All of the above and more. I’d like to add one more idea: co-creators should also be offered scaffolds to support their creative exploration.

In my research I have observed four levels of creativity that can be seen in people’s lives. I call them: doing, adapting, making and creating. These four levels vary in terms of the amount of expertise and interest needed. Starting at the lowest level of creativity (with minimal expertise and interest) and moving toward higher levels (with increasing expertise and interest/passion) these levels include:

Doing, the lowest level, is motivated by productivity. It is about getting something done. For example, some people say they feel creative when cleaning and organizing closets.

Adapting is motivated by the need people have to make things their own. Adapting happens when people change something to make it meet their needs or to better fit their personality.

Making is motivated by people’s needs to make things with their own hands. Making involves the use of a pattern, recipe or kit. Making can be supported and encouraged by providing scaffolds upon which people can express their creativity.

Creating, the highest level, is motivated by people’s needs to express themselves in creative ways. Creating is like making but without a pattern, recipe or kit.

People live simultaneously at all levels of creativity. For example, they may be creating when it comes to cooking but adapting when it comes to the use of technology products. (more…)

I would say that the attitude and mindset of the people in the company are the biggest challenges. To embrace co-creativity requires that one believes that all people are creative. If those in the company do not believe this, then co-creation will not happen.

The existing power structures in most companies today are built on hierarchy and control. Co-creative thinking threatens the existing power structures. It is very difficult for those who have been successful while being in control to give it up now. The new generation will have an easier time.

(Copenhagen Co’creation asked Liz Sanders to comment on three co-creation challenges. Read the interview with Liz Sanders ‘The right tools for the job’)

To introduce the work of the Copenhagen Co’creation Network, Danish Design Association invited Ida Vesterdal, Partner at Via Design, to participate in Copenhagen Co’creation Summit and Seminar and to introduce co-creation in a number of articles. In the article “The right tools for the job” Liz Sanders, MakeTools.

The success or otherwise of co-creation depends to a large extent on whether we are able to utilize the knowledge and experience of participants and apply them to meet a specific challenge. To this end we can use a broad range of tools that aim to encourage individuals to contribute by drawing on their own experiences, both rational and emotional.

To learn more about what tools can be used and how they can be made to work, I have interviewed Liz Sanders, one of the participants at Copenhagen Co´creation. She is an expert in the use of tools that help people express their feelings, experiences and knowledge with a view to innovative development in a community setting. She develops and runs co-creation processes through her consultancy company, MakeTools, as well as doing concurrent research on the tools she works with.

NECESSARY PRECONDITIONS
To start with, Liz stresses that tools are only the tip of the iceberg. There are other, deeper levels which are necessary preconditions if the tools are to work at all. As Liz herself explains – on the basis of the model, ‘Exploring co-creation on a large scale’:

“For tools to be effective, you will need several other layers. ‘Tools’ is only the first step in the co-creation process. Tools need to be applied via methods which are often nested within more inclusive methodologies. The mindset with which the tools are applied is even more important than the methods or methodologies. In co-creation, you need to be working with the mindset that all people are creative and that they are able to produce creative things when given the tools and the stage on which to practice or perform. For example, I have seen good tools/methods fail in the hands of a person who did not actually believe that the people he gave the tools to would be creative with them. Then, in order for an organization to practice a culture of co-creation, the tools need to be applied via methods/methodologies and with the right mindset by people within the organization working together.” (more…)

To continue the discussion from yesterday, I’d like to put forth the first in what will hopefully be an ongoing series of refinements, based on input from the group.

To briefly recap this effort’s intent, Co-creation (or Design Thinking) is currently viewed through multiple lenses, which can be confusing when discussing the topic with others who have different experiences with the subject.  By visually framing the various levels of Co-creation and its supporting principles, a common understanding of the topic could be achieved and the ability to apply it in multiple types of situations could be enhanced.

Proposed Co-Creation (Design Thinking) Framework

Originally, the Co-Creation Framework (see below) closely mirrored that of the Toyota diagram.

However, as seen in the revised model below, Problem Solving has been eliminated as a stand-along category, having been rolled into the Process category.  The reason for this update is that Problem Solving and Process are both focused on a common goal – leveraging participation by all stakeholders to address a challenge and develop a solution. (more…)

During the inaugural Copenhagen Co-Creation Summit this past August, lively debate arose regarding the scope of Co-creation (or Design Thinking).  Perfectly understandable given its application in creating new products, services, organizational structures, business models, and public policy in both developed and developing economies.

But is Co-creation…

• An all-encompassing philosophy?
• An internal organizational process?
• A method for solving complex problems with external stakeholders?

Simply put, the answer is “yes.”  Co-creation can be viewed through all of these lenses, prompting the need to more clearly frame the space so we have a common understanding of its breadth of application and the actionable principles that make it so powerful.

Fortunately, an analogous model already exists that I’d like to introduce as a potential starting point.

Toyota’s 4P Framework
While working with Toyota, Jeffrey Liker, PhD developed the 4P model, which reframes the four high-level principles that Toyota uses to govern itself.  These tiered principles, in combination with fourteen sub principles, reflect Toyota’s “deeper business philosophy…of understanding people and human motivation.”  This philosophy forms the basis for the global Toyota Production System and has shaped the company’s direction since its early days as a loom manufacturer.

Liker’s 4P model is broken into categories that encapsulate Toyota’s corporate principles:  Philosophy, Process, People & Partners, and Problem Solving. (more…)

The headline is a quote from Allan Chochinov’s foreword to Emily Pilloton’s book ‘Design Revolution: 100 Products That Empower People’ and very precisely frames what the book is about and what it aims to demonstrate. In it’s full length the quote goes “(…) designers would do well to remember that they are not in the artifact business. They are in the consequence business”.

Through her own introduction ‘Design Can Change the World’ and the book’s more than 100 examples from the real world, Emily Pilloton illustrates co-creation as a basis for social entrepreneurship through design and how designing for sustainability (for people, planet and profit) transforms challenges into opportunities.

“Design has been disconnected from reality”, Emily Pilloton says and through Project H Design, founded in January 2008 by Emily herself, she strives to re-establish the connection based on the bold (and somewhat beautiful) statement that design is problem solving with grace and foresight. One of the keys to re-establish the connection is to not just consider HOW we design stuff (as most ‘green design’ is about) but to carefully consider WHAT we design, and use design as a catalyst to create solutions that go beyond doing no harm.

Even though, HOW we design is an important issue to Emily Pilloton and the best introduction to the principles of Project H Design might as well be her own as can be seen here. (more…)

Elephant Team
Elephant Strategy + Design is a strategic design and innovation consultancy that partners with organizations to transform them into dynamic, profitable and meaningful entities. During the past 20 years, design at Elephant has evolved from a styling exercise to a sophisticated, key driver of innovation.

At Elephant we firmly believe that contemporary design requires a strong convergence of multiple disciplines. With approximately 65 professionals, Team Elephant comprises of business strategists, design thinkers, communication experts, engineers and social science experts working together in multidisciplinary teams to enhance clients’ businesses.

What was the need?
The need was felt on two fronts.

The first front was the way in which the whole design profession is seen. Design has always been considered an intuitive profession where the individuals’ creativity determines the success or failure of a particular design project. Designers traditionally view any kind of system or process for designing as something that is detrimental to their work and profession.

The second front was to systemize the design process of Elephant. Elephant Strategy + Design has been growing at a brisk pace. The number of projects, diversity of projects and number of designers have been growing continuously. With this growth, we needed a strong system that would help us not only to maintain excellence in design output but also to reduce rework, reduce redundancies, make use of the accumulated knowledge and most importantly democratize and decentralize the decision-making. The issues that were before us were as follows:

• How do we formally capture the amorphous design process and use it to provide our clients the best design solutions on a sustainable basis?
• How can our capability yield better productivity?
• How do we improve design productivity?
• How can our environment support continuous improvement of the design process?
• How does our design environment have early predictors of success / failure?
  

(more…)

The Danish government wants to put Denmark high on the list of innovative, knowledge-rich nations. If we are to achieve this we shall have to get moving right away, but the big question is how do we prepare ourselves for growth? A number of Danish companies with a focus on design have obtained positive results by using a new approach to innovation – co-creation. Co-creation means that instead of designing FOR people, you design WITH people.

As we all know, the world is becoming more and more complex. If we are to meet such major challenges as the financial crisis, the environment and climate change, we shall have to collate knowledge from many different fields and apply it in a completely new way. Otherwise we stand to miss the innovation train. Many design-driven companies are already meeting these challenges by using a new form of open innovation, but in general Danish companies and organisations could do much better.

But why co-creation? Co-creation can help stimulate growth. It is all about getting across the idea that diversity creates innovation. You do not move forward by just doing ‘business as usual’, but by constantly challenging yourself. Those companies that manage actively to involve users in the creation of new products tend to hit the jackpot, in the sense that are handed a short cut to knowledge about user behaviour, which makes it easier for them to understand the complexities of the global market. At the same time, co-creation makes its own demands: companies must be able to manage differences and diversity and to let go of controls and habitual patterns of thought. This in turn calls for management backing and the will to change. (more…)

Read the latest news from Copenhagen Co’creation here

Few public employees think that design has anything to do with their daily work. But the thousands in the public sector who have some level of responsibility for development and innovation, can harvest significant value from applying design thinking and co-creation.

A recent example was a design workshop run by MindLab during the Copenhagen Design Week, on Design Against Climate Change. View the short video from the event for a first-hand impression of co-creation in practice.

Exactly because the public sector is highly complex and dominated by numerous actors and interests, it makes sense to develop solutions together. However, today, that is the exception rather than the norm. Co-creation offers an opportunity to essentially redesign the typical public sector development process. Across government officials and citizens, across organisational silos, and across the public and private sectors.

No matter whether the focus is on developing a new service in the care sector (service design) or it is to innovate new state initiatives (policy design), co-creation as a discipline has much to offer?

Why? Because co-creation is about the mutual creation of coherent new solutions that work for the end-users.

How? Here is a first attempt at seven principles for co-creation:

1. Create through collaboration
2. See everything as an experiment
3. Challenge the status quo
4. Put citizens first
5. Be concrete
6. Visualise
7. Iterate.

Could these seven principles help transform how government works? Yes. If public managers really, really took co-creation to heart, it could be the beginning of a revolution.

About Christian Bason