Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Operationalising Co-design: Development of an ICT Platform to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in Water Sensitive Design

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Design Science Research for a New Society: Society 5.0 (DESRIST 2023)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 13873))

Abstract

Co-design is considered a critical success method for designing efficient solutions. However, this method presents challenges when working with wicked problems because participants come from different backgrounds and disciplines. Through a case study review, this study describes the operationalisation of the co-design approach to develop an Information Communication Technology (ICT) platform to address the complex, wicked problem faced in Water Sensitive Design (WSD), namely stakeholder engagement. The ICT platform aimed to integrate data from different disciplines to facilitate the collaboration and engagement of WSD stakeholders. Participants were involved in five different co-design cycles to reach a strategic solution. This study aimed to fill the gap of the co-design method regarding its operationalisation from project inception to delivery.

The study adopts a pragmatism philosophy to demonstrate how co-design could be executed entirely online using a sequential and evolving series of co-design workshops following the cycles developed by Ssozi-mugarura, Blake, and Rivett [37] and the factors for effective co-design developed by Yokota et al. [33]. Previous studies conclude that the two theoretical frameworks are feasible, convenient, and efficient due to their simplicity. However, relying solely on the co-design cycles without the aid of factors for effective co-design would not be sufficient to operationalise the co-design of an ICT platform from project inception to completion, as the two do not serve as complete instructional models on their own. Hence, a comprehensive model was created that combines these two models systematically and thoroughly. This study makes significant theoretical and methodological contributions, guiding future researchers and practitioners to run co-design sessions online with multiple and cross-sectoral stakeholder teams.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 89.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Meijerink, S., Huitema, D.: The challenges and pitfalls of decentralisation in water resources management. http://hdl.handle.net/2066/152795

  2. Grzybowski, M., Glińska-Lewczuk, K.: Principal threats to the conservation of freshwater habitats in the continental biogeographical region of Central Europe. Biodivers. Conserv. 28(14), 4065–4097 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10531-019-01865-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Adom, R.K., Simatele, M.D.: The role of stakeholder engagement in sustainable water resource management in South Africa. Nat. Resour. Forum 46, 410–412 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1111/1477-8947.12264

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Sigalla, O.Z., Tumbo, M., Joseph, J.: Multi-stakeholder platform in water resources management: a critical analysis of stakeholders’ participation for sustainable water resources. Sustainability 13(16), 9260 (2021). https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169260

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. UnitedNations (UN). The Seventeen (17) Sustainable Development Goals, New York, USA (2015). https://sdgs.un.org/goals. Accessed 09 Jan 2023

  6. Dentoni, D., Bitzer, V., Schouten, G.: Harnessing wicked problems in multi-stakeholder partnerships. J. Bus. Ethics 150(2), 333–356 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-018-3858-6

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Burkett, I.: An introduction to co-design (2011). http://www.csi.edu.au/

  8. Siew, T.F., et al.: Transdisciplinary research in support of land and water management in China and Southeast Asia: evaluation of four research projects. Sustain. Sci. 11(5), 813–829 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-016-0378-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Babbie, E.R.: The practice of social research: cengage learning (2016). https://www.worldcat.org/title/practice-of-social-research/oclc/939265246. Accessed 26 March 2023

  10. Peters, B.: Qualitative methods in monitoring and evaluation: concept formation and operationalization, America University Washington DC (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fisher-Jeffes, L., Carden, K., Armitage, N., Borwa, A.: A water sensitive urban design framework for South Africa. Town Reg. Plann. 71(1), 1 (2017). https://doi.org/10.18820/2415-0495/trp71i1.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. FutureWater. Water Sensitive Design. FuturebWater (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Adeyeye, K., Tram, D.: Integrated water sensitive design: opportunities and barriers to implementation, pp. 214–217 (2016). https://www.watefnetwork.co.uk/files/default/resources/Conference2016/Session_Eight/47-TRAM.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2022

  14. Barraclough, B.C.L., Bio, R.P., Lucey, W.P., Bio, M.S.R.P, Urban, W.: Water-sensitive urban design (2008)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Hidaka, C.E., Kolar, H.R., Williams, R.P., Hartswick, P.G., Foong, S.B.: Collaboration platforms in water management. Water Pract. Technol. 6(3) (2011). https://doi.org/10.2166/wpt.2011.062

  16. Anna, S.T., Krozer, Y.: Wicked Water Systems: A Review of Challenges and Opportunities. IntechOpen (2017). https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.71914

  17. Simon, J.W.: Stakeholder analysis and wicked problems. In: Farazmand, A. (ed.) Global Encyclopedia of Public Administration, Public Policy, and Governance, pp. 1–6. Springer, Cham (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-31816-5_2710-1

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  18. Sanya, T.: Freshwater: towards a better understanding of a wicked problem. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Sustain. Dev. 5(2), 48 (2020). https://doi.org/10.21625/essd.v5i2.759

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Dewulf, A.: Contrasting frames in policy debates on climate change adaptation. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Change 4(4), 321–330 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. OECD. Stakeholder engagement for inclusive water governance (2015). https://www.riob.org/sites/default/files/IMG/pdf/Stakeholder_Engagement_for_Inclusive_Water_Governance_clean_24dec2014.pdf. Accessed 26 May 2022

  21. WorldWaterForum. World Water Forum (2022). https://worldwaterforum.org/. Accessed 09 Jan 2023

  22. Rivett, U., et al.: Community engagement in drinking water supply management: a review. Wrc K5/2114, pp. 1–67 (2014). ISBN 978-1-4312-0506-8

    Google Scholar 

  23. Nyati, L.: Public participation: what has the constitutional court given the public? (2008). https://www.saflii.org/za/journals/LDD/2008/15.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2022

  24. McNaughton, J.: Water sensitive design - an interview with Tony Wong, Kaitiaki Wai (2022). https://www.wellingtonwater.co.nz/kaitiaki-wai/blog/water-sensitive-design-making-cities-of-the-future-places-where-people-want-to-live-and-work/. Accessed 02 July 2022

  25. WRC. Water research commission corporate plan (2019). https://www.wrc.org.za/wp-content/uploads/WRC_Corporate-Plan_final.pdf. Accessed 27 May 2022

  26. NCOSS. Principles of co-design (2017). https://www.ncoss.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Codesign-principles.pdf. Accessed 02 July 2022

  27. Pinkston, R.: Participatory design thinking, the social design toolkit (2022). https://socialdesigntoolkit.com/process/participatory-design-thinking/. Accessed 09 Jan 2023

  28. Moser, S.C.: Can science on transformation transform science? Lessons from co-design. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 20, 106–115 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.10.007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Steen, M., Manschot, M., de Koning, N.: Benefits of co-design in service design projects (2011). http://www.ijdesign.org/index.php/IJDesign/article/view/890. Accessed 08 May 2022

  30. Cockbill, S.A., May, A., Mitchell, V.: The assessment of meaningful outcomes from co-design: a case study from the energy sector. She Ji 5(3), 188–208 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sheji.2019.07.004

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Magnusson, P.R.: Benefits of involving users in service innovation. Eur. J. Innov. Manag. 6(4), 228–238 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1108/14601060310500940

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Trischler, J., Dietrich, T., Rundle-Thiele, S.: Co-design: from expert- to user-driven ideas in public service design. Public Manag. Rev. 21(11), 1595–1619 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1080/14719037.2019.1619810

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Yokota, F., et al.: Lessons learned from co-design and co-production in a portable health clinic research project in Jaipur district, India (2016–2018). Sustainability 10(11), 1–16 (2018). https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114148

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Page, G.G., et al.: Co-designing transformation research: lessons learned from research on deliberate practices for transformation. Curr. Opin. Environ. Sustain. 20, 86–92 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cosust.2016.09.001

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Lang, D.J., et al.: Transdisciplinary research in sustainability science: Practice, principles, and challenges. Sustain. Sci. 7(Suppl. 1), 25–43 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-011-0149-x

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Leinonen, T.: Designing learning tools for learning by design (2010). https://www.academia.edu/2722657/Designing_Learning_Tools_for_Learning_by_Design. Accessed 31 Dec 2022

  37. Ssozi-mugarura, F., Blake, E., Rivett, U.: Codesigning with communities to support rural water management in Uganda. CoDesign 0882, 1–17 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1080/15710882.2017.1310904

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Reponen, S.: Co-design framework, learning layers results (2018). http://results.learning-layers.eu/methods/co-design/#:text=development%20when%20applicable.-,Theoretical%20framework%20for%20co%2Ddesign%20process,best%20possible%20artifact%20or%20tool. Accessed 08 May 2022

  39. Peacock, A.: Difference between co-design & Participatory design. Passio, vol. 10 (2020). https://passio.co.uk/2020/09/10/difference-between-co-design-participatory-design/. Accessed 09 Jan 2023

  40. Wynn, D.C., Eckert, C.M.: Perspectives on iteration in design and development. Res. Eng. Design 28(2), 153–184 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00163-016-0226-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Pirinen, A.: The barriers and enablers of co-design for services boundary-crossing collaboration and organisational change (2016). www.ijdesign.org

  42. Trischler, J., Kristensson, P., Scott, D.: Team diversity and its management in a co- design team. J. Serv. Manag. 29(1), 120–145 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1108/JOSM-10-2016-0283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Bano, M., Zowghi, D.: A systematic review on the relationship between user involvement and system success. Inf. Softw. Technol. 58, 148–169 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2014.06.011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Bano, M., Zowghi, D., da Rimini, F.: User satisfaction and system success: an empirical exploration of user involvement in software development. Empir. Softw. Eng. 22(5), 2339–2372 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10664-016-9465-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Harris, M.A., Weistroffer, H.R.: A new look at the relationship between user involvement in systems development and system success. Commun. Assoc. Inf. Sys. 24(1), 739–756 (2009). https://doi.org/10.17705/1cais.02442

  46. Buchan, J., Bano, M., Zowghi, D., MacDonell, S., Shinde, A.: Alignment of stakeholder expectations about user involvement in agile software development. In: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering, pp. 334–343 (2017)

    Google Scholar 

  47. Noble, H., Smith, J.: Issues of validity and reliability in qualitative research. Evid.-Based Nurs. 18, 34–35 (2015)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Della Rossa, P., Mottes, C., Cattan, P., Le Bail, M.: A new method to co-design agricultural systems at the territorial scale - application to reduce herbicide pollution in Martinique. Agric. Syst. 196, 103337 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2021.103337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Bird, M., et al.: A generative co-design framework for healthcare innovation: development and application of an end-user engagement framework. Res. Involv. Engagem. 7, 1–12 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00252-7

    Article  Google Scholar 

  50. Greenhalgh, T., et al.: Frameworks for supporting patient and public involvement in research: systematic review and co-design pilot. Health Expect. 22(4), 785–801 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.12888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Sanders, E.B.N., Stappers, P.J.: Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. In: TEI 2020 - Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, pp. 799–809. Association for Computing Machinery (2007). https://doi.org/10.1080/15710880701875068

  52. Naqshbandi, M., Harris, S.B., Macaulay, A.C., Comeau, J., Piché, J., Montour-Lazare, D.: Work-in-progress & lessons learned lessons learned in using community-based participatory research to build a national diabetes collaborative in Canada (2011)

    Google Scholar 

  53. Barbier, R., Yahia, S.B., Masson, L.E., Weil, B.: Co-design for novelty anchoring into multiple socio-technical systems in transitions: the case of earth observation data (2022)

    Google Scholar 

  54. Plutynski, A.: Four problems of abduction: a brief history. HOPOS: J. Int. Soc. Hist. Philos. Sci. 1(2), 227–248 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1086/660746

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Commerce, Information Systems, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Lina Ntomene Lukusa, Ulrike Rivett & Shallen Lusinga

  2. School of Architecture, Planning and Geomatics, University of Cape Town, Cape Town, South Africa

    Tom Sanya

Authors
  1. Lina Ntomene Lukusa
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ulrike Rivett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Tom Sanya
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Shallen Lusinga
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. University of the Western Cape, Cape Town, South Africa

    Aurona Gerber

  2. Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA, USA

    Richard Baskerville

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2023 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG

About this paper

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this paper

Lukusa, L.N., Rivett, U., Sanya, T., Lusinga, S. (2023). Operationalising Co-design: Development of an ICT Platform to Facilitate Stakeholder Engagement in Water Sensitive Design. In: Gerber, A., Baskerville, R. (eds) Design Science Research for a New Society: Society 5.0. DESRIST 2023. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 13873. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32808-4_26

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-32808-4_26

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-031-32807-7

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-031-32808-4

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation