Participatory design

In "Co-designing for Society", Deborah Szebeko and Lauren Tan list various precursors of co-design, starting with the Scandinavian participatory design movement and then state "Co-design differs from some of these areas as it includes all stakeholders of an issue not just the users, throughout the entire process from research to implementation."[7]

In contrast, Elizabeth Sanders and Peter Stappers state that "the terminology used until the recent obsession with what is now called co-creation/co-design" was "participatory design".[8]

Similarly, a topic of interest is that of Golsby-Smith's "Fourth-Order Design" which outlines a design process in which end-user participation is required and favours individual process over outcome.[9]

This design process brings in cultural contexts to the design process. Culture as defined by Buchanan "is not a state, expressed in an ideology or a body of doctrines. It is an activity. Culture is the activity of ordering, disordering and reordering in the search for understanding and for values which guide action."[10] Therefore, to design for the fourth-order one must design within the widest scope. The system is discussion and the focus falls onto process rather than outcome.[9]

As described by Sanders and Stappers,[5] one could position co-design as a form of human-centered design across two different dimensions. One dimension is the emphasis on research or design, another dimension is how much people are involved. Therefore, there are many forms of co-design, with different degrees of emphasis on research or design and different degrees of stakeholder involvement. For instance, one of the forms of co-design which involves stakeholders strongly early at the front end design process in the creative activities is generative co-design.[11] Generative co-design is increasingly being used to involve different stakeholders as patient, care professionals and designers actively in the creative making process to develop health services.[12][13]

Participatory design was actually born in Scandinavia and called cooperative design. However, when the methods were presented to the US community 'cooperation' was a word that didn't resonate with the strong separation between workers and managers - they weren't supposed to discuss ways of working face-to-face. Hence, 'participatory' was instead used as the initial Participatory Design sessions weren't a direct cooperation between workers and managers, sitting in the same room discussing how to improve their work environment and tools, but there were separate sessions for workers and managers. Each group was participating in the process, not directly cooperating. (in historical review of Cooperative Design, at a Scandinavian conference).

In Scandinavia, research projects on user participation in systems development date back to the 1970s.[15] The so-called "collective resource approach" developed strategies and techniques for workers to influence the design and use of computer applications at the workplace: The Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers Union (NJMF) project took a first move from traditional research to working with people, directly changing the role of the union clubs in the project.[16]

The Scandinavian projects developed an action research approach, emphasizing active co-operation between researchers and workers of the organization to help improve the latter's work situation. While researchers got their results, the people whom they worked with were equally entitled to get something out of the project. The approach built on people's own experiences, providing for them resources to be able to act in their current situation. The view of organizations as fundamentally harmonious—according to which conflicts in an organization are regarded as pseudo-conflicts or "problems" dissolved by good analysis and increased communication—was rejected in favor of a view of organizations recognizing fundamental "un-dissolvable" conflicts in organizations (Ehn & Sandberg, 1979).

In the Utopia project (Bødker et al., 1987, Ehn, 1988), the major achievements were the experience-based design methods, developed through the focus on hands-on experiences, emphasizing the need for technical and organizational alternatives (Bødker et al., 1987).

The parallel Florence project (Gro Bjerkness & Tone Bratteteig) started a long line of Scandinavian research projects in the health sector. In particular, it worked with nurses and developed approaches for nurses to get a voice in the development of work and IT in hospitals. The Florence project put gender on the agenda with its starting point in a highly gendered work environment.

The 1990s led to a number of projects including the AT project (Bødker et al., 1993) and the EureCoop/EuroCode projects (Grønbæk, Kyng & Mogensen, 1995).

In recent years, it has been a major challenge to participatory design to embrace the fact that much technology development no longer happens as design of isolated systems in well-defined communities of work (Beck, 2002). At the dawn of the 21st century, we use technology at work, at home, in school, and while on the move.

Co-design is a process of designing something together with one or more people, and often with end-users. The method is used in technology development as well as research. The method is focused on the insights, experiences and input from end-users on a product or service, with the aim to develop strategies for improvement.[17] It is often used by trained designers who recognize the difficulty in properly understanding the cultural, societal, or usage scenarios encountered by their user. C. K. Prahalad and Venkat Ramaswamy are usually given credit for bringing co-creation/co-design to the minds of those in the business community with the 2004 publication of their book, The Future of Competition: Co-Creating Unique Value with Customers. They propose:

The meaning of value and the process of value creation are rapidly shifting from a product and firm-centric view to personalized consumer experiences. Informed, networked, empowered and active consumers are increasingly co-creating value with the firm.[18]

The phrase co-design is also used in reference to the simultaneous development of interrelated software and hardware systems. The term co-design has become popular in mobile phone development, where the two perspectives of hardware and software design are brought into a co-design process.[19]

Results directly related to integrating co-design into existing frameworks is "researchers and practitioners have seen that co-creation practiced at the early front end of the design development process can have an impact with positive, long-range consequences."[20]

Co-design is an attempt to define a new evolution of the design process and with that, there is an evolution of the designer. Within the co-design process, the designer is required to shift their role from one of expertise to one of an egalitarian mindset.[8] The designer must believe that all people are capable of creativity and problem solving. The designer no longer exists from the isolated roles of researcher and creator, but now must shift to roles such as philosopher and facilitator.[9] This shift allows for the designer to position themselves and their designs within the context of the world around them creating better awareness. This awareness is important because in the designer's attempt to answer a question, "[they] must address all other related questions about values, perceptions, and worldview".[9] Therefore, by shifting the role of the designer not only do the designs better address their cultural context yet so do the discussions around them.

The politics of design have been the concern for many design researchers and practitioners. Kensing and Blomberg illustrate the main concerns which related to the introduction of new frameworks such as system design which related to the introduction of computer-based systems and power dynamics that emerge within the workspace. The automation introduced by system design has created concerns within unions and workers as it threatened their involvement in production and their ownership over their work situation. Asaro (2000) offers a detailed analysis of the politics of design and the inclusion of "users" in the design process.

Major international organizations such as Project for Public Spaces create opportunities for rigorous participation in the design and creation of place, believing that it is the essential ingredient for successful environments. Rather than simply consulting the public, PPS creates a platform for the community to participate and co-design new areas, which reflect their intimate knowledge. Providing insights, which independent design professionals such as architects or even local government planners may not have.

Using a method called Place Performance Evaluation or (Place Game), groups from the community are taken on the site of proposed development, where they use their knowledge to develop design strategies, which would benefit the community. "Whether the participants are schoolchildren or professionals, the exercise produces dramatic results because it relies on the expertise of people who use the place every day, or who are the potential users of the place."[22] This successfully engages with the ultimate idea of participatory design, where various stakeholders who will be the users of the end product, are involved in the design process as a collective.

Similar projects have had success in Melbourne, Australia particularly in relation to contested sites, where design solutions are often harder to establish. The Talbot Reserve in the suburb of St. Kilda faced numerous problems of use, such as becoming a regular spot for sex workers and drug users to congregate. A Design In, which incorporated a variety of key users in the community about what they wanted for the future of the reserve allowed traditionally marginalised voices to participate in the design process. Participants described it as 'a transforming experience as they saw the world through different eyes.' (Press, 2003, p. 62). This is perhaps the key attribute of participatory design, a process which, allows multiple voices to be heard and involved in the design, resulting in outcomes which suite a wider range of users. It builds empathy within the system and users where it is implemented, which makes solving larger problems more holistically. As planning affects everyone it is believed that "those whose livelihoods, environments and lives are at stake should be involved in the decisions which affect them" (Sarkissian and Perglut, 1986, p. 3). C. West Churchman said systems thinking "begins when first you view the world through the eyes of another".[23]

A public consultation event about urban planning in Helsinki

Participatory design has many applications in development and changes to the built environment. It has particular currency to planners and architects, in relation to placemaking and community regeneration projects. It potentially offers a far more democratic approach to the design process as it involves more than one stakeholder. By incorporating a variety of views there is greater opportunity for successful outcomes. Many universities and major institutions are beginning to recognise its importance. The UN, Global studio involved students from Columbia University, University of Sydney and Sapienza University of Rome to provide design solutions for Vancouver's downtown eastside, which suffered from drug- and alcohol-related problems. The process allowed cross-discipline participation from planners, architects and industrial designers, which focused on collaboration and the sharing of ideas and stories, as opposed to rigid and singular design outcomes. (Kuiper, 2007, p. 52)

Public interest design is a design movement, extending to architecture, with the main aim of structuring design around the needs of the community. At the core of its application is participatory design.[24] Through allowing individuals to have a say in the process of design of their own surrounding built environment, design can become proactive and tailored towards addressing wider social issues facing that community.[25] Public interest design is meant to reshape conventional modern architectural practice. Instead of having each construction project solely meet the needs of the individual, public interest design addresses wider social issues at their core. This shift in architectural practice is a structural and systemic one, allowing design to serve communities responsibly.[25] Solutions to social issues can be addressed in a long-term manner through such design, serving the public, and involving it directly in the process through participatory design. The built environment can become the very reason for social and community issues to arise if not executed properly and responsibly. Conventional architectural practice often does cause such problems since only the paying client has a say in the design process.[25] That is why many architects throughout the world are employing participatory design and practicing their profession more responsibly, encouraging a wider shift in architectural practice. Several architects have largely succeeded in disproving theories that deem public interest design and participatory design financially and organizationally not feasible. Their work is setting the stage for the expansion of this movement, providing valuable data on its effectiveness and the ways in which it can be carried out.

A belief that creativity is a restricted skill would invalidate the proposal of participatory design to allow a wider reach of affected people to participate in the creative process of designing.[26] However, this belief is based on a limited view of creativity which does not recognize that creativity can manifest in a wide range of activities and experiences. This doubt can be damaging not only to individuals but also to society as a whole. By assuming that only a select few possess creative talent, we may overlook the unique perspectives, ideas, and solutions.

In a profit-motivated system, the commercial field of design may feel fearful of relinquishing some control in order to empower those who are typically not involved in the process of design.[26] Commercial organizational structures often prioritize profit, individual gain, or status over the well-being of the community or other externalities. However, participatory practices are not impossible to implement in commercial settings. It may be difficult for those who have acquired success in a hierarchical structure to imagine alternative systems of open collaboration.

Although participatory design has been of interest in design academia, applied uses require funding and dedication from many individuals. The high time and financial costs make research and development of participatory design less appealing for speculative investors.[26] It also may be difficult to find or convince enough shareholders or community members to commit their time and effort to a project.[27] However, widespread and involved participation is critical to the process.

Successful examples of participatory design are critical because they demonstrate the benefits of this approach and inspire others to adopt it. A lack of funding or interest can cause participatory projects to revert to practices where the designer initiates and dominates rather than facilitating design by the community.[27]

Participatory design projects which involve a professional designer as a facilitator to a larger group can have difficulty with competing objectives. designers may prioritize aesthetics while end-users may prioritize functionality and affordability.[27] Addressing these differing priorities may involve finding creative solutions that balance the needs of all stakeholders, such as using low-cost materials that meet functional requirements while also being aesthetically pleasing.

In the English-speaking world, the term has a particular currency in the world of software development, especially in circles connected to Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), who have put on a series of Participatory Design Conferences. It overlaps with the approach extreme programming takes to user involvement in design, but (possibly because of its European trade union origins) the Participatory Design tradition puts more emphasis on the involvement of a broad population of users rather than a small number of user representatives.

Participatory design can be seen as a move of end-users into the world of researchers and developers, whereas empathic design can be seen as a move of researchers and developers into the world of end-users. There is a very significant differentiation between user-design and user-centered design in that there is an emancipatory theoretical foundation, and a systems theory bedrock (Ivanov, 1972, 1995), on which user-design is founded. Indeed, user-centered design is a useful and important construct, but one that suggests that users are taken as centers in the design process, consulting with users heavily, but not allowing users to make the decisions, nor empowering users with the tools that the experts use. For example, Wikipedia content is user-designed. Users are given the necessary tools to make their own entries. Wikipedia's underlying wiki software is based on user-centered design: while users are allowed to propose changes or have input on the design, a smaller and more specialized group decide about features and system design.

Participatory work in software development has historically tended toward two distinct trajectories, one in Scandinavia and northern Europe, and the other in North America. The Scandinavian and northern European tradition has remained closer to its roots in the labor movement (e.g., Beck, 2002; Bjerknes, Ehn, and Kyng, 1987). The North American and Pacific rim tradition has tended to be both broader (e.g., including managers and executives as "stakeholders" in design) and more circumscribed (e.g., design of individual features as contrasted with the Scandinavian approach to the design of entire systems and design of the work that the system is supposed to support) (e.g., Beyer and Holtzblatt, 1998; Noro and Imada, 1991). However, some more recent work has tended to combine the two approaches (Bødker et al., 2004; Muller, 2007).