Last week, I bumped into a friend who works in public sector.  I was telling him how co-design had become an important component of our work and his reaction was visceral, he sucked air through teeth and said: “ooh - that sounds dangerous”. 

We laughed and the conversation moved on, but his comment stayed with me. What if his perception of co-design is a common one? Are we trying to sell a service that’s perceived as a bit renegade?

His reaction prompted me to think about why people might consider co-design dangerous:

Co-design will mean we lose control

In traditional top-down approaches, decision-makers and experts have complete control over the design process. Co-design challenges this power dynamic by involving a diverse range of stakeholders, including end-users and community members. Some may perceive this as a loss of control or a dilution of authority, which can seem risky.

However, co-design doesn't eliminate control; it redistributes it more fairly among stakeholders. Shared control and ownership can lead to better solutions and increased buy-in from everyone involved.

In our projects, decision-makers always have the final say, but co-design ensures that decisions are informed by diverse perspectives.

Co-design will add complexity

Co-design involves coordinating and reconciling diverse perspectives, needs, and priorities. Managing this complexity and ensuring that all voices are heard can be challenging, especially in large-scale public sector projects. Complexity could lead to confusion, delays, or suboptimal solutions.

However although co-design does introduce complexity, it also provides tools and frameworks to manage that complexity effectively. Robust processes and skilled facilitators can help navigate the diverse perspectives and reach consensus. The complexity of co-design is a reflection of the inherent complexity of public sector challenges, which cannot be adequately addressed by simplistic solutions.

Co-design is different

Humans are resistant to change and co-design represents a shift from traditional design approaches. Some individuals or organisations may be resistant to this change, preferring the familiarity and perceived safety of established methods, even if they are less effective.

However change is inevitable, and co-design is a necessary adaptation to the increasing complexity and interconnectedness of our world. Traditional top-down approaches have often failed to deliver effective and sustainable solutions, necessitating a shift towards more collaborative methods. Co-design builds on existing best practices and expertise while leveraging the collective intelligence of stakeholders.

Co-design will expose us to criticism

Co-design promotes transparency and shared decision-making. For some, this level of openness and accountability may be perceived as risky, as it exposes the decision-making process to greater scrutiny and potential criticism.

However, transparency and accountability are crucial for building public trust and ensuring responsible decision-making. Co-design promotes transparency by involving stakeholders throughout the process, reducing the risk of opaque or unilateral decisions. Increased accountability can lead to better decision-making and more effective solutions that better serve the public interest.

Co-design means we don’t know what we’ll get

Co-design is an iterative and collaborative process, which can make it difficult to predict outcomes with certainty. Again this perceived lack of control over the final result may be seen as dangerous, especially in high-stakes public projects where clear outcomes are often expected from the outset.

However, while co-design will introduce some uncertainty, it hugely reduces the risk of designing the wrong thing by developing solutions that are disconnected from real-world needs and experiences. The iterative nature of co-design allows for continuous adaptation and course correction, reducing the risk of costly failures or ineffective solutions.

‍

Caveat: co-design isn’t a silver bullet

Not all projects are suitable for co-design, it’s by no means the right approach for every situation. Sometimes a small amount of user research is all that’s needed.

But where complex projects have a broad remit with lots of uncertainty and multiple stakeholders, co-design provides a structured approach to navigate and collaboratively manage that uncertainty. In fact you could argue that here, it’s dangerous not to take a co-design approach!

If you’re interested in what co-design might mean in practice, here’s an example of our work for the NHS in Essex on the design of a new health centre.