)1/

*,�<�� *,�<�� 34��2��/534��2��/5

,<=9��

>0

84

��

��

��)��$��$�� +&� ��'�$�� -�� /

4��

��)��#��#��+/�

6�� #��!��

��$� ��5�� $��#�� #��

�� #��!��7�� , ��-

��!�� $�� #��#�� #��$��

(��8�� #��9�"�� 9

��%�� #��#��

*��:&��

��(�� $�� #��#�� *�� '��

;��"��"��#�� !��

��0�� '�� +,��$�� /

�� #��#��

6�� #��

��2�� $�� $�� #��

6�� !�� #�� #��"��

��3��

� ��

Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in...

Design

Transcript of Different methods of co design- how can different decisions in co-design affect the outcomes in...