Massive Codesign

Front matter

MASSIVE SAAS

A Proposal for a Collaborative Design Fram

Anna Meroni, Daniela Selloni, Martina Rossi

Contents

Acknowledgements

Authors

Contributors Introduction

PART 2: Experimenting with Codesign 2.1 CIMULACT

2.1.1 CIMULACT at a Glance 2.1.2 CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop 2.1.3 CIMULACT Social Needs Clustering Workshop 2.1.4 CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop 2.1.5 CIMULACT Codesign Workshop 2.1.6 CIMULACT Caravan Process by Francois Jégou and Christophe Gouache 2.1.7 CIMULACT Online Consultation

Bibliographical References 2.2 Creative Citizens

2.2.1 Creative Citizens at a Glance 2.2.2 Creative Citizens Warm-up Session 2.2.3 Creative Citizens Generative Session 2.2.4 Creative Citizens Prototyping Session Bibliographical References 2.3 Feeding Milan — Nutrire Milano 2.3.1 Feeding Milan at a Glance 2.3.2 Collaborative Farmers: Understanding Farmers’

Behaviours and Relations

2.3.3 Codesigning the Farmer’s Food Box 2.3.4 Codesigning a Local Distribution System Bibliographical References

2.4 SPREAD - Sustainable Lifestyles 2050 2.4.1 SPREAD at a Glance 2.4.2 SPREAD Vision Workshop Bibliographical References

43 44 46 48

50 52 53 56 64 70 77

125 131

137 143

144 145 146 153

PART 3: Designing Codesign 3.1 What Collaboration Teaches: Quick Lessons Learnt from Practice

3.1.1 The Process 3.1.2 The Experience 3.1.3 The Boundary Objects 3.2 An Actionable Collaborative Design Framework 3.2.1 General Considerations 3.2.2 Quadrant: Topic-Driven / Facilitating 3.2.3 Quadrant: Topic-Driven / Steering 3.2.4 Quadrant: Concept-Driven / Facilitating 3.2.5 Quadrant: Concept-Driven / Steering

3.2.6 Conclusions: From Experiments to a Standard Approach

155 155

160 165

170 170

173 175 176 177

178 179

List of Figures and Tables

The Double Diamond scheme elaborated with two polarities about the subject matter of design

The Collaborative Design Framework

The relationship between tools, topic, concepts and prototypes in codesign actions along a design process The Collaborative Design Framework with case studies

CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab

CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Social Need Clustering Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Social Need Clustering Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab

CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop / Lab Immagine POLIMI

CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop / Lab Immagine POLIMI

CIMULACT Codesign Workshop / Lab Immagine POLIMI

CIMULACT Codesign Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab CIMULACT Caravan Process / SDS

CIMULACT Caravan Process / SDS

CIMULACT Online Consultation

CIMULACT Online Consultation

An overview of the different codesign sessions within the 4 thematic cycles in the Creative Citizens project

82 90

91 95 96

Fi cn

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fig.

Fi

Cn

. 2.14

2.15

2.16

2.17

2.18

2.19

2.20 2.21 2.22 2.23

Creative Citizens Warm-up Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Creative Citizens Warm-up Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Creative Citizens Generative Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Creative Citizens Generative Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Creative Citizens Prototyping Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Creative Citizens Prototyping Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Collaborative Farmers / POLIMI DESIS Lab Collaborative Farmers / POLIMI DESIS Lab Farmer’s Food Box / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Codesigning the Farmer’s Food Box / POLIMI DESIS Lab Local Distribution System / POLIMI DESIS Lab

Local Distribution System / POLIMI DESIS Lab SPREAD Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab SPREAD Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab The Collaborative Design Framework

120 129

130 135

136 141

142 151 152 173

Acknowledgements

This book is the result of years of activity and experimentation and therefore we like to express our gratitude to many friends and colleagues.

Thus, our first thanks go to the colleagues of Politecnico and in particular to the Director of the Department of Design, Silvia Piardi, which has always kept the door open for free research and exploration, and to the dean of the School of Design of Politecnico di Milano, Luisa Collina, which has encouraged the introduction and flourishing of service design and codesign in the didactic programmes.

Then, we like to express gratitude to the closer (past and present) colleagues of the POLIMI DESIS Lab with whom we have worked on the projects described in this book and much more: Daria Cantù, Marta Carrera, Marta Corubolo, Davide Fassi, Laura Galluzzo, Chiara Galeazzi, Ana Maria Ospina Medina, Francesca Piredda, Liat Rogel, Daniela Sangiorgi, Giulia Simeone. Without them, things would be simply impossible...

A gigantic thanks goes to Ezio Manzini: our design “Maestro” and a never-ending source of inspiration and healthy self-criticism.

True gratitude goes also to Frangois Jégou and Christophe Gouache, with whom we are sharing, since a long time, research “adventures” around the globe. They are so good friends that accepted to contribute to this book!

Thanks also to Stefana Broadbent, who since a few years is letting us understand the beauty and the complexity of using ethnography in design, providing us with some basic rules to avoid (too) big mistakes. Thank you also for having accepted to contribute to this publication.

To Anna Seravalli and Carlo Franzato, instead, goes our gratitude for the suggestions and inputs for the book.

Last, but not least, we need to thank the projects’ consortium partners with whom we have worked in the research projects presented in this book: first of all, the CIMULACT consortium partners that shared with us the challenge of working with more than 5000 people across Europe. Then, the SPREAD consortium partners, with whom we understood the complexity of designing for 2050. Finally, we like to thank the Feeding Milan project partners and the Creative Citizens group, which gave us the possibility to learn to talk and work with communities of enthusiast dreamers and to try contributing to the quality of life in the city of Milan.

This publication has received funding from the European Union’s

Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant Agreement No. 665948, 2015-2018.

Authors

Anna Meroni is an architect, Ph.D in Design and Associate Professor of Design in the Department of Design at the Politecnico di Milano. Her research focus is on service and strategic design for sustainability to foster social innovation, participation and local development. Specific expertise has been developed in codesign methods and tools. She is the head of the international MSc program in Product Service System Design and coordinator of the POLIMI-DESIS Lab, the Milan based research lab of the DESIS-Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability Network.

Daniela Selloni is a Service Designer, Ph.D in Design, Research Fellow and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Design at the Politecnico di Milano. Her research interests cover service design and social innovation, focusing on citizen activism, sharing economy, methods and tools for codesign. She also acts in an advisory capacity for start-up incubation programmes and organisations from the private and third sectors. She is part of the POLIMI-DESIS Lab.

Martina Rossi is a Service Designer, Ph.D candidate and teaching assistant in the Department of Design at the Politecnico di Milano. Her research interests and professional activity deal with codesign processes, service design and design thinking, with a specific focus on the private sector. She is also active in engaging the service design community in a discussion about the discipline, therefore, she co-organizes the Service Design Drinks Milan. She is part of the POLIMI-DESIS Lab.

Contributors

Stefana Broadbent is the cofounder of Cleanweb which uses digital media to fight climate change. She is visiting Professor at the Politecnico di Milano and Fellow of the Centre for Digital Anthropology at UCL London. Her research focuses on the evolution of digital practices in society. In recent years she has worked on digital communication, collective intelligence, health and sustainability.

Christophe Gouache is design project manager at Strategic Design Scenarios. His focus is on sustainable and social innovation, collaborative and participative scenario building, prospective visions (prospective scenarios of future sustainable ways of living) and service design. He is working on various projects of public policy design and public innovation with local and regional authorities as well as ministries, and finally action-research projects at EU level.

Francois Jégou is founder and head of Strategic Design Scenarios. He has 20 years of experience in strategic design, participative scenario building and definition of new product-services-policy systems. Francois is a professor of strategic design at La Cambre, Brussels and Design manager of the Laboratory of Usage and Innovative Practices at the Cité du Design in Saint-Etienne, France. He is the Lead expert of URBACT and founding member of the DESIS Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability network.

Introduction

This book focuses on codesign, and, more specifically, on “massive codesign”: the idea that multiple and/or numerous participants having different voices collaborate in a design process broken down into different steps and formats and resulting in a relevant and diversified amount of data.

Services, strategies and scenarios are presented as the main field of application: these are complex items that demand complex processes be tackled, processes in which it is necessary to involve a variety of players who are largely interdependent and therefore who must collaborate in order to achieve any goal.

Moreover, the processes analysed in this book fall within the spheres of public participation and social innovation, two areas in which the most pressing challenges for codesign are currently arising, since they require collaboration both to practise a more extended idea of democracy and to develop solutions that correspond to collective social needs.

This book essentially makes two main contributions:

e a “Collaborative Design Framework” to identify and structure codesign activities, methods and tools within massive creative processes;

e a “set of quick lessons learnt” to provide guidance to the conception and organisation of other massive creative processes.

The whole book is oriented at practice: it discusses codesign activities from the designer’s point of view, detailing issues such as process from beginning to end, activity flow, manipulability of tools, roles and rules for participants and many others. It is intended as a support for designers dealing in massive codesign processes and aims towards improved results.

The book is divided into 3 main parts: e “Scoping Codesign” e “Experimenting with Codesign” e “Designing Codesign.”

(1) The first section is devoted to outlining the notion of codesign from different perspectives. It initially provides a synthesis of the main challenges for codesign today, highlighting how the idea of codesign has extended and blurred its boundaries, focusing in particular on the areas of public participation and social innovation. We then discuss codesign, also touching on anthropology and ethnography as codesign employs a number of methods with bases in these two fields, often misinterpreting and simplifying them.

More importantly, the first part introduces the Collaborative Design Framework which provides the structure for the analysis developed in the second part of the book. This framework, building upon the well-known Double Diamond design process, combines 2 polarities of concepts: one summarises the subject matter which drives design (between “topic-driven” and “concept-driven”); the other outlines the style of guidance by designers (between “facilitating” and “steering”). The result is a compass of 4 quadrants in which the various codesign activities may be positioned and highlight the evolution thereof from the initial stage of understanding a topic to the eventual development of a concept.

Finally, in order to understand what type of approaches and resources can be employed within this evolution, a basic glossary is provided defining key-notions such as boundary objects, tools and prototypes.

(2) The second part of the book analyses 4 applied-research activities according to the Collaborative Design Framework. They are:

e “CIMULACT”: a European research project involving citizens and a wide range of stakeholders in redefining the Research and Innovation Agenda for the Horizon 2020 programme;

e “Creative Citizens”: a codesign experiment devoted to developing services to improve the daily life of a Milanese neighbourhood, working with a group of citizens and multiple stakeholders;

e “Feeding Milan”: an action-research project funded by local institutions aiming at creating a network of services to connect farmers in the suburban area with consumers in the town;

e “SPREAD”: a European research project in which various societal stakeholders from business, research, policy and civil society backgrounds participated in the collaborative development of a vision for sustainable lifestyles in Europe by 2050.

All these projects include a number of codesign activities that are analysed by describing aims, participants, guidance style, subject matter, Double Diamond stage, environmental set-up, duration, main phases, boundary objects and final output.

This comparative analysis allows us not only to better understand how these projects worked, but above all, to focus on how the Collaborative Design Framework can be interpreted and what its possible applications and extensions may be.

(3) Building upon the projects illustrated above, the third part of the book presents a more detailed elaboration of the Collaborative Design Framework, expanding it with a set of lessons learnt and actionable recommendations. They may only serve as a few examples, however they aim to provide insight for other designers performing similar activities.

The quick lessons learnt refer mainly to 3 cluster groups: process, experience and boundary objects, and they specify each area providing

9 66 several focal points such as "engagement and recruitment”, “intensity and fun”, “relationships with participants”, “visual thinking”, etc.

The Collaborative Design Framework is detailed by characterising the activities of the 4 resulting quadrants: “discovering and exploring options”,

“imagining options beyond the world as it is”, “expanding and consolidating options”, “creating, envisioning and developing options”. A set of recommendations is provided for each area in order to make the framework more concrete and applicable, and thus, to provide a practical guidance for undertaking massive codesign processes.

The book concludes with a prediction: massive codesign processes should become standard, especially within public participation and social innovation spheres. They may help to improve results and, hopefully, increase the level of transparency, accountability and democracy.

PART 1: Scoping Codesign

The first part of the book looks at the notion of codesign. It opens with a reflection on the popularity that codesign has garnered in the last decade which has contributed in extending and blurring its boundaries. A brief history of codesign is then provided and the main current challenges are outlined, in particular highlighting those in the public participation and social innovation spheres.

To better complement this preparatory study, the relationship between codesign, anthropology and ethnography is clarified to avoid the recurrence of common misinterpretations and simplifications.

In particular, this first part introduces the framework used to structure our discourse on codesign throughout the whole book: it is the Collaborative Design Framework, adopted to analyse the case studies presented in the second part, to debate the various differences in terms of approaches, methods and tools and to provide suggestions and recommendations. Moreover, the outline is completed by a basic glossary that defines key-notions such as boundary objects, tools and prototypes.

1.1 Codesign Landscape Today

The last decade has seen the emergence of a great number of activities labelled as “codesign projects”, ranging over a variety of: technology, business, urban planning, community development and many others, encompassing private, public and third sectors.

There are a number of reasons behind the popularity of codesign: the most important one is that we currently live in an “era of participation” and “participatory culture” (Smith, Bossen and Kanstrup, 2017; Jenkins, 2006), in which people are able to contribute in new and unprecedented ways, sharing their interests and concerns thanks to the rise of the internet and Web 2.0 applications (Bannon and Ehn, 2012).

From public consultations, to codesign sessions, civic hackathons, and other forms of creative meetings or workshops: a great variety of participatory events and programmes are popping up all over the world, within companies, governments and organisations in general. This is also because the practice of collective creativity is considered promising in tackling the most pressing societal challenges: in order to solve complex problems it is necessary to include a multitude of diverse players.

The notion of codesign is precisely based on the idea that people having different voices should collaborate within a design process: this practice has been around for almost forty years under the label of participatory design, while the use of the expression “codesign” is a more recent conceptualisation.

In their studies, Sanders and Stappers (2008) attempted to connect codesign to the vast history of participatory practices by presenting it as the resulting convergence of 2 different approaches: the user-centred design approach, of American tradition, in which the user is considered an “object of study” and the participatory approach adopted by Scandinavian countries, characterised by a view of the user as a “partner”. In the first approach, designers use interviews as a method to observe and study users;

in the second one, users are considered “experts of their experience” and thus play a key role from idea generation to development, similar to the conceptualisation of “users as resources” suggested by Manzini (2015).

The notion of participatory design developed in Scandinavian countries mainly refers to the works by Ehn and his colleagues. In order to deal with the challenge posed by introducing new technologies in the work place during the Seventies, they assumed the simple standpoint that those affected by design should have a voice in the design process (Ehn, 1989). From the very beginning, this idea of participatory design was very political, because it was viewed not only as a way to enhance workers’ expertise but, above all, as a movement towards democratisation at work.

In a more recent article, Ehn describes how participatory design has evolved: he highlights a shift from participatory design aimed at working in companies to a participatory design devoted to enhancing processes of empowerment within communities (Ehn, 2008). He precisely defines this move as a shift from designing “things” (objects) to designing “Things” (socio-material assemblies of human and non-human elements), meaning that the object of design was changing - not only products, but more complex items, entering new environments that differ from companies in the private sector and also encompass everyday life and the public sphere.

In this book, we refer in particular to the codesign of complex items: services, strategies and scenarios. These require the participation of multiple and various actors from both the public and private spheres, and expert and non-expert domains that fall within a sort of “third” space.

According to Muller (2008), this “third space” is a fertile environment in which participants can combine diverse knowledge in new insights and action plans. Codesign was originally associated with the initial stages of a creative process, the “front end” activities of exploration and the generation of ideas (Sanders and Stappers 2008), but it is now increasingly valued as an opportunity to create a “third space” or “infrastructure” (Bjögvinsson, Ehn and Hillgren, 2012) that facilitate discourse and collaboration among diverse players involved in a creative process ranging from the initial ideas to actual implementation.

In this book we consider codesign as an activity generating services, strategies and scenarios conducted across the entire span of the creative process and, thus, not only in the moment of the exploration and generation of ideas, but also during the decision and deliberation processes. This is also related to a current stream of research into more extensive models of participation, especially in the public sector, encompassing codesign, codecision, co-production and co-evaluation, and, as a result, co-governing (Pollitt, Bouckaert and Löffler, 2006).

Today, therefore, the label “codesign” covers various forms of participation that, in a way, have contributed to expanding its semantic field, increasing its popularity and framing new challenges.

Bannon and Ehn (2012) attempted to outline these challenges that stress how codesign is blurring its boundaries.

They refer to them as participatory productions and they include:

* open innovation and Living Labs, e peer-production and maker spaces; e public participation and social innovation.

We will briefly discuss these areas, with special emphasis on the latter, as all the case studies analysed in this book fall under the sphere of public participation and social innovation.

Closed models of innovation are currently considered as having been overcome by more open models in which diverse contributions can be acquired wherever they are found (Chesbrough, 2003). This challenge of open innovation is closely linked to the establishment of more collaborative environments in which it is possible to co-create value with users and other players (Prahalad and Krishnan, 2008; Von Hippel, 2005), and, thus, to fruitfully make use of codesign methods and tools.

In this sense, the appearance of Living Labs in western countries may be seen as an attempt to create spaces for open innovation, highlighting the importance of engaging end-users and various stakeholders at all stages of development. This was the same for the emergence of what Binder (2007) calls design labs, in which the authorship of the design work is shared between the lab partners and stakeholders.

This discourse could also be applied to some Fab Labs and maker spaces: having sprung up around the world very rapidly over the past years, only a few of them, show a shift from “do-it-yourself” to “do-it-together” (Seravalli, 2011). Here, by adopting a codesign approach we can also facilitate the creation of networks that can then support peer-to-peer production and generate innovation.

Another of the main current challenges for codesign lies in public participation: in recent years, we have observed an increase in public consultations to improve the efficiency and transparency of public involvement in large-scale projects and, above all, to allow people to participate in decision-making processes and practise a more extended idea of democracy.

The use of public consultations has increased at different levels of governance, ranging from transnational to national, regional and local levels. In particular, the European Commission has launched numerous public consultations (EC - European Commission, 2017), concerning a diverse range of issues: one of these, CIMULACT (Citizen and Multi- Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020) will be studied further in the second part of this book. More specifically, our challenge lies in integrating codesign methods and tools in public consultations, attempting to improve the actual participation of citizens and stakeholders by enabling people to contribute better to transforming their needs into proposals for the future.

This reflection on codesign and public consultation is closely linked to the more extensive notion of public participation, in which different engagement mechanisms are defined. The most well-known framework for identifying the different levels of public participation is “Arnstein's ladder” (Arnstein, 1969), which has been repeatedly re-elaborated. One of the most significant is the classification developed by the International Association for Public Participation (IAP2, 2007), in which public participation is analysed for the different goals and from the point of view of the nation state. As such, it covers a wide spectrum of activities: information, consultation, involvement, collaboration and empowerment.

Here, we see a great challenge for codesign: how to facilitate a move from simple consultations to actual collaboration, in which “those who are consulted”, become, in a way, the artificers of “contents”, ranging from simple feed-back to more articulated contributions. In particular, the main issue for codesign is to overcome yes or no answers, facilitating the emergence of complex ideas, combining not only opinions, but also visions and proposals.

We believe that a greater reflection on public participation and codesign is needed. This is relevant not only for the theories, methods and profession of design, but above all to imagine new forms of democracy, in a moment in which the crisis of democracy has reached an all-time high all over the planet (Freedomhouse, 2018).

The final challenge for codesign that we wish to highlight is connected to social innovation, which is also the main field of investigation of our research group POLIMI DESIS Lab.

Social innovation can be many different things: a product, a process or a technology, but also a principle, a piece of legislation, a social movement, or a combination of the above (Phills et al., 2008).

They are new ideas that emerge for corresponding social needs (Murray et al., 2010) and they often include a variety of players such as end-users, technicians and entrepreneurs, local institutions and civil society organisations.

In this scenario, as Manzini (2015) suggests, designers must use their skills to sustain promising cases of social innovation to make them more visible by designing their products, services and communication programmes, and thus supporting the upscaling thereof. Manzini defines this set of design approaches, sensibilities and tools as a design for social innovation: it is not a brand new discipline, but a combination of product, communication, service and strategic design.

In particular, when dealing with social innovation, codesign appears to be crucial as it must provide space for the perspectives and active participation of a number of different players.

Codesign is a complex, contradictory, sometimes antagonistic process, in which different stakeholders (design experts included) propose their specific skills and culture. It is a social conversation in which everybody is allowed to bring ideas and take action, even though these ideas and actions could, at times, generate problems and tensions (Manzini, 2016, p. 58).

Here, Manzini outlines a codesign space which is the same area in which social innovation can occur: an arena open to debate and proposals from other cultural worlds, where shared experimentation and comparison of experiences across diverse sectors lead participants to confront real-life situations, combining different ideas and knowledge into a new design, that, hopefully, may generate social innovation.

Within this perspective, the term codesign refers to the organizing of open and social innovation processes that may provide solutions to the most pressing societal challenges. It is no coincidence that Selloni (2017), in the conclusion of her book on codesigning services, outlines a set of emerging features for codesign in the social and public spheres. To name but a few, they illustrate codesign as a form of citizen empowerment, as a precondition to co-production, as a public service and key competence for the public sector, and as a form of citizen participation and democracy.

By analysing a number of codesign activities carried out in 4 applied research projects in the areas of public participation and social innovation we will hereby attempt to structure codesign activities, methods and tools within a Collaborative Design Framework that will act as a guide in the organisation of “massive” creative processes. That is, processes that involve multiple and/or numerous participants in different steps and formats, and produce a relevant and diversified amount of data. Processes that, thus, reflect the increasing complexity of service design, dealing with complex service systems, value constellations and service ecosystems characterised by multi-player networks, largely interdependent but collaborating out of need (Sangiorgi et al., 2017).

We define these as “massive codesign processes” which are likely to become the new standard in improving results and which will, hopefully, increase the level of transparency, accountability and democracy of today’s design projects.

Arnstein, S. R. (1969), A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 35(4): 216-24.

Bannon, L. J. and Ehn, P. (2012), “Design: Design Matters in Participatory Design”, in Simonsen, J. and Robertsen, T. (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of Participatory Design. New York, NY.: Routledge, pp. 37-63.

Binder, T. (2007), “Why design: labs?”, in Design Inquiries, Nordes Conference, Stockholm.

Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P. and Hillgren, P.A. (2012), “Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges”, Design Issues, 28(3), 101-116.

Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology, Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press.

EC European Commission (2017), Your voice in Europe, Consultation, on line resource, available at: http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/2016/index en hm, accessed on 04/03/2018.

Ehn, P. (2008), Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the 10th Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design. New York: ACM.

Ehn, P. (1988), Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artefacts. Arbetslivscentrum, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.

Freedomhouse (2018), Democracy in Crisis: Freedom House Releases Freedom in the World 2018, on line resource, available at: https://freedomhouse.org/article/democracy-crisis-freedom-house-releasesfreedom-world-2018, accessed on 04/03/ 2018.

IAP2 - International Association for Public Participation (2007), Spectrum of public participation. Consultation, on line resource, available at: http://www.fgcu.edu/Provost/files/IAP Public Participation Spectrum.pdf, accessed on 04/03/2018.

Manzini, E. (2016), “Design Culture and Dialogic Design”, Design Issues, Vol. 32, 1: 52-59.

Manzini, E. (2015), Design, When Everybody Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Muller, M. J. (2002), “Participatory design: the third space in HCT”, in Sears, J.A. The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1051-1068). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.

Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010), The Open Book of Social Innovation. London: The Young Foundation, Nesta.

Phills, J.A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D.T. (2008), Rediscovering Social Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review - Fall 2008.

Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G. and Löffler, E. (2006), Making quality sustainable: codesign, codesign, co-produce and co-evaluate. Scientific Rapporteurs, 4QZ conference.

Prahalad, C. K. and Krishnan, M. S. (2008), The New Age of Innovation: Driving Co-created Value through Global Networks, New York: McGraw-Hill.

Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the New Landscapes of Design”, CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the Arts, Vol. 4, 1 - Design Participation(-s): 5-18.

Sangiorgi, D., Patricio, L. and Fisk, R. (2017), “Designing for Interdependence, Participation and Emergence in Complex Service Systems”, in Sangiorgi, D. and Prendiville, A., edited by, Designing for Service: Key Issues and New Directions, London: Bloomsbury Press, pp. 49-64.

Selloni, D. (2017), CoDesign for Public Interest Services, Springer International Publishing.

Seravalli, A. (2011), Democratizing production: challenges in codesigning enabling platforms for social innovation, paper presented at “The Tao of Sustainability”, an international conference on sustainable design strategies in a globalisation contest, Beijing, 27-29 October.

Smith, R.C., Bossen, C. and Kanstrup, A.M. (2017), Participatory design in an era of participation. CoDesign Journal, 13:2, 65-69.

von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

1.2 Anthropology, Ethnography and Massive Codesign for Complex Services

By Stefana Broadbent

Anthropologists have a tense relationship with rapid design-oriented ethnography. Although applied ethnography has extracted anthropology from the enclosure of a purely academic discipline and projected it at the forefront of practically all digital development and service design, anthropologists often feel there is an undue reduction of methods and theory leading to an extreme simplification of the social sphere. This tension is often discussed (Baba, 2005; Ingold, 2017) and is an undercurrent of much of the bridging work done by associations such as EPIC (the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference).

1.2.1 Design Oriented Rapid Ethnography

The causes for contention are multiple, the principal one being the difference in time spent in the field, a question of days in design ethnography and months or years in anthropology. However there are also issues regarding the topics investigated, the explanatory frameworks invoked to interpret observations, and even questions of ethics in regards to the instrumental relation with informants.