Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contexts of Co-creation: Designing with System Stakeholders

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Systemic Design

Part of the book series: Translational Systems Sciences ((TSS,volume 8))

Abstract

The concept of co-creation includes a wide range of participatory practices for design and decision making with stakeholders and users. Generally co-creation refers to a style of design or business practice characterized by facilitated participation in orchestrated multi-stakeholder engagements, such as structured workshops and self-organizing modes of engagement. Co-creation envelopes a wide range of skilled social practices that can considerably inform and enhance the effectiveness of organizational development, collaboration, and positive group outcomes. New modes of co-creation have emerged, evolving from legacy forms of engagement such as participatory design and charrettes and newer forms such as collaboratories, generative design, sprints, and labs. Often sessions are structured by methods that recommend common steps or stages, as in design thinking workshops, and some are explicitly undirected and open. While practices abound, we find almost no research theorizing the effectiveness of these models compared to conventional structures of facilitation. As co-creation approaches have become central to systemic design, service design, and participatory design practices, a practice theory from which models might be selected and modified would offer value to practitioners and the literature. The framework that follows was evolved from and assessed by a practice theory of dialogic design. It is intended to guide the development of principles-based guidelines for co-creation practice, which might methodologically bridge the wide epistemological variances that remain unacknowledged in stakeholder co-creation practice.

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 169.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 219.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover 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

Notes

  1. 1.

    This observation is made based on the author’s personal involvement across many group method communities of practice, from the period of research for Handbook of Team Design (1998) and continuing into the latest design thinking practice groups, including international online communities and conference-based communities.

  2. 2.

    Two widely cited discussions, although not systematic reviews, include Mingers and Rosenhead (2004) and Midgley, Cavana, Brocklesby, Foote, Wood, and Ahuriri-Driscoll (2013).

  3. 3.

    Jones (2009) joined this argument by suggesting that systems thinking was not widely adopted because it failed to address the everyday coping practices of managers, not that it failed as a reasoning mode per se. This proposal suggests a blend of systems thinking with design tools might better resolve complex concerns in innovation contexts.

  4. 4.

    The DoSM is extended (in the mathematical sense of a logical continuation of a set) to construct a reference model of the performance of collective design practices, commensurate with science and practice.

  5. 5.

    Institute for 21st Century Agoras, the non-profit organization established to sustain SDD practice and studies with the social purpose of democratic transformation through structured dialogue

  6. 6.

    The seven axioms (and laws of dialogue) are significant in themselves as design propositions for dialogic co-creation and are presented in the Framework section.

  7. 7.

    Institute for 21st Century Agoras is a non-profit organization established by Alexander Christakis and a core group of senior practitioners and scholars dedicated to the development of democratic practices based on dialogic design science.

  8. 8.

    The primary software systems for SDD include Cogniscope 3 and logosofia. Emerging platforms such as Idea Prism (Future Worlds Centre) are being developed for large-scale remote participation. The Interpretive Structural Modelling algorithm is technically a public domain routine but is developed and maintained within the practice communities that use it regularly, inclusive of the development teams for the SDD software.

  9. 9.

    Open IDEO (openideo.com) provides resources for design thinking and co-creation in member-led design challenges, most of which are public sector or community value projects, attesting to the “open” reference in the organization.

  10. 10.

    The seven definitional axioms of dialogic design science had evolved over a decade of practice and reflection and were instantiated as seven axioms in 2012 (with the addition of the final axiom 7). A tradition within the community of practice is to identify the original contributor of the proposal by name, without reference to a specific work but by affirmation.

  11. 11.

    Retroductive inquiry has been known for some time as backcasting and has been used recently in social science work in the dialogic design practice, e.g. Romm, N.R. (2013). Revisiting social dominance theory: Invoking a more retroductively-oriented approach to systemic theorizing. Systemic Practice and Action Research, 26(2), 111–129.

  12. 12.

    Design with Dialogue is a monthly open dialogue series at OCAD University in Toronto, which holds a continuous learning community for organizational and social transformation through design facilitation of dialogic practices. Hosted as a public agora since 2008, the online site is found at http://designwithdialogue.com.

  13. 13.

    Design Kit from IDEO.org http://www.designkit.org provides a set of handbooks, a website, and resources for learning basic designing practices for human-centred design.

  14. 14.

    See Liberating Structures: Lipmanowicz, H., & McCandless, K. (2014). The surprising power of liberating structures: Simple rules to unleash a culture of innovation. Seattle, WA: Liberating Structures Press.

References

  • Aguirre, M., Agudelo, N., & Romm, J. (2017). Design facilitation as emerging practice: Analyzing how designers support multi-stakeholder co-creation. She Ji: The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation, 3(3), 198–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, W. R. (1958). Requisite variety and its implications for the control of complex systems. Cybernetica, 1, 83–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banfield, R., Lombardo, C. T., & Wax, T. (2015). Design sprint: A practical guidebook for building great digital products. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly Media.

    Google Scholar 

  • Basadur, M., Basadur, T., & Licina, G. (2012). Organizational development. In M. D. Mumford (Ed.), Handbook of organizational creativity (pp. 667–703). London: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Basadur, M., Basadur, T., & Licina, G. (2013). Simplexity thinking. In Encyclopedia of creativity, invention, innovation and entrepreneurship (pp. 1617–1634). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Bausch, K. C., & Flanagan, T. R. (2013). A confluence of third-phase science and dialogic design science. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 30(4), 414–429.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bjerknes, G., Ehn, P., Kyng, M., & Nygaard, K. (1987). Computers and democracy: A Scandinavian challenge. Aldershot, UK: Gower Publishing Limited.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boulding, K. (1966). The impact of social sciences. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T., & Katz, B. (2011). Change by design. Journal of Product Innovation Management, 28(3), 381–383.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Buxton, B. (2008). The long nose of innovation. Businessweek Insight, 11, 27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carmel, E., Whitaker, R. D., & George, J. F. (1993). PD and joint application design: A transatlantic comparison. Communications of the ACM, 36(6), 40–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, A. N., & Bausch, K. C. (2006). How people harness their collective wisdom and power to construct the future in co-laboratories of democracy. Greenwich, CN: Information Age Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, A. N., & Dye, K. (2008). The Cogniscope:™ Lessons learned in the arena. In P. Jenlink (Ed.), Dialogue as a collective means of design conversation (pp. 187–203). Boston, MA: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Christakis, A. N., & Flanagan, T. R. (2011). Referential transparency for dialogic design science. Technical Report. Institute for 21st Century Agoras.

    Google Scholar 

  • Churchman, C. W. (1971). The design of inquiring systems: Basic concepts of systems and organization. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collopy, F. (2009). Lessons learned – Why the failure of systems thinking should inform the future of design thinking. Fast Company, June 7, 2009. Retrieved from www.fastcompany.com/1291598/ lessons-learned-whyfailure- systems-thinking-should-inform-future-design-thinking

  • Conklin, J. (2006). Dialogue mapping. Building shared understanding of wicked problems. West Sussex, UK: Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider, D. L., & Srivastva, S. (1987). Appreciative inquiry in organizational life. Research in Organizational Change and Development, 1(1), 129–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooperrider, D., Whitney, D. D., & Stavros, J. M. (2008). The Appreciative Inquiry handbook: For leaders of change. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emery, M., & Purser, R. E. (1996). The search conference: A powerful method for planning organizational change and community action. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Espinosa, A., & Harnden, R. (2007). Team Syntegrity and democratic group decision making: Theory and practice. Journal of the Operational Research Society, 58(8), 1056–1064.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frankfurt, H. G. (1958). Peirce’s notion of abduction. The Journal of Philosophy, 55(14), 593–597.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Frow, P., Nenonen, S., Payne, A., & Storbacka, K. (2015). Managing co-creation design: A strategic approach to innovation. British Journal of Management, 26(3), 463–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Galvagno, M., & Dalli, D. (2014). Theory of value co-creation: A systematic literature review. Managing Service Quality, 24(6), 643–683.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ind, N., & Coates, N. (2013). The meanings of co-creation. European Business Review, 25(1), 86–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Irwin, T. (2015). Transition design: A proposal for a new area of design practice, study, and research. Design and Culture, 7(2), 229–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isaacs, W. N. (1993). Taking flight: Dialogue, collective thinking, and organizational learning. Organizational Dynamics, 22(2), 24–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. H. (1998). Team design: A practitioner’s guide to collaborative innovation. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. H. (2009). Learning the lessons of systems thinking: Exploring the gap between thinking and leadership. Integral Leadership Review, IX(4), 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. H. (2014). Systemic design principles for complex social systems. In G. Metcalfe (Ed.), Social systems and design (pp. 91–128). Tokyo: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. H. (2015). Design research methods for systemic design: Perspectives from design education and practice. In Proceedings of the 58th Annual Meeting of the ISSS. Berlin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, P. H. (2017). Assembling requisite stakeholder variety in foresight practice. In Proceedings of Anticipation 2017. November 8–10, 2018, London, UK.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jungk, R., & Müllert, N. (1987). Future workshops: How to create desirable futures. London: Institute for Social Inventions.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kakoulaki, M., & Christakis, A. N. (2018). Demoscopio: The demosensual [R]evolutionary Eutopia. In J. McIntyre-Mills, N. Romm & Y. Corcoran-Nantes (Eds.), Balancing individualism and collectivism (pp. 429–460). Contemporary Systems Thinking. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K. (2000). Propositions of human-centeredness; A philosophy for design. In D. Durling & K. Friedman (Eds.), Doctoral education in design: Foundations for the future. July 8–12, 2000, La Clusaz, France (pp. 55–63). Staffordshire, UK: Staffordshire University Press. Retrieved from: repository.upenn.edu/asc_papers/210

  • Kunz, W., & Rittel, H. W. (1970). Issues as elements of information systems (Vol. 131). Berkeley, CA: Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lasswell, H. D. (1959). Strategies of inquiry: The rational use of observation. In D. Lerner (Ed.), The human meaning of the social sciences (pp. 89–113). New York: Meridian Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Latour, B. (2013). An inquiry into modes of existence. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leonard, A. (1996). Team Syntegrity: A new methodology for group work. European Management Journal, 14(4), 407–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory and social science. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Midgley, G., Cavana, R. Y., Brocklesby, J., Foote, J. L., Wood, D. R., & Ahuriri-Driscoll, A. (2013). Towards a new framework for evaluating systemic problem structuring methods. European Journal of Operational Research, 229(1), 143–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mingers, J., & Rosenhead, J. (2004). Problem structuring methods in action. European Journal of Operational Research, 152(3), 530–554.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mintzberg, H. (1985). The organization as political arena. Journal of Management Studies, 22(2), 133–154.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muller, M. J. (2003). Participatory design: The third space in HCI. In A. Sears & L. A. Jacko (Eds.), Human-computer interaction: Development process (Vol. 4235, pp. 165–185). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nadler, G. (1981). Planning and design approach. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, H. G., & Stolterman, E. (2012). The design way: Intentional change in an unpredictable world. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Scribner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Owen, H. (1987). Spirit: Transformation and development in organizations. Potomac, MD: Abbott Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Özbekhan, H. (1969). Toward a general theory of planning. Management and Behavioral Science Center Technical Report. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Patton, M. Q. (2010). Developmental evaluation: Applying complexity concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pourdehnad, J., Wilson, D., & Wexler, E. (2011, September). Systems & design thinking: A conceptual framework for their integration. In Proceedings of the 55th Annual Meeting of the ISSS. Hull, UK (Vol. 55, No. 1).

    Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004a). Co-creating unique value with customers. Strategy & leadership, 32(3), 4–9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004b). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renn, O. (1993). The social arena concept of risk debates. In S. Krimsky (Ed.), Social theories of risk (pp. 179–196). Westport, CN: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, T., & Simonsen, J. (2012). Participatory design. In Routledge international handbook of participatory design (pp. 1–18). London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. Co-design, 4(1), 5–18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2012). Convivial design toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senge, P. (1990). The fifth discipline: The art and science of the learning organization. New York: Currency Doubleday.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tsivacou, I. (2005). The ideal of autonomy from the viewpoint of functional differentiation/integration of society. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 22(6), 509–524.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • VanPatter, G. K., & Pastor, E. (2016). Innovation methods mapping. New York: Humantific Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vargo, S. L., Maglio, P. P., & Akaka, M. A. (2008). On value and value co-creation: A service systems and service logic perspective. European Management Journal, 26(3), 145–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Von Foerster, H. (2003). Cybernetics of cybernetics. In H. von Foerster (Ed.), Understanding: Understanding (pp. 283–286). New York: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Voorberg, W. H., Bekkers, V. J., & Tummers, L. G. (2015). A systematic review of co-creation and co-production: Embarking on the social innovation journey. Public Management Review, 17(9), 1333–1357.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1986). The domain of science model: Evolution and design. In Proceedings of 30th Meeting Society for General Systems Research. Salinas: Intersystems, H46–H59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1994). Science of generic design: Managing complexity through systems design. Ames, IA: Iowa State Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (1999). Twenty laws of complexity: Science applicable in organizations. Systems Research and Behavioral Science, 16(1), 3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N. (2007). Systems science serves enterprise integration: A tutorial. Enterprise Information Systems, 1(2), 235–254.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warfield, J. N., & Cárdenas, A. R. (1994). A handbook of Interactive Management. Ames, IA: Iowa State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weigand, K., Flanagan, T. R., Dye, K. M. C., & Jones, P. (2014). Collaborative foresight: Complementing long-horizon strategic planning. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 85, 134–152.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weisbord, M. R. (1992). Discovering common ground. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Westley, F., Zimmerman, B., & Patton, M. (2009). Getting to maybe: How the world is changed. Toronto, ON: Vintage Canada.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I am grateful to Alexander Christakis and Thomas Flanagan for their reviews, challenging questions, and commentaries that informed and contributed to this article. As with any project larger than a single paper, the ideas in this study will continue in practice and in future discourse. I also express my appreciation for insights contributed in exchanges with Kevin Dye, Jeff Diedrich, and Kirk Weigand.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. OCAD University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Peter Jones

Authors
  1. Peter Jones
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Peter Jones .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. OCAD University, Toronto, ON, Canada

    Peter Jones

  2. Graduate School of Decision Science and Technology, Tokyo Institute of Technology, Meguro, Tokyo, Japan

    Kyoichi Kijima

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer Japan KK, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jones, P. (2018). Contexts of Co-creation: Designing with System Stakeholders. In: Jones, P., Kijima, K. (eds) Systemic Design. Translational Systems Sciences, vol 8. Springer, Tokyo. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-4-431-55639-8_1

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation