Realising the Potential of Co-production Pilot Project Report Pro-Forma [of the order of 5,000 words total]
Section 1: Project Details Name of Project Building capacity and reflexive learning for urban co-production: A scoping study for a ‘Leeds co-production lab’ Lead Person/institution Prof Paul Chatterton, School of Geography, University of Leeds Contributors to the report This report was drafted by Paul Chatterton (lead PI) with major contributions from the researcher Yun Wing Ng. It was circulated for comment to all project partners whose comments were incorporated into the final draft. Section 3 contains extracts from project partners who responded to specific requests to provide information. Stated aim of the project (summarised from proposal) Social, economic and political change places increased responsibility on local communities and institutions to work differently to respond to grand challenges such as climate change, low economic growth and widening inequality. To meet these challenges, policy innovation based on more inclusive processes is needed. Co-production, by linking inclusion to innovation through face-to-face participation, can be a key tool in these efforts. While the potential of co-production is increasingly recognized, it is very much in formation. This project explores the learning, capacity building and delivery potential of a partnershipbased initiative, the ‘Leeds co-production lab’. The lab will be a vehicle for bringing together residents, local universities, businesses, government agencies, third-sector and civil-society organizations to experiment with localized decision-making, shared research, policy-planning and other activities. Stated activities of the project (summarised from proposal) The research is completed through three phases. The first phase involves refining and finalising research questions, forming learning clusters, exploring shared understandings of co-production and best practice of city-lab models. The second phase involves three
identical workshops with each learning cluster exploring the key research questions. The final phase brings together project partners in an interactive day-long workshop to reflect and learn from the results and produce a final report. Each workshop includes the following: 1.
2.
3.
A world cafĂŠ style discussion to gain detailed reflections based around the research questions and a summary of the shared understanding of co-production from Phase One; An ‘innovations showcase’ where each cluster presents what they see as transformational practice in terms of elements that could constitute a city coproduction lab; A group scenario exercise where each learning cluster uses multimedia and visual materials to develop and present a working model of their ideal city co-production lab.
In the final phase, the project partners and researchers hold an interactive day long workshop to reflect and learn from the results and produce a final report in the form of an action learning plan.
Section 2: Review Actual project activities [200 words] There were several activities during the project. First, there was a series of workshops organised over the three project phases. In Phase One, an initial workshop was held at ODI Leeds which explored the initial meanings of co-production. Five clustered themes emerged: the importance of process, risk and uncertainty, equality and power, ethics and emotions and crossing boundaries. We came up with an initial local definition: Co-production involves establishing a process in a time and place in which people who have some common stake in a project, idea, or place are willing to cross boundaries (organizational, disciplinary, spatial, power) that might normally divide them. These kinds of boundary crossings create potential to discuss issues that matter, uncertain of what will come out of this sharing. Participants put their own ideas at risk, committed to doing so in an egalitarian way that rejects the use of power, and instead commit to communicating with compassion, intimacy, and honesty - exposing vulnerabilities which can unearth the hidden strengths in shared understandings. Phase Two involved three learning workshops, each held at one of our case study prototype spaces. The first learning workshop was held at Leeds ODI, an existing co-
production space to mark their first anniversary in the space. We used the overall framing question: What is your experience of co-production at ODI Leeds? It provided the opportunity for our co-hosts to evaluate on the space’s achievements and development to date and brainstorm how the space and operations could be improved in the future. The second learning workshop was held at the City Workshop space, a totally new space cohosted by Leeds City Council at the Tetley arts centre. The focus question was: How can we use the ‘city workshop’ concept to promote new ideas and collaborative working for the regeneration of Leeds? This workshop provided opportunity for the co-hosts, partners and participants to discuss the motives behind establishing this space and brainstorm potential activities and guiding principles to inform its future. The final workshop was organised with a partnership called LeedsACTS! (Academic Collaboration with the Third Sector) between members of the city’s universities and third sector organisations. The framing question was: What is your experience of co-production between HE and the Third Sector? This was hosted at a social enterprise centre called Shine in the Harehills neighbourhood of Leeds, rather than a pre-identified prototype co-production space. This was interesting in itself as it highlighted that neither the University nor the third sector in the city has its own dedicated co-production space. Therefore, the reflections below are pertinent more to the ongoing activities of the universities and third sector partnership, rather than the use and activities of an ongoing space. Phase Three involved a final workshop hosted at the University of Leeds where project partners explored self-defined topics which included: Skills/values/language/ translation; inclusiveness; time-banking; urban commons; links to the university Cities theme; articulating the ecosystem. Partners also undertook an initial timeline planning exercise of next steps. For each Phase an interim report was produced, each of which had raw data write ups as appendices. In addition to the workshops there were a number of other activities which included: ● ● ● ●
Monthly steering meetings between the researcher and PI’s Meetings with prototype space co-host partners to prepare for workshops Interviews with prototype space co-hosts to follow up key research questions Participation in activities in the prototype spaces by the researcher to gain further insight into daily practices ● A small number blog reflections written by project partners that were posted on the Co-Producing Knowledge website hosted by Sheffield University ● A twitter account using @leedscitylab ● A website (www.leedscitylab.wordpress.com) where project information has been posted.
What were the outcomes of the project? [200 words] Outcomes can be grouped under a number of different themes: Establishing a direction: The project allowed project partners to explore what could be possible and feasible and discuss values and principles that could guide the project. It also allowed exploration of parameters and boundaries for what could be achieved, what would and would not work and what is needed over and above what we have already. Building a community of people: The project activities allowed a more connected social network to emerge especially where one did not exist previously. The project’s activities consolidated goodwill, mutual understanding and co-working practices. Developing thinking: There were many assumptions about the idea of a co-production city lab and the project allowed discussion of these but also allowed the concept to mature and mutate. Importantly, thinking shifted from just wanting to develop a space, to reflections on what else a city lab could be and do. Recent discussions focused more on co-production as a vehicle/pathway/skill set that supports ways of working, doing and intervening in the city through changing cultures and behaviours and acquiring new skills. This pointed to ways that co-production could be a methodology for a community of practitioners to contribute to public debates and the overall governance of the city without being antagonistic and to initiate ideas in a different, more gentle and slower way. There was also a realisation that structured time is needed to realise the potential of co-production so it can be formally embedded in working hours and cultures. Developing an infrastructure: To ensure the idea had momentum beyond the life of this pilot research project, the final phase involved setting up a website, email, Twitter and also exploring the future use of an existing Leeds based CIC to provide further time and resources to steer the project to its next phase. What were the benefits from conducting research co-productively? [500 words] The first and main benefit is that this pilot has successfully catalysed a group of people to explore a common ambition for Leeds through the framework of co-production, make connections and explore the practises of working together. The second benefit relates to the nature of the outcomes. Because the ideas which helped work towards the city lab idea were collectively produced during the encounters in the pilot project they have more durability and ‘stickability.’ Findings were recognised and owned by partners so had broader buy-in from the group. Consequently, findings are collectively owned by the group rather than externally imposed or borrowed from experts. The intention was not to work towards consensus or synthesis, but rather a collection of
discussion outcomes that enabled us to move forward. Therefore, there was a spirit of camaraderie and shared intent during the group discussions. While this approach required effort and time in formative discussions by participants, the goodwill it engendered made exchange and consensus formation easier in the longer run. The third benefit was that this co-production approach to the idea of the city lab gathered views across a broader range of people than otherwise might have happened during a scoping stage. Because of the multi-stage nature of the pilot, time was built in for real-time reactions and further elaborations on previous comments and views. Thinking developed through iterative rounds of exchange, as a result of which visible layers of understanding were embedded in the development of ideas. There was a live evolution of ideas and a constant elaboration of ideas. This co-production approach allowed partners to see ideas as live and changeable and not fixed artefacts. They became less precious about their views, not needing to have the last word or get their view across. The fourth benefit was that it reminded a busy group of people of the value of serendipity and the importance of slowing down. This allowed the group to treat ideas and each other with more respect and patience than is often evident in fast paced interactions. Finally, the co-production approach brought a novel range of sector perspectives, working practices and styles together. One of the most striking aspects of this was the more taskoriented and faster-paced practices of the private sector with the slower and methodologically-preoccupied approach of the university sector, and the risk-averse, and potentially more cautious third and public sectors. While each of these have very different styles and resources, the use of a commitment to co-production encouraged participants to explore what it would be like to meet others on neutral ground and leave institutional personas and expectations behind. Usefully, what we found was that findings can be adapted to the agendas/aims of various sectors. What were the challenges of conducting research co-productively? [500 words] The first challenge related to the balancing act between keeping to a consistent and organising framework while allowing knowledge to be co-produced ‘freely’. For example, the workshop activities were very structured and in some ways prescribed, but flexibility had to be found for merging some activities to respond to repetition, overlaps and adjustments. Project partners had a range of preferences in terms of how much structure they needed, and how much flexibility they required, and the extent to which they embraced the messiness of real encounters. There is also a balancing act between being confident about what we want (a manifesto was proposed) while remaining committed to being open. The second challenge is that research findings can never be absolutely co-produced. There
was an element of interpretation and filtering by the researcher and PIs in order to organise and present findings in a coherent way. This already adds a layer of ownership on what knowledge is issued and shared with participants. The third challenge is that co-production still exists in the interstitial ‘inbetween’ spaces of work time. It still relies on free and voluntary time which makes contribution conditional on other commitments. As a result, there were different levels of contribution from partners in spite of initial full commitment. Some of this inevitably resulted from diary clashes and personal commitments.
Fourth, we found that there needs to be an element of ongoing organisation/ administration for a small group to maintain momentum. Moreover, responsibility is devolved to the paid researcher and lead PIs, and their named roles compared to the roles of other project partners created an uneven obligation to be involved. Fifth, there is a constant challenge to make sure everyone’s voices are heard and that each participant feels like they have contributed fully and are satisfied with their level of input. Some voices are louder, more persistent and more articulate than others. A challenge remains on how to involve more introverted personality types, and not to place more value on contributions that are more vocal, confident or provocative than others. Sixth, there are constant challenges in terms of merging and working across different institutional practices, especially in terms of project administration issues such as contracts, payment and tax issues. Finally, there is the longstanding challenge of representation. What does an inclusive coproduction approach look like? How can we reach out further and scale out beyond easily identified and known groups? How do we involve people who fall outside of our known networks and contacts?
Section 3: Reflections How did the experience of being involved on the project compare with what was expected? [1000 words] Here are a selection of quotes from project partners: Not sure what my expectations were although the subject sounded interesting. I attended two sessions, firstly the LeedsACTS! related one at Shine which was ok though with just a
small number attending, and which sustained my interest, and then after that was invited to the final and much larger one at CIHM. I do a lot of cross-sector/collaborative work but I found this session very stimulating, partly because it brought together a different set of people (although with some overlaps) from those I usually work with; partly because the session was highly participative; partly because there is potential for future involvement for both the organisation that I work for (VAL) and those that I am involved with at community level (HDT/HEART). I am keen to be involved in ongoing work. (Third sector partner) I was surprised by how much admin and organisation was required for the day-to-day running of this project. A challenge in co-produced projects is that it inherently requires many participants so a lot of the time can be spent sending emails, setting up meetings and events and generally helping to organise large groups of people. Research and analysis time was actually very specific and localised to post-workshop stages. I joined the project originally assuming the focus would be more spatially orientated but the thinking quickly moved on to less physical but more relevant priorities. My background is in architecture so this felt like a big shift into unknown territory. Upon reflection, this could be taken as an example of the nature of co-production – stepping outside of your usual role and persona and drawing on skills you didn’t know you had while gaining new ones. (Project researcher) I couldn’t get engaged as much as I’d hoped to – just because of limited personal capacity and the timing of workshops. I did enjoy the interactions with people I hadn’t met before, but was also aware that I DID know a lot of people as well and am wary of co-production as a label that allows cliques to flourish! I think the project researcher made a huge difference to the project – she was capable, practical, personable and captured and reflected a huge amount of learning. Also, she wasn’t an academic – by career or by institution, and I think that helped! (University partner) I have been thinking about co-production type approaches for a number of years and have also previously developed ideas and proposals for a form of 'city co-production space' - a 'city room for collaborative citizen action' - so my initial involvement in the project was in some ways clouded with all sorts of pre-conceptions and ideas. It’s a big subject / challenge - development of a co-production city lab - and rightly there are many opinions and strong views on how best to develop one. In terms of my expectations, I think I always thought it would be difficult to reach a final consensus or view on how to best create a city lab, and I have been impressed by the amount of progress we have made towards a shared view, and also the extent to which participants have shown a willingness to engage and take the ideas forward. (Third sector partner) I did not go into the project with any real preconceptions. However, I did not expect to become as engaged as I ultimately did. I registered for all of the events with the intention of probably picking and choosing or opting out at some point, but found the experience so interesting and useful that I attended all of the available sessions! Even though the material
covered (for the first two sessions at least) was very similar, the different venues and audiences gave the sessions very different dynamics and as a result, very different discussions and in some cases, priorities emerged. (University partner) My experience of the project exceeded my expectations. I was able to meet interesting engaged people from across the Leeds area, from academia, the third sector, business and local government. This provided a unique opportunity to make connections, discuss important issues of mutual interest, and to begin to fashion collective understandings and common ground concerning key issues such as inequality and environmental challenges. Further, over the course of the workshops, we were able to think through innovative, collaborative approaches to such issues. (University partner) I expected that my participation would involve exchange with people specific to the realm of sharing, to ‘soft’ issues focused on ‘how we decide’. What I found was that I could share freely my ideas about what we do and how we do it that went more deeply into the issues themselves. (University partner) I was unsure initially how I might be able to contribute but the activities and collegiate approach facilitated me being able to get involved from the start. Co-production is used an increasing amount across health and care and it was interesting to see how different sectors approach its application. I found the conversations were open, challenging and passionate but everyone’s contribution was valued and listened to. (Third sector partner) My experience of the project compared with my expectations was exceeded in one specific regard in that there were more people and organizations interested and ready and willing to contribute - co-production is a "thing". (Private Sector Partner) It was very close to what I was expecting in a sense that the people who gathered around the project were already disposed towards collaborative work- we did not engage anyone who had no previous co-production experience. This also applies to the kind of venues we occupied - already set up as co-production or community facility spaces. (Private Sector Partner). Very positively. Sharing motivations and expectations with each other at an early stage was very helpful. Balance between taking oneself out of a normal work context whilst also being aware of the various ’hats’ we all wear was very well managed, enabling, honest, an open exploration of what co-production might mean for various participants and for Leeds. (Private Sector Partner) My experience in being involved with the project was more or less as I had expected. Very dynamic interaction between different actors in non-traditional settings using group work. I met new people and also caught up with others I had not seen for a while. Perhaps I was expecting more participants from smaller community/neighbourhood groups. At times
there was a strong presence from the bigger players (university, local authority) which can sometimes constrain a discussion for change. (University Partner) What did participants learn? (all involved) [1000 words] Here are a selection of quotes from project partners: The constant need to deal with and understand different languages/assumptions/ frames of reference etc for this to work; what gaps there still (and will always?) exist between different silos/organisations/sectors; the importance of attitude – how much is possible when people want to say yes to things rather than no; co-production can be easier at individual levels/small scales than at institutional level (Third sector partner) Even though the project was not as spatial as was originally anticipated, a lot of new connections have been made between people wanting to do different kinds of projects around Leeds and in different, more collaborative ways that ‘sidestep’ the norm -this is an ambition that we all have in common. Being involved in the project has helped demystify how people like me could get involved with something with other (more senior and more experienced) people who are already doing things in Leeds, and this is very empowering for a young citizen. (Project researcher) I have some ambivalence about my legitimacy in the co-production of a city lab, partly because I’m a Bradford resident! I had to think about how much I was really invested in the city of Leeds. I learnt that co-production is (and should be) sometimes uncomfortable, and it takes real strength to challenge the widely held view in a room, and to do so constructively. I have rich personal learning about how I could or should become more involved in co-production, but there are a lot of institutions and institutional processes in the way – and a pilot can’t unpick all that! I learnt that co-production has very distinct meanings for different people – co-production for service delivery is, surely, different to coproduction of a place? (University partner) I have a better understanding of how others frame and learn from co-production and the impact an environment can have on the implementation/execution. I have learned that I knew more than I thought and will be implementing this into my work with clinicians and users developing digital health tools. (University partner) The workshops provided an interactive and dynamic learning environment that enabled active listening and creativity amongst the participants. This provided some key lessons: (I) that people across different working contexts and with different everyday lives share common concerns; (ii) that there is a mutual desire to work together to co-produce solutions to key challenges facing Leeds and the region; (iii) that it is important to engage across occupational and other differences in order to fashion meaningful projects that can
begin to address such challenges. (University partner) It is clear that there is a multi-disciplinary and multi-organisational commitment in the city to developing a ‘city lab’ approach to better understanding issues, problems and solutions. At the same time however, there are a number of closely related initiatives in the city as well as alternative spaces where these dialogues might take place and these potential conflicts will need to be understood and managed in order to align activities and maximise benefits. Overall, the intention through the City Lab to put citizens at the heart of coproduction activities for the city is a very positive step to democratising decision-making. For the University, this is also a potentially powerful mechanism for connecting research with Impact. This has reinforced for me, the importance of the City Lab / Living Lab as a key activity that should be supported by the University’s emerging ‘Cities Theme’ as it will further differentiate what Leeds has to offer as an exemplar for best research and practice. (University partner) So the lesson is that it’s not necessary to protect the ‘technical core’ of a project idea from this sharing/exchange context; instead, that can be risked, and even improved. Giving up control over the discussion of all aspects of the issue in question, trusting the process, can pay off with this method of exchanging and transforming ideas. (University partner) My ideas about a city lab have definitely shifted and developed through my involvement with this project. My key learning has probably been around understanding how the different sectors may be able to engage with a city lab, what their constraints are and unique contributions may be. I realise that whilst a 'new institution' may be needed to support a participatory re-imagining of an ecologically sound and socially just city, this will not primarily be a bricks and mortar institution. More than a building, we need to cultivate a new set of skills and a philosophy of interaction and involvement that can manifest itself within existing institutions, and across a range of temporal and geographic spaces. It is as much a culture shift as a place to visit and work together. (third sector partner) I've learned loads. That we are / were doing co-production! That we need to shape our offer to do more than just convene but also do, which means establishing pathways that create and produce secure outcomes and projects. We need to measure what we're doingperhaps we could collaborate on this aspect. We need more partners - and also look at how we get more people involved, from different groups, perspectives, interests... (Private Sector Partner) That there is a great power in working co-productively but that ultimately there has to be a clear leadership and access to funding if co-production is to become effective, resilient and subsequently sustainable. (Private Sector Partner)
The importance of shared language – terms like ‘co-production’ and ‘city lab’ mean different things to different people – it was interesting and important to hear these perspectives. The objective analysis being undertaken by the team is very helpful. Much is already going on and there is an opportunity to align similar projects and ideas across the city. (Private Sector Partner) I have learnt that there are lots of projects at the moment in Leeds trying to do similar things for social change but many of them are gravitating around the local authority. It would be important to equally map out independent projects/initiatives. (University Partner) Reflections on the experience [1300 words] What would we do differently? There are a number of aspects that might have been approached differently: ● We could have adopted a more flexible approach to the organisation of the pilot to allow project partners to self-organise more and take on project tasks according to their skills and interests. However, at the project design application stage we were preoccupied with specifying every aspect to reassure the selection panel that the project would be delivered in a particular way. ● Setting out and collectively agreeing ground rules for the duration of the whole project right at the beginning would have ensured even greater project buy-in and wider responsibility for tasks and ownership of the direction and governance of the project. These kinds of aspects could create a greater sense of self-organisation and embed the practice of co-production from the outset. However, the nomination of PIs whose role it was to steer and mentor the researcher and the paid researcher who gave them programmed work time, structurally mitigated against this broader ownership. ● More time could be spent finding out about participants’ underlying values, aspirations and skills at the project’s outset. This would allow greater self-selection of project tasks which build on existing strengths and experience. Moreover, skill sharing could be more rigorously integrated to ensure collective learning is an embedded part of coproduction. ● A more thorough audit of who to include could have taken place at the beginning of the project with dedicated time and resources to incorporate people outside or on the fringe of established networks. What concerned you? ● Inclusivity and diversity was a concern that emerged early in the process and remained throughout. As the group’s activities progress beyond the life of this pilot research
project, it will be crucial to work on projects/partnerships/themes that are relevant to a broad range of participants and interests. ● More effort is required to involve less senior and younger/early career participants, but especially in terms of creating processes to give them an equal voice. These present key opportunities for more senior and experienced partners to nurture younger citizens and encourage their participation in co-producing solutions. ● Differences between more introverted/quieter personalities and more extrovert types and those used to group work emerged. We could have explored a greater range of activities and formats which would capture the creativity of a broad range of thinking and personality styles. What surprised you? ● The building of such a strong community between a potentially diverse group of people and a real commitment to the spirit and values of the pilot project. ● One of the most exciting aspect of the project was that so many people were willing to give their free time away from their formal work roles. Most of the workshops were fully booked. During the workshops, participants were also willing to contribute opinion, ideas and time freely, usually without fear of recrimination. ● Participants were willing to rise to the challenge of leaving their institutional personas behind, many from the outset. This is surprising given how ingrained many work roles tend to be. ● There was almost a universal desire to frame participation through a commitment to make something happen and intervene in the city in a progressive way for the social good. We found this approach could be more self-sustaining than ‘paid’ work because participation was driven by passion and choice, rather than obligation. ● The prominence of the social aspects of participation were surprising. Participants valued the chance to gather and socialise and saw this as an opportunity to reconfigure their work life in ways that were more gregarious and sociable. There was an underlying critique of individualism within people’s participation. ● Much of the findings highlighted issues of process rather than content. In particular, the first workshop generated a whole set of lines of enquiry around the emotional aspects of co-production and the need to embrace vulnerability and ‘not knowing.’ Acknowledging that this is a collective journey with unknown aspects is incredibly empowering, and this is allowed participants to relax about not having to be right. ● A sophisticated articulation of the potential structures and arenas for co-production emerged through discussions of the ‘complex and connected ecosystem’ of people and places through which it occurred. ● There was a clear shift in thinking from exploring the need for a space for co-production to recognising the need for developing a community of advocates/practitioners who have the skills and reach to implement a methodology for change and intervention.
Appendix: Recommendations Funders ● Build in more structured funding opportunities for co-producing research questions with non-academic partners ● One of the assessment criteria of research grants is verifying and assessing the quality of the co-production of research. Ways that this could be verified is through letters of support from non-academic partners and by requiring that bidders state, as part of their methodologies or pathway to impact, how activity with co-production partners will be sustained during the delivery of the project. Such ways could include participatory research methods, project governance, joint analysis and use of research outcomes. Academic institutions ● Create specific mechanisms within teaching and research structures to reward and promote co-production activities. ● Specific funding streams could be made available to resource non-academic partners to work alongside academics, especially those from third sector and civil society organisations ● Co-production champions could be set up within universities and/or faculties to promote best practice ● Arguments can be made to embed co-production further into forthcoming REF impact case study approaches Non-academic agencies ● Resources could be allocated so that staff can engage with more open-ended collaborative working practices and explore potential questions with academics ● Greater recognition that while co-production practices may take longer, it potentially results in more durable solutions with greater buy-in from participants ● Co-production can reduce perceptions of tokenistic consultation and shift perceptions towards deeper levels of co-creation and citizen participation. ● Co-production can be a way to experiment with new forms of civic engagement and democratic renewal through, for example, participatory budgeting in the formation of citizen led plans. Dedicated trainers and facilitators are needed here. ● Greater recognition that co-production with University partners can support initiatives and projects with high quality, rigorous research. Objective analysis and evaluation that comes from research can provide recommendations for improvements that can be made in practice. ● For the private sector, co-production should be encouraged because it not only broadens the scope of potential activity and income streams, but it also provides opportunities to contribute to civic entrepreneurship and corporate social responsibility
activities.
Researchers ● Co-production for researchers is challenging as it is not a fixed set of tools and techniques, but rather that requires broader training and immersion in a particular ethics of doing research ● Co-production researchers need to learn to be flexible, balancing more organised and programmed methods with more spontaneous approaches. Other recommendations - spaces for co-production: ● There are several emerging strategic forms that urban co-production spaces could take which are not necessarily mutually exclusive - a centralised hub, a dispersed neighbourhood form, a space that is nomadic and travels to where it is needed, a digital home that can be accessed from anywhere and outdoor urban commons spaces that can be developed and maintained through co-production practices. ● It was suggested during project discussions that a ‘City Lab’ is not necessarily a singular physical space but could be an umbrella brand for a network of spaces around the city that co-production partners can tap into to better support neighbourhood based projects and to maintain a sense of neutrality by moving around different host spaces. ● A network of co-production spaces should incorporate and build on suitable existing civic spaces and networks. ● Co-production spaces could vary in scale and type to respond to the different kinds of challenges that co-production partners encounter e.g. open and busy, intimate and calm. Similarly, co-production spaces and processes could allow for different ways of working and thinking e.g. space and time for extrovert fast discussion/collaboration, together with introvert/independent slow reflection and evaluation. ● Finer grained recommendations for internal co-production spaces include providing a variety of smaller spaces within a single space e.g. bookable space, drop-in/hanging out space, perches around the edges of rooms to facilitate informal conversations/stand up meetings, good views of the city provide a natural conversation point, ground floor presence for street visibility, flexible furniture that can arranged to facilitate different types of activity ● Co-production spaces could look and feel deliberately different to standard work spaces - a more comfortable, creative and social identity could subconsciously give coproducers ‘permission’ to loosen up and think outside the box.