Unlocking the power of co-design in policy, program, and service design and delivery
Co-design has become widely accepted by policymakers, particularly in First Nations affairs, as a model that prioritises the needs and perspectives of those who are impacted by the policy, program or service. Co-design emphasises the involvement of users and stakeholders in the design process to develop client-centred solutions. Nonetheless, there is a lack of a shared definition and thorough evaluation of its applications at present.
Researchers caution that the term 'co-design' is often misunderstood and applied too broadly, often referring to any type of consultation, without fully recognising the complexities and requirements of genuine co-design. As a result, the potential benefits of co-design may not be fully realised for community. (Sendra 2023).
Without a shared and clear understanding of what co-design is and how it works, the term “co-design” may eventually lose its meaning altogether.
To fully realise the potential of co-design, researchers and practitioners must develop a shared definition and set out clearly the guiding principles of planned co-design activities. They must also conduct structured evaluations of co-design practice. The definition and principles should prioritise the involvement and value of participants as central to the co-design process. This clarity will enable all stakeholders to participate in a more informed manner. (Bragge 2022) Additionally, to achieve genuine engagement and empowerment of First Nations peoples in co-design, the process must be designed and implemented in a culturally appropriate manner that respects and considers the unique cultural and social contexts of First Nations communities.
How Gudjala Management Consultancy are driving innovation in co-design
Gudjala Management Consultancy are continuously working to enhance the existing research and practice, through revising and improving current co-design models and principles. By combining best practice with our on our own experience of what works, our co-design approach is grounded on culture and focuses on practical application.
Want to learn more?
Co-design for culturally grounded engagement
Early attempts at describing co-design position it as a set of principles and practices for understanding problems and generating solutions which is predicated on the active involvement of a diverse range of participants in exploring, developing, and testing responses to shared challenges. (Blomkamp 2018) They often include variations on themes such as creating value for a group or collective; citizen contribution to production, provision and delivery; long-term relationships based on dialogue and resource contributions; acknowledgment that co-design is not an ‘add-on’ but a core component of value creation; equality and reciprocity, and emphasis on subjective feelings and experience. (Bragge 2022)
These definitions prioritise communication, relationships, empathy, and human-centeredness, valuing different knowledge systems and authentic partnerships. However, early iterations did not fully acknowledge the need for co-design to be culturally grounded and the role of creativity in the process.
Co-design has shown success in various contexts, with differences observed between user-generated and expert-generated solutions. Optimal conditions for co-design include sufficient time and appropriate resources, the development of relationships and shared values, and addressing power differentials. The creation of a 'third space,' where all parties can come together for true engagement, is essential to achieving these conditions.
The “third space'“
An “in-between” space, where new cultural identities are formed, evolve, and continuously transform.
Diagram adapted from work of influential cultural and post-colonial theorist Homi Bhabha.
This space, characterised by shared understanding, has been identified as important in emerging research on First Nations governance. Optimal conditions are more likely to occur when community Elders, members, and/or community-controlled organisations play key roles. However, working in this space requires non-Indigenous and non-local First Nations people to be comfortable with discomfort and relinquish their power associated with expertise to take on the role of learner. (Tamwoy et al 2022)
Navigating co-design for First Nations community engagement
The Australian Government's 2020 National Agreement on Closing the Gap report emphasises the importance of designing approaches that prioritise First Nations people's cultural values and priorities in decision-making.
To equitably engage First Nations peoples in developing solutions that impact their communities, co-design approaches must be guided by First Nations-determined principles and practices, with their involvement at all stages of co-design being crucial. This include establishing initial rules, developing objectives, and identifying membership. (Anderson et al 2022)
There are various co-design models and phases in the relevant literature, which offer a framework and reference point for those working in the co-design space. However, there is a risk that models can constrain co-design practices, and practitioners may need to explore the factors underlying successful outcomes in co-design. H.L. Mencken's quote "For every complex problem, there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong," which refers to management models in general, is particularly relevant in the context of co-design.
How Gudjala Management Consultancy can help
Place-based practice & co-design
We help to facilitate community engagement in co-designing local solutions, and evaluate the effectiveness of programs and services to achieve outcomes in place.
Success factors and optimal conditions for co-design
At a practical level, it is crucial to understand the enabling factors and barriers in the co-design process to achieve successful outcomes. While models currently available focus on the phases of the co-design process, they do not fully address the factors that contribute to success or hinder progress in each phase. A thorough analysis of literature and evaluations of previous projects bring to light several essential factors that can either act as facilitators or barriers to success. Taking into account our own experience, we suggest a set of enabling factors that serve as the foundation for effective co-design. These factors include:
-
Evaluations of past projects have highlighted the significance of building relationships and creating shared meaning. Prior to the co-design facilitation, the sensitisation process engages potential participants and triggers reflection on the underlying topic. This process helps to prepare participants, who are not typically involved in design processes, by creating awareness of the underlying problem and building trust between users and the facilitation team. Relationships should be maintained to ensure that community voices are present throughout the process. The development of trust and sharing of knowledge are critical enabling factors that span throughout the co-design process.
-
Key relationships should be established in the initiation phase of a project. Community voices must be prominent throughout the process, from conception to implementation. Connections to the community must either pre-exist or be developed prior to commencing the co-design process.
-
In co-designing, the roles of professional designers or facilitators vary from active participants to ‘guides on the side’. Despite the different approaches, there are two fundamental aspects of the facilitator role: enhancing participants' creative thinking, and supporting dialogue between them. The facilitator's role is multifaceted and crucial in fostering cohesion, cultivating creativity, and providing an environment and tools that facilitate decision-making.
-
Co-design is all about promoting creative and collaborative work among users and program beneficiaries. It draws upon design thinking, utilising a range of design tools, methods, and practices to drive innovation. To achieve this, it's important to utilise appropriate processes and tools that encourage participants to engage and contribute creatively. In co-design, participants should be able to not only generate but also test out creative ideas, making the process all the more dynamic and effective.
-
Authors in co-design research have discussed knowledge deficiencies (Jagtap 2021). However, the term "deficiencies" can be problematic as it implies that some knowledge sets are superior to others and can marginalise important voices. Participants' lack of familiarity with design activities can also limit their involvement in co-design projects. Insufficient knowledge of design processes, requirements generation, and alternative solutions evaluation can be obstacles, but these can be addressed. When projects require specialist knowledge in either process or content, participants may primarily be involved in identifying and evaluating needs, with limited involvement in generating and evaluating conceptual solutions. This may be due to a lack of awareness of alternatives, and the facilitator can ensure that all necessary knowledge and information is available.
-
Effective co-design involves considering all participants as experts and their input as equally important. Strategies should be employed to eliminate any potential or perceived inequalities, which will result in greater engagement and confidence among all participants. To ensure that everyone feels comfortable sharing their views and experiences openly and freely, the co-design facilitator must address any power imbalances early on.
-
A key to outcomes which are valued by the community is for participants to be so immersed in the co-design process that they are aware when the process needs adapting or reviewing. They can then adapt methods, strategies and procedures to the requirements and conditions throughout the process.
In conclusion, co-design has the potential to equitably engage First Nations peoples in the development of policies and programs that impact their communities. However, while there are various co-design methods and general research in this area, further work is needed to realise the benefits of co-design, particularly as it relates to First Nations engagement. This includes establishing a shared understanding of co-design and its underlying principles, incorporating culturally grounded practices, creating a "third space" for innovating and formulating shared meaning, and recognising the importance of creativity in co-design.
References
Anderson, K, Gall, A, Butler, T, Ngampromwongse, K, Hector, D, Turnbull, S, Lucas, K, Nehill, C, Boltong, A, Keefe, D, Garvey, G (2023). Development of Key Principles and Best Practices for Co-Design in Health with First Nations Australians. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 20, pp. 147-166. https:// doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010147
Bragge, P (2022). Co-design: Moving towards authenticity. Australas J Ageing, 41, pp. 484-486. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajag.13155
Hurley, E, Trischler, J and Dietrich, T (2018). “Exploring the Application of Co-Design to Transformative Service Research.” Journal of Services Marketing, 32(6), pp. 715–727. doi:10.1108/ JSM-09-2017-0321.
Jagtap S (2022). Co-design with marginalised people: designers’ perceptions of barriers and enablers, CoDesign, 18(3), pp. 279-302, DOI: 10.1080/15710882.2021.1883065.
Sendra P (2023). The ethics of co-design, Journal of Urban Design, DOI: 10.1080/13574809.2023.2171856.
Tamwoy, N, Rosas, S, Davis, S, Farthing, A, Houghton, C, Johnston, H, Maloney, C, Samulkiewics, N, Seaton, J, Tuxworth, G, Bat, M (2022). ‘Co‐design with Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander communities: A journey’, The Australian Journal of Rural Health, 30(6), pp. 816–822.