(some of the) main co-design
traditions and approaches
Sampsa Hyysalo
1 june 2015
Sticky information
U
U
U
P
P
P
U
U
Disciplines wherein co-design features;
next to all features as a fringe activity
•
IT
–
–
–
•
Business sciences
–
–
–
–
•
Sociology / organizational research (Action research, empowerment)
Polictical science (participative democracy, empowerment etc.)
Behavioral sciences
–
–
•
Industrial design (usability, User centred design, participatory design)
Ergonomics, cognitive ergonomics
Urban planning / architecture (participative processes, participatory design)
Social sciences
–
–
•
Management (value co-creation, mass-customization)
Innovation studies (user innovation research, UI toolkits)
Marketing (relationships marketing, p2p campaigns)
Financing (crowd funding)
Design sciences
–
–
–
•
Information systems (pd, work systems etc)
Human computer interaction (usability etc)
User centred design
Psychology, cognitive science (Usability, user centred design)
Education, Social psychology (action research, developmental work research)
Service science, socio-technical systems, legal studies (agreements, ipr), philosophy (social and
technological critique and clarification)
Approach cut to co-design:
Serious takes and differences
Users hold primary agency
and decision making power
DESIGN
in & with & for
USE
Primary focus:
design process
Participatory
Design
Emansipatory,
empowering
design; change of
tech and subjects
”1980s PD”
Conflict
perspective,
tradeunion power
Producer-user
co-development;
often long term
& ad hoc
User research
Sociotechnical
design;
Mutual benefits,
work satisfaction
Primary focus:
Ergonomics,
cognitive
ergonomics
Open Source
development
Everyday
innovation;
domestication,
everyday hacking
Usability
research
User inspired
design
User centred
design
product in/to use
Customer
research
Innovation by
users
User innovation
communities;
peer content
creation
Firm / designers / researchers
hold primary agency and
decision making power
User Innovations
Market research
Customer
relationship
manag.
Masscustomization,
user design
toolkits
Co-creation of
value,
partnering, user
innovation
toolkits
”1980s PD”
Conflict
perspective,
tradeunion power
UTOPIA Project, 1982
• With skilled typesetters: vaning profession /
work replacement
• Trade union power: not only vages but changes
in the content of work and technology to be
negotiated
• “conflict perspective” starting point: conflicting
interestes between management and workers (&
worker groups)
– Different workshops for different groups
– Designing and visioning workshops
• Mock-ups and paper prototypes: laser printers
and large computer screens etc.
User centred
design
Contextual Design
AT&T 1993 for groupware, Karen Holzblatt ;
Beyer & Holzblatt, 1998
1. “Contextual inquiry” = “watch and ask” in
natural work settings or “artefact focused
observational interview”
“Interviewer interviews”, post-its and affinity
diagramming to surface and manage data
2. Work modeling to clarify it further
3. Work redesign; consolidated work models
and system models
4. System models and prototyping to iterate
design
5. Realizing, iterating and evaluationg design
and new work practice
User innovation
communities;
peer content
creation
Patientslikeme.com
• Rare disease patients
• Doctors have little
experience; perhaps
treating 2 in a lifetime
• Discussion forum
• Medications, diets,
symptoms etc. listed
• Advice and pooling of
treatment and
experiences
User Innovations
User inventor
Problem: Big hunting dog in suburbia; Snout leach needed, but
dog walked backwards with just the snout pull & two leaches
were difficult to manage
Solution: embedding the snout leach inside (hollow) walking
leach, can be activated when need be
Development:
2006 Own functional prototype
2007 Trademark patent
2007 Licence agreement with Finnish dog brand
“Nothing happening” : difficulties to turn the invention to dog
brand’s materials and production facility in China
 non-working prototype
2011 Ending of licencing by inventor 2011
Future? Product design help ? // small manufacturing ? // user
community proliferation ? // open licencing?
”I am not yet desperate enough to become a dog leach
manufacturer, as I do have the researcher career to pursue”
Co-creation of
value,
partnering, user
innovation
toolkits
Coloplast Ltd. / Stoma-innovation
by you.com
• User innovation toolkits and internet
communities for discussion and design
• Colostomy patients; have to live with urine and
/or feaces bags that determine much how they
can attend physical and social situations
• “Stoma innovation by you” discussion and
design forum for sharing and iterating ideas
• User innovation toolkits
– Coloplast production materials sent as inspiratory
toolkit
– Designs by users
• Some kept by the users alone
• Some returned to coloplast as product seeds (easy to
manufacture due to the materials from which they
were made)
• From personalizations (colors etc) to new designs to
variations in how existing designs could work for
specific needs of some patients
• “Physical innovation toolkits” not only software
http://www.coloplast.co
m/Pages/home.aspx
Masscustomization,
mass design of
one
My Adidas
• Small volumes almost at the price of mass-produced good
• Computerized process equipment that can be adjusted
instantly and at low cost
• Mix and Match from predesigned lists of options… that is
options that have been built into the machinery
• “infinite variety” such as large color variations to several
places in the shoe
• People willing to pay for “reserving” their design, even as
one parameter difference someplace gets to perceivably
identical non-reserved design & two people hitting the
exact same design is, in fact, improbable
Nestle: User innovation
toolkits
user innovation
toolkits
•
•
Nestle’s (Mexican) sauce developmet (von hippel, 2001)
Chefs create a sause in their kitchen; would like to get it ready made & Nestle a product
–
–
–
–
•
Innovation tookits: Repartioning development tasks
–
–
–
–
–
–
•
Nestle’s production chefs turn it into production compatible one
Translation problem: Ingredients and machines must be of industrial scope: large processing units, storage,
preservatives, additives…
Only the final taste and some cues can be emulated…with different taste buds.
Typically 26 weeks from chef design to production because of to and fro between chefs and production chefs to
get it right
Sent to Chefs working in their own kitchens: shifting factory chefs design capability to users.
Factory production materials kit so that whatever is done fits Nestle’s production
Module library: Finite set of materials; User friendly: 30 variations
Iteration at the Kitchen (always local tuning needed!!)
Improved translation: from chef to factory 3 weeks
Nestle needed to understand what is the correct solution space (what 30 variations to offer for Chefs … and
how to iterate this)
Best in:
–
–
–
–
–
“high sticky info” domains (either dev or use)
Rapidly changing markets where novelties are needed
When optimal production is not THE issue (but better user fitting is)
When majority follows lead-users or other trend setters
When there is sufficient “maturity” someplace in the equation of use and dev so that users and developers
know each other and what the other is doing
From handicraft to co-configuration
• Hamburgers and sandwitches
– Handicraft: Restaurant Kosmos making a burger if you ask for one
• Standardized aspects: Pikku Jaskan Grilli: beef and buns done in a set-time
machine etc. ; only certain ingredients ordered to stock.
– Mass production: McDonalds, Hesburger
• Products, production, stocking, premises service, development activities all
have fully designed manuals that are followed) … 40 mins to get rid of onions !
– Mass customization: Subway
• Finite array of choices, choices realized almost as fast as in McD, stocking,
service, premises just as mass production coded.
– Co-configuration: ????? (in software e.g. browser memory and
guessing)
• Each customer can designate and vary the offer they are getting over time …
almost as efficiently as in mass production