///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

LOST IN CO-X
INTERPRETATIONS OF CO-DESIGN AND CO-CREATION

Tuuli Mattelmäki Froukje Sleeswijk Visser

Aalto University School of Art and Delft University of Technology
Design F.SleeswijkVisser@tudelft.nl
Tuuli.mattelmaki@aalto.fi

ABSTRACT of Art and Design for some ten years and part of the
education for approximately five years. The research
In the last decade, co-design and co-creation are
terms that appear widely in scientific literature, in
on what we call ‘co-design’ and the cases and
experimentations under that title, have been built
professional magazines, websites of product
development companies, design research and market
on user-centred design and empathic design
approaches. The early research interests in
research agencies and even public organisations’
reports. We have noticed that the terms are often
interaction design and usability were widened with
studies that considered design for experiences and
tangled. The objective of this paper is to clarify the
relationship of co-design and co-creation in the
tried to capture a more holistic picture of the ‘user’.
Empathic design starts with a need to understand
context of design and design research. We aim to
make sense of the background and use of the terms
user experiences in early phases of the design
process (Koskinen et al, 2003). For that reason
to show similarities and differences between them.
We review literature and discuss recent cases to
combinations of both objective and subjective
methods are applied. The reason for the application
demonstrate the spectrum of co-X. Our main aim is to
clarify the co-terms for our design students in the
of ‘less-objective’ methods, beyond the user
insights, is that they create shared experience and
rapidly evolving design research field.
common reference points within the design team and
other stakeholders (Fulton Suri, 2003). Thus, the
Keywords: co-design, co-creation, user
engagement experience driven empathic design that first focused
on being involved with the users in their own

INTRODUCTION environments also addresses the news kinds of

collaborations with the design team and partners to
Co-design and co-creation appear frequently in user
promote shared visions.
involvement related discussions and cause confusion
The researchers most having background in industrial
among the design community. This is especially true
design, have also emphasised the applications of
among design students. What is the difference? Was
creative and designerly approaches in research. We
one before the other? This paper aims to develop an
have studied, developed and applied various kinds of
understanding of the co-X, i.e. investigating the
methods for understanding users, and to inform and
similarities and differences of co-design and co-
inspire designers by inviting users and
creation. Therefore, we first introduce two examples
representatives of partnering companies to
of academic environments that use both ‘co-design’
brainstorm solutions and to make interpretations
and ‘co-creation’ for describing similar projects that
together. The toolkit has included approaches such
include a large toolbox of creative methods as well
as design probes (Mattelmäki, 2006), design games
as users’ and other stakeholders’ involvement. Since
(Brandt, 2006), collage-making and make tools
even these two similar institutions are confusing the
(Sanders & Dandavate, 1999). We have also
terms we see a need for clarity and start by looking
experimented with empathic design practices in
how others have used these terms.
design areas beyond product and interaction design.
First, co-design has been part of the Department of
Design’s research agenda at Aalto University School
DIVERSITY AND UNITY

Without exception the experiments in which users or the term co-creation to either indicate that in a
other stakeholders are invited to contribute to the project users are actually ‘creating’ new ideas
design process have been called co-design under the themselves (through the guidance of design
larger mindset of user-centred design (UCD). In co- researchers) or to indicate an iterative process of
design the designers (or design researchers) typically user involvement and users and stakeholders are
facilitate the collaborative process but often also consulted in every stage of a design process such as
participate in the process as one of the contributors. product development (see e.g. Sleeswijk Visser and
The co-design activities typically aim at searching Visser, 2005). Both of the descriptions of co-creation
new potential directions and producing design ideas are what the Aalto design researchers refer to as co-
and solutions. However, they can also be about design as an umbrella term.
making sense of the topic or expressing experiences Co-X competence in both of these academic
collaboratively. But even then the activities are part environments has grown in close connection with the
of design related processes one way or another, development of industrial and interaction design but
typically in the early phases of the exploring. the application area is getting wider since a few
Second, at the faculty of Industrial Design years. The kind of co-X activities that we tend to
Engineering, Delft University of Technology, a similar apply can also support various kinds of collaborations
development has been taken place. We have been outside the more traditional design field. These new
exploring the co-X methods and techniques in our fields include social design (e.g. Brown, 2009),
research agenda and education for the last ten years transformation design (Burns et al, 2006), service
as well. ID-StudioLab, a design research community design (e.g. Evenson, 2005) and activities related to
within the faculty, promotes and conducts user- design thinking (e.g. Brown, 2009).
centred design projects (van der Helm et al, 2010).
New methods and tools are continuously being WIDENING THE VIEW OF CO-X
developed to fruitfully involve users in the design
In the following section we go through some of the
process (see e.g., van Rijn et al, 2009, Stappers et
relevant approaches and authors for discovering the
al, 2009 and Saakes, 2007). Contextmapping
various aspects of co-X. We are aware that there are
(Sleeswijk Visser et al, 2005), for example, as a
much more, but we have chosen ones that have been
procedure, was developed to research people’s
either influential to our co-X dilemma in the first
everyday context in order to inform and inspire the
place or are timely examples of the current
design process. Contextmapping is based on the
confusion in the application of co-X.
application of self-documenting kits and make tools
(Sanders, 2001) and involves users as experts of their
PARTICIPATORY DESIGN AND CO-DESIGN
experiences in the design process. We have not
Participatory design (PD) is tightly connected to co-
particularly been using the term co-design for our
X. PD has its roots in the 70s Scandinavia, where
projects, but like design researchers at Aalto
joint decision-making and work practices started to
University, we have applied various kinds of methods
receive attention. One of the key words in PD is
for understanding users, invited users and
empowering; the ones who are affected by design
representatives of partnering companies to explore,
should have a possibility to influence the design. The
brainstorm and interpret together.
participants are also seen as beneficial contributors
In contrast, we have been using the term co-creation
to the design by offering their expertise and
when users are stepping into the shoes of designers,
knowledge as a resource in the process. The early PD
are given tools to be able to ‘create new ideas’ and
projects were mostly conducted in work-settings. PD
are facilitated in the creation process by designers
approaches had connections with political
and researchers. However, stepping into the shoes of
statements on e.g. the workers’ possibility and right
designers might indicate different roles for these
to affect their work (among others Ehn, 2008).
users as in co-design activities. A user can be an
PD thus is about involving users in design or as Ehn
information provider, a creative mind, an evaluator
writes “with a special focus on people participating
of new ideas, etc. To be honest we ambiguously use
in the design process as co-designers” (Ehn, 2008, p.

2
 PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011

93). They are envisioning use before it actually takes Dutch and Nordic research communities which is why
place. This also underlines one of the characteristics his view on co-designing can be a valuable example.
of co-design: it is about users or more generally, He states ”As I firmly believed in the UCD I decided
people imagining and planning with issues that are to fully involve users in the creative process of
not-yet-existing and utilizing the skills that are in the finding solutions to support their work by conducting
core of professional design competence. co-design sessions.” (p.105). He then continues
Participatory design and co-design are often used as describing the co-design workshops that he calls
synonyms in the Nordic countries. Co-design carries dialogue labs referring mostly to authors within the
perhaps a bit lighter weight on the political attitude PD tradition such as Buur, Binder and Brandt. He thus
but builds on the same mindset and tools. builds on user-centred design (UCD) in which PD
In a recent book published by DAIM project (Halse et inspired co-design is part of the process.
al, 2010) Binder (2010), a representative design Adding an Italian perspective to our exploration we
researcher with Scandinavian PD background, looked how Rizzo (2010) describes co-design as an
describes co-design sessions as workshops “for umbrella that connects a range of tools and
sketching and trying out possibilities” (p. 19). His practices. She does not refer to co-design as a
colleagues Brandt and Agger Eriksen (2010) further synonym to PD but sees it as an evolutionary
describe co-design events as ‘series of meetings into approach from UCD. However, she underlines that
which the core design team invites other important UCD and co-design are different. UCD is a precise
stakeholders’. The name co-design event according design methodology whose ‘application conducts
to them points out "the open-ended, collaborative, designers to develop usable design solutions for end
exploratory and creative” working mode, i.e. “They users’ while co-design ‘is a set of creative techniques
are temporary spaces for experimentation and whose aim is to inspire the design process.’ In her
collaborative learning.” (p. 71). Although the weight view, the shifts from UCD and object-centred view to
in the book is in the term co-design, the team also pleasure and experience-driven perspectives have
recognises the presence of co-creation: the material set the ground for co-design. Both university units
for co-design events needs to be designed so that it described earlier have witnessed this evolution and
invites and facilitates co-creation (Foverskov and relate to Rizzo’s view, however, also influences from
Dam, 2010, p. 44). Here co-creation is an activity or PD can be identified such as the empowerment
a moment of creating something together, thus takes attitude.
place in the co-design sessions that are about Keinonen (2009) has reflected on design research
collaborative exploration, planning and learning. In methods and has identified that there are three
this project manifesting ‘users’ or their involvement layers in them: instrument, competence and agenda.
is not really the issue. Instead various people from In his view method is not just an instrument that can
shopping mall customers to shop managers and waste be taken from the shelf, but the application can be
handling experts are invited to ‘rehearse the future’ built upon a particular personal competence such as
with the support of the co-design methods. empathic sensitivity. Furthermore, certain methods
In another recent publication (van der Lugt et al, and their applications can be part of an agenda such
2009) from the Dutch context titled Co-design as advocating for the empowerment of employees in
Pressure Cooker co-design is defined as a method in the decision-making.
which users are invited to actively participate in the The discussion above can be summarised with
design process similar to PD. Here the term ‘co- Keinonen’s layers. Co-design connected with PD has
design’ is explicitly used as a collection term for the an agenda. It is about empowering people that are
many methods that can be applied in different stages affected by the design. It also emphasises an
of the design process. Whereas ‘co-creation’ experience-driven mindset. In addition co-design is a
according to the authors is one of the methods of co- set of tools, instruments that allow and trigger co-
design, in which users create solutions. design and events as forums in which the co-design
Also Lucero Vera talks about co-designing in his takes place and in which the tools are applied. The
doctoral thesis (2009). He has been exposed to both competence in co-design seems to have a role too:

3
DIVERSITY AND UNITY

the future ‘users’ are invited to utilise their make tools, are ”a new language for co-design” (p.
competence, experiences and creativity for design. 90). Co-design is about as facilitation of “exchange
However, although the presence of ‘users’ is between people who experience products,
acknowledged as the starting point, the participants interfaces, systems and spaces and people who
in co-design can be selected with a wider scope. design for experiencing.” This is one of the key
Finally, co-creation seems to open up into two publications that has influenced both co-design and
interpretations: the first one is a creative moment, experience design and connects strongly to Rizzo’s
atmosphere in a co-design event. The second is a view on co-design.
method in the co-design process or during an event In 2001 Sanders stresses the need of a new attitude
where the users create solutions. in design for experiencing. It is about respecting the
opinions and creativity of people designers are
GENERATIVE APPROACH AND CO-X designing for. She introduces a concept collective
One of the influential practitioners in emphasizing creativity and believes that it is more potential and
users participation in design is Liz Sanders whose powerful than individual creativity. (Sanders, 2000)
work has greatly inspired and affected both of the Her 2001 article (Sanders and William, 2001)
authors’ work and teaching. We have adopted her continues the discussion based on creativity
approaches for enhancing everyday people’s creative references. She elaborates on the need of supportive
expression and the mindset of valuing people being tools for harnessing people’s creativity with visual
experts of their own experiences. In order to clarify communication. In another publication from 2002 she
her stand we conducted a review on Sander’s continues with the same line of thought, now
publications which is summarized in the following: introducing a new design space namely co-design
Sanders (1992) sees that participatory design is user space in which ”interdisciplinary experts in design
centred design taken to another level. Her thoughts and research will work together with ordinary
have similarities to Scandinavian PD community’s but people.” (Sanders, 2002)
she does not refer to its work. Here, the In her paper from 2005 (Sanders, 2005) she further
participation is about involving consumers in the develops the earlier concept of collective creativity
design process. She contrasts this approach to and brings forward the term co-creation. It is about
traditional UCD where user research is about everyday people’s (who were called earlier as
questionnaires, lab tests and focus groups, and in consumers and then as end-users) creativity and
which these results are reported to the designers. eagerness in being involved and expressing their
She further points out that participation does not creativity. Sanders calls for ‘co-creating spaces’.
consider only users but also all the stakeholders in Those are settings in which designers and everyday
the product development process (which stems with people work collaboratively throughout the design
DAIM’s co-design mindset.) development process. Her ‘co-creating spaces’ can
In her keynote from 1999 she emphasizes the end- be interpreted close to what DAIM researchers call
users’ role. In her opinion they can and should be the co-design events, however in her view they are not
most important players in the design process. She temporary but something that take place during the
defines co-design as “people designing together” whole design process.
This happens when people collectively apply new In the more recent publication (Sanders and
kinds of visual tools as they participate in the design Stappers, 2008) she refers to co-creation as ‘any act
process. (Sanders, 1999). of collective creativity, i.e., creativity that is shared
The publication from 1999 (Sanders & Dandavate, by two or more people’. Whereas co-design is used
1999) contextualizes her work with what she calls ‘to indicate collective creativity as it is applied
the emerging participatory design approach. Her across the whole span of a design process’. This
main point in the paper is that ”it is possible to gain shows that she sees co-creation as a very broad
access to the experiencer’s world only through his or concept and when applied in design “co-design is
her participation in expressing that experience.” The specific instance of co-creation”. This statement is
tools for participation and expression that she calls

4
 PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011

in contrast with the earlier interpretation that co-

creation happens in co-design events.
This review of Sanders’ publications resulted an
understanding of how her application of the co-x
terms has been elaborating over the years including
a strong agenda and development of instruments.
Firstly, she stresses involving users who she calls
‘everyday people’ in the product development
process.
Secondly, she also introduces new kinds of tools that
aim at supporting people in expressing their
experiences and using their creativity in the design
process.
Figure 1. The four co-design directions: A) The users are given
Thirdly, she points out the attitude building of voice and their expertise is utilised in the design process; B) Users
respecting everyday people’s creativity and contribution is facilitated with tools provided by the designers or
researchers; C) The designer is not only a facilitator but
Fourthly, enhancing the creativity and exchange participates in the collective creation; D) Designers and design
between people in a process she calls space for researchers support and facilitate a collaborative process of
various stakeholders, not just users.
collective creativity (co-creation). In her view the
actual creation in co-creation is the collective
EVEN MORE CO-XS
creativity, and therefore design (in the co-design) is
Co-creation as a term also appears outside the
just a part of the bigger collective creativity. What
design field such as in business literature and
she seems to refer to as co-creation, rather than a
marketing and has been brought up e.g. by Prahalad
process or practice in design, is a larger trend of
and Ramaswamy (2000) about ten years ago. They
openness and creative mindset.
talk about creating value with customers as part of
Summarising the discussion above co-design seems to
market and business strategy. The business-like
open up into four directions. The first one
perspective on the term co-creation has gained much
emphasises the role of the user following the
attention and involves new topics such as mass-
traditions of UCD and participatory design. Its main
customization and open innovation.
concern is that the users voice needs to be heard in
A form of co-creation in business also appears in the
the design process. The second direction focuses on
sense of being creative together, which seems to
methods and tools that support users to tell about
stem with Sanders’ thoughts on collective creativity.
their experiences and design ideas that can be
For example John Winsor (2006) in his book titled
interpreted and that inspire design. The third is
“Spark- Be more innovative through co-creation”
about design collaboration in which users and
states that co-creation is about engaging with the
designers and alike exchange ideas, envision in a
internal team as well as with the customers and
collaborative creation process. In the fourth
their. His examples of co-creative practices are e.g.
direction users have important roles but other
using visual triggers, cross-pollination of ideas and
stakeholders are also meaningful in the exploration
providing inspiring spaces for sharing and discussing
and envisioning process. This direction does not put
in the offices. Windsor also points out the
emphasis on the engagement of the users but invites
importance of creating new kinds of dialogues with
a wide range of people to brainstorm and learn
the customers. In this way co-creation is not
together. The engagement often takes place in
necessarily connected to design as such but indicates
several workshop-like events. In these events
an atmosphere and practice of fruitful and
creative envisioning and making are important and
innovative business.
co-creation needs support with methods and
Another example of the wide applications of co-X
materials.
points at open innovation. A strategic consultancy,
Fronteer Strategy, in The Netherlands defines co-
creation as “the practice of collaborative product

5
DIVERSITY AND UNITY

and service development: developers and health services could be a process in which the
stakeholders working together” (Paaper, 2009, p. 2). patients, citizens or collaborative communities take
They see co-creation as a large concept related to responsibilities in creating and contributing to
open innovation where ownership and openness of services along with e.g. health care professionals in
the process are the main concerns. They thus use the the public sector. Then, the term co-creation is used
term co-creation as a mindset and collection of tools to describe a longer process of dialogues and
rather than a focused method. engagement that includes sharing risks and
Without going further to the open innovation or the responsibilities in particular, not a unique event or
questions concerning ownerships in e.g. mass- moment in a workshop. In this anticipated situation
innovation these timely examples illustrate the everyone is a designer according to Cottam and
current trend of engaging various kinds of people in Leadbeater’s view. The professional designer’s role
collaborative or collective contributions. In then becomes one of a coordinator, developer and
conclusion, business and marketing are using the co- provider of co-creation tools (Cottam and
creation term widely to address any stakeholder Leadbeater, 2004). This view is in line with Sanders’
involvement and/or engagement in innovation thoughts.
processes. This review shows the unclear use of co-design and
Moreover, the new boom of ‘service design’ further co-creation terms and that co-X covers a wide range
confuses the usage of the co-X concepts, co-creation of activities both within the design field and beyond.
in particular. Service design is often referred to be In design context co-creation addresses creative
human-centred and the many of the tools utilised collaboration within organizations, between the
come from UCD and PD practices from observation design teams and users, but also among other
and probes to various kinds of co-X workshops (see experts, collaborative companies, or even networks
e.g. Miettinen and Koivisto, 2009). However, co- of stakeholders. The objectives of such activities are
creation in service design is applied to mean at least to apply the various participants’ expertise into
two things according to Birgit Mager (2009). First, design projects as well as to support engagement in
clients and customers participate in to the process of change-oriented goals whether defined as ‘design’ or
exploration and creation alike PD and in Sanders’ referring to other kind of development processes.
approaches. Second, the customers also participate To summarise the review we list our findings:
to the service delivery process, i.e. services are not Co-design is
purchased as goods but they are produced and
• utilised in design context in which designers are
consumed in interaction with the customer and
involved and the topic of the activity is related to
service provider.
design exploration, envisioning and solution
Also Vargo and Lusch (2008), who advocate for
development.
service dominant logic instead of traditional
marketing thinking, point out the service co-creation • an empowering mindset and it gives voice and
tools to those who were not traditionally part of
as “assisting customers in their own value-creation
design process.
process” (p. 257). One of the mindsets behind the
service-dominant logic is customer-centric thinking, • about engagement of potential users but also
but it also points out bringing organisation partners about stakeholder collaboration.
to join the co-creation process.
• a process and tools of collaborative engagement,
This is where a lot of the confusion comes from:
e.g. events for learning and exploration.
methods that were developed for co-designing with
Co-creation in design
potential users or other stakeholders are now utilised
• is a creative, mood/mindset and methods within
in service design to create potential service solutions
co-design process
with clients, the solutions of which are then to be
co-created with customers and producers. • is about exchange of ideas, experiences,
Taking the participation even beyond PD, Cottam expertise
and Leadbeater (2004) suggest that co-creating

6
 PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011

• is temporary. It has specific parts within the a service journey project in which the designer’s role
design process was in the planning of the stage for the collaboration
Here we have mostly focused on the terms being in early phase of a service design project. The last
used in the design field. It has to be emphasised that case describes a service development project with
co-creation, however, has several meanings beyond the mindset of users having a large role in the
design: delivery of the service and were therefore involved
in many stages during the entire process, but as not
• a collective creativity as a mindset for
as designers, but as themselves in their everyday
collaborative activities (Sanders)
lives.
• business discussion about openness and exchange
as well as networking and crowdsourcing to
CASE 1 TEXTILE DESIGNER BUILDS A CREATIVE
create new values
INTERACTION WITH CO-DESIGNERS
• service co-creation as the moment of creation The first case illustrates kids as co-designers. A
when a service is being delivered and even textile designer wanted to involve school children
sharing responsibilities when creating and offering into a process of creating textile prints for children.
services The objective was to gain an understanding of the
Based on the literature above and our own kids’ world, their preferences and to listen to their
experiences we have identified that the following opinions in a creative process. The kids were first
issues seem to have influenced the usages of the co- explained what textile design is about. Secondly,
X terms: they were given a set of hand made probing tasks
a) The tradition, discipline, community and the that included questions for telling about their lives,
discussion the co-X practice or research contributes hobbies and such, colour samples for selecting the
to (PD, creativity, services, marketing, open favourite colours, drawing tasks for telling about
innovation) their homes, their dream rooms and creating textile
b) The attitude from user empowering to stakeholder patterns. The designer then analysed the probing
engagement (whose contribution is allowed and materials, made interpretations of the colours, the
emphasised) lifestyles and pattern preferences and collected
b) The professional backgrounds and the roles when them into mood boards and inspired by the results
using the methods (designers or researchers and the designed a set of patterns. Finally, the designs were
level of participation) evaluated by the same children. (Mitrunen 2010)
c) The objectives and outcomes (collaborative
learning or business profit)

CO-X CASES
The next section discusses five illustrative cases from
our own practice or from our colleagues. These cases
are chosen because show the variety and complexity
of co-design.
The first case shows a project, where an individual
designer organises an interactive co-design process Figure 2. The upper row, co-designers instruments and co-design
in action. The lower row, resulting design ideas on the left by the
with children. The second case is from business
children and on the right by the designer.
context and shows a typical product design agency
that is implementing short user involvement sessions Reflection
during their exploratory design activities. The third The process of involving children was described as
case zooms in on getting together various co-design because the collaborative engagement was
stakeholders and support envisioning and shared part of a design process. The designer (as part of her
learning in the development phase of a new building Master of Art thesis) had an agenda of widening her
and platform of activities. The fourth case discusses

7
DIVERSITY AND UNITY

own creative process with an interaction with the their ideal products. The designers recruit users and
potential future ‘users’. There were several steps in ask them to do explorative assignments at home and
the dialogue between the designer and the children. come to the studio for a studio meeting. After the
The designer engaged the kids by providing them studio meeting, the users’ involvement phase is over.
intruments, i.e. triggering tools to reflect their The designers do not call this user involvement co-
preferences and express their visual creativity. They creation or co-design. But they refer to these
also evaluated the resulting design patterns. activities as contextmapping. This case illustrates
However, the designer kept her designer identity and that even core design activities of design agencies
competence and was the one who was responsible of are starting to see the benefit of involving users
the final designs – although strongly inspired by the during idea generation. This is in line with Sanders’
exchange with the kids, which could be described as way of emphasising creativity and expression of
co-creation in Sander’s words. experiences. However, in the spectrum of co-x this is
a very small user involvement, and all authorities
CASE 2 FINDING WAYS TO INVOLVE USERS IN SHORT and responsibilities are in the hands of the designers.
IDEA GENERATION SESSIONS
The second case is about a small design agency based CASE 3 ENVISIONING THE COLLABORATION
in the Netherlands (WAACS) that started to ENVIRONMENT
consistently involve users in the idea generation The University of Art and Design Helsinki, Helsinki
phase since two years. The second author is often University of Technology and Helsinki School of
shortly involved as a consultant of user involvement. Economics were merged to become Aalto University
Sporadically they have asked or observed users to in the beginning of 2010. The objective of the merge
understand the context of use, but were not is to build an innovative environment for multi-
accustomed to involve users systematically before. disciplinary education and research.
One of the designers, trained in contextmapping One of Aalto University’s key projects is Design
introduced this method in a project to the other Factory (DF), a building and a platform that aims at
designers, which led to inspired insights for new joining people and activities from different
product solutions. Since then, they have invested departments. DF’s main focus is in product
time and money to conduct user research in more development education and research but it also
and more projects. includes places for teamwork, meetings and various
forms of collaboration with companies as well as
Reflection workshops for experimenting and prototyping.
The design agency’s core business is designing As the planning of the DF was still in progress design
products. They see the value of involving users as a researchers proposed to organise three creative
quick reality-check, i.e. to learn from users what workshops, to discuss, envision and prototype DF
they didn’t know themselves or get confirmation together with the potential users. The workshops
about what the designers think the users’ needs are. served also as a collaborative stage for discussion
The role of the users is being informants to spark among different stakeholders such as professors,
inspiration and to provide information about their students and researchers from three partnering
everyday lives around a specific topic such as e.g., schools.
glue rollers. Where, how, what, when, why do they The first workshop focused on setting a common
glue things and how do they experience that? The vision of the core spirits and values of DF, the second
users are regarded as experts of their experiences workshop focused on people and practices, i.e.
and through the user study the context of product collaboratively identifying the key actors, the
use is brought into the design studio. activities and work cultures. The third workshop
The designers are the creators having responsibility focused on brainstorming spatial solutions. It aimed
of the quality and quantity of the created ideas. The at planning, concretizing and prioritizing the
users are not creating design solutions although they activities identified in the previous workshop in the
might suggest some ideas as they are asked to draw actual setting of the DF.

8
 PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011

The workshops were inspired the design games well as in the resulting report that has functioned as
approach (Brandt 2006) that has its roots in the the reminder for further development.
participatory design tradition. They combined
elements from board games such as game rules, CASE 4 STAGEING DESIGN COLLABORATION
turn-taking, game board, and playing cards. They The fourth case is about facilitating a process in
also applied elements of make tools (Sanders and which the aim was to streamline customer services.
Dandavate 1999). Each workshop was an event for Three co-design workshops were organized with the
reflection and the outcomes were transferred, e.g. aim of gathering people from a complex network of
through the customized game materials, to the next stakeholders together to discuss, plan and envision
event. future service systems. The participants included
people from a public organisation and its partners.
The case is an example of a trend in which public
organisations and individual service providers are
learning customer-oriented service business. The
transformation process requires facilitation in the
learning of new attitudes and helping out of the box
thinking in organizations. (Hakio & Mattelmäki 2011)

Figure 3. Outcomes of collaborative ideation in DF

Reflection
The DF workshops were facilitated and planned by
design researchers who were also anticipated users
of the setting. They called the workshops co-design
workshops because of the application of design
games methods and because the process aimed at
design solutions in addition to collaborative
envisioning. The facilitators also joined the teams
Figure 4. Design games as the platform for collaborative
along with the other participants as equal co-
reflection
designers. The outcomes of the workshops, such as
the spirit statements, the map of the actors and The workshops applied design games as a way to
activities as well as the envisioned solution proposals stage the collaboration. With the help of materials
were documented and reported to all the that were specially designed for the purpose such as
participants, heads of DF and the people responsible game boards, game rules, human-figures the aim was
of the interior design (who also took part of the to support collaboration, discussion, reflection and
workshops). The process enabled people to share communication of how the elements of service
their ideas, express their needs and become familiar experience are connected. Teams were mapping the
with each other and DF. The applied methods and existing practices, purposefully stressing the
materials aimed at supporting exploration and customer- or human-centered perspective and
creative collaboration. How much the process creatively seeking improvements. The organization
actually influenced the final designs and the action had the responsibility of the implementation of the
plan of the DF has not been properly investigated. ideas.
However, feedback from the workshop participants
and the key persons is DF development, (as well end- Reflection
users of DF) indicates that the value of the workshop The co-design workshops were planned and
was in the engaging process in which a number of facilitated by design researchers. The reason for
players joined to discuss, learn, envision and plan calling them co-design is due to the design games
together in a well structured but creative manner as method and the mindset of considering things that

9
DIVERSITY AND UNITY

do not exist yet. However, the outcomes were not plan for the social enterprise and how to set up the
really designs but rather a common understanding of organisation.
the complexity and visions and ideas for the
improvement.
The workshops were planned to trigger creative
atmosphere, facilitate discussions within and among
teams, as well as the development of the overall
picture of service processes and how they interact
with the customer’s world.
The process resembles co-design as described by
Daim project, i.e. staging temporary learning and
experimentation events. The co-creation happens in
the interaction among the participants. In this case
designer’s role was purely in the consulting, i.e. Figure 5. One of the participants is reacting on the propositions
for a new service presented in a brochure
planning of the process, introducing and adjusting
the tools and supporting of the mindset building. The
Reflection
continuity in implementing the initiatives was in the
In this case users were involved in several stages of
organization, the teams and individual participants.
the service. They were visited, observed,
interviewed about their everyday lives and some of
CASE 5 INVOLVING USERS IN THE DESIGN AND
them also gave feedback about the service ideas
DELIVERY OF SERVICES
created by the design team. Furthermore, users also
The project Gettogether was conducted in 2009 by
participated for two months in the experiential
Participle (www.participle.net), a design company
prototype usages of the service. The interesting
for public services, and the client was a
aspect here is that the users had an important role in
governmental organisation in the UK. The aim of the
the content production of the planned service and
project was to develop a service with a social
thus their role was considered important in the
component to enhance the lives of elderly people
development process. However, they had not been
who are in social isolation and feel lonely. The
asked to step into the designer’s shoes, use
designed service was a telephone group for having
designerly tools, be creative or generate ideas in a
phone chats with other people who are also often
design setting. Everything took place in their homes
isolated in their homes.
and their roles were to be themselves: everyday
The project team approached the topic in various
people.
ways including interviews and spending time with
The design process involved users and other
several older people, caregivers and community
stakeholders iteratively in many phases of the
workers. Equipped with the gathered understanding
development process. The design responsibility
the project team developed several ideas which
remained in the design team however. The project
were then presented to the same elderly people for
team never explicitly used the term co-design during
feedback.
the project and in the documentation of this project.
As the concept was developed on the idea that users
Is this co-design then? In our opinion it is. The
would also be part of the service production an
developed service is also about co-creation in the
experiential prototype as built. Through the pilot
sense presented: the user participates in the service
usage of the prototype the team was also able to
experience.
observe how the elderly would use this service; what
roles they took and how the filled in part of the
service with their own needs and capabilities. The
DISCUSSION
end result of the project was a report with the This diversity of the cases above gives insight in the
design of the service, a blue print and a business various aspects of co-design such as roles of
designers, design researchers, users, and other

10
 PRODEEDINGS IASDR2011

stakeholders. Designers facilitate and enhance the In this paper we wanted to clarify the ambiguous
creativity of others, learn with and are inspired from uses of co-design and co-creation. This has been
other co-designers. These cases also illustrate how motivated by a desire to teach our students what the
co-design can vary depending on the organization co-X tools are, but what to do with them and how
and the field of design. Co-design takes place in they are constructed. For that they need to know
product design setting as well as in educational that co-design processes asks for an open mindset of
environment. There is also a great variety on how all involved people. Moreover, it is a fruitful but
they are organized including the time span of the complex process that takes time and effort. Finally,
engagement and the phases of the development the complexity (defining different roles, stepping in
process. There are differences in the level of the stepping out, and creating/providing the right tools
contributions from end users and stakeholders. at the right moment to the right people) of
Moreover, all of the cases are built on a particular organising such processes asks for skills and decisions
mindset that in the application of the tools. This is particularly
1) emphasises that people, whether users or other useful when co-design approaches and design
actors, can be contribute to design when they are competences are needed in new application areas
valued and they given the possibility. This has to do such as service design, transformation design or
both on the empowering attitude but also in the idea social innovations.
of their valuable contribution through their own
experience and expertise;
2) believes that the collective activity creates an REFERENCES
exchange of ideas, collective exploration and
Binder, T. (2010) Beyond methods. In Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark,
learning that is more than individual reflection and; B., Binder, T. (eds) Rehearsing the future. The Danish Design
School Press, Denmark.
3) concerns with envisioning and ”what if” questions,
Brandt, E. & Agger Eriksen, M. (2010) Co-design events. In Halse,
i.e. it is not about understanding specific phenomena
J., Brandt, E., Clark, B., Binder, T. (eds) Rehearsing the future.
but aims at exploring and finding design ideas, The Danish Design School Press. Denmark.
reasons, problems and opportunities with the goal of Brandt, E. (2006) Designing Exploratory Design Games: A
Framework for Participation in Participatory Design? In
change.
Proceedings of PDC 2006, Trento, Italy. Vol. 1, 57–66.
Brown, T. (2009) Change by Design. How design thinking
CONCLUSIONS transforms organisations and inspires innovation. HarperCollins,
New York.
In the beginning of the paper we were lost in the
Burns, C., Cottam, H., Vanstone, C., Winhall, J. (2006) RED paper
terms of co-creation and co-design. Through 02: Transformation Design, Design Council.
www.designcouncil.info/mt/RED/transformationdesign/
literature review and case descriptions we have
Cottam, H.& Leadbeater, C. (2004) RED Paper 01: HEALTH: Co-
made landmarks into the map of co-X. We did not
creating Services. Design Council.
aim to one definition of the relationship of the terms UK.www.designcouncil.info/RED/health/REDPaper01.pdf
but rather to clarify their use. Ehn, P. (2008) Participation in Design Things. In Proceedings of
Participatory Design Conference, Indiana University. US. 92-101.
Every design process aims at exploring and finding
Evenson, S. (2005) Designing for services. Designing Pleasurable
design solutions. Co-design is a process and the
Products and Interfaces DPPI. Eindhoven, The Netherlands. 149-
planning, adjusting tools and facilitation is built on a 161..
mindset based on collaboration. Co-creation can take Foverskov, M. , Dam, K. (2010) The evocative sketch. In: Halse, J.,
et al (eds) Rehearsing the future. The Danish Design School Press.
place within co-design processes but focuses much
Fulton Suri, J. (2003) The experience of evolution: developments
more on the collective creativity of involved users
in design practice. The Design Journal, vol6 no2. Ashgate
and stakeholders. publishing U.K.39-48
When looking from another perspective outside Hakio, K & MAttelmäki, T. (2011) Design adventures in public
sector. DPPI2011. In press.
design research and practice co-creation appears as
Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark, B., Binder, T. (2010) Rehearsing the
a bigger trend that deals with openness,
Future. The Danish Design School Press.
collaboration and partnership. From that perspective
van der Helm, A., Stappers, P.J., Keyson, D., & Hekkert, P. (2010)
co-design is among the practices in which co- The ID-StudioLab 2005-2010: Further developing a creative
research environment. In: Achten, H., de Vries, B., & Stappers,
creation is concretized.

11
DIVERSITY AND UNITY

P.J. Design Research in the Netherlands. Proceedings of the Sanders, E.B.-N. (1999) Postdesign and participatory culture. In
Symposium May 20-21 Eindhoven. Keynote proceedings of the Useful and critical conference.
University of Art and Design Helsinki.
Keinonen, T. (2009) Design Method –Instrument, Competence of
Agenda? Multiple ways to Design Research, Swiss Design Research Sanders, E. B.-N. (2000) Generative tools for codesigning. In
Network Symposium '09. 12–13. Scrivener, Ball and Woodcock (Eds.) Collaborative Design. Springer
Verlag. London.
Koskinen, I., Battarbee, K. & Mattelmäki, T. (eds) (2003) Empathic
Design. IT press. Finland. Sanders, E. B.-N. (2001) Collective Creativity. LOOP: AIGA Journal
of Interaction Design Education, August, Number 3.
Lucero Vera, A. (2009) Co-Designing interactive spaces for and
with designers: supporting mood-board making. Doctoral Sanders, E.B.-N. (2002) Scaffolds for experiencing in the new
dissertation. TU Eindhoven. Jyväskylä Finland. design space. Information Design Institute for Information Design.
Japan (Eds), IID.J, Graphic-Sha Publishing Co.Ltd.
Van der Lugt et al. (2009) Co-creation pressure cooker.
Sanders, E.B.-N. (2005) Information, Inspiration and Cocreation.
Mager, B. (2009) Service design as an emerging field. In:
Proceedings of the 6th International Conference of the European
Miettinen, S. & Koivisto. M. (eds) Designing Services with
Academy of Design. Bremen Germany.
innovative methods. Publication series of the University of Art and
Design Helsinki. Keuruu Finland. 28-43 Sanders, E.B.-N. and Dandavate, U. (1999) Design for
experiencing: New tools. Proceedings of the First International
Mattelmaki, T. (2006) Design Probes. Doctoral Thesis. University of
Conference on Design and Emotion, Delft, The Netherlands. 87-92.
Art and Design Helsinki, Finland.
Sanders, E.B.-N., Stappers, P.J. (2008) Co-creation and the new
Mattelmäki, T., Hasu, M., Ylirisku, S. (2009) Creating Mock-ups of
landscapes of design. Special issue of CoDesign, 4 (1), 5–18.
Strategic Partnerships. Proceedings of IASRD conference in Seoul,
Korea. Sanders, E.B.-N., William, C.T (2001) Harnessing People’s
Creativity: Ideation and expression through visual communication.
Miettinen, S. & Koivisto. M. (eds) Designing Services with
In: Langford, J., McDonagh-Philp, D. (eds.) Focus Groups:
innovative methods. Publication series of the University of Art and
Supportive effective product development. London: Taylor and
Design Helsinki. Keuruu Finland.
Francis.
Mitrunen, E. (2010) Kuosit käyttäjiä kohtaamassa (Patterns meet
Sleeswijk Visser, F., Visser, V. (2005) Re-using users: Co-create
users). Unpublished Master of Art thesis. Aalto University School of
and co-evaluate. Personal and ubiquitous computing, 10(2–3).148–
Art and Design. Helsinki Finland.
152.
Prahalad, C.K., Ramaswamy, V. (2000) Co-opting customer
Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J., van der Lugt, R., Sanders,
competence Harvard Business Review 78(1).
E.B.-N. (2005) Contextmapping: Experiences from practice.
Paaper, M. (2009) Co-creation’s 5 guiding principles. Or….what is CoDesign: International Journal of CoCreation in Design and Arts,
successful co-creation made of? White paper of Fronteer Strategy. 1(2). 119–149.
2009 (www.marketing-online.nl/images/24724.pdf)
Stappers, P.J., van Rijn, H., Kistemaker, S., Hennink, A.,
van Rijn, H., Sleeswijk Visser, F., Stappers, P.J. (2009) Connecting Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2009) Designing for other people's strengths
through interacting: Toys that help designers learn from children and motivations: Three cases using context, visions, and
with autism by playing with them. International Association of experiential prototypes. Advanced Engineering Informatics,
Societies of Design Research 2009: Rigor and Relevance in Design, Special Issue on Human-Centered Product Design and
18-22 October, Seoul, South Korea. Development, 23(2), 174-183.
Rizzo, F. (2010) Co-design versus User Centred Design: Framing Vargo, S. L., Lusch, R. F. (2008) From goods to service(s):
the differences. In Guerrini, L. (Ed) Notes on Design Doctoral Divergences and convergences of logics. Industrial marketing
Research. Franco Angeli Editore. management 37. 254-259.
Saakes, D.P. (2007) A media toolbox for ideation workshops. Tools Winsor, J. (2006) SPARK: Be More Innovative Through Co-Creation.
in Support of Creative Collaboration, as part of Creativity and Dearborn Trade Publishing. Chicago.US.
Cognition, Washington D.C, June 13-15.
www.participle.net
Sanders, E.B.-N. (1992) Converging perspectives: product
development research for the 1990s. Design management journal.
Fall.

12