TABLE OF CONTENT
INTRO
2
SHIFT IN ROLES
3
BEING FACILITATORS
4
COMMON LANGUAGE & INSPIRATIONAL TOOLS
6
CONCLUSION
10
REFERENCES
11
1
!!
INTRODUCTION When Arena365 presented their case, they explained that they had
“The move from user-centred design to co-designing is having an
based their strategies on behaviour and thoughts from their
impact on the roles of the players in the design process�. "#$%&'('!
colleagues. It seemed that when Arena365 developed their
)*! +,&$-! .*! '(/0(1+&2#$! /213$! 2#! ,24! 4(! 51+(6! &#! +,(!
concept, they did not explore the fuzzy front end (Sanders &
42'7$,2%!&#!2'6('!+2!)'&#8!+,(!%5'+&1&%5#+$!&#+2!+,(!6($&8#!
Stappers, 2008, p. 3), but had jumped right into the traditional
%'21($$! &#! +,(! .2$+! 2%+&.50! 45*! 5#6! /51&0&+5+(6! 1'(5+&9(!
design process, without involving the users. In order to pinpoint
+,&#7&#8:!
which possibilities could be valuable to look deeper into, we conducted user-centred design, observation, interview, diary
!
studies (Group 4, 2010). Every method brought us closer to an
Figure 1. Inspiration insights from workshop
understanding
!
of
the
target
group
by
revealing
different
perspectives. The most inspirational and co-creative method was the workshop, where we used video card game. In this method we experienced the highest level of involvement of the user, which thereby resulted in more valuable insights. The role of our users now changed into being a co-creator that took part of the ideageneration process. In relation to this Sanders & Stappers (2008, p. 8) state
!
2
SHIFT IN ROLES
;9('*! day people are given more influence and allowing him or
"#$%&'!()!*#+,-&#./0!1'2'0-34'5,!.67!8/51'&+9!(::;!
her to provide expertise and participate in the early design process of ideation (Sanders, 2008, p.8). As figure 2 illustrates the role and perception of “the customer� has developed from consumer, to user that the design team could learn from, into participant and at last being a proactive co-creator. Figure 3 illustrates how this relationship between the players in the classical user-centred design process is. Here the user is a passive object in the research, and the researcher provides theoretic perspectives and develops more knowledge through observation and interviews. The designer is not in contact with the user, but passively receives research findings in
"#$%&'!<)!=0/++#.!&-0'+!#5!,&/1#,#-5/0!1'+#$5!
the form of a report. The designer then adds an understanding of technology and the creative thinking needed to generate ideas and concepts (Sanders, 2008, p.8). The separation of research and design process manifested in particular, in our observations where the user was not involved but only an object for our study, which also can be categorised as user centred design (Kyniavsky, 2003, p. 525).
!
3
!!
BEING FACILITATORS
In contrast to the traditional design approach, the roles get mixed
Figure 4: Co-creation at the workshop4
in co-design, as seen in figure 5 (Sanders, 2008, p. 9). This shows in our workshop, where we had taken on the role of both designers and researchers. The users were positioned as the experts and played a considerable role in the idea generation (Ibid). In the process of generating insights, the design team collaborate on providing tools for ideation and expression. In contrast to the traditional design process, where the researcher served as a translator between the users and the designer, the researcher in codesign, is the facilitator of the workshop (Ibid, p. 10). Even though our design roles are blurring, we wanted to ensure a successful
Figure 5: Roles i co-design
workshop where all design and research aspects were covered. We therefore had individual responsibilities; two instructed the participants in assignments, two facilitated creative thinking and encouraged a dynamic flow while, another documented by filming and one took field notes. This contributed to a successful ideation, where we learned about the participantâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s desires and opinions about sport facilitation services.
!
4
As facilitators we aimed to create a dynamic flow by balancing
There is a risk that the tools might affect the outcome in a certain
between not interfering and affecting their ideation positively. We
direction, and it can be critical not to involve the participants in the
tried to encourage creative thinking by asking questions when it
data analysis as they can correct or verify interpretation of the data
seemed the participants were stuck (Ylirsiko & Buur, 2007, p.5).
(Ylirisku & Buur, 2007, p.5)
An example of this was when the participants received instructions
!
about the brainstorm, which is illustrated in figure 6. The model is inspired by Gaver, Boucher, Pennington & Walker (2004) and visualizes how the design team express a task, which the participants interpret and how this afterwards affects their expression.
"#$%&'!>)!=-44%5#./,#-5!4-1'0!?',@''5!30/A'&+!#5!,B'!@-&C+B-3D!#5+3#&'1!E/2'&9!F-%.B'&9!G'55#5$,-5!H!I/0C'&!J(::KL! !
!
5
!!
COMMON LANGUAGE & INSPIRATIONAL TOOLS !
The previously example also illustrates, that one of the major
Figure 7. Video card as common frame of reference
challenges in co-design is the communication gap between designers and the various users (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p.13). In relation to this Brandt (2006, p. 57) claims â&#x20AC;&#x153;The designers have to understand the language game of the use activity, or users have to understand the language game of design, or users must be able to give complete explicit descriptions of their demandsâ&#x20AC;?. Since this is extreme difficult, it is important to have a common language that supports the varieties of cross-cultural communication (Sanders, 2008, p. 13). To constructs a foundation for a common language, all participants saw video clips from their work environment and then titled the video card that represented each video clip. To
Figure 8. Strings that symbolise communication
visualise communication lines between shops, the participants used strings (Figure 8) to symbolise communication. In our pilot workshop, we experienced that giving the participants few directions to work, worked better than having a clean slate. Therefore these tools also had the purpose of being inspirational tools and a visual anchor to kick start ideation
!
6
Later we asked the participants to individually brainstorm on how
"#$%&'!M7!G-+,N#,+!/+!+./66-01+7!
the dream scenario of a sport facilitation service would be and then discussed the ideas afterwards. Sanders explain that people are creative on different levels (figure 11) and that each level requires different approaches to involve the users properly. To embrace this and bring the participants into the design process in the most optimal way, we provided scaffolds in the form of post-its, which they could write down their ideas on. The aim was to support their need for creative expression at the â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;makingâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; level (Sanders, 2006, p.11). Particularly participant A was eager in this part and requested for more post-its in order to write down his ideas. It seemed that one idea on the post-it lead to another, and making the
"#$%&'!O:7!P'2'0+!-6!.&'/,#2#,A!Q67!8/51'&+9!(::;7!
idea visual had worked. Participant D seemed to struggle with brainstorming, but after some time he combined some of the aspects discussed before with his own ideas. In this case inspiration from before, worked as guidance for participant D, who could possibly be defined as being at the adapter level (Figure 10; level 2).
!
7
!!
Participant E seemed frustrated over having no ideas and burst:
Figure 11. Frustrated participant E
“I’m blank – I don’t know what to write”. In order to solve exactly this kind of challenge, we had prepared inspirational cards. I though got the impression that the participants felt that if they reached for the inspiration card, it would imply that not were not creative enough by them selves. The consequence was that only a few inspiration cards were turned. We tried to fend this off by both with turning the cards, and by encouraging the participants to turn them. Yet it seemed that the inspirations card helped a little, but it was primarily unofficial small talk and looking at ideas that lead to ideas. One lesson learned is though that it is important to introduce the tools properly.
!
Figure 12. Inspirational cards
8
After the workshop the participants kept discussing ideas. While
"#$%&'!O<7!G/&,#.#3/5,!R!1&/@#5$!/,!,B'!3/3'&!?-/&17!!
participant A was pitching an idea, he suddenly got up and started drawing on a whiteboard standing in the room, to illustrate his idea. At this point, I realized that I would have been valuable to have a broader range of raw material in our toolkit, in order to support both ideation and expression of ideas of participants at all levels (figure 10). This supports the argument that people are creative at different levels and should be motivated in different ways. If participants are properly immersed it will unlock an important resource within ideation.
"#$%&'!OK7!8%$$'+,#-5!6-&!#5+3#&/,#-5/0!,--0C#,7!
!
9
!!
CONCLUSION
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
!
10
REFERENCES
Brandt, E., 2006. Designing Exploratory Design Games: A Framework for Participation in Participatory Design Gaver, W. W., Boucher, A., Pennington, S., and Walker, B. 2004. Cultural probes and the value of uncertainty. Co-design Group Report 4, 2010. It-universitetet Kuniavsky, M., 2003. Observing the User Experience, Sanders, E. and Stappers, P., 2008. Co-Design, Co-creation and the new landscapes of Design, Sanders, E. 2006. Scaffolds for building everyday creativity In Design for Effective Communications: Creating Contexts for Clarity and Meaning, Ylirisku, S., & Buur, J., 2007. Framing innovation in co-design sessions with every day people.
!
11