Massive Codesign Anna Meroni

10319.1-7000.403_319.1-7000.
319 27/03/18 22:11 Pagina 1
This book focuses on “massive codesign”: the idea that multiple and/or
MASSIVE CODESIGN
7000.403
numerous participants having different voices collaborate in a design pro-
cess broken down into different steps and formats and resulting in a relevant
and diversified amount of data. A Proposal for a Collaborative Design Framework
Services, strategies and scenarios are presented as the main field of ap-
plication: these are complex items that demand complex processes be tac-
A. MERONI, D. SELLONI, M. ROSSI MASSIVE CODESIGN

kled, processes in which it is necessary to involve a variety of players who
are largely interdependent and therefore who must collaborate in order to
achieve any goal.
The book essentially makes two main contributions: a “Collaborative De-
sign Framework” to identify and structure codesign activities, methods and Anna Meroni, Daniela Selloni, Martina Rossi
tools within massive creative processes; a “set of quick lessons learnt” to
provide guidance to the conception and organisation of other massive crea-
tive processes.
The whole book is oriented at practice: it discusses codesign activities from
the designer’s point of view, detailing issues such as process from beginning
to end, activity flow, manipulability of tools, roles and rules for participants
and many others. It is intended as a support for designers dealing in massive
codesign processes and aims towards improved results.
FrancoAngeli ISBN 978-88-917-3481-5

La passione per le conoscenze
D.I. F RANCOANGELI
DESIGN INTERNATIONAL
DESIGN INTERNATIONAL SERIES

Direction: Silvia Piardi
Scientific Board:
Alessandro Biamonti, Ezio Manzini, Carlo Martino,
Francesca Tosi, Mario Piazza, Promil Pande
Over the last few years the international design research network has become an
important reality, which has facilitated the sharing of ideas and opinions, improved
understanding of the subject and increased awareness of the potential of design in
various socio-geographical contexts.
The current expansion of the educational network allows teachers, students,
researchers and professionals to meet, both online and in person.
It would seem therefore that the time is now right to propose a new series of books
on design, contributing the construction of the international design community,
helping authors bring their work onto the world scene.
The Design International series is thus born as a cultural setting for the sharing of
ideas and experiences from the different fields of design, a place in which you can
discover the wealth and variety of design research, where different hypotheses and
different answers present themselves, in an attempt to draw up a map of Italian
design, though in a continuous comparison with the world scene.
Different areas of design will be investigated, such as for example: fashion, interior
design, graphic design, communication design, product and industrial design,
service and social innovation design, interaction design and emotional design.
Books published in this series are selected by the Scientific Board and submitted to
two referees for peer-review.
Il presente volume è pubblicato in open access, ossia il file dell’intero lavoro è
liberamente scaricabile dalla piattaforma FrancoAngeli Open Access
(http://bit.ly/francoangeli-oa).
FrancoAngeli Open Access è la piattaforma per pubblicare articoli e mono-
grafie, rispettando gli standard etici e qualitativi e la messa a disposizione dei
contenuti ad accesso aperto. Oltre a garantire il deposito nei maggiori archivi
e repository internazionali OA, la sua integrazione con tutto il ricco catalogo
di riviste e collane FrancoAngeli massimizza la visibilità, favorisce facilità di
ricerca per l’utente e possibilità di impatto per l’autore.
Per saperne di più:

http://www.francoangeli.it/come_pubblicare/pubblicare_19.asp
I lettori che desiderano informarsi sui libri e le riviste da noi pubblicati

possono consultare il nostro sito Internet: www.francoangeli.it e iscriversi nella home page
al servizio “Informatemi” per ricevere via e-mail le segnalazioni delle novità.
10319.1-7000.403_319.1-7000.319 27/03/18 22:11 Pagina 2
MASSIVE CODESIGN
A Proposal for a Collaborative Design Framework
Anna Meroni, Daniela Selloni, Martina Rossi
Essays by: Stefana Broadbent, Christophe Gouache, François Jégou
D.I. F RANCOANGELI
ISBN 9788891767912
Cover image: Elahe Rajabiani
Copyright © 2018 by FrancoAngeli s.r.l., Milano, Italy.
This work, and each part thereof, is protected by copyright law and is published in this digital version
under the license Creative Commons Attribuzione-Non opere derivate 3.0 Italia
(CC-BY-ND 3.0 IT)
By downloading this work, the User accepts all the conditions of the license agreement for the work as
stated and set out on the website
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/it/legalcode
Contents
Acknowledgements pag. 10
Authors » 11
Contributors » 12
Introduction » 13
PART 1: Scoping Codesign » 16

1.1 Codesign Landscape Today » 17
Bibliographical References » 22
1.2 Anthropology, Ethnography and Massive Codesign
for Complex Services by Stefana Broadbent » 24
1.2.1 Design Oriented Rapid Ethnography » 24
1.2.2 Complexity and Ethnography » 26
1.2.3 Producing Ethnography to Enable Discovery and
Collaboration » 27
1.2.4 Building an Ethnographic Body of Knowledge for
Service Design Projects » 28
1.2.5 Discovery, Ethnography and Codesign » 30
1.3 A Collaborative Design Framework » 33
1.3.1 Collaboration Within a Creative Process: the
Design Subject Matter » 33
1.3.2 Collaboration within a Creative Process: the Style
of Guidance » 35
1.3.3 A Framework » 38
1.3.4 Infrastructuring Community Centred Design » 40
5
1.4 Setting the Stage pag. 43
1.4.1 Boundary Objects in Codesign: a Proposal for a
Basic Glossary » 43
1.4.2 The Case of Service Design and Strategic Design » 44
1.4.3 Tools and Prototypes » 46
PART 2: Experimenting with Codesign » 50

2.1 CIMULACT » 52
2.1.1 CIMULACT at a Glance » 53
2.1.2 CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop » 56
2.1.3 CIMULACT Social Needs Clustering Workshop » 64
2.1.4 CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop » 70
2.1.5 CIMULACT Codesign Workshop » 77
2.1.6 CIMULACT Caravan Process
by François Jégou and Christophe Gouache » 83
2.1.7 CIMULACT Online Consultation » 92
2.2 Creative Citizens » 98
2.2.1 Creative Citizens at a Glance » 99
2.2.2 Creative Citizens Warm-up Session » 103
2.2.3 Creative Citizens Generative Session » 109
2.2.4 Creative Citizens Prototyping Session » 115
2.3 Feeding Milan – Nutrire Milano » 122
2.3.1 Feeding Milan at a Glance » 123
2.3.2 Collaborative Farmers: Understanding Farmers’
Behaviours and Relations » 125
2.3.3 Codesigning the Farmer’s Food Box » 131
2.3.4 Codesigning a Local Distribution System » 137
2.4 SPREAD – Sustainable Lifestyles 2050 » 144
2.4.1 SPREAD at a Glance » 145
2.4.2 SPREAD Vision Workshop » 146
6
PART 3: Designing Codesign pag. 154
3.1 What Collaboration Teaches: Quick Lessons Learnt
from Practice » 155
3.1.1 The Process » 155
3.1.2 The Experience » 160
3.1.3 The Boundary Objects » 165
3.2 An Actionable Collaborative Design Framework » 170
3.2.1 General Considerations » 170
3.2.2 Quadrant: Topic-Driven / Facilitating » 173
3.2.3 Quadrant: Topic-Driven / Steering » 175
3.2.4 Quadrant: Concept-Driven / Facilitating » 176
3.2.5 Quadrant: Concept-Driven / Steering » 177
3.2.6 Conclusions: From Experiments to a Standard
Approach » 178
7
List of Figures and Tables
Fig. 1.1 The Double Diamond scheme elaborated with two pag. 35
polarities about the subject matter of design
Fig. 1.2 The Collaborative Design Framework » 39
Fig. 1.3 The relationship between tools, topic, concepts and
prototypes in codesign actions along a design process » 47
Fig. 2.1 The Collaborative Design Framework with case
studies » 51
Fig. 2.2 CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop /
POLIMI DESIS Lab » 62
Fig. 2.3 CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop /
POLIMI DESIS Lab » 63
Fig 2.4 Social Need Clustering Workshop / POLIMI DESIS
Lab » 68
Fig. 2.5 Social Need Clustering Workshop / POLIMI DESIS
Lab » 69
Fig. 2.6 CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop / Lab Immagine
POLIMI » 75
Fig. 2.7 CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop / Lab Immagine
POLIMI » 76
Fig. 2.8 CIMULACT Codesign Workshop / Lab Immagine
POLIMI » 81
Fig. 2.9 CIMULACT Codesign Workshop / POLIMI DESIS
Lab » 82
Fig. 2.10 CIMULACT Caravan Process / SDS » 90
Fig. 2.11 CIMULACT Caravan Process / SDS » 91
Fig. 2.12 CIMULACT Online Consultation » 95
Fig. 2.13 CIMULACT Online Consultation » 96
Tab. 2.1 An overview of the different codesign sessions
within the 4 thematic cycles in the Creative Citizens
project » 101
8
Fig. 2.14 Creative Citizens Warm-up Session / POLIMI
DESIS Lab pag. 107
Fig. 2.15 Creative Citizens Warm-up Session / POLIMI
DESIS Lab » 108
Fig. 2.16 Creative Citizens Generative Session / POLIMI
DESIS Lab » 113
Fig. 2.17 Creative Citizens Generative Session / POLIMI
DESIS Lab » 114
Fig. 2.18 Creative Citizens Prototyping Session / POLIMI
DESIS Lab » 119
Fig. 2.19 Creative Citizens Prototyping Session / POLIMI
DESIS Lab » 120
Fig. 2.20 Collaborative Farmers / POLIMI DESIS Lab » 129
Fig. 2.21 Collaborative Farmers / POLIMI DESIS Lab » 130
Fig. 2.22 Farmer’s Food Box / POLIMI DESIS Lab » 135
Fig. 2.23 Codesigning the Farmer’s Food Box / POLIMI
DESIS Lab » 136
Fig. 2.24 Local Distribution System / POLIMI DESIS Lab » 141
Fig. 2.25 Local Distribution System / POLIMI DESIS Lab » 142
Fig. 2.26 SPREAD Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab » 151
Fig. 2.27 SPREAD Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab » 152
Fig. 3.1 The Collaborative Design Framework » 173
9
Acknowledgements
This book is the result of years of activity and experimentation and
therefore we like to express our gratitude to many friends and colleagues.
Thus, our first thanks go to the colleagues of Politecnico and in
particular to the Director of the Department of Design, Silvia Piardi, which
has always kept the door open for free research and exploration, and to the
dean of the School of Design of Politecnico di Milano, Luisa Collina,
which has encouraged the introduction and flourishing of service design
and codesign in the didactic programmes.
Then, we like to express gratitude to the closer (past and present)
colleagues of the POLIMI DESIS Lab with whom we have worked on the
projects described in this book and much more: Daria Cantù, Marta
Carrera, Marta Corubolo, Davide Fassi, Laura Galluzzo, Chiara Galeazzi,
Ana María Ospina Medina, Francesca Piredda, Liat Rogel, Daniela
Sangiorgi, Giulia Simeone. Without them, things would be simply
impossible...
A gigantic thanks goes to Ezio Manzini: our design “Maestro” and a
never-ending source of inspiration and healthy self-criticism.
True gratitude goes also to François Jégou and Christophe Gouache,
with whom we are sharing, since a long time, research “adventures” around
the globe. They are so good friends that accepted to contribute to this book!
Thanks also to Stefana Broadbent, who since a few years is letting us
understand the beauty and the complexity of using ethnography in design,
providing us with some basic rules to avoid (too) big mistakes. Thank you
also for having accepted to contribute to this publication.
To Anna Seravalli and Carlo Franzato, instead, goes our gratitude for
the suggestions and inputs for the book.
Last, but not least, we need to thank the projects’ consortium partners
with whom we have worked in the research projects presented in this book:
first of all, the CIMULACT consortium partners that shared with us the
challenge of working with more than 5000 people across Europe. Then, the
SPREAD consortium partners, with whom we understood the complexity
of designing for 2050. Finally, we like to thank the Feeding Milan project
partners and the Creative Citizens group, which gave us the possibility to
learn to talk and work with communities of enthusiast dreamers and to try
contributing to the quality of life in the city of Milan.
This publication has received funding from the European Union’s

Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Grant
Agreement No. 665948, 2015-2018.
10
Authors
Anna Meroni is an architect, Ph.D in Design and Associate Professor of
Design in the Department of Design at the Politecnico di Milano. Her
research focus is on service and strategic design for sustainability to foster
social innovation, participation and local development. Specific expertise
has been developed in codesign methods and tools. She is the head of the
international MSc program in Product Service System Design and
coordinator of the POLIMI-DESIS Lab, the Milan based research lab of the
DESIS-Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability Network.
Daniela Selloni is a Service Designer, Ph.D in Design, Research Fellow

and Adjunct Professor in the Department of Design at the Politecnico di
Milano. Her research interests cover service design and social innovation,
focusing on citizen activism, sharing economy, methods and tools for
codesign. She also acts in an advisory capacity for start-up incubation
programmes and organisations from the private and third sectors. She is
part of the POLIMI-DESIS Lab.
Martina Rossi is a Service Designer, Ph.D candidate and teaching

assistant in the Department of Design at the Politecnico di Milano. Her
research interests and professional activity deal with codesign processes,
service design and design thinking, with a specific focus on the private
sector. She is also active in engaging the service design community in a
discussion about the discipline, therefore, she co-organizes the Service
Design Drinks Milan. She is part of the POLIMI-DESIS Lab.
11
Contributors
Stefana Broadbent is the cofounder of Cleanweb which uses digital
media to fight climate change. She is visiting Professor at the Politecnico di
Milano and Fellow of the Centre for Digital Anthropology at UCL London.
Her research focuses on the evolution of digital practices in society. In
recent years she has worked on digital communication, collective
intelligence, health and sustainability.
Christophe Gouache is design project manager at Strategic Design

Scenarios. His focus is on sustainable and social innovation, collaborative
and participative scenario building, prospective visions (prospective
scenarios of future sustainable ways of living) and service design. He is
working on various projects of public policy design and public innovation
with local and regional authorities as well as ministries, and finally action‐
research projects at EU level.
François Jégou is founder and head of Strategic Design Scenarios. He

has 20 years of experience in strategic design, participative scenario
building and definition of new product-services-policy systems. François is
a professor of strategic design at La Cambre, Brussels and Design manager
of the Laboratory of Usage and Innovative Practices at the Cité du Design
in Saint-Etienne, France. He is the Lead expert of URBACT and founding
member of the DESIS Design for Social Innovation and Sustainability
network.
12
Introduction
This book focuses on codesign, and, more specifically, on “massive

codesign”: the idea that multiple and/or numerous participants having
different voices collaborate in a design process broken down into different
steps and formats and resulting in a relevant and diversified amount of data.
Services, strategies and scenarios are presented as the main field of
application: these are complex items that demand complex processes be
tackled, processes in which it is necessary to involve a variety of players
who are largely interdependent and therefore who must collaborate in order
to achieve any goal.
Moreover, the processes analysed in this book fall within the spheres of
public participation and social innovation, two areas in which the most
pressing challenges for codesign are currently arising, since they require
collaboration both to practise a more extended idea of democracy and to
develop solutions that correspond to collective social needs.
This book essentially makes two main contributions:

• a “Collaborative Design Framework” to identify and structure
codesign activities, methods and tools within massive creative
processes;
• a “set of quick lessons learnt” to provide guidance to the
conception and organisation of other massive creative processes.
The whole book is oriented at practice: it discusses codesign activities
from the designer’s point of view, detailing issues such as process from
beginning to end, activity flow, manipulability of tools, roles and rules for
participants and many others. It is intended as a support for designers
dealing in massive codesign processes and aims towards improved results.
13
The book is divided into 3 main parts:
• “Scoping Codesign”
• “Experimenting with Codesign”
• “Designing Codesign.”
(1) The first section is devoted to outlining the notion of codesign from
different perspectives. It initially provides a synthesis of the main
challenges for codesign today, highlighting how the idea of codesign has
extended and blurred its boundaries, focusing in particular on the areas of
public participation and social innovation. We then discuss codesign, also
touching on anthropology and ethnography as codesign employs a number
of methods with bases in these two fields, often misinterpreting and
simplifying them.
More importantly, the first part introduces the Collaborative Design
Framework which provides the structure for the analysis developed in the
second part of the book. This framework, building upon the well-known
Double Diamond design process, combines 2 polarities of concepts: one
summarises the subject matter which drives design (between “topic-driven”
and “concept-driven”); the other outlines the style of guidance by designers
(between “facilitating” and “steering”). The result is a compass of 4
quadrants in which the various codesign activities may be positioned and
highlight the evolution thereof from the initial stage of understanding a
topic to the eventual development of a concept.
Finally, in order to understand what type of approaches and resources
can be employed within this evolution, a basic glossary is provided
defining key-notions such as boundary objects, tools and prototypes.
(2) The second part of the book analyses 4 applied-research activities

according to the Collaborative Design Framework. They are:
• “CIMULACT”: a European research project involving citizens
and a wide range of stakeholders in redefining the Research and
Innovation Agenda for the Horizon 2020 programme;
• “Creative Citizens”: a codesign experiment devoted to developing
services to improve the daily life of a Milanese neighbourhood,
working with a group of citizens and multiple stakeholders;
• “Feeding Milan”: an action-research project funded by local
institutions aiming at creating a network of services to connect
farmers in the suburban area with consumers in the town;
• “SPREAD”: a European research project in which various societal
stakeholders from business, research, policy and civil society
14
backgrounds participated in the collaborative development of a
vision for sustainable lifestyles in Europe by 2050.
All these projects include a number of codesign activities that are

analysed by describing aims, participants, guidance style, subject matter,
Double Diamond stage, environmental set-up, duration, main phases,
boundary objects and final output.
This comparative analysis allows us not only to better understand how
these projects worked, but above all, to focus on how the Collaborative
Design Framework can be interpreted and what its possible applications
and extensions may be.
(3) Building upon the projects illustrated above, the third part of the
book presents a more detailed elaboration of the Collaborative Design
Framework, expanding it with a set of lessons learnt and actionable
recommendations. They may only serve as a few examples, however they
aim to provide insight for other designers performing similar activities.
The quick lessons learnt refer mainly to 3 cluster groups: process,
experience and boundary objects, and they specify each area providing
several focal points such as “engagement and recruitment”, “intensity and
fun”, “relationships with participants”, “visual thinking”, etc.
The Collaborative Design Framework is detailed by characterising the
activities of the 4 resulting quadrants: “discovering and exploring options”,
“imagining options beyond the world as it is”, “expanding and
consolidating options”, “creating, envisioning and developing options”. A
set of recommendations is provided for each area in order to make the
framework more concrete and applicable, and thus, to provide a practical
guidance for undertaking massive codesign processes.
The book concludes with a prediction: massive codesign processes

should become standard, especially within public participation and social
innovation spheres. They may help to improve results and, hopefully,
increase the level of transparency, accountability and democracy.
15
PART 1: Scoping Codesign
The first part of the book looks at the notion of codesign. It opens with a
reflection on the popularity that codesign has garnered in the last decade
which has contributed in extending and blurring its boundaries. A brief
history of codesign is then provided and the main current challenges are
outlined, in particular highlighting those in the public participation and
social innovation spheres.
To better complement this preparatory study, the relationship between
codesign, anthropology and ethnography is clarified to avoid the recurrence
of common misinterpretations and simplifications.
In particular, this first part introduces the framework used to structure
our discourse on codesign throughout the whole book: it is the
Collaborative Design Framework, adopted to analyse the case studies
presented in the second part, to debate the various differences in terms of
approaches, methods and tools and to provide suggestions and
recommendations. Moreover, the outline is completed by a basic glossary
that defines key-notions such as boundary objects, tools and prototypes.
16
1.1 Codesign Landscape Today
The last decade has seen the emergence of a great number of activities
labelled as “codesign projects”, ranging over a variety of: technology,
business, urban planning, community development and many others,
encompassing private, public and third sectors.
There are a number of reasons behind the popularity of codesign: the
most important one is that we currently live in an “era of participation” and
“participatory culture” (Smith, Bossen and Kanstrup, 2017; Jenkins, 2006),
in which people are able to contribute in new and unprecedented ways,
sharing their interests and concerns thanks to the rise of the internet and
Web 2.0 applications (Bannon and Ehn, 2012).
From public consultations, to codesign sessions, civic hackathons, and
other forms of creative meetings or workshops: a great variety of
participatory events and programmes are popping up all over the world,
within companies, governments and organisations in general. This is also
because the practice of collective creativity is considered promising in
tackling the most pressing societal challenges: in order to solve complex
problems it is necessary to include a multitude of diverse players.
The notion of codesign is precisely based on the idea that people having
different voices should collaborate within a design process: this practice
has been around for almost forty years under the label of participatory
design, while the use of the expression “codesign” is a more recent
conceptualisation.
In their studies, Sanders and Stappers (2008) attempted to connect
codesign to the vast history of participatory practices by presenting it as the
resulting convergence of 2 different approaches: the user-centred design
approach, of American tradition, in which the user is considered an “object
of study” and the participatory approach adopted by Scandinavian
countries, characterised by a view of the user as a “partner”. In the first
approach, designers use interviews as a method to observe and study users;
17
in the second one, users are considered “experts of their experience” and
thus play a key role from idea generation to development, similar to the
conceptualisation of “users as resources” suggested by Manzini (2015).
The notion of participatory design developed in Scandinavian countries
mainly refers to the works by Ehn and his colleagues. In order to deal with
the challenge posed by introducing new technologies in the work place
during the Seventies, they assumed the simple standpoint that those
affected by design should have a voice in the design process (Ehn, 1989).
From the very beginning, this idea of participatory design was very
political, because it was viewed not only as a way to enhance workers’
expertise but, above all, as a movement towards democratisation at work.
In a more recent article, Ehn describes how participatory design has
evolved: he highlights a shift from participatory design aimed at working in
companies to a participatory design devoted to enhancing processes of
empowerment within communities (Ehn, 2008). He precisely defines this
move as a shift from designing “things” (objects) to designing “Things”
(socio-material assemblies of human and non-human elements), meaning
that the object of design was changing - not only products, but more
complex items, entering new environments that differ from companies in
the private sector and also encompass everyday life and the public sphere.
In this book, we refer in particular to the codesign of complex items:

services, strategies and scenarios. These require the participation of
multiple and various actors from both the public and private spheres, and
expert and non-expert domains that fall within a sort of “third” space.
According to Muller (2008), this “third space” is a fertile environment
in which participants can combine diverse knowledge in new insights and
action plans. Codesign was originally associated with the initial stages of a
creative process, the “front end” activities of exploration and the generation
of ideas (Sanders and Stappers 2008), but it is now increasingly valued as
an opportunity to create a “third space” or “infrastructure” (Bjögvinsson,
Ehn and Hillgren, 2012) that facilitate discourse and collaboration among
diverse players involved in a creative process ranging from the initial ideas
to actual implementation.
In this book we consider codesign as an activity generating services,
strategies and scenarios conducted across the entire span of the creative
process and, thus, not only in the moment of the exploration and generation
of ideas, but also during the decision and deliberation processes. This is
also related to a current stream of research into more extensive models of
participation, especially in the public sector, encompassing codesign, co-
18
decision, co-production and co-evaluation, and, as a result, co-governing
(Pollitt, Bouckaert and Löffler, 2006).
Today, therefore, the label “codesign” covers various forms of

participation that, in a way, have contributed to expanding its semantic
field, increasing its popularity and framing new challenges.
Bannon and Ehn (2012) attempted to outline these challenges that stress
how codesign is blurring its boundaries.
They refer to them as participatory productions and they include:
• open innovation and Living Labs,
• peer-production and maker spaces;
• public participation and social innovation.
We will briefly discuss these areas, with special emphasis on the latter,
as all the case studies analysed in this book fall under the sphere of public
participation and social innovation.
Closed models of innovation are currently considered as having been

overcome by more open models in which diverse contributions can be
acquired wherever they are found (Chesbrough, 2003). This challenge of
open innovation is closely linked to the establishment of more collaborative
environments in which it is possible to co-create value with users and other
players (Prahalad and Krishnan, 2008; Von Hippel, 2005), and, thus, to
fruitfully make use of codesign methods and tools.
In this sense, the appearance of Living Labs in western countries may be
seen as an attempt to create spaces for open innovation, highlighting the
importance of engaging end-users and various stakeholders at all stages of
development. This was the same for the emergence of what Binder (2007)
calls design labs, in which the authorship of the design work is shared
between the lab partners and stakeholders.
This discourse could also be applied to some Fab Labs and maker
spaces: having sprung up around the world very rapidly over the past years,
only a few of them, show a shift from “do-it-yourself” to “do-it-together”
(Seravalli, 2011). Here, by adopting a codesign approach we can also
facilitate the creation of networks that can then support peer-to-peer
production and generate innovation.
Another of the main current challenges for codesign lies in public

participation: in recent years, we have observed an increase in public
consultations to improve the efficiency and transparency of public
involvement in large-scale projects and, above all, to allow people to
19
participate in decision-making processes and practise a more extended idea
of democracy.
The use of public consultations has increased at different levels of
governance, ranging from transnational to national, regional and local
levels. In particular, the European Commission has launched numerous
public consultations (EC - European Commission, 2017), concerning a
diverse range of issues: one of these, CIMULACT (Citizen and Multi-
Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020) will be studied further in the second
part of this book. More specifically, our challenge lies in integrating
codesign methods and tools in public consultations, attempting to improve
the actual participation of citizens and stakeholders by enabling people to
contribute better to transforming their needs into proposals for the future.
This reflection on codesign and public consultation is closely linked to
the more extensive notion of public participation, in which different
engagement mechanisms are defined. The most well-known framework for
identifying the different levels of public participation is “Arnstein's ladder”
(Arnstein, 1969), which has been repeatedly re-elaborated. One of the most
significant is the classification developed by the International Association
for Public Participation (IAP2, 2007), in which public participation is
analysed for the different goals and from the point of view of the nation
state. As such, it covers a wide spectrum of activities: information,
consultation, involvement, collaboration and empowerment.
Here, we see a great challenge for codesign: how to facilitate a move
from simple consultations to actual collaboration, in which “those who are
consulted”, become, in a way, the artificers of “contents”, ranging from
simple feed-back to more articulated contributions. In particular, the main
issue for codesign is to overcome yes or no answers, facilitating the
emergence of complex ideas, combining not only opinions, but also visions
and proposals.
We believe that a greater reflection on public participation and codesign
is needed. This is relevant not only for the theories, methods and profession
of design, but above all to imagine new forms of democracy, in a moment
in which the crisis of democracy has reached an all-time high all over the
planet (Freedomhouse, 2018).
The final challenge for codesign that we wish to highlight is connected

to social innovation, which is also the main field of investigation of our
research group POLIMI DESIS Lab.
Social innovation can be many different things: a product, a process or a
technology, but also a principle, a piece of legislation, a social movement,
or a combination of the above (Phills et al., 2008).
20
They are new ideas that emerge for corresponding social needs (Murray
et al., 2010) and they often include a variety of players such as end-users,
technicians and entrepreneurs, local institutions and civil society
organisations.
In this scenario, as Manzini (2015) suggests, designers must use their
skills to sustain promising cases of social innovation to make them more
visible by designing their products, services and communication
programmes, and thus supporting the upscaling thereof. Manzini defines
this set of design approaches, sensibilities and tools as a design for social
innovation: it is not a brand new discipline, but a combination of product,
communication, service and strategic design.
In particular, when dealing with social innovation, codesign appears to
be crucial as it must provide space for the perspectives and active
participation of a number of different players.
Codesign is a complex, contradictory, sometimes antagonistic process, in which

different stakeholders (design experts included) propose their specific skills and
culture. It is a social conversation in which everybody is allowed to bring ideas and
take action, even though these ideas and actions could, at times, generate problems
and tensions (Manzini, 2016, p. 58).
Here, Manzini outlines a codesign space which is the same area in

which social innovation can occur: an arena open to debate and proposals
from other cultural worlds, where shared experimentation and comparison
of experiences across diverse sectors lead participants to confront real-life
situations, combining different ideas and knowledge into a new design,
that, hopefully, may generate social innovation.
Within this perspective, the term codesign refers to the organizing of
open and social innovation processes that may provide solutions to the
most pressing societal challenges. It is no coincidence that Selloni (2017),
in the conclusion of her book on codesigning services, outlines a set of
emerging features for codesign in the social and public spheres. To name
but a few, they illustrate codesign as a form of citizen empowerment, as a
precondition to co-production, as a public service and key competence for
the public sector, and as a form of citizen participation and democracy.
By analysing a number of codesign activities carried out in 4 applied

research projects in the areas of public participation and social innovation
we will hereby attempt to structure codesign activities, methods and tools
within a Collaborative Design Framework that will act as a guide in the
organisation of “massive” creative processes. That is, processes that
involve multiple and/or numerous participants in different steps and
21
formats, and produce a relevant and diversified amount of data. Processes
that, thus, reflect the increasing complexity of service design, dealing with
complex service systems, value constellations and service ecosystems
characterised by multi-player networks, largely interdependent but
collaborating out of need (Sangiorgi et al., 2017).
We define these as “massive codesign processes” which are likely to
become the new standard in improving results and which will, hopefully,
increase the level of transparency, accountability and democracy of today’s
design projects.
Bibliographical References
Arnstein, S. R. (1969), A ladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American
Institute of Planners 35(4): 216-24.
Bannon, L. J. and Ehn, P. (2012), “Design: Design Matters in Participatory
Design”, in Simonsen, J. and Robertsen, T. (eds.) Routledge International
Handbook of Participatory Design. New York, NY.: Routledge, pp. 37-63.
Binder, T. (2007), “Why design: labs?”, in Design Inquiries, Nordes Conference,
Stockholm.
Bjögvinsson, E., Ehn, P. and Hillgren, P.A. (2012), “Design Things and Design
Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges”, Design Issues,
28(3), 101-116.
Chesbrough, H. (2003), Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and
Profiting from Technology, Harvard, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
EC European Commission (2017), Your voice in Europe, Consultation, on line
resource, available at:
http://ec.europa.eu/yourvoice/consultations/2016/index_en.htm, accessed on
04/03/2018.
Ehn, P. (2008), Participation in design things. In Proceedings of the 10th
Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design. New York: ACM.
Ehn, P. (1988), Work-Oriented Design of Computer Artefacts. Arbetslivscentrum,
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ.
Freedomhouse (2018), Democracy in Crisis: Freedom House Releases Freedom in
the World 2018, on line resource, available at:
https://freedomhouse.org/article/democracy-crisis-freedom-house-releases-
freedom-world-2018, accessed on 04/03/ 2018.
IAP2 - International Association for Public Participation (2007), Spectrum of
public participation. Consultation, on line resource, available at:
http://www.fgcu.edu/Provost/files/IAP_Public_Participation_Spectrum.pdf,
accessed on 04/03/2018.
Manzini, E. (2016), “Design Culture and Dialogic Design”, Design Issues, Vol. 32,
1: 52-59.
Manzini, E. (2015), Design, When Everybody Design. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
22
Muller, M. J. (2002), “Participatory design: the third space in HCI”, in Sears, J.A.
The human-computer interaction handbook (pp. 1051-1068). Hillsdale, NJ,
USA: L. Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Murray, R., Caulier-Grice, J. and Mulgan, G. (2010), The Open Book of Social
Innovation. London: The Young Foundation, Nesta.
Phills, J.A., Deiglmeier, K. and Miller, D.T. (2008), Rediscovering Social
Innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review - Fall 2008.
Pollitt, C., Bouckaert, G. and Löffler, E. (2006), Making quality sustainable:
codesign, codesign, co-produce and co-evaluate. Scientific Rapporteurs, 4QZ
conference.
Prahalad, C. K. and Krishnan, M. S. (2008), The New Age of Innovation: Driving
Co-created Value through Global Networks, New York: McGraw-Hill.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the New Landscapes
of Design”, CoDesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the
Arts, Vol. 4, 1 - Design Participation(-s): 5-18.
Sangiorgi, D., Patricio, L. and Fisk, R. (2017), “Designing for Interdependence,
Participation and Emergence in Complex Service Systems”, in Sangiorgi, D.
and Prendiville, A., edited by, Designing for Service: Key Issues and New
Directions, London: Bloomsbury Press, pp. 49-64.
Selloni, D. (2017), CoDesign for Public Interest Services, Springer International
Publishing.
Seravalli, A. (2011), Democratizing production: challenges in codesigning
enabling platforms for social innovation, paper presented at “The Tao of
Sustainability”, an international conference on sustainable design strategies in a
globalisation contest, Beijing, 27-29 October.
Smith, R.C., Bossen, C. and Kanstrup, A.M. (2017), Participatory design in an era
of participation. CoDesign Journal, 13:2, 65-69.
von Hippel, E. (2005), Democratizing Innovation, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23
1.2 Anthropology, Ethnography and Massive
Codesign for Complex Services
By Stefana Broadbent
Anthropologists have a tense relationship with rapid design-oriented

ethnography. Although applied ethnography has extracted anthropology
from the enclosure of a purely academic discipline and projected it at the
forefront of practically all digital development and service design,
anthropologists often feel there is an undue reduction of methods and
theory leading to an extreme simplification of the social sphere. This
tension is often discussed (Baba, 2005; Ingold, 2017) and is an
undercurrent of much of the bridging work done by associations such as
EPIC (the Ethnographic Praxis in Industry Conference).
1.2.1 Design Oriented Rapid Ethnography
The causes for contention are multiple, the principal one being the
difference in time spent in the field, a question of days in design
ethnography and months or years in anthropology. However there are also
issues regarding the topics investigated, the explanatory frameworks
invoked to interpret observations, and even questions of ethics in regards to
the instrumental relation with informants.
Anthropologists often accuse design ethnographers of ignoring the all
important topic of power for instance or lacking a critical outlook and of
being focused on description rather than interpretation. All of these
questions have been amply debated (Halse et al., 2010; Venkatesh, 2013;
Hjorth, 2016) and have led progressively to the creation of distinct
disciplines such as user centred design, user research or design
ethnography, each with their own conceptual framework, methodology,
training and evaluation. It must be noted that design is not the only field in
which ethnography has been adopted as a method of enquiry; sociology as
24
well is increasingly engaged in micro-sociology to enrich or substitute
more standard quantitative methods. Policy making, communication and
market research also engage in ethnography in an attempt to capture the
insights that a contextualised investigation of people’s practices can bring.
The critiques waged by anthropologists against ethnography

practitioners should not be brushed aside lightly because they point to a
crucial characteristic of the investigation into social groups that is relevant
to the design process. Anthropologists need time in the field to be able to
create a rapport with the social groups they are investigating, to be able to
develop a different gaze, extracting themselves from a point of observation
determined by their own worldview, but most importantly to embrace the
complexity of the environments they are investigating. In order to engage
with the multiplicity of viewpoints, social relations, artefacts and practices
they are studying, anthropologists rightly feel that time is at issue.
Participant observation therefore is not just a methodology to become
engaged in the relations and activities of the people being researched, it is a
way to embrace the complexity of the situations being studied. Becoming
proficient in the culture of any social group is a long process. This means
understanding the legal system, overt and implicit, the economic ties and
ecosystems, the spatial and geographical relations, the moral values and
attitudes, mastering artefacts and processes.
This type of understanding is not just a requirement of research in
traditional post-colonial field sites but also in digital environments. When
Boelstorff (2008) spent 2 years in Second Life he had to learn to construct a
virtual world, acquire currency to do some transactions, build relationships,
learn a language, engage with the developers and players. Similarly Wallis
in her study of young Chinese migrant women’s use of the mobile phone
(Wallis, 2013), needed a few years to master the context in which the
mobile was used by rural migrants to enable the integration into new forms
of modernity.
Furthermore, anthropologists rely on other anthropological studies to

complete the picture of the social environments they are engaging with,
building on existing bodies of knowledge. Boelstorff’s analysis of the
economic relations in Second Life invokes an American culture of
liberalism to apprehend the viewpoint of the participants who engage in the
acquisition of virtual property. Wallis also could rely on a wide body of
research on rural to urban migration in China. The possibility of building
on other research, other fields and other observations is a crucial element to
tackle complex social systems.
25
1.2.2 Complexity and Ethnography
The issue of complexity is particularly relevant when thinking about

massive codesign in which the effort of bringing together a large number of
stakeholders and participants corresponds to an attempt to broaden the
number of viewpoints taken into consideration. Here the objective is to
involve a diversity of citizens and experts because the projects are more
elaborate and involve a range of social publics and social actors. For
instance, services that are aimed at transforming fundamental
administrative processes for a whole city, region or country will inevitably
need to take into account a multiplicity of voices, expectations and
practices. This type of service design is particularly complex also because
numerous elements are being concurrently redesigned: from artefacts, to
regulations, from economic transactions, to behaviours ad actions, from
information to social roles and interactions.
A textbook example of such efforts has been the work done by GDS in
the UK for GOV.UK to transform government services, tools and
standards. The objective of the Government Digital Services is to transform
how government operates, transform the services offered to citizens,
modify bureaucratic processes, offer digital versions for all of the forms
and procedures, involve citizens in order to be user centred. The work
therefore is multifold and attempts to bridge the cultures of civil service, of
specific departments, of diverse citizens, of technology developers, etc.
But GOV.UK is not unique, and increasingly service design projects are
addressing very broad publics, which are diverse in expertise, experience,
cultural and social background. In fact service design can be characterised
as a design approach that by definition has to handle complexity (Sangiorgi
et al., 2017).
The challenge for ethnography is therefore to be able to provide the

insights and indications that can inform the design process without
drowning it in information but also without reducing the complex to the
trivial (Gunn et al., 2013). In the Double Diamond model (Design Council,
2014) the role for ethnography in the early phases of discovery is to help
designers frame the scope but also provide a first moment of dialogue in
which collaboration is established.
Creating a space for collaboration means finding points of exchange in
which groups that have extremely different experiences can agree and focus
on issues that are relevant to all (Kleinsman et al., 2008). The process of
codesign with the accent put on the co-creation of artefacts, be they
prototypes or any other support to discussion, makes a huge step into the
26
direction of creating joint spaces of attention and meaning. However the
initial phases of familiarisation and discovery still rely on an exploration of
the social realities and practices of the groups that will be the actors of the
transformation. Delimiting the scope, setting the scene and context for
collaboration still means apprehending the range of experiences and
constraints under which the different actors operate. This means that we are
back in the camp of ethnography, anthropology and social enquiry.
1.2.3 Producing Ethnography to Enable Discovery and

Collaboration
Too often in design processes the question underlying the first phase of
enquiry is to uncover the “needs” of the stakeholders and citizens.
Interviews and contextual observations are organised to discover the “real
needs” in order to avoid imposing on users preconceived ideas on what will
be the benefits of the new services. While this systematic inclusion of
citizens in the design process has been achieved with great effort after
decades in which the designer/developer knew what was good for the user,
framing the investigation around needs inevitably restricts our
understanding of the social sphere.
Social groups and individuals are adaptive by definition and therefore
even in front of highly dysfunctional situations tend to elaborate solutions
and practices that work for them. This means that although potentially sub-
optimal, adapted strategies exist and function. In turn this implies that the
expression of needs rarely touches the core of experiences because needs
have been addressed in the elaboration of the existing practices. This again
is the reason why designers are so important in devising alternative
scenarios which can improve significantly on existing situations.
But if “need” is not the primary object of inquiry, what is? We would
argue that it is “practice”. In anthropology «social practices are bodily and
mental routines» (Reckwitzc, 2002) or as Postill says «sets of activities that
humans perform with varying degrees of commitment, competence and
flair» (Postill, 2012, p.12). Since the late 70s social sciences have
increasingly put the accent on practice to study human activity in daily life.
The interest of “practice” is that it includes all those elements that are
crucial for service design: the interactions with people, artefacts, norms and
institutions. Practice is in fact the true object of transformation by service
design. When a new service redefines how a social group has access to
medical records, pays taxes or rents bicycles, what is being modified are
27
the set of actions and interactions with which these activities are habitually
performed. Practices are by definition dynamic and in constant evolution as
people adapt their actions to a multiplicity of factors: the constraints of the
physical, social, regulatory and economic environment. In this sense they
are open to transformations and redesigns.
To study practices means to understand those habitual activities that

people perform within their cultural sphere. Describing human activities
provides a powerful insight into cultural environments and social norms.
Actions are constrained by contextual fields and therefore they allow us to
delve into social, institutional and physical environments. Investigating
practices thus requires multiple sources of data because actions are
performed in these different settings and researchers need to capture them
all. This means observing activities, recording places, interactions,
gestures, looking at artefacts, understanding processes and rules. It is a
challenging and work intensive task.
1.2.4 Building an Ethnographic Body of Knowledge for

Service Design Projects
Anthropology as a discipline has built a body of knowledge over time,

both in terms of theoretical systems and in terms of the accumulated
research of specific populations and social groups. Similarly, large design
projects should aim at progressively accumulating insights in structured
formats. Too often each design project is approached as a tabula rasa, a
new frontier to explore afresh. Time constraints then mean that the new
inquiry can only scratch the surface and interviews are preferred to the
analysis of practices.
The only solution for complex massive codesign projects is, in our view,
to construct a body of observations and analysis on practices that can
constitute a basic repository of reference. If one wanted to make the
analogy it would be a “Github” or repository of ethnographic data. Github
is the largest host for source code in the world with 57 million repositories
of open-source software projects and 20 million users. Coders can use code
they find in the repositories for their own projects and add their own code
to existing projects. Just as coding is always a process of combining pieces
of existing code, so design ethnography for complex systems should build
on pieces of ethnographic knowledge. An example of such an approach was
the Swisscom Observatory of Digital Life.
28
Between 2004 and 2008 the Social Science research group at Swisscom
Innovation, the R&D department of Swisscom the Swiss national Telecom
operator built an Observatory of Digital Life (Broadbent et al., 2008). With
a group of 12 social scientists we systematically researched the daily
practices of Swiss citizens with all digital media: communication channels,
internet services, television and video, radio and music, gaming and
photography. The User Observatory also started collecting data on digital
practices at work. The research was done either diachronically with regular
studies being repeated identically across different populations every so
many months, or longitudinally in which 50 households for a total of 160
people were followed for 4 years. In all cases, the methodology, tools and
data format collected was as similar to make it possible to build up a
coherent and consistent body of knowledge. These tools included
communication diaries in which participants wrote down their exchanges,
maps of homes with indications of where and how devices were being
used, timelines of the day of each member of a household, transcripts of
interviews, detailed descriptions of online activities, photos, etc. Combined
together these elements provided a complete overview of the daily digital
practices of the participants. Occasionally, certain studies focused on
additional topics such as gaming, music, video viewing or information
gathering. Regardless of the topic, however, there was always a baseline of
data that was being collected on the patterns of daily life, communication
and internet usage.
Over a period of a few years the Observatory managed to collect

hundreds of descriptions, interviews and observations of Swiss daily life at
home and how it was being enacted in the digital sphere.
The data was coded, tagged and collected in a centralised open system
that was easily searchable. Researchers could easily find all the households
in which certain activities were being performed, or compare behaviours
over time. This wealth of information and data allowed the group to be
always up to date with insights on the more fundamental aspects of Swiss
digital culture and capable of complementing this understanding with rapid
on demand studies on specific issues that arose from the service and
product departments of the organisation. Complementing this research
there was also the comparison of ethnographic data with massive
quantitative data coming from the data mining of the telecom network.
Observations could be substantiated by statistically significant results.
In terms of the design process, the insights that could be provided by the
Observatory were wide ranging and attempted to explain why certain
29
practices were emerging or disappearing in Swiss society. We were
particularly attentive to understand what were the obstacles and triggers to
adoption. We could give indications to why some practices were more
likely to change and other not. For instance concerning communication
practices, by studying hundreds of communication diaries, we identified the
role of mutual attention in the choice of communication channel. It
emerged that people preferred asynchronous channels such as texting or
email over synchronous ones like voice calls. This was to avoid asking for
immediate attention from people that were not part of a very close set of
relations. We found out that asking for attention is a social process that
involves issues of status that people find difficult to negotiate (e.g. it is
awkward to interrupt and ask for immediate attention from someone with a
higher status so most people tend to anticipate a voice call with an email or
text). The implications of this finding for the specification of text-based
communication services was very significant and oriented a number of
design choices.
1.2.5 Discovery, Ethnography and Codesign
Building a repository of ethnographic research on the daily practices of

citizens is not an impossible task. As we saw above, it requires consistency
in the data collection process in order to progressively accumulate
comparable results. There are many data formats that can be used in a
systematic way across different studies: daily diaries, journey maps,
relationship graphs, timelines and spatial maps, recordings and semi-
structured interviews The real issue, however, is to make methodological
choices that can last over time and that are not project specific but that on
the contrary can be generalised and repeated. What we are aiming for is a
level of description and understanding that can be transferred between
different domains.
For instance, when we study the experiences of patients with hospitals
and medical institutions and track their journeys across the spectrum of
medical services, we are learning about a wide range of activities and
interactions. An ethnography can convey the role of the family and of
support systems during an illness; how information is acquired and
circulated, the numerous touchpoints with the medical profession etc. etc.
This type of understanding can be generalised to think about the redesign of
medical records just as easily as the redesign of a system of hospices for
terminally ill patients.
30
But to conclude, how does such a background knowledge enable and
facilitate the process of codesign? Starting from a vantage point in which
there is extensive understanding of the basic processes and experiences
citizens live on a daily basis, means that the dialogue can be engaged any
of the specific topics, which pertain to the project. With a shared context it
is possible to elevate the discussion to a level that can address the
fundaments of practices and services. Rather than recording complaints or
details of all that is not functioning, as is often the case when people are
asked to express their needs, designers can engage on motivations, flows,
relational dynamics and make proposals at the level of complexity they are
hoping to intervene. This level of discourse has the advantage of being
much more effective to enable strategic decisions and it can be confronted
with quantitative data coming from other sources. It also enables
stakeholders to engage on high level issues. Finally, the codesign process
can become iterative and more frequent as the discovery phase is
permanently ongoing and a dialogue is always open with citizens and
stakeholders.
Baba, M. (2005), To the End of the Theory-practice Apartheid: Encountering the

World. EPIC 2005, pp. 205-217.
Boellstorff, T. (2008), Coming of Age in Second Life: An Anthropologist Explores
the Virtually Human, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ.
Broadbent, S. (2012), “Issues in Personal Communication”, in Horst, H. and
Miller, D., eds. Digital Anthropology, Berg, London, pp. 127-145.
Broadbent, S. and Bauwens, V. (2008), “Understanding Convergence”,
Interactions, ACM Vol. 15, 1: 29-37.
Design Council (2014), The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond?, on
line resource, available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-
opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond, accessed on 01/03/2018.
Gunn, W. O. and Smith, R. C. eds. (2013), Design Anthropology: Theory and
Practice, Bloomsbury Academic, London.
Halse, J., Brandt, E., Clark, B. and Binder, T. (2010), Rehearsing the Future,
Danish Design School Press, Copenhagen.
Hjorth, L., Horst, H., Galloway, A. and Bell, G. eds. (2016), The Routledge
Companion to Digital Ethnography, Routledge, London New York.
Ingold, T. (2017), “Anthropology Contra Ethnography”, Journal of Ethnographic
Theory, Vol. 7, 1: 21-26.
Kleinsmann, M. and Valkenburg, R. (2008), “Barriers and Enablers for Creating
Shared Understanding in Co-Design Projects”, Design Studies, Vol. 29: 369-
386.
31
Pink, S. (2013), Doing Visual Ethnography. Sage publications.
Postill, J. (2010), “Introduction: Theorising media and practice”, in Bräuchler, B.
and Postill, J., eds. Theorising Media and Practice, Berghahn, Oxford and New
York, pp.1-27.
Reckwitz, A. (2002), “Toward a Theory of Social Practices. A Development in
Culturalist Theorizing”, European Journal of Social Theory, Vol. 5: 243-63.
Directions, Bloomsbury Press, London, pp. 49-64.
Star, S. L. and Ruhleder, K. (1994), “Steps Towards an Ecology of Infrastructure:
Complex Problems in Design and Access for Large-Scale Collaborative
Systems”, in Proceedings of the 1994 ACM conference on Computer supported
cooperative work (CSCW '94). ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp. 253-264.
Venkatesh, S. A., (2013), “The reflexive turn: the rise of first-person ethnography”,
The Sociological Quarterly, Vol. 54, 1: 3-8.
Wallis, C. (2013), Technomobility in China: Young Migrant Women and Mobile
Phones, New York University Press, New York.
Wieber, B. E., Hughes, T. P., and Pinch, T. J. (1987), The Social Construction of
Technological Systems: New Directions in the Sociology and History of
Technology, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
32
1.3 A Collaborative Design Framework
Today, collaborative practices influence all phases and circumstances of

design activity and process (Sanders and Stappers, 2008; Steen, 2013),
from opportunity finding to prototyping, from creation to assessment, and
from laboratories to the streets (Ehn, in DiSalvo, 2017). This is particularly
true when it comes to service design, because its very approach implies a
continuous involvement of subjects other than the designer (users, experts,
stakeholders) and because its methods and tools are useful in framing
interactive design processes between multiple entities (Meroni and
Sangiorgi, 2011).
1.3.1 Collaboration Within a Creative Process: the Design

Subject Matter
If we take the example of one of the most common and acknowledged

design creative processes, the Double Diamond conceptualised by the
Design Council (2014), we can argue that all the steps of the divergent and
convergent phases could be developed (and are actually, more and more so)
in a collaborative way:
• The “discovery” phase: aimed at scoping the work, it often requires a
rapid ethnographic field survey that, together with other research
activities, contributes to the emergence of insights into the problem
(Broadbent, chapter 1.2 of this book). The way in which this rapid
ethnography is “designerly” conducted implies an interaction with the
target user or the stakeholders that, while drawing and adapting tools
from ethnography, establishes a dialogical exchange according to
Sennett’s interpretation. That is, a dialogic conversation that «prospers
through empathy», driven by «the sentiment of curiosity about who
other people are in themselves» (Sennett, 2012, p. 15). Thus rapid-
33
ethnography becomes a collaborative way to explore the world and
visions of others, and to find design opportunities, in so doing opening
the way to subsequent codesign activities. This exploratory phase can
involve huge numbers of people and garner just as much input.
• The “definition” phase: aimed at interpreting all the possibilities
identified during the discovery phase, it often requires interaction with
experts or with other relevant project stakeholders in order to define
the actual “project brief” that is the description of the design challenge
and its fundamental specifications. To come to this result, a rather
dialectic approach is taken (Sennett, 2012), in which diverging
positions have to progressively converge and reach a synthesis. For
this to happen within complex or complicated problems, the input
generated in the discovery phase need to be considered from the
viewpoint of innovation and of the project’s strategy. In order to
involve knowledge on these aspects in the design process, experts and
project decision-makers are therefore engaged in the selection and
consequent definition of the design brief. Frequently, this phase is
likely to deal with a large amount of data and options, so that it is
becoming increasingly important to consider assistance from digital
technology (data mining, pattern recognition and other techniques
under the umbrella of machine learning...) in supporting human
interpretation and decision-making.
• The “develop” phase: aimed at creating, (pre)prototyping and iterating
solutions or concepts, it refers to the most conventional activities of a
design process and it is almost collaborative and multi-actor in nature.
This creative work can be done through several approaches and
methods, it starts with orientation, an initial concept, pre-determined
by the brief and has an exploratory purpose that facilitates the
participants in building up their visions. Once again, this approach
refers back to a “dialogue” according Sennett (Sennett, 2012), in
which different positions are desirable, without closure or resolution,
and in which the situation is less competitive and more cooperative.
Indeed, the more alternative options are explored, the better.
• The “deliver” phase: aimed at finalising and producing the resulting
project, it implies the agreed participation of all stakeholders in order
to make things happen. At this stage, collaboration is necessary in
deciding what to do and must turn into co-production, the
implementation of an agreement on what to do together and on the
capabilities to be put into the solution. Therefore, it implies the active
involvement of the project decision-makers and the importance of
34
collaborative testing and prototyping solutions cannot be
underestimated.
Considering this sequence of phases as a linear (yet iterative, because of

the continuous back-and-forth between framing the problem and finding a
solution) process we can create a two-pole axis that summarises the subject
matter behind the design:
• on one side, there are “topic-driven” activities that refer to the
problem/situation that has to be investigated through the project,
• on the other side there are “concept-driven” activities that refer to an
orientation defined through the problem-solving brief.
Fig. 1.1 – The Double Diamond scheme elaborated with two polarities about the
subject matter of design
1.3.2 Collaboration within a Creative Process: the Style of

Guidance
The way collaboration takes place in design is not only dependent on

the phase of the process. A crucial issue is also how the practice of «joint
inquiry and imagination» of codesign is conducted, a process «in which
diverse people jointly explore and define a problem and jointly develop and
evaluate solutions. It is a process in which participants are able to express
and share their experiences, to discuss and negotiate their roles and
35
interests, and to jointly bring about positive change» (Steen, 2013, pp. 27-
28). How the designer interacts with the other participants influences their
awareness of the process, their contribution and their relationship with the
others, their critical thinking and self-criticism, their capacity to think
beyond what is already known and their own “comfort zone”.
In fact, building on the considerations of the philosopher Dewey (1938),
during codesign both “perceptive” (the capacity to see, hear, touch, smell
and taste what is) and “conceptive” (the capacity to imagine and envision
what could be) capacities of all participants need to be adequately
challenged and therefore applied, in order to effectively and “ethically”
interact with one another. When a challenge is too big, ill-defined or
ineffectively framed by those guiding the activity, it may cause not only
technical issues but also ethical ones (Steen, 2013), since the participants
are not adequately enabled to contribute. Consequently, the style of
guidance is crucial for the success of a codesign initiative and must be
sensitive to the circumstances. As such, we can argue that the guidance
approach can range between two stances: “active listening” and being
“thought-provoking”, reflecting a difference in purpose and situation.
The “active listening” style encourages the free flow of thoughts and
flourishing of empathy and sympathy between participants. Active
listening, in the words of Marianella Sclavi, is:
an art for the transformation of pains and anxieties into opportunities for
knowledge and awareness. «In order to understand what another person is saying,
you must assume that he/she is right and ask him/her to help you to understand
what makes them right». You have to assume that this person who does not
understand you (and who thereby irritates you!) is in fact an intelligent person, and
you must therefore ask that person, as well as yourself, for a description of the
vision of the world that allows their point of view to appear to be true. Active
Listening has the most to offer in situations that are charged with tensions and in
environments that are rife with conflicts, or, in general, where argumentation is
destined to failure, and where a neutral attitude is senseless. Active Listening is not
obligatory (...), but once one has decided to practice it, it demands that all positions
– and especially those that most seem incompatible – be accepted and appreciated
as contributions to the drafting of shared solutions and options that differ from
those which initially presented themselves. Active Listening doesn’t reduce to an
exercise in empathy and sympathy, and indeed begins to function at the point at
which it proves fruitless to try step into the other’s shoes: the point at which we
have to assume our interlocutor’s intelligence not because we have understood
what she/he is saying, but in order to be able to understand it (Sclavi, 2008, p. 3).
36
The way a designer adopts this position implies an adaptation to a role
and an attitude that, in any codesign activity, is (at least) as concerned with
the forms and quality of the outputs in terms of ideas, as with the effects of
the act of designing in the relationships within the community. Therefore,
an approach is generated that differs from the one of a facilitator with a
background in social sciences, introducing greater attention toward creative
problem-framing and -solving.
With particular reference to scenarios, according to Ogilvy (2002) the
way a designer may conduct a workshop is similar to that of an existential
psychoanalyst with a community or an institution: it is a Socratic-based
practice and works as a testing ground for the aspirations of a community.
Therefore, a scenario workshop facilitator does not tell people what to do
or think, but «draw out (e-ducare) the concerns of others» (p. 183) through
leading questions. Like Socrates himself, the facilitator then needs to know
quite a lot about the subject under discussion «in order to ask those
questions that lead in the most productive direction» (ibidem).
A “thought-provoking” style, on the other hand, leads the participants’

thoughts toward some critical aspects or opportunities of a given topic or
concept. This guidance is likely to lead the participants on paths of thought
and speculative journeys that aim to generate reactions and, in general,
responsiveness to a given status.
This position is, normally, congenial and familiar for a designer, whose
role in a debate or creative session is generally considered to be a
contribution of ideas and input to be shared with the participants. This is
also, in the words of Ezio Manzini, where the capacities of a “design
expert” come into their own:
design is a capacity for critical analysis and reflection, with which design experts
produce knowledge, visions and quality criteria that can be made concrete in
feasible proposals. (...) ...a design expert must also be a carrier of this specific
culture: the design culture. Design culture encompasses the knowledge, values,
visions, and quality criteria that emerge from the tangle of conversations occurring
during design activities (...) and the conversations that take place in various design
arenas (Manzini, 2016, p. 54).
Aware that this may risk leading to forms of persuasion that omit
critical thinking through imagination, this style of guidance is a way of
focussing on the meaning of the subject -manner and of trying to skip the
“participation-ism” defined by Manzini (2016) as a way to reduce the role
of design experts to “process facilitators” of over-simplified systems. In a
thought-provoking approach, we can recognise the basis of what
37
psychologists call “strategic conversations” (Nardone and Salvini, 2004): a
technique that works to change the perception of things in order to change
emotional and behavioural reactions, ultimately in order to change the
understanding of a problem (Meroni, 2008).
1.3.3 A Framework
By polarising these two styles of guidance, we can create an axis that

visualises the different ways to rule and run codesign activities:
• on one side, there is “(designerly) facilitation”, which mainly draws
and builds on the techniques of “active listening” and theories relating
thereto;
• on the other side, there is “(designerly) steering”, which mainly
adopts the “thought-provoking” posture of designers as experts in
envisioning the future.
The two so created axes can be inter-crossed to generate a framework of

four alternative intentions with which collaboration can be used within a
comprehensive design process: the Collaborative Design Framework.
38
Fig. 1.2 – The Collaborative Design Framework
• In the “Topic-Driven” and “Facilitating” quadrant, we can classify the

codesign initiatives that aim towards Discovering and Exploring
Options. Here, collaboration is aimed at considering within a project
the needs and experiences of relevant stakeholders and users, so as to
take into account their knowledge and/or engage them.
• In the “Topic-Driven” and “Steering” quadrant, we can classify the
codesign initiatives that aim towards Imagining and Considering
Options Beyond the World as It Is. Here collaboration is aimed at
stimulating the capacity of stakeholders and users to envision options
beyond the existing way of doing things, so as to challenge behaviours
and conventions.
39
• In the “Concept-Driven” and “Facilitating” quadrant, we can classify
the codesign initiatives that aim towards Expanding and
Consolidating Options. Here collaboration is aimed at expanding or
assessing given options, adding elements of interests, feasibility and
concreteness.
• In the “Concept-Driven” and “Steering” quadrant, we can finally
classify the codesign initiatives that aim towards Creating,
Envisioning and Developing Options. Here, collaboration is aimed at
generating new options or elaborating on existing ones, through a
creative and thought-provoking process that may also bring some
principles into question.
1.3.4 Infrastructuring Community Centred Design
This Framework will therefore be used in this book to: 1) contextualise

and analyse a number of case studies and examples from our direct research
experience; 2) discuss the differences in approach, aim, technique and
result that each quadrant implies; and 3) suggest tools and processes for
each one.
As such, it aims to assist in providing a guidance to define, design and
set-up collaborative processes that engage multiple and/or numerous
participants and that may take place through different stages and with
different purposes and formats along articulated paths. Processes that we
can therefore define “massive”.
In other words, it aims at providing a framework for “infrastructuring”
(Hillgren et al., 2011; Seravalli and Eriksen, 2017) collaboration within
articulated ecosystems that may share a common interest in a challenge, an
opportunity or a problem to solve together. Thus, the Collaborative Design
Framework, on the base of experience partially reported here, aims to
provide actionable knowledge for supporting designers in aligning
processes that, by definition, are never completed and are ill-defined,
systemic and conflictual. Circumstances that require designers to have a
deep understanding of the specific local conditions and the object in
question, together with the ability to communicate service design skills to
others so that they can continue once the designer has left the project.
We refer to this collaborative design approach as Community Centred
Design (Manzini and Meroni, 2014), which can prompt or feed that
“service design mind-set” (Meroni and Selloni, 2018) that is increasingly
characteristic of today’s creative communities (Meroni, 2007). In this, the
creation of a collaborative environment aimed at “making things happen”
40
depends on the understanding of the values, needs and behaviours of such
diversified players. In fact, Community Centred Design requires that
designers develop two areas of competence: the ability to gain knowledge
about the community and its “habitat” and the ability of creatively
collaborating with non-designers. The former results in onsite immersion,
so as to pursue a direct experience of the contexts and develop empathy
with the community. The latter requires applying designer skills and
creativity in order to design for or with the community (Manzini and
Meroni, 2014). In a glance, this resonates with the Socratic approach of the
designer, in which a deep understanding of the circumstances and of the
subject under discussion must precede the action. And this is why the
ethnographic exploration of the field - even with a fast and simplified
approach - (Broadbent, in this book) runs seamlessly in line with
codesigning.
Dewey, J. (1938), Logic: The Theory of Inquiry, Henry Holt and Co., New York.
Design Council (2014), The Design Process: What is the Double Diamond?, on
line resource, available at: https://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-
opinion/design-process-what-double-diamond, accessed on 01/03/2018.
Hillgren, P.A, Seravalli, A. and Emilson, A. (2011), “Prototyping and
infrastructuring in design for social innovation”, Codesign, Vol. 7, Nos. 3-
4:169-183.
1: 52-59.
Manzini, E. and Meroni, A. (2014), Catalysing Social Resources for Sustainable
Changes. Social Innovation and Community Centred Design, in Vezzoli, C.,
Kohtala, C. and Srinivasan, A., edited by, Product-Service System Design for
Sustainability, Greenleaf Publishing, Sheffield.
Meroni, A., edited by (2007), Creative Communities. People inventing sustainable
ways of living, Edizioni Polidesign, Milano.
Meroni, A. (2008), “Strategic Design: Where Are We Wow? Reflection Around
the Foundations of a Recent Discipline”, Strategic Design Research Journal,
Vol. 1, 1:31-38.
Meroni, A. and Sangiorgi D. (2011), Design for Services, Gower Publishing
Limited, Farnham.
Meroni, A. and Selloni, D. (2018), “Design for Social Innovators”, in Walker, S.,
Cassidy, T., Evans, M., Twigger Holroyd, A. and Jung, J. (edited by), Design
Roots: culturally significant designs, products and practices, Bloomsbury
Academic, London, pp. 305-318.
41
Nardone, G. and Salvini, A. (2004), Il dialogo strategico, Ponte alle Grazie,
Milano.
Ogilvy, J. (2002), Creating Better Futures: Scenario Planning As a Tool for A
Better Tomorrow, Oxford University Press, New York.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2008), “Co-creation and the New Landscapes
of Design”, Codesign International Journal of CoCreation in Design and the
Arts, Vol. 4, 1 - Design Participation(‐s): 5-18.
Sclavi, M. (2008), An Italian Lady Goes to the Bronx, IPOC Italian paths of
culture, Milano.
Selloni, D. (2017), Codesign for Public Interest Services, Springer International
Publishing.
Sennett, R. (2012), Together: The Rituals Pleasures and Politics of Cooperation,
Yale University Press, Yale.
Seravalli, A. and Eriksen, M. A. (2017), Beyond collaborative services: Service
Design for Sharing and Collaboration as a Matter of Commons and
Infrastructuring, in Sangiorgi, D. and Prendiville, A., edited by, Designing for
Service: Key Issues and New Directions, Bloomsbury Press, London, pp. 237-
250.
Steen, M. (2013), “Codesign as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination”,
Design Issues, Vol. 29, 2: 29-40.
42
1.4 Setting the Stage
It is assumed (Ehn, 2008; Bannon and Ehn, 2012; Sanders and Stappers,
2014; Dalsgaard, 2017) that, throughout its progress, a design project
requires the alignment of diverse resources (people and technology)
through interactions with users/stakeholders in order to share objectives,
timelines, deliverables... We define codesign by these interactions and the
Collaborative Design Framework (cf. Chapter 1.3) illustrates their
progression from an initial stage of understanding the topic to the final
concept production and development phase. The question is what kind of
operative approaches, tools, and resources can be practically used in this
progression.
1.4.1 Boundary Objects in Codesign: a Proposal for a

Basic Glossary
Thinking and doing in design are intertwined through the use of tools
and resources (Dalsgaard, 2014): the different subject matters of design,
styles of guidance and purposes clearly influence the kind of artefacts, tools
and rules that are used in codesign sessions. These can be, therefore, set in
very different ways and are an indispensable mix of “making, telling and
enacting” in iterative cycles that must be very sensitive to the
circumstances (Brandt, Binder and Sanders, 2012).
The apparatus used in codesign sessions can be referred to as “boundary
object”: drawing from sociology, boundary objects are entities shared by
several different communities but which are viewed or used differently by
each of them (Star, 1988) «allow(ing) for the coordination of different
groups seeking consensus on aims and interests» (Baggio et al., 2015).
They are characterised by “interpretive flexibility”, which allows diverse
communities of practice to transcend core differences in interpretation and
meaning for the purpose of cooperating in a particular work. In doing so,
43
they enable different groups of stakeholders to collaborate (Baggio et al.,
2015) by aligning their interests.
Considering the purpose of this book, for the sake of clarity and for an
appropriate positioning within the vast panorama of interpretations and
definitions regarding artefacts, tools and resources used in codesign, we
propose the following definitions as a basic glossary of the work:
• Boundary objects: “representatives” of the subject matter of design

in the material form of design artefacts (images, sketches, maps,
diagrams, representations, storyboards, models and prototypes),
whose function is to align designers and users in synchronous design
processes (Star, 1989; Ehn, 2008; Johnson et al., 2017). Boundary
objects facilitate the engagement and interaction with the design
subject matter and the discussion of its different features.
• Concepts: ideas about the object (or opportunity) to be designed as
the output of a design process. They can be scenarios, products,
services, among others.
• Prototypes: representations and (physical) manifestations of design
concepts. They may be rough outlines so to provide an overall idea,
or finished to more resemble the end result. Prototypes aim to test the
concept and develop it further into mature outputs, be they product
or services or something else. They need to be made meaningful or
«revealed through the stories told (thereof) … and the scenes in
which it plays a role» (Sanders and Stappers, 2014, p.7).
• Tools: specific design artefacts (singular or organised in “toolkits”)
that define a design language for codesigners to: 1) Explore, imagine
and express their own ideas about a topic, how they want to live,
work and play in the future (Sanders and Stappers, 2014). Therefore
they can be used for inspiring and evoking; 2) Generate concepts to
be further designed. Therefore they can be used for framing and
creating; 3) Interact with a prototype in order to transform and
evolve it. Therefore they can be used for developing and enriching
(Selloni, 2017).
1.4.2 The Case of Service Design and Strategic Design
In broader terms, we share Sanders and Stappers’ view (2014) that in

the early stages of a design process, when the purpose is discovering,
imagining or exploring the options to be considered for the following
phases, interviews and probes (that help people to think of and organise
44
their experiences and observe and express their feelings), case study
discussion and storytelling (that feed people imagination and enlarge their
vision) and some kinds of “generative toolkits” (that help people to imagine
opportunities, such as issue cards, experience journeys, words/thoughts
sequences, and more) are key artefacts to interacting with people in
codesign encounters.
In more advanced design phases, when the purpose is creating,
expanding, developing and consolidating options, the use of “generative
toolkits” and “prototypes” is key, because they allow the generating and/or
testing of concepts. Yet, the very nature of “what” is designed introduces
some notable evolution and transformation of these conceptual foundations.
In fact, here we are reflecting about services and scenarios that may
envision future ways of living. That is, concepts hardly representable
through self-explanatory and “finished” artefacts, because they embrace the
dimension of the time, the reactivity of the interactions and the openness to
multiple external and internal factors.
Therefore, when it comes to services, codesign prototypes are particular

kinds of “physical manifestations” of a concept (Sanders and Stappers,
2014) where a physical artefact is complemented with other components
that facilitate the simulation of interactions and behaviours. As such,
roleplaying settings, experience exercises, blueprints, storyboards and other
conceptual tools that, in product design, can be used to “collaboratively
make” the concept to be developed and prototyped (Sanders and Stappers,
2014) are instead ways of manifesting the idea of a service in order to
explore it with the participants or to provoke reflections around it. In other
words, these kinds of artefacts are ways to represent future services, with
differing degrees of closeness to the final one, and not just tools to work on
them.
When it comes to strategies, codesign prototypes are representations of

scenarios and trajectories. Scenarios are stories about the future (Ogilvy,
2002), plots characterised by distinctive factors, forces and values that
shape a set of narratives. Manzini and Jégou (2004) introduce the concept
of “DOS – Design Orienting Scenarios” as «tools to be used in design
processes» that provide a frame for the design and realisation of new
products and services. Scenarios prefigure possible worlds, as contexts of
use, relations, meanings, ecosystems, and are largely used in strategic
design and design management (Cautela, 2007) to steer “strategic
conversations” about the future (Manzini and Jégou, 2004). As such, they
are never meant to be “finished” and can be “prototyped” only through
45
artefacts (images, videos, charts, diagrams, sets of interconnected elements,
and more) that stimulate conversations engaging multiple stakeholders and
supporting them to take decisions. By definition, therefore, a scenario must
be visualised and presented in a way that fosters collaboration and, as for a
service, a scenario prototype may entail the realisation of a physical artefact
complemented by components that facilitate its transformation and
evolution by the codesigners.
1.4.3 Tools and Prototypes
In conclusion, we propose a way to set the stage for service and scenario
codesign activities that use a combination - in complex boundary objects -
of tools and prototypes with specific rules that, according to the
experiences documented in this book, better fit with the very nature of
these kinds of artefacts. In particular:
• “prototypes” are used to represent service or scenario concepts

through physical manifestations and/or other conceptual devices
that visualise the core evidence and the interactions occurring
within a system. They are primarily used in the “concept-
driven” part of the Collaborative Design Framework;
• “tools” are used to help codesign participants explore or
imagine design options (defining a topic, generating or orienting
the generation of a concept), or to take action on a proposed
concept (manifested through a prototype). As such, they are
used in all quadrants of the Collaborative Design Framework.
In practice, sometimes the two happen to be combined in artefacts for
codesigning that, while representing concepts, also provide participants
with the possibility of operating on and transforming them. This may be the
case in a user-journey that entails alternative choices or open-ended
options, or of issue cards that offer alternative combination choices and
possibilities.
46
Fig. 1.3 – The relationship between tools, topic, concepts and prototypes in
codesign actions along a design process
These complex boundary objects, which imply interplay between tools

and prototypes and which are complemented by diverse forms of verbal
and body telling/enacting, have to be considered individually as they arise
in order to actually meet the diverse communities that are gathered around
“the table”. Brandt et al. (2012) define this combination of tools and
techniques in a participatory “mind-set” as “design games”. As boundary
objects, they have to incorporate the different interest groups, create a
common language and a common ground that could enable all them to
contribute in the design process within the given “boundaries” of the
project.
As we will see in the following chapters, all these elements have to be

carefully and sensitively designed bearing in mind the participants’
backgrounds, the characteristics of the location (position and importance of
the place) and the circumstances of the interaction (space- including digital-
, time of year/day, duration...).
Building on Dalsgaard (2017) and Mark et al. (2017), carefully-
conceived boundary objects are necessary conceptual devices for
integrating heterogeneous domain knowledge across social worlds and
47
stakeholders in massive codesign processes. As we will argue through
examples and cases, they can contribute to:
• Supporting discovery and perception: by enabling different

groups to realise and then share a representation of a topic, a
challenge or an opportunity;
• Imagining, conceiving and creating: by helping to articulate
problems and opportunities, iteratively developing hypotheses
about how they might be addressed;
• Expanding and transforming design concepts: by allowing
knowing-through-action and therefore the evaluation, manipulation
and development of them in more detail and complexity;
• Mobilizing for action and legitimating (design) knowledge: by
engaging all parties in dialogical exchanges through thought-
provoking interactions.
Baggio J. A., Brown, K. and Hellebrandt, D. (2015), “Boundary Object or

Bridging Concept? A Citation Network Analysis of Resilience”, Ecology and
Society, Vol. 20, 2: art. 2.
Bannon, L. J. and Ehn, P. (2012), “Design: Design Matters in Participatory
Design”, in Simonsen, J. and Robertsen, T. (eds.) Routledge International
Handbook of Participatory Design. New York, NY.: Routledge, pp. 37-63.
Brandt, E., Binder, T. and Sanders, E.B.-N. (2012), “Tools and Techniques”, in
Simonsen, J. and Robertsen, T. (eds.) Routledge International Handbook of
Participatory Design. New York, NY.: Routledge, pp. 145-181.
Cautela, C. (2007), Strumenti di design management, FrancoAngeli, Milano.
Dalsgaard, P. (2014). “Pragmatism and Design Thinking”, International Journal of
Design, Vol. 8, 1:143-155.
Dalsgaard, P. (2017), “Instruments of Inquiry: Understanding the Nature and Role
of Tools in Design”, International Journal of Design, Vol. 11, 1: 21-33.
Ehn, P. (2008), “Participation in Design Things”, PDC '08 Proceedings of the
Tenth Anniversary Conference on Participatory Design, pp. 92-101.
Johnson, M. P., Ballie, J., Thorup, T. and Brooks, E. (2017), “Living on the Edge:
Design Artefacts as Boundary Objects”, The Design Journal, Vol. 20, Sup1,
S219-S235.
Manzini, E. and Jégou, F. (2004), “Design degli scenari”, in Bertola P. and
Manzini E. (edited by), Design multiverso. Appunti di fenomenologia del
design, Edizioni Polidesign, Milano, pp. 177-195.
48
Mark, G., Lyytinen, K. and Bergman, M. (2007), “Boundary Objects in Design:
An Ecological View of Design Artifacts”, Journal of the Association for
Information Systems, Vol. 8, 11: art. 4.
Ogilvy, J. (2002), Creating Better Futures: Scenario Planning As a Tool for A
Better Tomorrow, Oxford University Press, New York.
Sanders, E.B.N. and Stappers, P.J. (2014), “Probes, Toolkits and Prototypes: Three
Approaches to Making in Codesigning”, Codesign, Vol. 10, 1:5-14.
Selloni, D. (2017), Codesign for Public Interest Services, Springer International
Publishing.
Simonsen, J. and Robertson, T. (2012), eds., Routledge International Handbook of
Participatory Design, Routledge, London and New York.
Star, S. L. (1988), “The Structure of Ill-structured Problems: Boundary Objects and
Heterogeneous Problem Solving”, in Gasser, L. and Huhns, M., (edited by),
Distributed artificial intelligence, Pitman, London, pp. 2-37.
49
PART 2: Experimenting with Codesign
This part of the book illustrates a series of action research projects in

which the POLIMI DESIS Lab was involved as partner or coordinator.
We see them as case studies of “massive codesign” for different
reasons: the adoption of multiple formats, the involvement ofnmultiple
and/or numerous stakeholders and the quantity of data produced.
Each project is very different and aims at achieving distinct results:
CIMULACT is a European funded project that had the goal to co-create
with citizens, experts and policy-makers a set of research topics as
recommendations for the future Research and Innovation Agenda.
Creative Citizens is a project carried out as a doctoral project by a
researcher of the POLIMI DESIS Lab. The objective of the project was to
codesign, with citizens and other relevant stakeholders, a set of solutions to
improve the daily life of a neighbourhood in Milan.
Feeding Milan is an action research funded by local institutions and
administrations to develop a platform of collaboration to design, prototype
and implement a set of interconnected services for short food-chains.
SREAD is a European funded project that led to the development of a
vision for sustainable lifestyles in Europe by 2050 through codesign with
multiple stakeholders.
Each project will be explained with a “codesign identity card” which

includes the following information: Title of the codesign activity;
Participants; Aim; Style of guidance; Design subject matter; Double
diamond stage type; Environmental set up; Duration; Description of the
process; Boundary objects - prototypes and tools; Final output.
The same information is also visualised with graphics and pictures at the
end of each project description.
50
Fig. 2.1 – The Collaborative Design Framework with case studies
51
2.1 CIMULACT
This chapter presents “CIMULACT”, a European research project

funded under the Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, running from June
2015 to March 20181. CIMULACT engaged citizens and a wide range of
stakeholders in jointly redefining the Research and Innovation Agenda for
the Horizon 2020 programme, with the goal of making it more relevant and
accountable to society.
The project delivered 23 research topics to the European Commission,
as recommendations for future research and innovation policies.
The consortium included 29 partners to represent 30 Countries across
Europe. The Politecnico di Milano participated in the project through the
POLIMI DESIS Lab of the Department of Design.
1
CIMULACT - Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on Horizon 2020. Funded by
Horizon 2020 Framework Programme, Grant Agreement 665948, 2015-2018. Project
coordinator: Danish Board of Technology (DBT), Denmark; Consortium partners:
Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research (ISI), Germany; Austrian
Academy of Sciences (ITA), Austria; Missions Publiques (MP), France; Strategic Design
Scenarios Sprl (SDS), Belgium; Technology Centre Of The Czech Academy Of Sciences
(TC CAS), Czech Republic; Asociatia Institutul De Prospectiva (Prospectiva), Romania;
Applied Research And Communications Fund (ARC Fund), Bulgaria;
GreenDependent Institute (GDI), Hungary; Politecnico Di Milano (POLIMI), Italy; The
Association for Science and Discovery Centres (Science), UK; Fundacio Catalana Per A La
Recerca I La Innovacio (FCRi), Spain; Swiss Academies of Arts and Sciences (TA Swiss),
Switzerland; University of Helsinki (UH), Finland; The Norwegian Board Of Technology
(NBT), Norway; Institute for Sustainable Technologies (ITeE-PIB), Poland; Knowledge
Economy Forum (KEF), Lithuania; Baltic Consulting (BC), Latvia; University College
Cork, National University Of Ireland, Cork (UCC), Ireland; Wageningen Economic
Research (DLO – LEI), Netherlands; Mediatedomain Lda (Mediatedomain), Portugal;
University of Malta (UoM), Malta; Slovak Academy Of Sciences (SAS), Slovakia;
Slovenian Business & Research Association (SBRA), Belgium; RTD Talos Limited (RTD
Talos), Cyprus; 4MOTION ASBL (4motion), Luxembourg; ODRAZ - Sustainable
Community Development (ODRAZ), Croatia; Swedish Geotechnical Institute (SGI),
Sweden; Atlantis Consulting (SA ATL), Greece.
52
In accordance with the general aim of the book, we will concentrate on
the 5 main codesign sessions that led to the final version of the research
topics delivered to the European Commission. Starting from a general
overview of the project and we will then provide an extensive description
and analysis of the codesign activities.
2.1.1 CIMULACT at a Glance
CIMULACT stands for “Citizen and Multi-Actor Consultation on

Horizon 2020” and is aimed at inspiring the future EU research agenda and
shaping it around the concerns, hopes, and the visions of desirable and
sustainable futures of citizens from 30 countries in Europe.
The core of the project lies in the involvement of the citizens. The main
driver of CIMULACT was to make the future more accessible, widely
shared and extensively discussed among citizens. The challenge was to
transform a research agenda from a topic for experts to a public
conversation for a greater democracy.
The research consortium involved research organisations, universities
and private agencies, each representing a country in Europe. This chapter
builds upon our experience as members of the research team of POLIMI
DESIS Lab. Together with SDS – Strategic Design Scenarios from
Belgium, the DESIS Lab brought design expertise into the research
consortium, and contributed specifically in developing methods and tools
for codesign. We were particularly active in the design of the participatory
process, and were responsible for the “co-creation workshop”, the largest
in-presence session of the project.
For each step of CIMULACT, we developed a series of tailored

codesign activities with different formats, stakeholders and goals. Each one
was meant to add a distinctive perspective and was intended as to bring the
project a step forward towards defining the final contents of the research
topics. The most pressing objective of CIMULACT, however, was to
ensure that citizens’ viewpoints were brought into the research programmes
of the European Commission. Therefore researchers were constantly
vigilant to preserve citizens’ voices throughout the process.
CIMULACT can be considered an exemplary experiment of “massive

codesign” for 3 main reasons:
• multi-stakeholder process: the project involved a wide cross-section
of stakeholders. The participants were heterogeneous in many
53
senses: in age, location, expertise and role within the project. They
often participated in sessions dedicated to specific targets, therefore
they were selected and grouped according to similar characteristics.
In some sessions, very diverse groups were instead brought together,
mixed and pushed to work together.
• Significant number of participants: the whole process engaged
around 5000 people. Even though they were involved at different
stages, the process finally resulted in a “massive” codesign activity.
The most extensive in-presence codesign session was the “co-
creation workshop” that counted more than 100 participants
simultaneously. That session represents a “massive codesign” case in
itself.
• multi-formats: the project experimented with very different formats
of consultations. They were developed by the partners with several
purposes, leveraging their diverse expertise.
Below we provide an overview of the whole process and of the most

relevant codesign activities. The specific sessions are then explained in
detail in the following paragraphs.
1. National Citizen Vision Workshop

In the first stage of the project, more than 1000 citizens from the
participant countries were involved in workshops to co-create visions of
desirable futures, starting from their wishes and concerns. All the partners
involved carried out national workshops with around 40 of their own
citizens. In the selection process, we strived for a good level of diversity
among participants in order to attempt to recruit a representative sample of
the entire nation.
This was a first face-to-face consultation and it was aimed at collecting
the main desires and concerns of European citizens about the future. The
results of this session was the foundational content on which all the
subsequent stages built upon.
In order to avoid influencing participants and make the exercise totally
exploratory, the consortium created a process which was extremely open to
the free contribution of participants. The goal was to inspire them, without
suggesting preconceived ideas. The same format, drawn from humanistic
disciplines such as psychology and sociology, was adopted by all countries.
The outputs of this workshop were collective visions of possible futures,
that the citizens elaborated in groups. The visions included a very broad
range of perspectives on the future. To mention but a few, there were
visions dealing with new educational models, others exploring the potential
54
of technologies truly at the service of human beings, others foreseeing self-
sustainable local communities.
2. Social Needs Clustering Workshop

The main goal of this workshop was to identify the needs underlying
citizens’ visions of the future.
To accomplish this task, the core partners of the consortium met in Paris
with 10 invited experts that played the role of “challengers”. These
“challengers” brought an external perspective on the topics that were
emerging, attempting to mitigate some of the biases generated by the
consortium.
The citizens’ needs that emerged from this analysis were eventually
clustered into 12 so called “social needs” that ultimately determined the
directions to be investigated during the following consultations.
3. Co-creation Workshop
This session had the objective of producing a first draft of the research
programmes in the form of scenarios; starting from the social needs
identified in previous stages.
Several stakeholders were gatherd together in a workshop to contribute
to this task: representatives of the citizens who had contributed to the
original visions, alongside experts and the partners of the project.
Citizens had the role of witnesses and guarantors of the wishes and
concerns expressed in their visions. Experts were crucial to bring their
vertical knowledge on the different topics and give scientific accuracy to
the scenarios.
Finally, consortium partners were essential for several reasons: to
ensure the continuity of the project, to bring their specific knowledge and
experience and to connect experts with citizens.
The process was outlined by the POLIMI DESIS Lab team in
collaboration with the consortium partners. Based on a scenario-building
and future studies approach, it was conceived as a journey to guide the
participants along a challenging set of steps leading towards the design
research scenarios.
4. Codesign Workshop
This session was held in-presence, in each country of the project, and
was tailored to different target groups. The whole consortium involved
citizens, policy makers, and many other specialised stakeholders, in order
to enrich and validate the research scenarios produced in the previous
phases. Different countries adopted different consultation approaches
55
according to their specific targets. Partners from different countries also
defined their own methods for the consultations. POLIMI DESIS Lab,
conceived and developed an ad hoc process to codesign with designers.
Strategic Design Scenarios instead developed a new codesign process
named “the Caravan method”, which is presented later in the book.
In every case, regardless of the approach taken, the outputs of this round
of consultation were some enriched scenarios and a ranking of the
scenarios in term of priority.
5. Online Consultation
In order to reach a larger audience and a quantitative relevance, the
research scenarios have been collected in an online platform and spread to
almost 3500 people all over Europe, to ask their opinion on the contents. In
this way, scenarios were enriched with inputs coming from citizens and
experts from all over Europe. Furthermore, respondents were asked to
assign a priority score to each scenario. This score added quantitative
consistency to the ranking already defined in the previous session.
6. Pan-European Conference (not presented in this book)

The last consultation was held 18 months after the beginning of the
project. The aim was to transform the research scenarios built so far into
research topics for the next round of calls of Horizon 2020 (Missions
Publiques et al., 2017). During this very last stage, the European
Commission’s project officers, some invited experts, and CIMULACT
partners joined in an interactive creative dialogue aimed at reflecting the
needs, concerns, and visions of European citizens into the research
programme calls.
The crucial participants of this session were the project officers. Their
role was to bring to the project the perspective of the European
Commission, taking the responsibility to assess the innovative potential and
consistency of the topics within the H2020 programme.
2.1.2 CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop
Title of the codesign activity: National Citizen Vision Workshop - First

consultation of the project – In-presence - National scope.
Aim: This session was aimed at collecting visions of a desirable future

by the citizens of each country. It was an exploratory activity to collect
56
initial wishes and concerns, in order to define the topics to be investigated
during the next stages of the project.
This was one of the most important activities of CIMULACT because it
framed the original contents on which all the following project assumptions
and developments would be built upon. This workshop was held in the
national language of each country.
Participants: Citizens. In Italy 31 participants (around 36 per country

= 1088 overall). This consultation was specifically addressed to citizens.
Since the aim was to produce visions representing the wishes and concerns
of an entire country, very precise guidelines for the recruitment of
participants were defined.
A cross-section of participants were selected attempting to include
people with different ages, gender, educational level, occupation and
geographical origin. The participants worked in groups of 5 people, which
were chosen beforehand by the POLIMI DESIS Lab in order to have a
variety of people in a same team.
In Italy, the group was reasonably heterogeneous, with the exception of
their geographical origin, as most of the participants were from Milan,
where the workshop was held. A bias may have ben generated in the
recruitment by the fact that many of them were already part of the
established network of the DESIS Lab, even though the recruitment
campaign was organised through different channels. The fact of leveraging
existing networks and contacts might have excluded people from very
different environments and interests.
Style of guidance: Facilitating. Each group of citizens was guided by a

table moderator whose function was to facilitate discussions and
deliberations at the table, while maintaining a neutral attitude. His/her main
function was to make sure that the citizens focused on the assigned tasks
and that all citizens at the table had the possibility to express their views. It
was explicitly stated in the guidelines of this workshop that the table
moderators should not express their own opinions, but were there solely to
help citizens state theirs.
A chief facilitator was in charge of coordinating the whole process and
organising the table moderators, keeping check of the time and providing
instructions on the tasks.
In Italy, the table moderators were design researchers of the POLIMI
DESIS Lab.
57
Design subject matter: Topic-driven. The workshop had an exploratory
ambition. Being the first of the entire project, there were no pre-worked
contents from which to start from. The purpose was to make concerns and
wishes arise spontaneously from the citizens, with the minimum influence
from the consortium.
Starting from individual ideas and thoughts, the participants were
accompanied through a process of collective co-creation of stories which
narrated a desired future.
The collective stories, called “visions”, were addressing very diverse
aspects of life. Nevertheless, we could clearly identify a recurrent topic,
which usually dealt with “education and a working system”. This refers to
all those visions expressing a desire to change the current model into
something more flexible, and more importantly, closer to people’s current
needs and to contemporary challenges.
Double Diamond stage: Divergent - discover. This fully exploratory

phase is aimed at investigating and considering as many opinions as
possible. It can be associated to the “discover” stage of the Double
Diamond process, intended to engage people, and stimulate them to discuss
and expand their options.
Environmental set-up: The workshop was held in Avanzi/Barra A, a

co-working space that fosters participation and collaboration among
people. Next to the co-working area there is a café which worked as a
friendly place for breaks.
The room was organised with big tables where people could work in
groups. Each table had a standing board were participants pinned the ideas
generated in the brainstorming and the final “visions” they produced, in
order to share them with the others.
Even if the room was quite crowded there was still enough space to set
the final showcase of the visions in a plenary, moving all the boards to the
entrance of the room. The movable boards were a smart and flexible
solution that proved to be effective for various moments of the session.
Duration: 1 full day. 21 November 2015. The session was held on a

Saturday, and lasted the whole day. The decision to carry out the workshop
during the weekend was made to facilitate the participation of citizens in
employment: however there was still a 30% of dropout rate. We assume
that not all participants took the commitment seriously, possibly because no
compensation had been promised, apart from a gift at the end of the
workshop. Commitment was implicit and based on personal sense of
58
obligation. We learnt that building upon existing networks of contacts
could be a double-edged sword: if one side people feel more engaged
because of mutual trust and sense of duty, on the other side they do not feel
the obligation as when they are recruited by a recruitment agency that gives
them incentives.
Description of the process: The design of the workshop was

coordinated by the project partner Austrian Academy of Sciences.
The process led the participants through the collective development of a
narrative, which started from individual wishes and concerns and ended up
in a group vision of a desirable future, through a progressive storytelling.
Each person started by conceiving his/her personal mini-story of the future
and then discussed it with the group, in order to find a common ground to
develop the collective vision.
The collective visions emerged by taking into consideration the different
views, through a process of joining various contributions and selecting the
most promising ones. This was achieved in discussions and by taking group
decisions (Jørgensen and Schøning, 2016).
Some days before the workshop, all participants received an
inspirational magazine. Citizens were encouraged to familiarize themselves
with the content of the magazine prior to attending the workshop. Its aim
was to introduce the citizens to the concept of the workshop and
stimulate some questions to keep in the back of their mind before the
event.
After the general presentation of the project and of the workshop in a
plenary by the head facilitator, the groups started to work separately,
following this schedule:
• thinking about fears, wishes and concerns of the past (1);
• thinking about the future (2);
• collecting stimuli from other groups (3);
• conceiving individual “mini-stroylines” (4);
• elaboration of the collective visions (5).
(1) The first task was to think about the past and in particular to focus
on challenges, fears, wishes and hopes that people could think about 40
years earlier. Each group member reflected individually and then shared
his/her thoughts with the others at the table to start a common reflection.
This activity was mainly intended as a warming up exercise and let
participants familiarize with the topic. In order to keep track and support
the discussion, the board was used to collect thoughts written on post-its.
59
(2) The second step was thinking about the future. This moved the
process forward from simply warming up to producing a first valuable
content for the project. To support this activity, it was used a set of 96
inspirational pictures. Citizens were asked to imagine the future in 40
years, pick up a picture that inspired them and share their thoughts with the
others. The groups were invited to think about the future both at an
individual and societal level.
Pictures, had different degree of influence in the cognitive work of the
participants and helped to stimulate their imagination and come up with
ideas. The contributions were pinned on the board, in order to make it easy
to follow the discussion and start to detect common patterns. At this stage,
ideas were quite generic, ranging from concerns about children’s education,
to air pollution, from solidarity networks to green areas in the cities.
(3) After that, the table moderators created thematic clusters for each
group and all the participants were invited to nurture their thoughts taking
inspiration by the observation of the results produced by other groups.
(4) The fourth step led the participants to write the first draft of the
“visions”. During this step, the moderator played a crucial role in
explaining the meaning of “vision of a desirable future”. They were defined
as imaginative stories of a desirable future that are not just positive, but
also build upon threats, fears and concerns. These stories were initially
presented individually in a format that was called “mini-storyline” were
each participant narrated the world as he/she imagines it in 40 year time.
The stories were often very rich in imagination and originality, surprising
the researchers for the unexpected details and original anecdotes.
(5) The last step was the elaboration of the collective visions. They were
firstly developed in a raw version through a discussion within each group.
Group members went through a process of collecting the different inputs
and then selecting more urgent ones, in order to finally achieve a common
agreement on the collective vision. The refined and final version of the
visions incorporated the feedbacks and the additions by citizens of the other
groups.
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: Within this session,

boundary objects were fundamental mediators between facilitators and
citizens. Conceived as interlinked toolkits, they were either stimulus for
imagination, as were the pictures used to draw out wishes and concerns
about the future, or enablers of thoughts and reflections.
A set of 96 pictures (playing card size) had the aim to inspire and
stimulate the citizens’ visioning process, but were there also to support the
communication of the visions making them more accessible, explicit and
60
shareable with others. The same cards were also used to visualize the
visions, so that a broad variety of graphic and individual expression could
be found in the outputs.
Narration tools: a set of templates providing a format to present the
stories generated by the participants. The format was composed of two
parts: one for a verbal description and the other for a simple visualisation
that participants could decide to complete with parts of the available
pictures or with their own sketches.
Overall, the tools had an explicit background in humanities and
narrative and were inspired by a sociological and psychological approach.
Final output: Final outputs of this workshop were 6 collective visions

of a desirable future produced by the citizens of each country.
This resulted in a total of 179 visions that constituted the basis of the
issues deployed as research topics for the European Research Agenda
(Jørgensen and Schøning, 2016). Each vision was presented with a
description, a rationale (how and way it is different from the present time,
and why it is desirable or not) and an image.
At this stage, the visions pointed to very broad directions, but some
clear patterns had already emerged. In Italy for example, the topic of
education was recurrent: visions proposed flexible models in which
education could be intergenerational and focused on the development of
personal inclinations.
Two other clusters of desirable futures emerged in Italy: “cities
becoming sustainable thanks to collaborative behaviours”, suggesting a
society where sharing and recycling resources is the basis for a sustainable
and desirable place to live; and a society where “technologies are at the
service of mankind” enabling and empowering human capabilities.
61
Fig. 2.2 – CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab
62
Fig. 2.3 – CIMULACT National Citizen Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab
63
2.1.3 CIMULACT Social Needs Clustering Workshop
Title of the codesign activity: Social Needs Clustering Workshop –

Second consultation of the project – In-presence – International scope.
Aim: This activity was aimed at extracting underlying needs from the
citizens’ visions produced in the previous workshop. These needs would
have ben addressed by the future research programme scenarios.
Participants: Project partners + 10 experts (“challengers”) for around

30 participants in total. The participants were the core partners of
CIMULACT, joined by 10 international experts from various fields, invited
as external “challengers”. Their role was to bring their specific expertise
into the definition of the need-related topics and to ensure that there were
no biases in the analysis.
Challengers were assigned the same tasks as the other participants, with
the exception of a final comment that they were asked to give at the end of
the session. Looking back, we feel that their contribution was not exploited
to the fullest.
Style of guidance: Steering. The participants worked in groups without

moderators. Two coordinators provided general instructions. Therefore
each group decided autonomously how to organise their work, but without
moderation often the stronger personalities in the group contributed the
most to the discussion.
All the participants played the role of experts in their particular field and
in relation to the citizens’ visions. Each participant, at different moments,
had the opportunity to isolate a need from the visions and to push for a
particular topic…
Design subject matter: Topic-driven. The work was based on the

visions built by the citizens and required participants to interpret them and
put them in relation to the social needs. The inputs for the analysis and
interpretation were many since each of the 178 visions carried a rich palette
of information and contents.
Double Diamond stage: Convergent - define. The workshop had the

goal to make a synthesis of the needs emerging from the visions. After a
phase of analysis, the main task was to find crosscutting patterns and
cluster them in order to find the areas to focus on.
64
Environmental set-up: The activities were held in Paris in a beautiful
historic location: a former abbey turned into a cultural centre called
L’Archipel. Most of the work was carried out in small groups that were
conveniently separated with the layout of the room. The furniture created
enclosed spaces that isolated groups from each other.
Tables as usual had standing billboards that were used to pin and share
the clusters of needs.
Duration: 1 full day. 29 February 2016. There was a huge amount of

information to analyse: this generated some frustration as participants felt
they were losing important details or abstracting too much from the data.
The processes of selecting and clustering was carried out manually by
cutting pieces of text from the paper sheets on which were written the
visions.
Looking back, in order to carry out this task more accurately much more
time should have been allocated to this workshop. The activity would have
benefited from the support of a software tool to organize, analyse and find
insights in unstructured qualitative data.
Description of the process: This codesign activity was led by the

project partner Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research,
with contributions by other core partners, in particular Missions Publiques.
The POLIMI DESIS Lab participated as a contributor.
The process to identify clusters of social needs from the 179 citizens’
vision was articulated in 4 main moments:
• Each participant reviewed 30 visions (1);
• The identified needs were shared with the whole group and clustered
(2);
• Visions were associated with needs (3);
• Describing the final social needs (4).
(1) Participants were split into small groups from the start. The first task
was individual: every participant read and analysed 30 visions, looking for
the needs that were implicit in the visions. To help participants with this
rather demanding task, the visions were assigned to participants and sent to
them before the workshop. During the session, each participant shared the
result of his/her analysis and the group agreed on 5 common areas.
(2) The same process of sharing and converging was repeated with each
person in the group, so as to define a common pool of needs. The
discussion was long, challenging and moderated by the coordinators.
Finally the group agreed on 26 clusters of social needs.
65
(3) Subsequently new groups were formed, and every one went through
the full set of visions in order to find which ones could have been
associated with the needs. This step was important to keep track of the
origin of the needs and therefore to create references for any content
generated from them. To do that, participants were asked to cut the paper
sheets in small pieces with the sections of the visions related the need.
These pieces were then pasted on the final posters of the needs.
(4) To conclude the workshop, the participants were put in pairs to write
a detailed description of each social need. Finally, the social needs and their
descriptions were displayed as posters so everyone could have a look at
them, contributing or editing.
While looking at the social needs, people were asked to indicate to
which European Grand Challenge the need was connected with. The Grand
Challenges are macro themes that define the priorities of the European
research and frame the research programmes.
During the whole process, the challengers did the same activities as the
CIMULACT researchers. At the end of the day, they were asked to share
their feedback on both methodology and content.
The agenda of this codesign session was open to adjustments as a
function of the flow of the activities, despite the whole process was
compressed in a single day. This flexibility was useful to adapt the work to
the complexity of the tasks.
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: The boundary objects used

during this activity were the printed copy of the citizens’ visions and some
empty posters to be filled in with the social needs.
Citizens’ visions: Printed copies of the material produced during the
first consultation. They were intended as working material and not just
information. Indeed, they were used to highlighting specific sentences and
to take notes during the first phases. Then, they were cut and pasted to
populate the posters of the social needs.
Posters: Posters were blank templates to combine all the inputs which
referred to same social needs. They were designed for holding a brief
description of the need, the citations from the original visions and the
associated Grand Challenges. This format worked well for the purpose of
the workshop.
Posters were placed over bigger brown sheets of paper and hanged on
billboards so to display the work-in-progress to everybody in the room.
66
Final output: Final outputs of this session were 26 social needs,
showcased as big posters. They were different for each topic but were
transversal to many countries in Europe. For instance, from several visions
across multiple countries emerged the same desire to have a strengths-
based education system with a more experiential approach, more equality
in society, and a more holistic healthcare system.
The 26 social needs were then reviewed by the leader of this research
task, the Fraunhofer Institute for Systems and Innovation Research,
together with POLIMI DESIS Lab (who was in charge of the following
step of the project). To ensure that all relevant topics had been captured in a
complete and extensive way the social needs were re-clustered and cut
down to 12.
67
Fig 2.4 – Social Need Clustering Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab
68
Fig 2.5 – Social Need Clustering Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab
69
2.1.4 CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop
Title of the codesign activity: Co-creation Workshop – Third

consultation of the project – In-presence – International scope.
Aim: This session had the objective of generating research programme

scenarios, starting from the social needs identified during the previous
activity. A research programme scenario is a set of recommendations for
the topics to be included in the European Research Agenda.
Participants: Citizens + experts + project partners. 100 participants.

This is one of the most representative in-presence massive codesign session
of the project, because of the sheer number of participants and the variety
of stakeholders involved. For this reason, it was also one of the most
challenging sessions.
The group of participants was equally distributed between citizens,
experts and project partners. The citizens were there as representatives of
the participants of the national vision workshop (cfr. 2.1.2). Their role was
to guarantee that the messages coming from the original visions were
respected and were invited to bring their own everyday experience and
insights.
The group of experts were specialists drawn from academia and the
professional world specialised in different fields. They were selected to
cover the different areas of knowledge related to the social needs: from
neurosciences to city planning, from education to biology, and more.
Finally, the project partners were representatives of all the 20
consortium members.
In order to make everyone work together, it was decided to create mixed
working groups of 8 people each, assigning each person a very precise role:
citizens were witnesses and defenders of the content of the original visions;
experts would bring a scientific contribution to the scenarios; and the
project partners would act as connectors between the two communities. The
roles turned out to be useful to organise and manage the collaboration
within each group and the teamwork ran smoothly, without any critical
issue emerging unexpectedly.
Style of guidance: Steering. The participants worked in groups and

each group had a guide called table coordinator. Coordinators were project
partners, therefore acquainted with the contents of the project; for this task
they were specifically asked to contribute to the discussion, by providing
suggestions. Hence, their role was not limited to supervising the process,
70
organising the group and filling in templates, but to steering the debate, by
suggesting directions. This was a very demanding activity, because they
were performing multiple roles simultaneously, and it was challenging to
concentrate on all the tasks.
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. Starting points for this

workshop were the social needs defined in the previous activity (cfr. 2.1.3).
They acted as orientation concepts and subjects of the discussion.
Double Diamond stage: Divergent – develop. From the initial 12 social

needs the work led to the development of 48 research scenarios: for each
social need, 4 possible directions were generated in form of of scenarios.
The purpose of the codesign activity was to elaborate and generate diverse
solutions to satisfy the needs, in a creative way by combining analysis and
abduction. The workshop, therefore, was in the “develop” phase of the
double-diamond process, where the objective is of exploring possible
solutions (scenarios) to a given problem (social needs).
Environmental set-up: The huge number of participants was

challenging for the organisation of the space.
A big classroom for150 students in the Bovisa Campus of Politecnico di
Milano was set up for the event. 12 big tables were put together, distributed
around the room and for each table a self-standing board was provided to
hang posters, notes or other materials to share. The final configuration of
the space was functional, but the noise of the people talking affected the
concentration. The discomfort was increased by the fact that the common
language for the participants of so many different countries was English
and many people for whom it is not a mother tongue had to put extra effort
in speaking and understanding.
Duration: 2 consequent full days. 21 - 22 April 2016. The working

rhythm was intense and many tasks were complex which resulted in a tiring
and challenging process for everyone involved. Looking back, it would
have been useful to have more time to go more in depth into the contents,.
However this was not compatible with the time availability requested to the
participants. The overall process, therefore, would have benefited from
streamlining some steps and avoiding repetitions.
Description of the process: The POLIMI DESIS Lab was in charge of

designing and coordinating the codesign activity.
71
The process was created adapting scenario-building techniques to the
specific circumstance, with the aim to foster the envisioning ability of the
participants. Since the activity was complex and the schedule strict, a
general coordinator of the workshop was in charge to explain each step to
the whole group of participants and to keep time.
Day 1: The workshop started with an exhibition of posters displaying

each social need with an evocative visualisation, a brief description and
some citations of the citizens’ visions from where that need was
extrapolated. Visualizations were produced by Strategic Design Scenario,
the Belgian partner.
The exhibition was thought to let participants familiarise with the
contents of the project and citizens choose the topic they preferred to work
on. Indeed, after the exhibition, each group received a social need: while
experts were allocated to the needs according to their expertise, citizens
joined the topic they felt more comfortable with. This choice was meant to
put them at ease in a stressful environment where they were asked to debate
with experts.
(1) After a brief discussion at each table to familiarize with the topic,
each group started working at the first task, which was the identification of
the relevant “influencing factors”, namely the cultural, social, economic
and technological elements that could affect how the need could be
satisfied in the future. Each factor might have different “options”
depending on the ways it could occur. For example, for the need “strength-
based education and experiential learning” one influencing factor was the
“multi-scale interaction”, intended as the possibility to offer education on
different scales. From this factor, two alternative options emerged: “big
schools” like centralised education systems and infrastructures joining
diverse cultures, disciplines, and generations; and “networked local hubs”,
like connected systems of local education providers very diverse one from
the other.
This was a crucial part of the workshop: identifying relevant and
interesting influencing factors was a pre-condition for a rich and innovative
debate around the future research directions. During this task, experts had
the crucial role of bringing the table up to date information and research on
the topic. They were also asked to move around and give inputs to other
tables: this turned out to be a very successful strategy when groups were
stuck in ineffectual discussions.
(2) The second task was describing the possible “future directions”
originated by the most relevant influencing factors and their options: the
future directions were descriptions of possible future lives with the
72
characteristics determined by the factor. They were often formulated in a
provocative way, so to stimulate the debate in the group.
(3) The last phase of the first day was thought to describe the “state of
the art” in the different spheres of needs. This is a well-known concept in
science: it defines the highest level of general development achieved at a
particular time. In everyday life, it is what people actually experience as
available solutions in a given field. This phase of the work defined the state
of the art in both research and everyday life, according to the experience of
the experts on one side, and the citizens on the other. The exercise was
done referring to the future directions just identified. In particular, the
question the participants had to answer was: «Where are we now with
respect to the directions that have been identified?»
Day 2: (4) The second day started with a comparison between the
present state of the art (research and everyday life) and future directions:
this was done to identify “gaps” and “concerns” in knowledge and
practices. Gaps were “what we need to know in order to go in the direction
identified for the future” and arose from the comparison of the state of the
art in both the scientific research and in the everyday life. Participants were
requested to think also about “concerns”, defined as side-effects and
unexpected consequences that could emerge from the future directions.
(5) The gaps gave rise to the “research questions” that need to be
answered in order to move toward the identified directions.
(6) From these questions, research directions were finally created, i.e.
what to research in order to go towards the defined direction. Each one of
these was formulated as a statement, which included supplementary
research questions which were clustered together and connected. For
example, a research direction connected with the topics mentioned
previously was: «Finding ways to take advantage of the education network
in order to equalize education throughout Europe, giving open access to
data, physical places and competences, with a specific focus on developing
a critical awareness on their use».
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: This codesign activity

required a complex apparatus of prototypes and tools.
Posters of the social need: at the beginning of the workshop, an
exhibition showcasing the social needs was set up. Displayed in the room
designated for the workshop, it was a way to bring everyone on the same
page, sharing the topics emerged from the citizen consultation. It was
presented as a series of posters illustrating the social needs through an
image (an assemblage of pictures and drawings), a description and
73
quotations from the original citizens’ visions. These posters were visual
prototypes of the concepts extracted from the citizens’ visions.
A toolkit: a set of templates, to fill with text or schemas, was designed
specifically for each task. They were also thought to provide guidance with
detailed instructions. The layout of the templates was purposely conceived
as diverse as possible, so to help differentiating the tasks. In this
circumstance, the visual part of the work was marginal. Despite having
pushed the participants to visualize the scenarios by finding pictures online
with the help of designers, the images produced were not useful to enrich
the verbal descriptions.
Final output: Final outputs of the session were 48 co-created research

programme scenarios (Warnke et al., 2017). The content produced could be
considered of a good level and relevance for the whole CIMULACT
project. Each programme scenario was summarised in a few sheets and
articulated in sections summarising the work done in the workshop:
• Scenario title and future direction: brief description of a desirable
situation to be pursued;
• State of the art in everyday life: situation in the present time from the
perspective of the citizens;
• State of the art in scientific research: situation in the present time
from the perspective of the experts;
• Gaps: gaps between the present and the situation to pursue;
• Concerns: fears arising from the future direction;
• Research questions: queries that summarize the lack of knowledge
identified with the gaps;
• Research directions: directions that future research should follow in
order to move toward a future direction;
• Expected impact of the research with regards to the needs.
74
Fig. 2.6 – CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop / Lab Immagine POLIMI
75
Fig. 2.7 CIMULACT Co-creation Workshop / Lab Immagine POLIMI
76
2.1.5 CIMULACT Codesign Workshop
Title of the codesign activity: CIMULACT codesign workshop - Fourth

consultation of the project – In-presence - National scope.
Aim: This session was aimed at enriching, validating and prioritizing

the research programme scenarios co-created during the previous sessions.
Participants: Experts. 38 designers in Italy. For this consultation, a

group of experts in design was co-opted: a mix of students, professionals
and researchers from different areas of design (service design, interior
design, interaction design, policy design) were recruited with the task to
challenge the work done from a “design thinking” perspective applied to
research scenarios. The assumption was that the designers’ ability of
envision ideas and find creative solutions could have been beneficial to the
project, adding concreteness to the scenarios.
Participants were organised into 5 groups with one designer part of the
project team acting as a facilitator. The groups were formed beforehand
taking into consideration the preferences expressed by the participant for
certain scenarios, and attempting to keep them heterogeneous in terms of
expertise, gender and age.
Style of guidance: Steering. Facilitators were expert designers with

knowledge of the project and the specific contents. Most of them were part
of the POLIMI DESIS Lab team working on CIMULACT, the others were
trained on the content and process of the project. They actively contributed
to the debate in the groups and brought contents to the discussion.
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. Input of the workshop were

the research programme scenarios produced during the previous sessions.
Prior to the workshop, each CIMULACT partner selected a number of
scenarios out of the 48 to work on. The POLIMI DESIS Lab selected the
following:
• “Balanced work-life model”: work and personal life balanced in a
satisfying way.
• “Empowered citizens”: a society that enables citizens to participate
in the public life.
• “Design literacy and life skills for all”: hands-on education for all
ages.
77
• “The bigger (cities) the better”: big cities to become more liveable
for humans including less streets and cars, more collective spaces,
urban agriculture and connected communities.
• “Learning for society”: a balance between the common good and the
individual.
The goal for each group was to enrich or modify the scenarios according
to the perspective of the participants and finally to rank them for priority
and urgency.
Double Diamond stage: Convergent – deliver. This codesign activity

had the aim of going deeper in the scenarios. For this reason, the process
strived to converge and focus on specific directions instead of expanding
possibilities. It corresponds to the “deliver” phase of the Double Diamond
process, where the focus is on finding and defining solutions that work.
Environmental set-up: The workshop was held in a room of the Bovisa

Campus of Politecnico di Milano. The tables for the groups were arranged
near the walls, while a big common table was put in the centre, with all the
materials for a prototyping phase.
Each group worked on a single scenario that was presented on a poster
which displayed a visualisation with a brief description and a 3D
representation. Each set was located next to the table of the group.
Duration: Half a day. From 2 am to 7 pm, 28 September 2016.
Description of the process: The workshop was conceived as a problem

solving process, so to indulge the designer mindset. As such, the process
took the participants through a concept generation up to the construction of
physical prototypes, and then asks them to articulate the research directions
emerging from the solutions.
2 subgroups were created inside each group: they worked the whole
time on the same topic and with the same process, but with different
information. The reason for this, was to observe how the two groups would
interpret a same scenario, depending on the information provided. In
reality, one subgroup got the complete description of the scenario
information, while the other just a short description of it.
The process was organised into 5 steps:
• Framing the challenge (1);
• Focusing on the person affected by the challenge (2);
• Generating ideas on possible solutions to the challenge and
prototyping them (3);
78
• Focusing on stakeholders (4);
• Defining research directions (5);
(1) The first step was familiarising with the contents. The participants
were asked to think about the obstacles society would need to face today to
achieve the situation presented by the scenario. For example, regarding the
“Balanced work-life model” scenario, the designers formulated the
challenge as follows: «How to transform the corporate culture so to
promote work-life balance, personal development and caregiving to the
family?» This was the design challenge for the subsequent phases of the
workshop.
(2) During the second activity, participants were encouraged to focus on
the people in society affected by the challenge and their specific needs,
considering the context in which they live. In order to be as concrete as
possible, they were asked to think about a person they knew personally and
try to answer from their perspective.
(3) For the generative step, the designers had to collectively define an
idea to address the challenge and build a solution around it. To complete
this step, they were asked to build a rough prototype with materials such as
papers and elements of woods, straws and beads. They could also use and
transform the 3D models provided to visualise the scenario. This
represented a crucial activity to give a “materialise” the ideas came out
from the brainstorming and share them within the group. For example, the
idea conceived by the group “Balanced work-life model” was a “Bank of
Goals” consisting in a device allowing the employee to split activities into
goals, setting a minimum time and quality to accomplish them, and a
dedicated budget.
(4) Once the ideas were framed, each group was asked to clarify the
main stakeholders involved, using an “Actors map”.
(5) The last stage required designers a to think backward and understand
the research to be carried out to make their ideas become true. This step
was tricky for the practitioners among the group, because it required a
reverse thinking from solution to problems. For example, to achieve the
scenario of a balanced work-life model the needed research was: exploring
work organisation models impacting on wellbeing; researching on
“changing behaviours” in companies; researching “best practices” of
alternative working models.
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: Prototypes of the scenarios

were created with posters and 3D mock-ups.
79
3D mock-ups were the physical interpretations of the research scenarios.
The had the crucial function of being the starting point for the generation
and prototyping phase. In this sense, they represented a stimulus for the
discussion and a physical object on which to intervene and interact with.
Most of the groups, indeed, ended up with modifying the 3D models to
build up their prototype instead of starting from zero. This suggests that
they actually worked as enablers.
Toolkit: Specific tools were designed for the codesign session,
reinterpreting conventional service design tools. For supporting the
investigation of the people potentially affected by the challenge an adapted
version of the “personas” was created: a profile characterised by the city
where she lives, the community around, her job, the composition of the
family and more. The tool was thought to direct the attention on the context
around that person, which is essential when working on scenarios.
Brainwriting. This was a special kind of brainstorming, more focused
and reflective than usual. A booklet was designed for being passed from
hand to hand in the group. Each designer had to write – or draw - an idea,
or a detail of it, getting inspired by the ideas already written by the others.
In this way, each idea was empowered and enriched several time,
pushing people to consider the ideas of the others and build upon them.
Actors Map: a tool to understand the stakeholders involved in a scenario
and their level of involvement. It helps codifying the level of involvement
with concentric circles, where the closeness to the centre corresponds to
higher levels of involvement. The final configuration of the map gave the
general overview of the system of relations and displayed the level of
complexity.
Final output: The final output of this session was a set of research
questions and directions that were added to the initial research scenarios.
They were put on a paper ladder to prioritise them.
Within each group, the results of the work of the 2 subgroups were not
very different, despite the different amount of information the got in the
beginning. Yet, in most of the cases, the 2 outputs were complementary
answers to a same question.
80
Fig. 2.8 - CIMULACT Codesign Workshop / Lab Immagine POLIMI
81
Fig. 2.9 - CIMULACT Codesign Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab
82
2.1.6 CIMULACT Caravan Process
By François Jégou and Christophe Gouache
Title of the codesign activity: Caravan process, an alternative

workshop methodology piloted during CIMULACT in-presence
enrichment phase. National scope.
Aim: The purpose of the Caravan process was to contribute making

stakeholders consultation more accessible (and therefore used more often)
and more efficient (tackling some of the critics of “big workshops” listed
here below).
Large workshops are seen as the advanced way to do collaborative work
mixing stakeholders, sectors and levels. The greater the number of
participants, the more diverse and rich interactions are expected to be. The
curve is more or less linear until it clashes with logistic issues: ensuring a
balanced participation, avoiding the same “usual suspects” (Lee, 2003);
frenetic rhythms limiting in-depth reflexion; workshop freaks, accustomed
to participatory processes, who voice and push their own ideas by firing
post-its (Gilman, 2016); maintaining a qualitative and informed moderation
of each subgroups, betting that all efforts, energies and expertise will
interact well during a short couple of hours; keeping energy and
momentum for the whole workshop duration; illusion of diverse
perspectives because mixed groups signed on the list of attendees; etc.
Furthermore, those big workshops are heavy “events” to organise as
they require the design of a tight choreography to fit into the schedule and
the recruitment of key and strategic stakeholders that are already booked
for other workshops or meetings the same day.
Participants: 40 participants in total (including civil servants,

researchers, civil society) in groups of 5-8 people. The participants were
different stakeholders involved either because the topics of the scenarios
are the focus of their daily job (DG 06 Direction Générale Opérationnelle
de l'Économie, de l'Emploi et de la Recherche, local administration in
charge of research policies at regional level; ULB Université Libre de
Bruxelles Category, department focussing sustainable ways of livng; MAD
Mode and Design Centre - Mad in Situ Category: business incubator) or
because they face them in the management of their institutions
(BRULOCALIS Association of the cities and communes of the Brussels
Capital Region; STAD GENT Ghent city administration, department of
Policy participation; WBDM Wallonie-Bruxelles Design Mode trading
83
support services; WALLONIE DESIGN Promotion design centre of the
Wallonia region).
Style of guidance: Steering, designing an infrastructure-based

guidance beyond a delocalized World Café. At first sight the Caravan
process could be classified as a “facilitation process”. Compared to well-
known facilitation processes like the World Café, the Caravan could be
seen as a “delocalized and itinerant World Café”, since at each step there is
an active listening process of another group of stakeholders enriching what
was done by the previous group.
The style of guidance is not only the way the interaction between the
participants is organised, but also how the infrastructure, the setting of the
interaction, is designed. The purpose of the Caravan was organising a large
stakeholder consultation process avoiding the disadvantages of large unique
workshops described above. The Caravan style of guidance taps into more
structural aspects of the interaction: who is effectively taking part to the
interaction beyond the workshop usual suspects (Gilman, 2016); how can
we take into account the participating stakeholders' corporate spirit beyond
single representatives; how can we get a real mutual exchange process and
not a one-way contribution; etc.
This particular setting should therefore be understood as thought-
provoking posture designed on purpose to provide a more appropriate
stakeholders' interaction to envision the future. For these reasons the
Caravan should be placed on the side of the “steering” polarity.
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. The Caravan process belongs

to the polarity concept-driven, as it is part of the CIMULACT enrichment
process. Research programme scenarios have been elaborated during the
previous step of Co-creation workshop in Milano and the aim of the
various enrichment processes throughout Europe was to deepen, enrich and
test the robustness of the scenarios. The Caravan should therefore be placed
on the side of the “concept-driven" polarity. In the CIMULACT research
project, the Caravan results in creating, envisioning and developing of
options.
It is to be noted that the same Caravan process has been used also in
other projects such as the initial stakeholder consultation step for the
codesign of a policy innovation lab in the Wallonia Region (Jégou, 2018).
The process was meant to be a round of consultations of potential
interlocutors of the future lab in order to infer from their respective
experiences and expectations.
84
Double Diamond stage: Convergent - deliver. Within the CIMULACT
enrichment process, the Caravan was clearly aiming at encouraging
convergence on the research programme scenarios discussed. The
sedimentation of contributions from the stakeholders visited by the Caravan
has a character of “additive convergence”: the convergence was not
understood as simple synthesis, but as an “enriched” or additive synthesis
where contributors are bouncing on each other, adding elements and not
only keeping what is common to all of them.
Environmental set up: In the specific case of the Caravan, the

environment hosting the workshops was different at each step. In general
institutions receiving the Caravan proposed to use a meeting room for the 2
hours of interaction. The workshop material deploying in the different
rooms and on the table was intended both to transfigure the place
(disruption for the participants accustomed to their meeting room) and to
unify the process (all different stops had a similar environmental set up).
See more on set up in “Boundary objects”.
Duration: The Caravan travelled for one entire week across Belgium,
with an average of 2 stops per day. In each of these stops the workshop
session duration was 2 hours with about 20 minutes of installation and
packing of the workshop. It is to be noted that these 2 moments before and
after the real interaction session were important to set the scene between
participants and as a checkout process.
Description of the process: The “caravan” is a mobile and itinerant

codesign tool which travels for a certain period of time (for example over a
period of one week) and stops between 2 to 4 hours in different places to
meet stakeholders (practitioners, civil servants, researchers, policy makers,
etc). In each stop participants enrich the ideas and deepen content already
created in the previous stops. It enables, for example, cumulative mapping
of ideas, arguments, knowledge and/or opinions.
Meeting stakeholders at their place…

Rather than struggling with inviting stakeholders all in the same place at
the same time, the principle of the Caravan was to pay them a visit, to
interact with them directly at their place, in their own context and to link
stakeholders groups that hardly interact with each other. By settling at
people’s place the caravan reduces the participation burden for the
stakeholders as they do not have to spend time and efforts to travel to the
workshop.
85
Involving stakeholders in the recruitment…
The CIMULACT caravan programme aimed at visiting a diversity of
places at stake with the research programmes financed by the European
Commission. In each place, the local organiser of the meeting had the task
of inviting colleagues, partners that would be relevant to the European
research programme scenarios. The CIMULACT caravan team controlled
the panel of visited institutions and the balance of invited participants to
ensure relevance. In parallel a degree of freedom was left to local hosts to
invite the participants they think would best contribute to the process and
comply with the project’s selection criteria.
Communication material (CIMULACT brochure; sample of scenarios to
be enriched; etc.) was distributed to each local organiser to involve
colleagues and external collaborators. In particular, a presentation of the
Caravan approach was made to show advantages of hosting it from the
users point of view and how participating could benefit them (i.e. hosting a
creative workshop and experiencing new interaction tools; engaging
colleagues and partners into a European participative process; involving
hosts' stakeholders reluctant to bottom-up policy making, etc.).
Organise a multi-points sedimentation process…

The arrival of the caravan (in this case a workshop-trolley that circulates
within the building through elevators and corridors to deliver the workshop
material) worked as an ice-breaker. Once in the room, participants were
asked to help with unpacking and installing the workshop material.
Different workshop “booths” were created with unfolding panels to
display the scenarios and support the enrichment process. Each
“enrichment booth” was made of 6 different vertical panels: a central one
explaining the research programme to be discussed and five others
introducing each one a question that participants needed to answer: what
challenge does this research scenario address? Do you think it is an
important challenge to address? What are the different ways this challenge
could be approached? Who do you think should be involved in tackling this
issue? What should it reach in terms of impact?
Participants received “enrichment cards” tagged with the logo of their
own institution. They answer the questions on those cards and place them
on the panels. They may answer the questions freely in no strict order. All
questions need to be covered.
Thanks to the caravan process, the answers to the questions were

developed building on the previous ones, one stop after the other, and
therefore got enriched, rather than being the repetition of what already said.
86
The cards were printed with the logos of the hosting institutions to clearly
track who said what and remained pinned on the panels along the whole
caravan process so that, at each new stop, participants could see what was
done before (except for the first stop where there is no enrichment yet).
Participants started with a research scenario at their choice. Then they
rotated twice and enriched the 2 other research scenarios. This sequence of
collective conversations led to the enrichment of the research scenarios by
the group. They have been, in the end, reviewed several times and traces of
the enrichments were kept visible all along the process.
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes

A workshop delivery scenography. The Caravan was named as such
because it was initially planned to be a real caravan stopping in front of
each visited institution. This option seemed at first sight an engaging
proposal, but a real caravan was not without making problems within the
CIMULACT enrichment process: participants sited; confined environment;
no possibilities to expand outside in the winter time; etc.).
The concept of a “workshop delivery service”, which is to say an
hypothetical service that would deliver all the conditions and material to
transform a traditional meeting room into a proper co-creation place, served
the aim for which the Caravan was invented: an immersion and a
transfiguration of the hosting institutions routines.
The “workshop delivery service” concept has been materialised into a
“workshop trolley” equipped with a sign to brand the whole process as a
CIMULACT service with material and staff; a screen to display an
introduction and briefing video about CIMULACT; a storage for all the
workshop material to be deployed in the room; etc.
Final output: At the end of the process, a summary of the 6 enriched

research scenarios was provided. The inputs from the visited stakeholders
were combined with the help of the 3 moderators, focussing the 5 common
questions to all CIMULACT enrichment processes conducted in parallel
across Europe. Beyond the final outputs of the Caravan within the
CIMULACT process the benefit of this original approach can be discussed.
Immersions in stakeholders' contexts…

The advantage of meeting participants at their own working place is that
they are more ready to take part in codesign activities. They maximise the
time for the participation with no extra time or hassle with commuting to a
particular meeting place.
87
Being “in context” is, also, a good way to connect the interaction with
the stakeholders' habits and motivations. This takes better into account the
stakeholders' corporate spirit and their diversities, rather than flatting
differences by putting everybody in the same room. It results in an
interaction with the institution as a whole rather than with one person that
is supposed to represent it.
The disadvantage and risk are that people may be interrupted by other
work matters, colleagues passing by, phone ringing in the office, etc.
Particular attention should be paid to secure the dedication of the hosting
participants to the full session in order to avoid this kind of disruptions.
Getting a real mutual exchange process and not a one-way contribution

Beyond usual motivations to participate to a large workshop (a
networking opportunity; a break in the business as usual; an intellectually
nourishing activity, a promise of a feedback; etc.) the Caravan allows to
experiment with a new methodology delivered at participants’ premises
with an increased opportunity for a debate.
For the hosts it is also an opportunity for a face to face interaction
between different groups of stakeholders (policymakers, researchers, civil
society, etc.) of a same country that rarely have the opportunity to meet.
The caravan helps to connect places that are not usually in direct contact
with each other.
An inclusive process
The Caravan method “touched” diverse groups of participants ranging
from policymakers (city or regional levels) to researchers (universities) to
wider stakeholders (public institutions like Art & Design schools, NGOs,
etc.). The Caravan visited each group once in order to provide everyone
with the same opportunity to contribute. It stopped in 8 places visiting the 3
regions: Flanders with the City of Ghent, Wallonia with the City of Liege,
and finally the Brussels Capital Region.
During each visit, the criteria on who to include in the sessions were
discussed with the host to ensure that the research requirement of diversity
would be met, although some freedom was also left to the host
organisations. Alongside the official spokespeople, they were encouraged
to invite “unusual suspects”, not often heard (different hierarchical levels,
different departments, internal staff and external interlocutors, etc.). This
ensures a more robust representativeness of the sample.
88
Seeking for more equity in the deliberation
Institutions were visited once by the Caravan and the exact same
process was followed in all cases. At each stop, a presentation of the whole
CIMULACT process and of the specific Caravan process was given in to
all participants to ensure everyone had an equivalent understanding.
Facilitators also outlined some of the contributions from previous stops to
guarantee a certain level of familiarisation of the information.
Stopping the caravan at the premises of an organisation was a way to
counter the risk that in large workshops a few participants take over the
conversation. In local stops everyone has their own turn to enrich the
research scenarios, and it avoids someone confiscating the conversation.
89
Fig. 2.10 - CIMULACT Caravan Process / SDS
90
Fig. 2.11 – CIMULACT Caravan Process / SDS
91
2.1.7 CIMULACT Online Consultation
Title of the codesign activity: CIMULACT online consultation – Fifth

consultation of the project – Online - International scope.
Aim: The goal of this session was to obtain feedback on the scenarios
in terms of criticisms, validation and prioritization by as many people as
possible around Europe.
Participants: General public. Not addressed to a specific target. 3458

participants in total. This consultation addressed the general public and
intended to reach as many people as possible, in order to gain a statistical
significance of the feedbacks collected.
Every country was supposed to reach a target of 300 respondents, but
not all countries managed to do so, including Italy, that obtained only 109
responses.
In order to attract participants to the survey, POLIMI DESIS Lab used
social media channels, sent invitation via emails or private messages, and
distributed the survey via the academic network (newsletter of the research
department of the University, call to action during lectures and more).
The level of expertise in a topic was established with the opening
question of the online survey by asking respondents whether they felt they
were experts or not in the field being evaluated. This simple method
allowed to identify the contributions of experts, while preserving
anonymity.
Style of guidance: Facilitating. As this was an online consultation it

was not mediated by a facilitator and all the explanatory work was done by
the platform itself. Therefore, there was no guidance or bias towards one or
another direction. The contents were presented in the most neutral way
possible, with equal visibility of all options.
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. The subject matter of the

workshop were the research programme scenarios as developed so far.
The research programme scenarios were presented as “proposed
research programmes”, to avoid potential confusions concerning the term
“scenario”, which might have misled the respondents.
The whole contents were revisited and adapted by the project partners to
make them more accessible and appropriate for an online consultation.
92
However, the input for the workshop were already defined and detailed
concepts, about which participants were asked to agree or not and give a
relevance ranking.
Double Diamond stage: Divergent – develop. Even if the content was

already detailed and rich, the purpose wasn’t to select or converge towards
a direction, but instead, to collect feedbacks and possible integrations to the
research programmes.
Environmental set-up: The environment was digital. To access the

survey, the participants visited the website of the project and were directed
to the survey: here they could access the questions by choosing their
country and language and, therefore, contributing to the number of
respondents of that country.
Before launching the platform, the project partners translated all the
contents, in order to make them accessible and understandable by a wider
public. Furthermore, the language used for the research programmes was
simplified as much as possible.
Duration: Approximately 2 months. Between August 23rd and October

th
20 , 2016. The survey was spread throughout the 2 months, with different
intensity in every country due to summer vacations. The time required to
respond to the survey was around 20 minutes, which resulted to be too long
for the users.
Description of the process: The consultation format was a modified

online Delphi template (Dubbed Dynamic Argumentative Delphi, DAD)
and was designed and implemented by the project partner Institutul de
Prospectiva. The main idea behind DAD is to enable online Delphi
consultations with a large number of participants (in the hundreds or even
thousands), while retaining the interactive argumentative (justification-
based) nature of the traditional Delphi (Gheorghiu, Andreescu, and Curaj,
2014).
Before starting the questionnaire, users needed to register. The
registration process requested an email address which was then verified and
finally users could access the survey from a link received by email. This
process represented the first hurdle for the survey, because some users gave
up even before accessing the questionnaire.
• (1) Once entered, participants were asked to choose the 2 social

needs they found most relevant among the 12 proposed.
93
• (2) For each social need, the platform displayed 8 related research
programmes and their respective research questions. Respondents
were asked to read the research programmes and then to choose up to
2 most relevant research questions for the research programme.
Respondents could choose among the questions proposed or add new
ones if they preferred.
• (3) Then, users were asked to rate the research programmes on a
scale from 1 to 5, according to how relevant they considered them
for society. Combined all the evaluations produced the final ranking
of the research programmes. The research questions that were added
by respondents represented the final enrichment of the contents.
Despite the attempt to make the process and the content as simple as
possible, the result was perceived as too complex, long and challenging for
an online survey, especially when addressed to the general public. In fact,
the academic community had the most positive reaction to the
questionnaire.
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: The boundary object used

for the consultation was the online platform.
The platform presented various types of contents. The first page guided
the user in the choice of the needs. The following pages showed the
research programmes represented as a picture and a descriptive text. Next
to the programmes were displayed the research questions.
Final output: The final results were elaborated by Institutul de

Prospectiva and the Technology Centre Of The Czech Academy Of
Sciences (Hebakova et al., 2017), which processed the data through
different variables and focuses. The most significant finding was the
ranking of the research programmes in terms of priority. The most voted
topics all related to sustainability in a broad sense. The research programme
that was ranked first concerned a society where humankind and nature
coexist in a relationship of mutual enrichment, the second one encouraged
education focused on an ecological future and the third one advocated
research on quality and sustainable food.
94
Fig. 2.12 – CIMULACT Online Consultation
95
Fig. 2.13 – CIMULACT Online Consultation
96
Gheorghiu, R., Andreescu, L. and Curaj, A. (2014), Dynamic argumentative

Delphi: Lessons learned from two large-scale foresight exercises, on line
resource, available at: https://goo.gl/8XgY7j , accessed on 04/03/2018.
Gilman, H.R. (2016), Democracy Reinvented: Participatory Budgeting and Civic
Innovation in America Brookings / Ash Center Series, “Innovative Governance
in the 21st Century”, Brookings Institution Press.
Hebakova, L., Ratinger, T., Jansa, L. and Vancurova, I. (2017), European Report
on Online Consultation Results, CIMULACT project’s deliverable 4.2, on line
resource, available at: www.cimulact.eu , accessed on 03/03/2018.
Jégou, F. and Gouache, C. (2018), Phasing-in, Amorçage d’un processus
d’innovation Publique, Design des politiques publiques, Strategic Design
Scenarios Publishing.
Jørgensen, M.L. and Schøning S. (2016), Vision Catalogue Encompassing the
visions from all 30 countries. CIMULACT project’s deliverable 1.3, on line
Lee, M. and Abbot, C. (2003), The Usual Suspects? Public Participation under the
Aarhus Convention. The Modern Law Review, 66(1).
Missions Publiques (MP), Fraunhofer Institute For Systems And Innovation
Research (ISI), Strategic Design Scenarios (SDS), Politecnico di Milano
(POLIMI) and all the participants of the Pan-European Conference (2017),
Social needs based research programme scenarios including 10 to 15
simulated calls for H2020, CIMULACT project’s deliverable 2.2, on line
Warnke, P., Meroni, A., Rossi, M., Selloni, D. and Ospina Medina, A.M. (2017),
First draft of social needs based research programme scenarios An illustrated
proposal for the set of research programmes addressing the overarching social
needs derived from the citizens’ visions, CIMULACT project’s deliverable 2.1,
on line resource, available at: www.cimulact.eu , accessed on 04/03/2018.
97
2.2 Creative Citizens
This chapter discusses “Creative Citizens”1, a project originated within

the doctoral programme of Daniela Selloni at the Department of Design of
Politecnico di Milano, in the POLIMI DESIS Lab.
Creative Citizens was an intensive codesign experimentation to develop
a set of solutions for improving the daily life of a Milanese neighbourhood,
together with a group of citizens and stakeholders from the public and third
sector. It delivered 6 public-interest services and a set of approaches,
methods and tools for replicating the experimentation.
This chapter starts describing the context and the main features of the
project and then it focuses on the 3 main types of codesign sessions carried
out: warm-up, generative and prototyping, which were repeated several
times to tackle the different issues emerged from the neighbourhood.
1
“Creative Citizens” was part of the participatory action research conducted by the
author Daniela Selloni in the XXVII Cycle of the Doctoral Programme in Design within the
Department of Design of Politecnico di Milano. The research was funded by “Borsa Fondo
Giovani” of the Lombardy region.
Many of the notions presented in this chapter build upon her PhD research and, above
all, on her more recent book “Codesign For Public-Interest Services” published by Springer
International in 2017 within the Research for Development Series.
98
2.2.1 Creative Citizens at a Glance
The research project Creative Citizens consisted of a set of codesign

experiments conducted within a community of residents located around
Porta Romana, a Milanese neighbourhood in the area of Municipio 4.
A programme of 2-hour weekly meetings was implemented for about 5
months in the spring of 2013: it took place in a former farmhouse, Cascina
Cuccagna, which represents a symbol of Milanese activism, since it was
recovered from abandon and decay by a group of engaged residents.
The main idea of Creative Citizens was to bring the expertise of service
design researchers to the citizens, creating a laboratory of solutions for
daily life, improving existing services and codesigning new ones, acting as
a “semi-public office for service design” (Selloni, 2017). Additionally, the
project was endorsed by the Local Government of the Municipio 4, in
connection with the Municipality of Milan.
Creative Citizens may be considered a “massive codesign project”
because, despite not consulting a big number of people, it produced a large
and varied amount of data that was crucial to feed an extensive reflection
on codesign methods and tools.
Prior to the intensive programme of weekly meetings, a preliminary

year-long phase of connection with the neighbourhood prepared the ground
for the experimentation. In fact, from 2010, another POLIMI DESIS Lab’s
research project had a focus on that area: it was “Feeding Milan – Energy
for change” (cfr. 2.3) that was experimenting with short food chain
solutions connecting the Agricultural Park South of Milan (bordering
Municipio 4) to the “Earth Market”, the first farmers’ market on public
land in the city of Milan, situated in the heart of the neighbourhood.
As a consequence, the first exploratory activities of Creative Citizens
were focussed around the theme of food, a subject with a strong social and
convivial appeal, able to bring people together. As such, it worked as a
“boundary topic”, building upon the notion of “boundary object”
elaborated by Star (1989): a specific and identifiable topic that can bind a
community, arouse interest and spark a conversation. Practical things and
everyday issues are good examples of “boundary topics”, and food is
perceived as one of the crucial subjects in people’s life, dealing with
shopping, cooking and also health and wellbeing.
This first phase was crucial in preparing the ground for the Creative
Citizens experimentation. Researchers spent a considerable amount of time
immersed in the context, not only doing participant observation but also
actually taking part in the activities of the neighbourhood and adopting a
99
community centred design approach (Meroni, 2008). The result was the
creation of a small community of people ready to participate in a more
intensive programme: a series of creative sessions in which everyone was
able to become a designer, at least for a few months, while having fun.
In addition to food, which was the first emerging topic, other 3 themes
appeared as relevant: sharing networks, administrative advice and cultural
activities, all of which were connected to simple daily tasks and to existing
services and places, such as time banks, purchasing groups, local shops,
markets and fairs.
For instance, the topic connected to the sharing of skills and objects
emerged thanks to the involvement of the Cuccagna Time Bank, which had
already tried to develop a “task-sharing system” within the neighbourhood.
The topic of culture was felt to be essential in an area that suffered from
a lack of cultural offering (the renovation of Cascina Cuccagna was one
attempt to revitalise local cultural life). Besides this, Municipio 4 is outside
the traditional tourist routes in Milan, therefore, the residents wanted to
work on innovative tourism proposals. In this perspective, within the
Creative Citizens, the topic of culture was intended as a trigger for zero-
mile tourism.
Moreover, the inclusion of administrative advice to deal with
bureaucracy as one of the main topics was due to the fact that, in Italy, it is
perceived as one of the most pressing issues in people’s daily lives. The
possibility of using codesign to provide improvements in this field was
therefore viewed as very promising.
The 4 service areas were organized into 4 thematic cycles, each of them
consisting of 3 meetings, which can be seen as the 3 stages of a progressive
path. Summarising, we can identify 3 types of codesign sessions:
• A warm-up session: an initial meeting to familiarise participants

with the selected topic by presenting good practices from all
over the world. It aimed at inspiring people and stimulating
visions of a possible daily life.
• A generative session: in which participants combined the most

promising elements of the case studies with new ideas emerging
from a collective brainstorming, bringing together citizens’
desires and good practice insights. Aim of this activity was to
create advanced service concepts.
100
• A prototyping session: with the objective to move from an ideal
service to a real one, identifying the resources to involve in its
development and inviting strategic players already active in the
neighbourhood. This prototyping session made use of physical
mock-ups to represent services suitable for the area.
The following table offers a comprehensive overview of the different

activities within the 4 thematic cycles and briefly presents the resulting
services.
Tab.2.1 – An overview of the different codesign sessions within the 4 thematic

cycles in the Creative Citizens project
Thematic Cycle 1 Services for exchanging goods and skills
1.Warm-up Exploration of existing micro-economies created by local

session communities in the field of exchange, rental and sale of goods,
tasks and skills.
2.Generative Combination of previous insights and concept definitions, setting

session up service elements: services offered, technologies and tools,
interactions, transaction typologies.
3.Prototyping 2 different services defined by using 2 types of prototype: a “fake”

session bookcase to exchange objects and a of “bulletin board” to exchange
tasks and skills.
Results: “Augmented Time Bank”: a system to exchange skills and small

tasks, within both condominium blocks and the neighbourhood,
starting from Cuccagna Time Bank.
“Objects Library”: a physical and digital space for bartering,
borrowing, gifting, and renting goods in the neighbourhood.
Thematic Cycle 2 Legal and administrative services
1.Warm-up Conversation with Rossella, a lawyer founder of a Milanese Legal

session Desk. Investigation of existing services of administrative advice,
both digital and face-to-face.

3.Prototyping A multi-service advice desk is defined by using 2 main prototypes:

session a “fake” front office showing the offering; a scale model of the
physical office and its service areas.
101
Results: “Citizens Help Desk”: a service for orientation and assistance with
bureaucracy, in various domains: legal, fiscal and
architectural/building advice.
Thematic cycle 3 Food services
1.Warm-up Overview on food-related services and events, presentation of the

session case studies in 2 main clusters: shopping and eating.

3.Prototyping 2 different food networks are defined by using these prototypes: a

session paper-cut laptop for testing a digital platform and a map of Milan to
discuss possible logistic paths.
Results: “Facecook”: a neighbourhood food network connecting restaurants,

markets, shops and local residents.
“Local Distribution System”: an alternative distribution network to
connect Municipio 4 with the Agricultural Park South, based on the
principles of disintermediation and participated logistics.
Thematic cycle 4 Cultural services
1.Warm-up Investigation of good practices from the cultural field, divided into
session 3 main clusters: zero mile tourism, public art, local initiatives.

3.Prototyping A service of zero-mile tourism defined by using 2 prototypes: a

session travel agency board mock up, offering unconventional urban tours,
and an interactive map of Municpio 4.
Results: “Municipio 4 Ciceros”: places in Municipio 4 explained by a

citizen-guide, organizing tours to discover forgotten places.
In this book, we present and discuss clusters of activities, created

according to a likeness of aim, approach and tools. Hence, in 3 separate
paragraphs, we illustrate the 3 main kinds of codesign sessions,
highlighting common elements and bringing specific examples where
necessary.
102
The final result of Creative Citizens was a collection of 6 everyday
services codesigned with the active participation of local people. Each
service is now at a different stage of development, depending on the
opportunities found in the neighbourhood and in the network of institutions
and stakeholders. Besides these results and after 5 years, it is important to
highlight that Creative Citizens was a pioneer codesign activity that left to
the city a legacy in terms of process and experience, which inspired
subsequent experimentations and policies.
2.2.2 Creative Citizens Warm-up Session
Title of the codesign activity: Warm-up session (4 sessions for the 4

areas of Creative Citizens: exchanging goods and skills, legal and
administrative advice, food and culture). National scope.
Aim: To familiarise people with a set of topics by presenting good

practices from all over the world. It aimed to inspire and offer visions of
possible new ways of living, challenging behaviours and conventions.
Participants: Citizens. Around 20 participants each session.

Participants of the warm-up sessions, as for the whole Creative Citizens
project, were a small group of active citizens, engaged during the previous
period of immersion in the context. They regularly attended almost all the
activities.
Within this group of residents, some very committed people represented
the “hard-core” of the 30 Creative Citizens taking part in the
experimentation: to mention a few, Daniela, Massimo, Stefano, Elisa and
Inge believed in the importance of changing things, starting from their own
daily life. Very different in terms of nationality, age, income, political
views and type of employment, they shared a vision about a collaborative
neighbourhood and a new way of considering public goods and services.
Furthermore, another group of citizens who could be described as
“interested” in some of the themes without showing high commitment
participated in the sessions with a constructive and positive attitude
towards the activities.
Finally, another group of about 10 citizens, we defined “passersby”,
only attended a few sessions. These participants, visiting Cascina Cuccagna
to enjoy the garden or the bar and, chanced upon a Creative Citizens
meeting and decided to join the session (or more than one). Hence, some
103
people were “thematic participants”, interested in specific issues and not in
the whole experience.
Style of guidance: Steering. Each session of Creative Citizens was

guided by the principal investigator of the project, who adopted a thought-
provoking posture. The designer guided participants by envisioning
promising ways of doing things and focusing on some original aspects or
the opportunities opened by the 4 selected topics. The main purpose was to
stimulate the citizens’ capability to shift from the status-quo of some
services to what their future could be, by sharing inputs from good
practices from all over the world and using them to feed the conversation.
Design subject matter: Topic-driven. The warm-up sessions were

“topic-driven” and referred to a set of specific thematic areas to be tackled
through the project. As mentioned, these topics originated directly from the
context after a long relationship with Municipio 4.
In particular, a specificity of the Creative Citizens experimentation was
presenting the topics as service opportunities for innovation: services to
provide cultural facilities; to guarantee access to fresh and local food; to
solve bureaucratic problems. This “escamotage” was important because it
helped to identify areas to work on and the emergence of topics to tackle.
Double Diamond stage: Divergent - discover. The warm-up sessions

were thought to inspire people, by presenting a variety of good practices
from all over the world. These meetings were aimed at diverging thinking
and expanding possibilities: it is in the “discover” phase of the Double
Diamond process, an exploratory phase to engage people and to build a
“public imagination”, amplifying individual interests into public interests
(Selloni, 2017).
Environmental set up: A large enough room to accommodate 30

people, i.e. a room in Cascina Cuccagna equipped with a big central table
(generally composed of a set of smaller tables), chairs, a paper blackboard,
empty walls to pin posters and to project videos and images.
Duration: Each codesign session in the Creative Citizens programme

took 2 hours, from 7 pm to 9 pm. The warm-up meetings took place on the
Thursdays in March 2013.
Description of the process: The process of this codesign activity had 3

main phases:
104
• presentation of case studies (1);
• voting session to highlight strengths and weaknesses (2);
• selection and clustering of the most interesting characteristics
emerged from the cases (3).
All warm-up sessions started with a showcase of good practices from

across the world, with the aim of identifying the key features of future
services that could have replicated in Municipio 4 and in the city of Milan.
For example, the warm-up session for the topic “services for sharing
goods and skills” started with an overview of the sharing economy, and
explored existing services ranging from start-ups producing revenues (such
as AirBnb and Task Rabbit) to micro-economies created by local
communities, based on barter and gifting (such as the Street Bank).
A showcase of good practices of food shopping and eating was, instead,
organised in the warm-up session for the food systems. Specific relevance
was given to bottom-up practices.
The same happened for the warm-up session about cultural services, in
which case studies were organised into 3 macro-clusters: “zero-mile
tourism”, “public art projects”, and “local and diffused initiatives”.
It is important to highlight that a specific “design intention” informed
the way in which case studies were selected and clustered: it was the
driving vision of Municipio 4 as a fertile place for social innovations. That
is why the style of guidance was “steering” rather than “facilitating”.
The initial showcase was followed by a voting session that stimulated a

discussion about strengths and weaknesses of the services proposed,
focusing in particular on the different levels of citizens’ collaboration
within each activity.
After this evaluation stage, during a short codesign session, the most
promising characteristics of the selected cases were identified and listed:
this activity aimed at connecting the lessons learned from the good
practices to the daily life in the neighbourhood. Concurrently, problems
were turned into opportunities and the group was encouraged to think not
only to needs, but also to wishes to address with the projects.
It must be pointed out the importance that this kind of codesign session
ends up with an identification of positive elements from the practices, and
their link with people’s dreams and desires: in fact this is a “designerly”
way to inspire people, turning complaints and comments into constructive
proposals and actual “design concepts”.
105
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: The most important
boundary object used in the warm-up sessions was a collection of “good
practices boards”: when entering the room people were impressed by the
massive presence of these coloured boards populating the walls.
The effect was like entering a “room of new possibilities”, an
experimental space in which new things were imaginable. They helped to
begin the conversation between participants, by triggering and revealing
unexpected ways of doing things.
The “good practices boards” were used to show and explain a selection
of national and international case studies by adopting the same template,
that is a poster - identity card. Each board provided a brief description of
the case with: title, short definition, key-question (the reason-why for using
the service), offering (what is the proposition), how it works (how to use
the service), strength (what is the most interesting and promising feature),
technology, benefits (what are the advantages for the user), promoter (who
is promoting and managing the service).
“Evaluation notes” were provided to the participants to facilitate the
conversation: a set of stickers for like/ dislike, to be stuck on the case
studies boards in order to rate their interest.
The “polarity map” served to support the discussion on the good
practices: a graphs showing the intersection of two axes (one about
problems – opportunities, the other about needs – wishes) generating 4
different areas to be commented by the citizens. This tool was useful to
support the final part of the session and to prepare the following meeting.
Final output: All the warm-up sessions generated a number of

desirable “service features” organised into different clusters.
The polarity map and a set of post-it were used to sum-up and visualise
the clusters: this map worked as the final “deliverable” of the codesign
session, a basis to start the subsequent generative activities. Here, the role
of the designer was crucial to support people in “imagining and considering
options beyond the world as it is” and in transforming their desires into a
set of possible services for the neighbourhood.
106
Fig 2.14 – Creative Citizens Warm-up Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab
107
Fig. 2.15 – Creative Citizens Warm-up Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab
108
2.2.3 Creative Citizens Generative Session
Title of the codesign activity: Generative session (4 sessions of the 4

thematic areas of Creative Citizens: exchanging goods and skills, legal and
Aim: To generate a service concept as advanced as possible, building

upon the results of the previous warm-up sessions. This codesign activity
was aimed at defining a service idea and developing it, going in-depth into
its specific activities and their possible application within Municipio 4.
Participants: A group of citizens + some local stakeholders. Around 18

participants each session. People attending the generative sessions were
almost the same of those participating in the previous activities: a group of
citizens very different in terms of nationality, age, income, political views
and type of employment. Together with the “hardcore” group, another
small group of less committed citizens participated to the work. The main
difference with the warm-up meetings was the inclusion of new
stakeholders: the representatives of local associations and small
entrepreneurs, with activities similar to those addressed in the sessions. The
purpose was to make synergy with existing initiatives.
For example, the Cuccagna Time Bank association was a stakeholder
for new projects and, at the same time, an activity in need of improvement.
After some informal meetings with the members, a specific generative
session was organised to re-design their service; Stefano, one of its
founders, became one of the most active participants in the whole
experimentation. Instead, in the generative session dedicated to food, the
designers invited a group of stakeholders connected to the project Feeding
Milan; for instance, Davide, one of the bakers participating in the farmers’
market, who was about to open an innovative shop in the neighbourhood.
As a final example, there is Rossella, a lawyer and representative of a Legal
Help Desk at Cascina Cuccagna: from the very beginning, she understood
how Creative Citizens could have transformed her activity into a more
wide-ranging service and therefore she decided to attend several meetings.
Style of guidance: Steering. The aim of the generative sessions was

making emerge original ideas and then selecting the best ones for further
development. The guidance of the designer was marked, since the objective
was to produce in a relative short time quality outputs in terms of ideas. To
ensure this achievement, the designer contributed a lot to the concept
109
generation, bringing field-related knowledge and service design expertise,
as distinctive elements of the “design culture” (Manzini, 2016).
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. The aim of the generative

sessions was to create service concepts. The most interesting idea was then
developed to design its identity, distinctive activities and, possibly, service
front-stage and back-stage. Hence, codesign generative sessions were alike
conventional service design workshops and adopted the standard tools of
the discipline: for example, user journeys or offering maps.
Double Diamond stage: Convergent - define. The generative sessions

are in the “define phase” of the Double Diamond process, where the aim is
making sense of the possibilities emerged in the previous divergent stage.
This included the definition of a synthesis and the work to help positions
and interests of the participants (a multiplicity of stakeholders and citizens)
to converge, with the objective of solving a problem and creating an
effective service for the neighbourhood.
Environmental set-up: As for the previous codesign activity, a large

enough room to accommodate 30 people, i.e. a room in Cascina Cuccagna
equipped with a big central table (generally composed of a set of smaller
tables), chairs, a paper blackboard, empty walls to pin posters and to
project videos and images.

took 2 hours, from 7 pm to 9 pm. The meetings took place on the Thursdays
of April and May 2013.
Description of the process: The process of this codesign activity had 3

main phases:
• presentation of a provocative rough service concept and
following redefinition through participants’ feed-backs (1);
• development of the service with a user journey map (2);
• evaluation of the concept under different perspectives (3).
The preparation of the generative sessions required a preliminary work

by the designers: the inputs from the warm-up meetings were elaborated to
create a series of service concepts to discuss with the participants. These
initial prototypes, titled with “suggestive” names (the “Objects Library”,
“Facecook”, the “Municipio 4 Ciceros” and more) were the starting points
for provoking the debate in the sessions.
110
For example, in the session dedicated to the re-design of the Cuccagna
Time Bank, the designers proposed the concept of the “Augmented Time
Bank”. The steps of the service were defined through a user journey map; a
specific focus was put on the technologies and digital tools that could have
facilitated the exchange between the user and the creation of a reputation
system. After having focused on the exchange of intangible assets, the
group looked at the exchange of the tangible ones, shifting from sharing
skills to sharing products. Therefore the concept of a “Object Library” was
created: a physical and digital space for the exchange of goods in the
neighbourhood. A map visualising the “shelves” of a library, showing
different types of transactions (borrowing, gifting, lending, selling, etc.)
and the frequency of usage of products, helped to design the service in the
details. The shelves were in fact filled with coloured stickers representing
the different categories of products that participants were free to move.
This map was a conceptual prototype of the service.
Another generative session was dedicated to the legal and administrative
services: it was different from the others because it did not start by
proposing an initial concept, but with the story of Rossella, the lawyer
running a legal help-desk in the Cascina Cuccagna. She presented the
existing service, with an analysis of the problems encountered in the
activity. Then, through a user journey map, participants started to propose
transformations of the service. Finally, the service of the help-desk was
turned into the idea of a “services centre” for administrative orientation and
bureaucracy “first-aid”, covering legal, fiscal and technical advice in many
fields: the “Citizens Help Desk.”
To sum up: all generative sessions started with the introduction of a

concept through a draft prototype (being this conceived by designers or
proposed by a stakeholder) and then went through the discussion of this
concept and its transformation/enrichment by the participants.
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: The most important

boundary object of the generative sessions was a “fake” advertising poster
to introduce the rough service concept, together with the naming used to
stimulate people imagination. This poster, with evocative images and
words, worked as a prototype to start the creative conversation. Often
perceived as something new, in reality it was the combination of the most
promising insights originated in the warm-up session, then elaborated by
expert designers.
In some cases, other kinds of prototypes were used: for example, a
mock-up of a laptop was used to introduce Facecook (a local network of
111
restaurants, shops, farmers markets and bars). This paper-cut prototype,
with fake screen-shots, helped to codesign the pages of the imaginary
website (the landing page, the main menu, the specific pages of each
content area). Every screenshot was discussed using a set of question-cards
to stimulate the critical thinking of the citizens.
User journey maps and other types of maps were instead used to design
the service activities and identify related touchpoints. For example, a user
journey map allowed re-designing the local time-bank, representing all
stages of the interaction, from registration to final transaction. This map
was presented as an “empty layout” to be filled in during the codesign
session.
Another tool often used in the sessions was the set of service resources,
a collection of elements/modules to be used to build a new service. This is
the case of the stickers used for the Object Library, representing the most
frequently used objects.
Finally, help cards were sometimes adopted to facilitate the knowledge
sharing and debate about difficult topics.
Final output: the generative codesign sessions produced a service

concept as final output. It was normally visualised with a user journey map
filled with notes and comments. The collection of service concepts resulted
from the sessions was part of a larger scenario for the neighbourhood.
Each one was detailed enough to be prototyped in the following session.
112
Fig. 2.16 – Creative Citizens Generative Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab
113
Fig. 2.17 – Creative Citizens Generative Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab
114
2.2.4 Creative Citizens Prototyping Session
Title of the codesign activity: Prototyping session (4 sessions for the 4

thematic areas of Creative Citizens: exchanging goods and skills, legal and
Aim: To transform an ideal service into a real one, designing a

prototype ready to be tested on the field. Main aim was developing set of
realistic services for the area of Municipio 4, identifying actors and assets
that could have been involved in their implementation.
Participants: Citizens + Local Stakeholders + Representatives of the

Municipality of Milan. Around 18 participants each session. In the
prototyping sessions, participants were different from the previous
activities: the group was less homogeneous compared to the other meetings
because also strategic players were invited, in order to engage them in the
implementation.
Some of these strategic players were from the public administration of
the city: for example, the Muncipio 4 - Board of Local Government
officially endorsed the project and one member (the Council Delegate for
Culture) attended several sessions and became a passionate advocate of the
services generated within the Creative Citizens project.
The Councillor for Social Policies at the City of Milan and other public
officials attended the final public presentation of the results: Creative
Citizens was recognised as an experimentation with high potential of
replicability.
Other strategic players were organisations of the third sector: for
example, some members of the Cascina Cuccagna Association decided to
participate to the prototyping sessions to understand if some of the services
could become part of the offering of Cascina Cuccagna.
Finally, in the prototyping session for the legal help desk managed by
Rossella, other possible stakeholders were invited to represent the interest
and experience of other ambits (administrative, fiscal and technical).
Style of guidance: Steering. In the prototyping sessions, the focus was

on the development of the service concepts generated in the previous
meetings, by leveraging the participation of local stakeholders. Here, the
role of designers was to guide people into this path toward field
prototyping, highlighting the opportunities offered by the neighbourhood.
In this process, the designers gave a significant contribution, not only
115
supervising the activities but also providing insights, opinions and
connections among the actors involved.
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. Prototyping sessions were

aimed at developing a service in all its aspects: front and back-stage, user
experience and touchpoints. The work was based on the concepts
previously produced.
Double Diamond stage: Convergent - deliver. The prototyping sessions

were in the “deliver” phase of the Double Diamond, since their objective
was to produce effective results, namely a collection of services ready to be
tested. Participants were guided to converge into a number of decisions to
make things happen and move from codesign to co-production and to co-
management of the services (Selloni, 2017). This implied the participants,
stakeholders included, to take very seriously the activities of testing and
prototyping.
Environmental set-up: As for the previous codesign activities, a large

enough room to accommodate 30 people, i.e. a room in Cascina Cuccagna
equipped with a big central table (generally composed of a set of smaller
tables), chairs, a paper blackboard, empty walls to pin posters and to
project videos and images.

took 2 hours, from 7 pm to 9 pm. The meetings took place on the Thursdays
of May and June 2013. The last prototyping session was performed out of
the traditional scheduling to assure the presence of additional stakeholders.
Description of the process: Despite some diversity, prototyping

sessions were organised as follows:
• refresh of the service concepts (1);
• identification of actors, roles and rules (2),
• development of touchpoints (3);
• evolution and enrichment of the original concept if needed (4).
Starting points of the prototyping sessions were the service concepts

developed during the generative sessions and visualised through rough
codesign prototypes. By doing so, the concepts were discussed in terms of
potential stakeholders able to contribute to their implementation with
financial resources, assets, knowledge and skills.
116
The second step was using an actor map to identify potential
contributors and to envision possible forms of “service governance”,
assigning roles and rules to the actors. This map was complemented with a
map of the neighbourhood with highlighted local assets to exploit, such as
vacant spaces, local shops, receptions of condominium, etc. This simple
exercise facilitated thinking how services could have been implemented in
the neighbourhood, outlining a network of resources available for the
activities, in a logic of economies of scope (Panzar and Willing, 1981).
Part of the sessions was dedicated to the development of the service
touchpoints and select those to prototype. For example, to prototype
Facecook, a simple website was designed using existing components, such
as Google docs, Google Maps and Facebook groups. Tangible elements
were also considered, like info-boards for sharing food, advice, recipes and
news of local events.
In some cases, the service concept evolved also in the prototyping
sessions: for example, Facecook was finally elaborated as a “quality mark”
for the neighbourhood’s retailers and restaurants created by the inhabitants.
At the end of each prototyping sessions, the ideas of the possible
contribution of each actor and of the resources available in the
neighbourhood were much clearer.
Boundary objects - tools and prototypes: Physical prototypes of the

services were used as boundary objects in the prototyping sessions.
Paper-cut mock-ups: for each of the 6 generated services, physical 3D
models facilitated the conversation and helped to explain the ideas to the
newcomers. For example, the boundary object used to introduce Municipio
4 Ciceros was a table game mock-up consisting in a map of the
neighbourhood, a set of pins to be used as indicators for the possible stops
of the tours, a list of monuments, points of interest and anecdotes about the
history of Municipio 4, and a set of picture cards representing the citizens-
guides. A mock-up representing a possible physical space for the library
was instead created for the Object Library, showing its similarity with an
“exchange” corner in a bar rather than a storage room. For representing the
Augmented Time Bank, a bulletin board, placed in the concierges of the
building and presenting a list of offer/demand, was thought.
All mock-ups were nicely designed and coloured so to attract the
attention of participants and visitors. A “service promotion kit”
complemented each mock-up: a set of communication materials to promote
and start the service, such as flyers, posters, leaflets, booking forms and
more.
117
Finally, the Actors map was used to identify possible players and their
specific contribution: printed on a big-size format, they were hanged on the
walls, with blank areas to be completed by the participants.
Final output: The output of the prototyping sessions was a set of

prototypes, i.e. a collection of services ready to be tested on the field. After
a few years, they are currently at different stages of evolution. The most
successful ones are those with strong promoters such as the Augmented
Time Bank and the Citizens Help Desk, which are both endorsed by the
Municipality of Milan and supported by Cascina Cuccagna.
118
Fig. 2.18 – Creative Citizens Prototyping Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab
119
Fig. 2.19 – Creative Citizens Prototyping Session / POLIMI DESIS Lab
120
1: 52-59.
Meroni, A. (2008), “Strategic Design: Where Are We Wow? Reflection Around
the Foundations of a Recent Discipline”, Strategic Design Research Journal,
Vol. 1, 1:31-38.
Panzar, C.J. and Willig, D.R. (1981). “The economies of scope”, The American
Economic Review, (71) 2, 268-272.
Selloni, D. (2017), CoDesign for Public Interest Services, Springer International
Publishing
Star, S.L. (1989), “The Structure of Ill-Structured Solutions: Boundary Objects and
Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving”, in Gasser, L. and Huhns, M.
(eds.). Distributed Artificial Intelligence, Vol. 2. San Francisco Cal: Morgan
Kaufman, 37-54.
121
2.3 Feeding Milan – Nutrire Milano
This chapter discusses some of the codesign activities of the project

“Feeding Milan - Energies for Change” (“Nutrire Milano - Energie per il
cambiamento”), an action research funded by local institutions (Fondazione
Cariplo, a bank foundation, with the Comune di Milano and Provincia di
Milano) and developed by a partnership between Slow Food Italia, the
Department of Design of Politecnico di Milano with the POLIMI DESIS
Lab, and the Università di Scienze Gastronomiche.
The project, running from 2010 to 2013, created a platform of
collaboration to design, prototype and implement a set of interconnected
services, based on the principles of short food-chain, multifunctionality and
cooperation between stakeholders (Meroni and Selloni, 2018). Since in the
initial intentions, the project was conceived as systemic and territorial: a
continuum, collaborative process, combining very diverse stakeholders
(from farmers to public administrations), enterprises, citizens and
researchers/experts from many fields. As such, in its timespan, a countless
number of people were engaged in the work through different tactics and
project encounters.
In this chapter, we present the codesign activities organised to collect
inputs from the farmers in order design the platform of the project and a
couple of codesign activities conducted at the so-called “idea sharing stall”,
a co-creation corner set in the monthly farmers’ market to engage visitors,
farmers and stakeholders in design conversations. In particular, we examine
the process and the outputs of 2 codesign sessions dedicated to the design
and pre-prototype of a “farmer’s food box” and the design of a local
distribution system.
122
2.3.1 Feeding Milan at a Glance
The project Feeding Milan was conceived as an opportunity not only to

envision a scenario of local foodshed, connecting the local food production
in peri-urban areas (particularly in the huge agricultural park bordering the
south of the town, the Agricultural Park South) with its consumers in the
town, but also to create the conditions for this to become real and for
prototyping some services.
It was, therefore, an action research aimed at making things happen in
the view of the universal exposition “Expo Milano 2015” titled “Feeding
the Planet, Energy for Life”, programmed in 2015. For this very reason, an
actual engagement of a huge number of stakeholders (farmers, local
organisations, citizens, policy makers) and the creation of a shared vision
were not “nice-to-have” options, but “must-have” conditions to work.
The challenge was using design to steer social innovation in the field of
food and agriculture by: leading producers towards more sustainable
production systems, offering them a greater guarantee of profitability due
to a wider and more organized demand, and encouraging new purchasing
habits, more advantageous from a quality/price point of view, attentive
towards health and the environment, richer on a relational level (Manzini
and Meroni, 2013). Therefore, main actions of the project were:
• supporting existing best practices and resources in the agricultural
field;
• activating resources not yet / no longer valorised;
• creating new services.
After having created and shared with key stakeholders an initial

scenario, intended as a common set of intentions, aspirations and beliefs,
and having engaged the first group of farmers, the project quickly moved
into the design of specific services to make the scenario become reality. In
parallel, the project team, through multiple channels, started an extensive
work of dissemination and creation of a different food culture in the
population.
Through diverse sub-projects, along its 4 years of operation, Feeding
Milan produced several hypotheses for new services and started to activate
a number of pilots. Here below, we provide a summary of the main ones
(Meroni and Selloni, 2018), in order to depict the scope of the project and
the complexity of its overall architecture:
• The Earth Market. A farmers’ market for local producers, organized
according to the principles of Slow Food. Still working, it takes place
123
twice a month and includes didactic workshops, taste laboratories,
street kitchens and convivial tables enabling visitors to stay and eat.
• The Farmer’s Food Box. A weekly delivery of local vegetables and
fruit. The service was thought to delivery an assortment of
vegetables, fruit and other products to the users at convenient
collection points (neighbourhood shops, bars, cultural centres,
schools, offices and other transit points for users). The project
stopped after the field prototype, mainly because of difficulties with
the logistics and this pointed out the importance of creating a local
logistic system to support this one and many other activities.
• The Local Bread Chain. A fully local production of bread, from the
grain to the final product. Commercialised at a fixed price, it is still
produced and distributed by different bread-makers across the
Milanese area.
• The Collaborative Supermarket: A supermarket based on a co-
operative principle to distribute high quality, fresh, local produce at
good prices, thanks to the work carried out by customers/members. It
was developed as a feasibility study.
• The Local Distribution System. A platform aiming to answer the
urgent and unmet demand for an alternative local food logistics,
connecting producers with restaurants and groceries. After several
scenarios and micro-experimentations involving also citizens and
users, the study has generated a start-up company that integrates the
assets of different stakeholders and creates synergies with the
market.
• Zero-mile tourism. A set of farms’ services offering hospitality and
accommodation to urban tourists. A series of concepts has been
designed and prototyped with the support of the students of the
School of Design of Politecnico di Milano, which have inspired
autonomous initiatives of the farmers. Additionally, in the following
years, the Agricultural Park South have been more and more
perceived as a leisure place and, consequently, other initiatives were
started in this direction.
All the abovementioned services have been codesigned through a “tool”

that allowed the designers to get in touch with people and stakeholders: it
was the “idea sharing stall”, which can be described as a boundary object in
itself, having the evidence and the substance of a stall of the Earth Market,
just like all the others. There, designers used to discuss (and still do it from
time-to-time) emerging ideas for new services with visitors, asking for
comments and inviting creative contributions.
124
Feeding Milan left a valuable legacy both in terms of experience and of
actual outcomes. In fact, beyond the direct outputs of the project, it can be
reported that, after it, a number of likewise initiatives started across the city
and the sensitivity of the population for local and sustainable food seemed
to be increased. Surely, this went together with the effect of Expo 2015, but
we deem it was amplified by the project, especially for the progressive shift
of some farmers towards more sustainable ways of producing and
delivering, which are now at the basis of a new territorial ecology. Because
of the very nature of the project, a formal conclusion it is difficult to define
since it can be seen as «the start-up of a systemic process, rather than the
designing of a desirable state. (...). It, therefore, conforms to the
characteristic of working on a process rather than a product and
consequently opens the difficult question of planning an exit strategy for
the initiative» (Manzini and Meroni, 2013, p. 243).
Feeding Milano adopted, in fact, a totally immersive and participatory
approach with a full and continuous presence of designers in the large
community of producers, associations, institutions and citizens. The
designer role, according to what we define community centred design,
consisted in steering and stimulating this community by organising
multiple opportunities of conversation around the scenario of a local
foodshed, activating initiatives and providing methodological support to
prototype them.
2.3.2 Collaborative Farmers: Understanding Farmers’

Behaviours and Relations
Title of the codesign activity: Collaborative Farmers – Survey and

interviews to understand farmers’ behaviours and relations. Online and in-
presence. National scope.
Aim: To understand the relations already in place between the farmers,

the competences and the resources available to be shared or needed, the
interest in doing initiative together and the value of participating in the
farmers’ market. This initial knowledge would have allowed to design the
service platform (organisational and digital) backing up the project.
Participants: Farmers. 110 participants. The target of the activity was

the first pool of around 110 farmers (mainly located within 40km from the
city in the Agricultural Park South) selected to participate into the Earth
125
Market, the farmers’ market organised within the framework of the project.
At the time of the activity, the pilot of the market was running since a few
months, taking place once a month.
The activity was conducted in 2 sessions: 41 farmers participated in the
first session consisting in an online survey, while around 40 farmers
participated in the interviews that were conducted at the Farmers’ Market
in October 2010.
The participation to the online survey that was facilitated by person-to-
person interaction, since the farmers were personally invited to participate
into the survey via personal contact at the market, via email and even via
postal mail, being the same template be sent also in paper. The response
rate was 39%.
The second session, in presence, involved almost all the producers
participating in the market of October.
Style of guidance: Facilitating. The first activity was organised without

the presence of the facilitator, except for the initial role of inviting the
farmers and encouraging them to take the survey.
The second activity, instead, foreseen the presence of the facilitator as
interviewer: using a paper interview guide, one per participant, the
designers went around the market to talk with the farmers and taking note
of the answers.
Design subject matter: Topic-driven. The 2 codesign sessions were

interconnected and subsequent, yet very different in the object of
investigation. Both of them regarded the specific nature of the activities of
the farmers.
The first was focussed on the present time situation and the interest for
the future. Respondents were asked to provide: 1) the basic profile; 2) the
structure, quality, and content of social networks; and 3) a demand for new
services. «The profile included the producer’s name, address, age, gender,
income level, education level, offered products and services, number of
visits to the market, and use of information communication technologies in
daily life. Related to the social networks, we asked for details of their
collaborative activities, including: the size, involved actors, duration,
frequency of interaction, type of collaboration, and finally technologies
supporting collaboration» (Baek et al., 2015, p. 66).
The second was focussed on the discussion of three very initial
proposals about: 1) how they would have profiled themselves in the
platform with regard to the availability to share resources and
competencies; 2) what kind of topics they would have been interested in
126
discussing during informal peer-to-peer meetings; 3) what specific
initiatives they would have been keen to activate through a collaboration
with other producers.
Double Diamond stage: Divergent/convergent – discover/define. The

two activities were built one on the results of the other and were
respectively divergent and convergent. The first one allowed to understand
the features of the group of producers, the second to discuss some
hypotheses of collaboration.
Environmental set up: The first survey was delivered online, while the
interviews were conducted in the farmers’ market of Milan.
Duration: The online survey was available for a month, from end of
August to end of September 2010. The interviews took 10-15 minutes each
and were done during a Saturday morning, when around 45 farmers were
together in the market.
Description of the process: The 2 sessions were organised in a

sequence but in very different ways: online and in presence.
For the online work, it has to be noticed that the researchers had to play
an essential role in engaging the farmers one-by-one: yet the percentage of
participation was the 39%.
For the work in presence, the activities were organised as structured
interviews: to guide the encounter the designers used simple templates,
illustrating the topic and allowing to both answer questions by choosing
options or adding comment/notes/inputs. In some case, since the templates
were self-explanatory, the farmers managed the work by themselves.
Boundary objects - prototypes and tools: Both inquiries were

conducted using structured methods so to ensure that each interview had
the same questions in the same order and therefore the results to be
comparable. Nevertheless, the work in presence was conducted with a
degree of freedom to organise the contact as a conversation.
Survey Google form: customised forms were created for the online
survey.
Visual questionnaire: some paper notes, one copy per respondent, were
prepared to guide the interview. They were designed with a visual
distribution of the questions, so to facilitate the understanding of the
alternatives, a brief text and image (when appropriate) to provide a glimpse
127
of the topic, and blank fields for free comments or inputs from the
participants.
Final output: The sessions generated in total around 80 interactions

with the farmers. The answers of the survey showed that the majority of
producers were currently engaged in some types of interactions and social
relations: these were considered pre-conditions for initiating new
collaborative services in connection with the market. They also expressed
the interest in developing new business ideas for a local and sustainable
food system, and in sharing and exchanging resources besides the direct
sales (via the market or other channels to consumers). (Baek et al., 2015).
This output led to 3 very initial proposals for possible forms of
collaboration (all of them based on in presence encounters, but facilitated
through a digital platform) that were discussed with the farmers in the
following codesign session. These were: the “Convivia for professional
training”, meeting moments to eat and share knowledge about diverse
subjects; the “Resource and competence centre”, a digital window to
showcase the producers; and the “Wall of proposals”, presenting the ideas
for initiatives to be activated together.
From the analysis of the results of the consultations, the need that
emerged with more clarity was about a local logistic system, a platform
(also based on collaboration) able to facilitate the delivery of the produce at
the local scale, for both B2B and B2C clients. Indeed, farmers and
stakeholders (restaurants, shops, consumers), over the timespan of the
project, claimed several times for a solution to the small-scale logistics, as a
key enabler for the creation of an effective foodshed. After a series of
initial experiments and having consolidated the network and the
connections with the consumers, a startup was born to provide this service
(Altuna et al., 2015).
Finally, in terms of effectiveness of the interaction with the farmers, we
can say that the digital channel was not fully successful in an environment
where the person-to-person contacts (in-presence or via telephone) were
prevailing and preferred.
128
Fig 2.20 – Collaborative Farmers / POLIMI DESIS Lab
129
Fig. 2.21 – Collaborative Farmers / POLIMI DESIS Lab
130
2.3.3 Codesigning the Farmer’s Food Box
Title of the codesign activity: Codesign of the Farmer’s Food Box at

the Idea Sharing Stall. In-presence. National scope.
Aim: To assess, expand and integrate given options about the

characteristics (contents, size, costs and logistics) of a food box containing
seasonal and local vegetables, fruits and other produce. In the codesign
activity, given a very broad concept, the participant was taken through a
simple chain of questions resembling a user journey, in order to understand
his/her preferences. The overall purpose, thus, was to understand interests,
feasibility, and concreteness of the idea.
Participants: People passing by the stall at the Farmers’ Market

during the two days of the activity, of September and October 2010. In
total, around 140 people participated in the codesign sessions, interacting
with designers and representatives of Slow Food, who were in charge of
conducting the activity. The activities were thought to address a general
public, yet people potentially interested in the service since clients of the
market. It was organised as a fast interaction, allowing people to either
provide feedback in a few minutes or indulging in long conversations with
the organisers.
Style of guidance: Facilitating. The codesign activities were organised

with a very light presence and role of the facilitator, even leaving the
participant completely alone in filling in a sort of visual questionnaire
representing the user journey. In fact, the context of the interaction was
supposed to be crowded, as it actually was, so that the activity was
conceived as a reflection that the participant could have done after a short
explanation provided by the facilitator. Participants were requested to
answer some questions choosing among options, on the base of the own
preferences and habits.
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. The overall frame of the

codesign activities was very structured and focussed around a given and
simple concept, hypothesised by the designers of the POLIMI DESIS Lab
with the Slow Food team. The farmer’s food box, in fact, was proposed as a
weekly delivery service of an assortment of local products. Some features
were left open, by letting the participant free to choose among options
regarding the delivery, the product mix, the complementary services, the
price and the payment system. In the reality, for many of these issues the
131
actual constraints were several so that options were more thought to
investigate the reaction of the possible users than to suggest real
alternatives.
Double Diamond stage type: Convergent - deliver. This codesign

activity was nearly a form of pre-prototype of the service, which means a
first test on the field with possible users, conceived to verify or confute
some project hypotheses.
Environmental set up: Both the codesign activities took place at the
“idea sharing stall”, the farmers’ market open-air stall, dedicated to
codesigning with the visitors. The market was located in a public park
named largo Marinai d’Italia, in the Municipio 4 of Milan. The
environmental set up was a gazebo and a table equipped with boundary
objects and communication materials related the project Feeding Milan.
The stall was like all the other market’s stalls, where farmers sell food. Yet,
it was set in a dedicated corner in the centre of the market and signposted
with a “warning” sign designed to attract people (this sign was similar to a
stop road sign, displaying the icon of two people talking, and thus, it
conveyed the message “please stop and share ideas with us”). Both
participants and researchers were supposed to stay standing.
Being close to the “convivial tables” where visitors could settle down
and just chat or eat the food of the market, it was in a good position to
attract and facilitate the involvement of the people.
Duration: Around 4 hours, from 9 am to 1 pm, throughout two

Saturday mornings. Each interaction with the participants took in average a
few minutes, with exceptions of those with people willing to talk and ask
questions about the general project. This happened on purpose since the
specific circumstances of the place suggested the researchers to opt for a
quick contact, not too disturbing or time consuming for the clients of the
market.
Description of the process: The activity was conceived by the team of

the Politecnico di Milano and implemented with the collaboration of the
Slow Food team.
The process was very simple and guided by the boundary objects
designed for the circumstance. People were first involved with a verbal
gentle invitation to come closer to the stall or were attracted by the signs
and the boundary objects arranged on the table. In the pick moments of the
132
morning, when the stall started to be crowded, the “line-waiter” effect
helped to attract people by curiosity.
Participants, then, were told the concept of the food box and requested
to fill in the questionnaire with the support of the facilitator or alone. At the
end of the interaction, the facilitator recapped on the paper the choices
expressed by the user, summing up the full service journey. The use of one
paper per participant simplified the collection of the answers.
For the second codesign session, small changes have been introduced in
the paper questionnaire, to better support the flow of the explanation and
the interaction with the participants.
The output of the two days was an organised set of feedbacks to the
concept of the farmer’s food box.
Boundary objects - prototypes and tools: The boundary objects

created for this activity were a combination of a concept prototype and a
tool. The facilitator had the role of explaining the concept and supporting
the participant in providing feedback.
Farmer’s food box prototype: a physical mock-up of the main service
evidence, the box with the vegetables, was created and placed on the table,
in order to attract people and provide an idea of the subject matter. Nicely
designed and visually amplified with colourful signs with short sentences
or questions about the box (such as: «get to know who grew this for you!»
or «where and when do you prefer this to be delivered to you?»), the
prototype was conceived not to be realistic but instead to clearly emphasize
the product delivered by the service.
User journey questionnaire: a paper note, one per respondent,
complemented the prototype to guide participants along a simplified user
journey, so to answer some relevant questions about the service. Each
question had different pre-conceived options to choose among, on the base
of the own preferences and habits. This was decided to properly take in
consideration the service constraints, to simplify the reflection of the
participant, and to make sure to have comparable results.
Final output: The sessions generated in total around 140 interactions

with possible service users. Feedbacks were analysed and shared with the
full project team in order to set the conditions for a real field prototype. The
final service was an assorted farmer food box, with mainly vegetables and
fruits, despite the interest of the people also for eggs and dairy products.
The delivery system was based on neighbourhood points (schools, offices,
bars, or habitual transit points) convenient to the user; these acted as local
order collection platforms; would have reduced the price of the service; and
133
allowed the user to withdraw the food box all day long, till evening. These
design decisions informing the field-prototype were partially in contrast
with the feedbacks of the codesign participants: the reason was the need of
interpreting their desires while coping with cost and time constraints. The
prototype, in the end, did not go smoothly in all aspects: for instance, some
testers complained about the fact that the fresh vegetables were not
adequately preserved by the neighbourhood points; or about the relative
few product diversification, due to the local scale; or about the few
flexibility to change/delete the order last minute. This denotes that, in the
questionnaire, not all issues were properly explored with the possible users,
since it was underestimated the “behavioural cost” of introducing a new
routine, despite the interest for the “product”.
The service was then prototyped in real scale from June to October
2011, involving 3 farmers, 5 points of delivery in the city of Milan and
about 100 consumers. A second test was then run with improvements in
spring 2012.
134
Fig. 2.22 - Farmer’s Food Box / POLIMI DESIS Lab
135
Fig. 2.23 - Codesigning the Farmer’s Food Box / POLIMI DESIS Lab
136
2.3.4 Codesigning a Local Distribution System
Title of the codesign activity: Local Distribution System codesign

session. In-presence. National scope.
Aim: The first aim was to familiarise with the idea of Local
Distribution System, an experimental system of food distribution based on
original combinations of professional activities and citizen collaboration at
a local scale. The second aim was to choose among a range of service
concepts within this experimental system and to enrich them by adding
details and preferences from potential users.
Participants: People passing by the Ideas Sharing Stall at the Earth

Market. Around 50 participants. Participants were a combination of
residents of the city of Milan and tourists since this codesign activity was
carried out during the Milan Design Week 2012.
Style of guidance: Facilitating. In this activity, designers mainly

supported people in understanding the idea of Local Distribution System
and its related solutions. Hence, it was a public presentation followed by a
moment of active listening. The role of the designer was to explain the
main concepts and ask key-questions to participants, then accounting
answers within a dedicated template.
Design subject matter: Concept-driven. The material provided as input

to this codesign activity was a main “umbrella-concept” together with a
number of sub-concepts which were explained and represented through a
specific set of boundary objects and prototypes. Therefore, concepts were
both the input and the output of the process: the codesign activity was
dedicated to evaluating and deepening those ideas.
Double Diamond stage: Convergent - deliver. The concept of Local

Distribution System was originally elaborated by the designers of the
POLIMI DESIS Lab group: hence the divergent and creative phase of the
Double Diamond was carried out without asking people contribution. The
codesign activity here presented was thought to converge towards a
selection of services concepts, to assess given items and bring about a
decision on what deserved to be implemented or not. Then, some concepts
were expanded, adding elements of interests, feasibility and concreteness,
leaving on the hands of designers a set of in-depth solutions.
137
Environmental set-up: This codesign activity took place at the “idea
sharing stall”, the Farmers’ Market open-air stall dedicated to codesigning
with the visitors. The market was located in a public park named largo
Marinai di Italia, in the Municipio 4 of Milan. As for the previous example
(cfr. 2.3.3) the environmental set up was a gazebo and a table equipped
with boundary objects and communication materials related the project
Feeding Milan.
Duration: The activities were held on a Saturday morning, including

also lunch-time. From 9 am to 2 pm, the 21st of April 2012. It was during
the Milan Design Week and thus attracted also tourists keen of visiting
unusual places in the city.
Description of the process: The codesign of the Local Distribution

System was conceived as a quick interaction in 4 main steps with people
passing by at the “ideas sharing stall”:
• introduction to the Local Distribution System using a
“conversation table” as boundary object;
• explanation of 5 service ideas under the main “umbrella-
concept” represented as a set of prototypes that complemented
the conversation table;
• selection of the favourite ones through a visual map;
• enrichment of the chosen concepts by filling in a quick survey.
Each 4-step interaction took about 5-10 minutes with each participant: 3
designers worked in parallel using the same design artefacts, trying to carry
out as more interactions as possible.
The Local Distribution System was explained as an alternative to large-

scale retailing. It was based on disintermediation and short food-chain and
sought to foster a direct match and meeting between demand and supply,
city and countryside. In this new distribution system, ordinary people were
intended to play a strategic role as mediators between end-users and peri-
urban farmers. Hence, people participation was viewed as the central idea
for building a system in which they were requested to be active. The 5
ideas that prompted the codesign were the following:
• Restaurant Shop: a shopping corner located in a restaurant, where
to buy the ingredients of the meal just enjoyed in the restaurant, or
other Agricultural Park South products sold exclusively on the
spot.
138
• Shopping Agent: a citizen going from house to house (or store to
store) with a catalogue of products from the Agricultural Park
South.
• Farmers’ Food Box: a weekly delivery service for local vegetables
aiming to provide the food produced in the Agricultural Park South
to the city of Milan. The box was delivered to users at a collection
point. This was the same concept previously described (cfr. 2.3.3).
• Collaborative Supermarket: a supermarket run through the
costumers’ collaboration, aiming to distribute high quality, fresh,
local products at good value prices, thanks to the work carried out
by costumers-members.
• Gift-box: a package with different high-value products of the
Agricultural Park South (sausage, meat, cheese, etc.) for a monthly
delivery.
The Collaborative Supermarket, in particular, aroused people’s

enthusiasm because it was perceived as an alternative to food shopping,
while the Shopping Agent was perceived as a too demanding.
The flow of interactions during the day was approximately the
following: few people at the beginning of the morning and then two intense
moments in the middle and just before lunch-time. Once again, the “line-
waiters” effect worked well: people in line to join the codesign activity
attracted other people.
Boundary objects - prototypes and tools: The main boundary object

was a table tool-kit for opening the debate with participants about new
ways to distribute local food in the city and contribution of people to this.
“Conversation table” was the name of this object, designed as a set of
visual signs representing interconnected food solutions. It was a hybrid
between a prototype and a tool-kit constituted of:
• a map of the city with the superimposition of a scheme of the
system of services;
• a set of pictures of the context, of the products and the local
resources to convey an idea of the origin and quality of the
food;
• 5 main cards to explain the 5 services of the system and their
integrated network of touch points;
• a visual survey to ask people their preferences about the
services, the places, their experience, and their possible
involvement.
139
This boundary object had multiple aims: it was used to attract people
and start a conversation, but at the same time, it worked out as a table-game
to simulate the interactions at the local scale and explain the system.
Final output: At the end of the morning, around 50 surveys were

completed: it emerged that the Collaborative supermarket was the favourite
concept, followed by the Restaurant Shop and the Farmers’ Food box. The
survey, produced at the end of the interaction designer-participant, served
also as “report” of the whole experience.
Therefore, the main output of this codesign activity was the selection
and ranking of some service ideas, integrated with suggestions about their
development within the project Feeding Milan.
140
Fig. 2.24 - Local Distribution System / POLIMI DESIS Lab
141
Fig. 2.25 - Local Distribution System / POLIMI DESIS Lab
142
Altuna, N., Dell'Era, C., Landoni, L. and Verganti, R. (2015), “Developing

innovative visions through collaboration with radical circles”, in Collina, L.,
Galluzzo, L. and Meroni, A., eds, Proceedings of CUMULUS Spring
Conference 2015 - The Virtuous Circle Design Culture and Experimentation,
Mc Graw-Hill, Milano. Digital Publication.
Baek, J. S., Meroni, A. and Manzini, E. (2015), “A socio-technical approach to
design for community resilience: A framework for analysis and design goal
forming”, Design Studies, Vol. 40, No. September 2015, pp. 60-84.
Meroni, A. and Selloni, D. (2018), “Design for Social Innovators”, in Walker, S.,
Cassidy, T., Evans, M., Twigger Holroyd, A. and Jung, J., eds., Design Roots:
culturally significant designs, products and practices, Bloomsbury Academic,
London, pp. 305-318.
Manzini, E. and Meroni, A. (2013), “Design for Territorial Ecology and a New
Relationship between City and Countryside: The Experience of the Feeding
Milano Project”, in Walker, S. and Giard, J. eds., The Handbook of Design for
Sustainability, Bloomsbury, London, Chapter 15, pp. 237-254.
143
2.4 SPREAD – Sustainable Lifestyles 2050
This chapter presents some activities of the “SPREAD - Sustainable

Lifestyles 2050” project, funded under the European Commission’s FP7
programme and running from January 2011 to December 2012 1 . In
SPREAD, a diversified group of societal stakeholders from business,
research, policy and civil society participated in the collaborative
development of a vision for sustainable lifestyles in Europe in 2050. The
project delivered 4 future scenarios, a set of roadmaps and policy briefs,
and a consistent research agenda. The Politecnico di Milano participated as
a partner, through the POLIMI DESIS Lab of the Department of Design. Its
main role was to contribute to envisioning the future scenarios and framing
the codesign process.
Here we present the activities delivered for the co-creation of the visions
for sustainable lifestyles in 2050, with a specific focus on a generative
multi-stakeholder workshop held in Milan in September 2011.
1
SPREAD - Social Platform Identifying Research and Policy Needs for Sustainable
Lifestyles in Europe 2050. Funded by EU - FP7 Program, Grant Agreement 263962, 2011-
2012. Project coordinator: Collaborating Centre on Sustainable Consumption and
Production (CSCP), Germany. Consortium partners: Energy research Centre of the
Netherlands (ECN), The Netherlands; Demos Helsinki (Demos), Finland; Politecnico di
Milano (Polimi), Italy; EuroHealthNet, Belgium; The International Institute for Industrial
Environmental Economics at Lund University (ULUND), Sweden; Regional Environmental
Center for CEE countries (REC), Hungary; Ecoinstitut Barcelona (ECOI), Spain; The
Northern Alliance for Sustainability (ANPED), Belgium; Ashoka, France.
144
2.4.1 SPREAD at a Glance
The SPREAD project was conceived as a collective effort to answer the

following questions: «What is a sustainable lifestyle? What will a
sustainable future mean for the way we live, move, and consume? How do
we know if our lifestyles are sustainable or not? How can our aspirations
for life and well-being improvements be enabled sustainably?» (SPREAD
website). In doing this, the project aimed at integrating the contribution of
experts and citizens in a massive process of collaboration that took 2 years.
The core results of this collaboration were scenarios, intended as “tools” to
open up conversations about the future with diverse groups of stakeholders,
including policy-makers.
In brief, the process started with taking stock of existing knowledge on
sustainable lifestyles by developing research in order to define a “baseline”
providing a synthesis of the state of the art in research and of stakeholder
views on potential pathways toward sustainable lifestyles.
It continued with collecting promising practices on sustainable lifestyles
through case studies in order to feed an (en)visioning codesign workshop in
which to move from the present to the future.
The workshop generated 4 visions that were articulated in their main
elements, values and principles and in a narrative, explaining a day-in-the-
life of a fictional character. Barriers and drivers for change towards them
were also identified. Back-casting scenarios were then built and developed
to evaluate the future evolutions of current best practices and trends.
In parallel to this, the SPREAD People’s forum, named “iFuture”,
brought a “real-world” perspective to the development of questions related
to visions, roadmaps and further research, by engaging citizens from
different EU countries in workshops and consultations. It aimed to
understand the people’s diversity and attitudes towards lifestyle change.
Finally, SPREAD resulted in a roadmap for strategic action that
identified opportunity spaces for policy, business, research and civil society
to enable more sustainable lifestyles across Europe (Hicks et al., 2012).
The whole project approach and process may fall within the scope of
this book, but considering the responsibilities and involvement of the
authors, we describe in particular the “Vision Workshop”, held in
September 2011 at Politecnico di Milano, with the purpose of generating
the visions that would have been at the basis of the future scenarios
(Corubolo et al., 2011).
145
2.4.2 SPREAD Vision Workshop
Title of the codesign activity: Vision Workshop - Envisioning the

potential for new sustainable lifestyles and their enabling factors. In-
presence. International scope.
Aim: To generate a set of visions of sustainable future lifestyles in

Europe in 2050, starting from a large base of diverse inputs, such as case
studies of good practices, stories, solutions and technological or social
innovations. Visions are intended as concise and eloquent visual images
and/or narratives about the future that propose a concept with distinctive
values, according to the approach “what if...” (Manzini and Jégou, 2004).
Participants: Representatives of the project consortium, with different

expertise (in the areas of sustainable consumption and production) + 20
external experts from the fields of futures planning, scenario planning,
urban planning, design and sustainability. In total, around 45 people
organised in 4 mixed groups, each coordinated by a designer and in charge
of creating a vision. The workshop was designed as an expert activity, in
which the core group of experts was complemented by other specialists,
bringing to the table their specific experience and knowledge. The idea was
to create a place for an informed debate stimulated by inputs, mainly
conveyed through a deck of “idea cards” about the future built on a vast
collection of promising practices, made as well available to the participants.
Mixed groups were created in order for each one to have all the
competences to generate a comprehensive vision. After this, participants
were grouped according to their expertise in the four project domains, in
order to evaluate some specific aspect across the different visions.
Style of guidance: Steering. The workshop was organised with the idea
of stimulating the participant capacity to envision possibilities beyond the
existing way of doing things, so to challenge today behaviours and
conventions. For doing this, the role of the designer was crucial in
illustrating and discussing with them the different options pre-elaborated by
the POLIMI DESIS Lab in forms of provoking “idea cards”, to stimulate
the imagination and activate the critical thinking.
Design subject matter: Topic-driven. The material provided as input to

the workshop was organised according to the 4 domains considered in the
research project, each corresponding to a topic: consuming, living, moving,
health & society. Therefore, the conversation started from these topics with
146
the aim of envisioning cross-cutting solutions for the everyday life in the
future. Nevertheless, the nature of the boundary objects utilised in the
workshop was slightly hybrid, in-between case studies and seeds of
concepts/ideas about the future, synthesised in the so-called “idea cards”.
Yet, the number of inputs provided to the participants through the cards
was so high and diversified that they were intended more as inspirational
icebreakers, than actual orientations.
Double Diamond stage: Convergent - define. Despite the creative and

generative character of the workshop, its aim was converging towards 4,
well contrasted, visions for the future. Therefore, it went through divergent
and convergent phases, in order to scope the field of work and define few
clear orientations for the scenarios.
Environmental set up: The workshop was held in a large room with
natural light, organised in 4 “islands” each one with a big table, chairs and
a big board to hang materials. More than one time during the workshop,
participants were free to move around the islands to see and discuss the
progress of the work. In the initial and final parts of the workshop, plenary
moments were organised to share inputs, guidelines and results. A desk and
a projector were available in the room for sharing visual material and
guiding the activities to be carried out in parallel by the groups.
Duration: 2 consequent days. From 9 am to 6 pm the first day and from

9 am to 5 pm the second day. The 22nd and 23rd of September 2011.
Activities were conveniently split between the days, so to facilitate the
critical reflection on the work done.
Description of the process: The workshop was conceived by the team

of Politecnico di Milano and SDS-Strategic Design Scenarios, a strategic
design consultancy in Brussels.
The full process went through an initial divergent phase in which
participants received diverse stimuli and were invited to build on them.
Then, the coordinators requested them to come out with some articulated
visions. A broad assessment and consequent development of these visions
was finally done during the second day. Therefore, the workshop went
through moments of dialogic and dialectic exchange. The workshop moved
from an initial “design artifice” thought to turn a big amount of inputs into
a game: this was the deck of “idea cards” designed to provide, through
solutions inspired by emerging promising practices, ideas of how current
sustainable living options might evolve into the future.
147
Day one: participants were split into 4 groups corresponding to the 4
main European regions (Central Europe, Mediterranean Europe, Northern
Europe and Eastern Europe). The work was concentrated on the “WHAT
and WHY” of the visions. Their input tasks included:
• discussion and comment on the ideas cards from the perspective of
the different domains of activities, and different personal expertise;
• selection of the ideas that best fit the respective regions of Europe,
according to the different geo-cultural situations;
• co-creation of additional emerging practice ideas;
• combination of the cards/ideas into a consistent whole and
development into vision story-lines cross-cutting the 4 domains. In
doing so, the cards wet pinned on the posters;
• articulation of a narrative to describe the everyday lives of the
people who would inhabit the so generated visions.
• plenary sharing of the results.
Outputs of the first day were 4 cross-cutting visions described in good

details and summarily visualised. Each one touched upon of all the 4
domains and presented one or more specific solution per each.
Day two: participants were gathered into 4 new groups, according to

their expertise in relation to the domains of the project. The work was
concentrated on the “HOW and WHO” of the visions. Group work tasks
included 2 main peer-to-peer activities:
• discussing and evaluating the visions produced on the first day, by
looking at the four proposals;
• discussing the factors that can potentially hinder or enable the
implementation of these new ideas (i.e. the drivers, barriers and
gatekeepers) and that could bring about or obstacle the visions.
The output of the second day was a realistic initial evaluation of the
visions for 2050.
Boundary objects - prototypes and tools: The boundary object created

for this workshop was a combination of diverse tools, that would have
produced an articulated poster of each vision by the end of the second day.
Each group of participants was endowed with: a deck of 52 “idea
cards”, a big poster organised in different areas, some thematic note papers
for different domains of activities, and some note papers for barriers,
148
drivers and gatekeepers. Additionally, they were provided, for consultation,
with the full booklet of the case studies of promising practices toward
sustainability, from across Europe.
Idea cards: the deck of 52 ideas cards, organised in 4 different domains
(consuming, living, moving, health & society), was designed to provide
ideas on how current sustainable living options might evolve into the
future. Contents of the cards were the projections into the future of the
most original concepts of sustainable living practices identified in Europe.
Envisioning what more sustainable living might look like, they acted as
provocative (seed of) ideas, supporting an expert socio-technical
conversation about the future. The cards were generated through a creative
process: first, a number of different social and technological innovations
and practices were clustered, and then their evolution into the future was
hypothesised. “Blank” cards were provided in order for the experts to
create them, on the basis of the own knowledge. Cards were being read,
commented (a blank part was left in each card), sorted, manipulated and
selected by the participants for creating an initial group vision on the
future, composed by different “seeds”.
Poster: the poster was a canvas to be populated with cards, other paper
notes, drawings, schemes and annotations of the participants. It was
organised in 4 main areas to be used in the two days: 1) a big space for
pinning the idea cards selected by the participants and elaborate them into a
vision; 2) a side part to specify, through a narrative, possible solutions for
the everyday life; 3) a bottom part pre-organised as a space to create two
storyboards of future lifestyles; 4) a final part, for the second day, to be
populated with the paper notes on barriers, drivers and gatekeepers, filled
in by the participant to assess and comment the visions.
Paper notes: paper notes highlighting the different domains of activities
were provided for helping the creation of the vision the first day, and with
barriers, drivers and gatekeepers to assess the visions the second day. They
both were intended to frame the debate whilst being a place to capture the
participants’ thoughts.
At the end of the workshop, posters were complete, so providing a
comprehensive picture of the visions.
As a whole, the set of codesign artefacts configured an articulated
boundary object, composed of the different interlinked tools used to
stimulate creativity.
Final output: The workshop produced 4 draft visions on possible

futures of more sustainable ways of living. Developed as narratives of what
the future could be and by considering a cross-cutting approach to
149
lifestyles, they were annotated with the relevant drivers, barriers and
gatekeepers. The material was post-produced with the help of the
coordinators of the tables. Each vision was articulated with 1) a general
description highlighting its distinctive features, 2) a visualisation, 3) a
specific narrative with a day-in-the-life of a persona, 4) the set of idea cards
that inspired it. Finally, designers created also short animations
summarising the visions, for more effective communication.
150
Fig. 2.26 – SPREAD Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab
151
Fig. 2.27 – SPREAD Vision Workshop / POLIMI DESIS Lab
152
Corubolo, M., Jégou, F., Meroni, A., Piredda, F. and Zhang, Z. (2011), Visual
material presenting emerging best practices and emerging visions on
sustainable lifestyles. The emerging visions. Part 2, SPREAD project’s
deliverable 3.1. on line resource available at: www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu,
accessed on 01/03/2018.
Hicks, C., Groezinger, R. and Thorne, S. (2012), European Lifestyles. The Future
Issue. SPRRAD Sustainable Lifestyles 2050, SPREAD project’s report, on line
resource, available at: www.sustainable-lifestyles.eu, accessed on 04/03/2018.
Manzini, E. and Jégou, F. (2004), “Design degli scenari”, in Bertola, P. and
Manzini, E. (edited by), Design Multiverso. Appunti di fenomenologia del
design, Edizioni Polidesign, Milano, pp. 177-195.
153
PART 3: Designing Codesign
This third part presents the lessons learnt from the case studies and
provides a more extensive reflection on the Collaborative Design
Framework.
Firstly, it attempts to organise the lessons learnt in 3 main clusters:
process, experience and boundary objects. For each cluster, a set of specific
focuses is outlined relating to key-issues, such as “engagement and
recruitment”, “intensity and fun”, “relationships with participants”, “roles
and rules”, “room for improvisation” and many others. Though this list is
not to be considered complete, it aims to bring valuable insights to those
designers who deal with similar projects.
Secondly, the Collaborative Design Framework is detailed by
characterising the activities of the 4 resulting quadrants: “discovering and
exploring options”, “imagining options beyond the world as it is”,
“expanding and consolidating options”, and “creating, envisioning and
developing options”. Each area is complemented with a set of
recommendations, transforming the framework into actionable guidelines
for undertaking massive codesign processes, hoping they become a new
standard especially in the areas of public participation and social
innovation.
154
3.1 What Collaboration Teaches: Quick Lessons
Learnt from Practice
This chapter presents empirical and pragmatic considerations on the

codesign practices previously illustrated. It is a set of just some of the
lessons learnt but nonetheless insightful for designers aiming at
undertaking similar ventures. The lessons are organised in three large
clusters that refer to: the process, the experience and the boundary objects.
3.1.1 The Process
Engagement and Recruitment

Despite the fact that the aim and value of some codesign activities rely
on the engagement and involvement of people rather than designing
solutions, the specific criteria relevant to the project should always be
taking into consideration when selecting participants for the activities.
Among aid criteria, variety and differentiation are likely to be crucial.
Engagement and recruitment therefore cannot be undertaken by merely
tapping into the researchers’ networks and relying on a consequent
“snowball effect”. In fact, this is likely to attract too many “usual suspects”
and likeminded people. Moreover, their relationships with the researchers
risk influencing their behaviour, jeopardising spontaneity and producing
overly homogeneous contributions.
Examples:
CIMULACT: Especially during the first codesign activity, we relied on
our established network to recruit citizens. This probably affected the
results, as they were conceived by people who shared very similar interests,
political visions and values. Since the group was intended to represent the
wishes and concerns for the future of an entire nation, we believe that we
155
did not obtain the most credible picture of the thoughts of the Italian
people.
Creative Citizens: the participants were highly-committed residents of
Municipio 4. We may claim that this experiment involved an actual
community of activists and, as a consequence, this also affected the results,
which were highly collaborative services, conceived by people who
considered collaboration as an essential component of their lives.
The project did not deal with the great challenge of including people
who tend to be reluctant to participate: this was an intentional decision by
the researchers who could not afford a long and demanding recruitment
process, and, above all, because they decided to experiment their codesign
methods and tools within the protected environment of an active
community.
Feeding Milan: participants in the “idea sharing stall” were visitors to
the farmers’ market. Despite the novelty and appeal of the place, the
population was unquestionably segmented: likeminded people with a
preference or at least a special attention for quality and for fair food
systems. This affected the codesign results and made it difficult to
understand how to attract people with different priorities.
Beginning and End

As in any effective meeting, a clear agenda of the activities and the
expected results must be set and shared with all the participants. Yet, as
codesign activities also represent moments of immersive practice and
commitment to collaboration, it is crucial to define precise actions and even
“ceremonies” of beginning and conclusion. The beginning, whatever
circumstance and participant we consider, needs an equivalent of an ice-
breaking practice: it is not necessarily enjoyable, but thought to increase
empathy and trust between people. A “wrap up artifice” is required for the
end: something that at the same time allows participants to draw the
conclusions of their work and the coordinator to gather all the relevant
knowledge produced.
As a general rule, since complex and/or massive codesign activities may
produce copious outputs, it is useful to design tools to collect them in a
manageable way. Therefore, a good codesign process is likely not only to
facilitate a natural flow of created knowledge but to capture it too.
Examples:
CIMULACT: Almost every codesign activity within the project started
with a warm-up stage. During the initial consultation with the citizens we
asked them to think about the past and try to figure out what their parents’
156
or grandparents’ concerns for the future could have been. This was an
essential step for them to break the ice within the group and “train” their
minds to shift the focus from the present in preparation for the following
activity. Another warm-up example occurred during the “Co-creation
workshop”. On that occasion, we organised an exhibition showing posters
on social needs and asked participants to visit the exhibition before the
group work activities.
That proved successful not only in familiarising them with the contents
of the workshop, but also allowed the citizens to choose the group they
wanted to join.
Creative Citizens: the codesign activities carried out during the project
resulted in 6 boundary objects representing the 6 final services, together
with 6 posters summarising the main related features. Posters and boundary
objects were both used during a sort of “closing ceremony” for the entire
experiment: a special moment to exhibit the results of the project both to
the Municipality of Milan and to an extended group of local residents. This
final event was a combination of a public presentation and an exhibition,
and for the participants it represented a “golden moment” as they were
given the opportunity to show off and share their work to their “natural
recipients” i.e., a group of representatives from the local government.
Feeding Milan: in this project we did not actually plan the end.
Gradually, visitors to the farmers’ market became familiar with the “idea
sharing stall” and expected to interact, and this occurred above all during
the first part of the project. Then we started to reduce our presence at the
Earth Market, which became very sporadic, without properly
communicating our “disappearance” to the visitors. The main reason was
that the project was nearing the end, and we did not need to experiment
anymore, but in hindsight while we knew this others were not who were
expecting to interact with the “idea sharing stall”. We neglected to organise
an actual “closing event” in which to invite visitors and stakeholders and
communicate the results.
SPREAD: the work done during the “vision workshop” was supported
by tools and evidence that was eventually advertised on an all-inclusive
poster. This helped not only to collect the relevant material, but also to
inform participants about the progress of the work and the fact that a result
was achieved at the end.
Flow of Activities
Some codesign processes are not limited to a divergent or convergent
phase of thinking, but actually combine them. This may result in a loss of
knowledge and inputs, not only due to the difficulty in gathering them, but
157
also to the method of selection. In our experience, for instance, converging
toward consensus through negotiation in a dialectic approach is not always
the best way to proceed and may lead to oversimplification and abstraction.
We claim that, in order to not lose ideas with distinctive features and
unique meaning, asking participants to vote rather than converge could be
beneficiary for the quality of the outputs.
Moreover, in the divergent phases, challenging and provoking the
participants with unusual viewpoints, thoughts-associations or creative
practices may result in a “wow effect” that is extremely positive for
creativity.
Examples:
CIMULACT: this process continuously alternated the collection of
information and the clustering of common partners, through a process of
abstraction. This implied a natural loss of details that, somehow, reduced
the breadth of the results.
In the same way, when working in groups towards a common result, the
members always needed to reach consensus. Hence it was always a matter
of choosing one of the options proposed by the members or trying to match
them in a unique vision. In this latter case, we often experienced a loss of
originality.
One example above all is represented by the difference between the
individual stories and the collective visions of the future proposed during
the first CIMULACT consultation. All project partners agreed that the
individual stories were much more interesting and detailed than the visions
which often resulted in a “patchwork” of different ideas with no strong
concept at the base.
Creative Citizens: during the entire project divergent and convergent
phases alternated - also within a single session in which we needed at times
to accelerate the shift from a moment of exploration to a more effective
moment of synthesis. Such change was in some cases improvised in order
to deal with the emergence of a never-ending discussion on case studies
and, thus, to shorten the discovery phase. This was left to the designers
who were also the final evaluators of the ideas that emerged during the
sessions. In fact, even if participants expressed their opinions and
preferences on case studies and related service features, designers re-
elaborated all these elements into a service concept, giving a final “shape”
that should have been relevant for the participants, but, above all, built
upon their sensibility and the expertise of design professionals. This design
intervention, in a truly “steering” style of guidance, ensured effective
158
results, but it left open the issue of how to better balance high consensus vs
output quality.
What and How

In Codesign, it is better to concurrently consider both the “what” and the
“how” of a future solution in order to receive sound input from the
participants. Any scrutiny of the qualities and characteristics of a service
concept may, in fact, be superficial and misleading if not collaboratively
reflecting on the behavioural changes that it might require of the people. In
other terms, on “how” and “at what (behavioural) costs” one may adopt it.
Another consideration along this line of thinking regards the efficacy of
highlighting gaps of perceptions about a certain topic, considering people’s
different experiences and viewpoints.
Examples:
CIMULACT: During the “Co-creation Workshop”, in which we
elaborated scenarios for the future, it was crucial to understand the
differences between the present situation (“state of the art”) and the one
envisioned (“future direction”). Merely by identifying these differences the
group found the research directions that could lead to the realisation of the
scenario.
Creative Citizens: the “what” and the “how” of future solutions were
extensively considered in Creative Citizens, because every service was
conceived as being rooted in the reality of Municipio 4. Hence, during the
ideation phase, each citizen was led to imagine the ideas as if already in
function in the neighbourhood and integrated in his/her daily life,
considering time constraints, habits and effort-benefits ratio. We may claim
that the focus on the “what” and the “how” of each service was one of the
most positive aspects of the Creative Citizens project, in which the
codesign process was conceived as a precondition for the coproduction of
resulting solutions.
Feeding Milan: in codesigning the farmer’s food box we underestimated
the deep study of the motivation behind people actually adopting the
service and becoming users. The idea of a weekly delivery of fresh and
local food, in fact, was generally appreciated, but the following field
prototype showed that actual adoption thereof still proved difficult,
implying as it did an “engagement” with food in terms of regularity of
consumption, preparation and general constraints that, for many testers,
were too limiting.
159
Artificial Intelligence and Digital Aid
By their very nature, massive codesign processes produce a huge
amount of information and qualitative data, as input and output. The
familiarisation and systematic use of software and systems that may help in
analysing contents, recognising relevant patterns, sorting and clustering
information in order to gain insights is no longer an option but rather a
need. While the use of online questionnaires is now de rigueur for many
designers, more sophisticated tools still need to be adopted. Nevertheless,
when it comes to data collection, the digital divide that may prevent many
people from participating should be carefully considered.
Examples:
CIMULACT: one of the biggest challenges of CIMULACT was dealing
with a massive quantity of information that needed to be elaborated each
and every time. We were always worried about losing important
information and not keeping track of everything in a proper way. We went
through all the data processing manually which required a huge amount of
time and carried with it a high risk of mistakes. We believe that devices
that are today used for dealing with “big data” could have been extremely
beneficial during the undertaking of the project.
Feeding Milan: the online survey used to investigate activities, relations
and interrelations between the farmers was useful in giving us an
understanding of the main picture and producing a first diagnosis of the
situation. Yet, considering that the respondents represented 39% of the total
(despite personal invitation, close contact and the opportunity to reply via
the post) we can conclude that online delivery created a barrier with the
target population (the farmers) mainly engaged with field work and in-
presence contact with clients and peers.
3.1.2 The Experience
Intensity and Fun

Codesign activities are demanding. The cognitive effort and mastery of
soft skills required to deal with others are often exhausting for both
participants and facilitators. Sessions must be designed with proper time to
relax, socialise and even play. Pleasure has to be part of the experience:
attractive material and good food are crucial factors for the successful
undertaking thereof.
160
Designer attention to graphic images, the environmental layout and
visual appeal of all the codesign artefacts is just as important as how
technically and semantically suitable they are for the circumstances.
Examples:
CIMULACT: we realized that the “Co-creation Workshop” was very
demanding. In terms of timing, in terms of contents, in terms of
collaboration among very different people. Even if we tried our best to
simplify the process, it still ended up being exhausting. Unfortunately, due
to the constraints of the project, we still cannot imagine how it could have
been better structured.
A very positive case, instead, is that of the “Codesign Workshop” which
struck the right balance between effort and relaxation and ultimately ended
up being both pleasant and productive at the same time. Moreover, all the
artefacts were well presented and thought out, meaning the process itself
was smooth even if the contents were complex and intellectual.
Creative Citizens: session by session, we realized that the Creative
Citizens programme was too demanding for participants and it was
impossible to have the same group of people attending each weekly
meeting. In hindsight, we would re-schedule sessions to twice-monthly to
ensure the participation of citizens requiring considerable advance warning.
We have therefore understood that it would be better to organise fewer
meetings involving more attendees rather than allowing the same group to
return each time. In fact, when the group of participants varies too much it
is difficult for everyone to embark on a progressive journey.
Another of the critical issues that arose during the codesign sessions was
the ability to balance the tone of the meetings. A climax emerges between
“codesigning” and “having fun”: on one hand we were very strict in
applying methods and tools, on the other we attempted to create pleasant,
fertile situations, shifting from an academic and scientific language to a
more popular one, and in general, trying to continuously adapt our
contribution to the meeting. We understood that it was very important to
interpret and manage the “mood” of the sessions: after all, participants
interpreted Creative Citizens as an opportunity to become “designers of
their daily life”, at least for a few months, while enjoying having fun at the
same time.
Feeding Milan: all codesign sessions at the “idea sharing stall” were
accurately designed in terms of evidence, spatial signs, artefacts and tools.
We aimed to create a sense of coordination so as to make the participants
feel like they were embarking on a quick but structured design journey.
161
Relationship with Participants
One of the golden rules of any codesign practice is that of keeping the
participants updated on how the project is going in order to establish a fair
relationship based on reciprocity. When the codesign activities take place at
the beginning of the process and involve numerous participants, the
relationship needs to be carefully tended, for two main reasons: 1) to
motivate participants at the beginning of a long project, showing that their
contribution is valuable even if it is difficult to see the connection between
their input and the expected final result; 2) to keep the participants updated
during long processes, connecting their work with the ongoing progress of
the project.
Examples:
CIMULACT: What we constantly did throughout the project was update
all the people involved in the various stages.
For example, we translated the official project newsletter into everyday
jargon and regularly sent it to all the participants.
At the end of the consultations, we also organised a specific meeting
inviting all the stakeholders involved in the previous stages or interested in
the project, to officially demonstrate the results and also to receive
feedback.
Creative Citizens: the participants were informed about and aware of the
intense schedule of the process from the very beginning. As stated,
participants were highly committed people with great expectations of the
project: the main one was to develop actual working solutions for the
neighbourhood and to present them to the Municipality of Milan. The
relationship with the participants was carefully tended to, not only by
keeping them continuously updated with newsletters and meetings, but
above all by personally involving the design researchers who established
long-lasting friendships with the participants. This may be viewed as a
weak point: once the project ended, the further development of the
solutions and any other initiatives relating to Creative Citizens was
perceived as still in the hands of designers. We did not plan our exit
strategy at all and after such intense experimentation citizens continued to
refer to us for any issue, which is neither sustainable nor effective.
Roles and rules

In the particular, ephemeral and fragile circumstances of a codesign
activity, the assignment of roles (both fictional and functional) may be
effective and also useful in engaging participants. We believe this is
particularly true when dealing with various communities working together:
162
in fact it can help in the balance of power, giving a voice to weaker
subjects, stepping into the shoes of others and representing all viewpoints
and expertise.
Furthermore, from an organisational perspective, this may also lighten
the facilitator’s duties, because the allocation of operative roles may help to
spread the responsibility of supporting interaction and drafting reports on
the work undertaken.
Finally, by attributing roles we are able to share ownership of a process
between other participants, users or stakeholders. By doing so, it facilitates
skill training and the transferral of design knowledge to non-designers.
Examples:
CIMULACT: during the “Co-creation Workshop” in particular, it was
crucial to assign precise roles to the participants. The groups were mixed
and included citizens, experts and researchers, all with various level of
knowledge and from different cultures and backgrounds.
We felt that we could have assigned more specific roles in order to
enhance collaboration. However, we ensured that all participants were
aware of the reasons behind the roles assigned to others. We even designed
different-colour badges so that people could be recognised in their roles.
On the other hand, the role of the table coordinator was extremely
demanding. He had to perform multiple tasks: providing contents,
moderating the discussion and often even keeping track of it. Too late we
realized that we could have officially appointed one coordinator per group,
specifically to keep track of the work.
Creative Citizens: during the codesign sessions all the participants were
given the same role and contributed in the same way: no operative roles
were specifically allocated as they were volunteers attending the meeting
and contributing their time and skills to the project. If we could repeat
Creative Citizens, we would more clearly assign a range of fictional roles
in order to better manage the services generated during the programme. In
fact, throughout the codesign process several citizens spontaneously
emerged taking on certain roles and we did not build upon this trend
enough. For example, Stefano could be the “location manager” of certain
types of public spaces; Massimo might be communications manager; Elisa
events producer; Daniela community manager, etc. In the future, we hope
to design a set of tools to envision possible roles for the implementation
phase: this is especially significant for innovative forms of services in
which is necessary to link the codesign phase with the co-production phase
in a more positive way, simulating a possible shared governance of the
services among user-participants.
163
Feeding Milan: the role of facilitator in interactions with visitors to the
“idea sharing stall” at the market was sometimes undertaken by the Slow
Food team or other contributors and volunteers. This was the case in the
farmer’s food box codesign which was a very positive experience as it
showed how ownership of the project was actually shared.
SPREAD: on the second of the two days, the experts participating in the
vision workshop were asked to provide feedback on the four visions
created by the whole group considered from the viewpoint of their specific
expertise. This peer-to-peer work allowed them to regain their professional
specificity after having worked in multidisciplinary teams and proved
highly useful in obtaining objective and thoughtful comments that were
often directed at their previous work.
Do-goodism and Criticism

When talking about personal habits, interests and values in public,
people (all of us) tend to be fair, correct and polite. When thinking about
the future, goodwill and do-goodism often prevail over more critical and
realistic reflections. On the contrary, in some cases we may find a tendency
to become “doomers”, that is prognosticators of the worst possible
outcomes from global occurrences. The more we ask people about
fundamental values (sustainability, peace, family, friendship, rights, ...), the
more good intentions and general visions emerge, possibly appearing as
naïve, innocent and lacking experience and wisdom. Without more precise
tactics for delving deeper into critical and specific issues, it is hard to
stimulate more critical perspectives and debates within the relatively
limited time frame of a codesign activity.
Examples:
CIMULACT: A demonstration of this is evident from the results of the
first CIMULACT consultation with citizens.
The issue we were posing was very broad: they were asked to share
their thoughts on how they imagine the future. The only stimuli provided
were some random pictures, but the possibilities were left wide open. As a
result, and as expected, the visions are pervaded by more “politically
correct” ideas, generally aimed at more equal rights, a fairer world and
sustainable habits.
Creative Citizens: even if the general trend in public circumstances is to
be fair and polite, this was not the case within Creative Citizens. In some
cases, people used the codesign meetings to complain about the
neighbourhood, the municipality, the government in general and it was
difficult to change the direction of the discussion into something positive
164
and constructive. We understood that one of the main prerogatives as a
designer should be the ability to turn complaints into proposals and we
have to support this change designing specific methods and tools that are
certainly worthy of further research.
Feeding Milan: as previously stated, visitors to the farmers’ market
were people highly sensitive to the issue of sustainability. They were
attentive to the origin and quality of food and, thus, tended to be enthusiast
and welcome our proposals at the “idea sharing stall”, which is why
generally they demonstrated good intentions, without really criticising our
ideas.
SPREAD: even the experts involved in designing future visions for
2050 somehow risked falling into a do-goodism mentality. When creating
visions, in fact, the optimism and positive thinking required risks turning
into scarce self-criticism. In order to avoid this and to start assessing the
visions, participants were invited to work on barriers to implement them
and, above all, the facilitator encouraged the group to reflect on the
negative effects and situations that certain transformation may have
generated.
3.1.3 The Boundary Objects
Boundaries
Despite intentions, the material prepared for codesign activities is not
always suitable for the circumstances. Considering boundary objects as
entities that can be shared between and therefore understood by different
communities, true linguistic and approach mediation is crucial. This
becomes more complicated when people from extremely varied
communities converge at the same codesign table. The message and the
language cannot be adjusted without prior research on the target groups,
their skills and interaction habits. One example of this is the need to share
scientific contents with non-experts and people with lower levels of
education: explaining what solutions could be provided by scientific
achievements is a good way to transmit the message, but it may introduce
limitations and bias within the exploration of future applications.
Examples:
CIMULACT: The “Co-Creation Workshop” was very challenging in
this sense. The subject matter of the entire project - the research
programmes - was complex and expressed through a more scientific
language, thus making it hard for a non-expert audience to understand.
165
Nevertheless, we decided set up one task to specifically draw out
citizens’ opinions: the description of what is “state of the art”. We
simplified it by separating the expert perspective from that of the lay-
person as we believed that those solutions available to scientists are
inaccessible to citizens. The results confirmed our belief and were so
different that we, as a consortium, decided to propose a research topic in
order to address such a relevant issue. The topic elaborated was entitled:
“Dissemination and continuous exploitation of research and innovation in
the healthcare system”.
Manipulability of the Boundary Objects

The importance of designing boundary objects (prototypes or toolkits)
perceived as being or which actually are able to be manipulated by
codesigners – including being completely disassembled and reassembled –
should be emphasised. To this end, we recommend the preparation of
modular structures, comprised of pieces and elements that participants can
creatively modify from the earliest moments of the activity.
Examples:
CIMULACT: during the “Codesign Workshop”, the 3D representations
of the scenarios were boundary objects that had been specifically designed
and studied as artefacts that could be manipulated. All of them were
composed by movable modular parts. During the prototyping activity, the
group could choose whether to build a 3D model from scratch or to start
with the ones already provided and just modify them. Most of the groups
decided to modify the existing ones, meaning that they were already
inspiring and functional in forming the new idea.
In the Caravan process, we used “workshop delivery scenography” that
was actually a boundary object designed to be manipulated and adapted to
the various situations. It was conceived as a “workshop trolley” equipped
with a CIMULACT brand-sign, a screen playing an introductory video
about the whole project; storage for all the workshop material to be used in
the room and other material necessary to set up the hosting environment.
Creative Citizens: for the prototyping sessions we built a set of
boundary objects representing the concepts elaborated in the previous
meetings which also became the departure point for their implementation.
Hence, we used them both as a way to introduce as well as elaborate and
detail the service ideas. For this reason, we conceived boundary objects
consisting of different modules ready to be manipulated, or with blank
spaces to be filled in. For example, when we designed the board game
mock-up for the Municipio 4 Ciceros, we envisaged tracing the routes
166
along the map of the city and superimposed various layers of the map. This
board game also became part of the final “exhibition”, presenting the
services to the Municipality of Milan.
Feeding Milan: both the “farmer’s food box” prototype and the
“conversation table” used for codesigning the local distribution system
were considered manipulable artefacts. Though they were mainly operated
on by the designer in order to support the explanation of the proposed
concepts, this both apparent and real openness of the artefacts gave the
impression of a dialogue regarding open subject.
SPREAD: we thought to integrate the “idea cards” used to lead the
initial conversation during the vision workshop with comments from the
participants and then edit and transform it. And so we did. The resulting
texts were pinned to the posters to create the team’s vision of the future.
Room for Expression, Imagination and Improvisation

Boundary objects, considered to allow “interpretive flexibility”, must be
open enough to be integrated by the participants by completing missing
parts and adding comments and stories, including new elements. This could
be done in a number of different ways: verbally, visually or through
writing. This suggests the importance of not overdesigning interaction,
leaving room for improvisation and creating “open” artefacts.
Yet, even when tools and prototypes are created with “blank” areas to
be filled in or transformed by the participants, when components can be
manipulated, and when new ideas are welcome, unless they have a proper
time and setting this important co-creation phase may be underperformed.
Therefore, on one side, keeping aside specific time during a codesign
session for the individual expression of the participants is vital if we want
to enrich the work. On the other, especially when dealing with people who
are unfamiliar with creative and pro-active processes, too much freedom
and “blank” templates may paradoxically inhibit people’s contribution.
Examples:
CIMULACT: As designers, our designs tend to always be in accurate
detail, whether they are templates, models or visualisations.
Indeed, all the codesign sessions managed by the POLIMI DESIS Lab
were carefully designed in each and every aspect; this often helps to
maintain a certain level of control, but can also leave very little space for
improvisation.
Instead, we learnt a great deal from the “Social Need Clustering
Workshop” in which the process was roughly sketched and we were able to
appreciate how it evolved and formed while in progress. Seen from the
167
opposite viewpoint, this brings with it a certain amount of risk, so the
optimal solution probably lies in a happy medium between the two
possibilities.
Creative Citizens: at the end of the programme we realized we had
“over-designed” several meetings. We designed and developed tools that –
for a number of reasons – were not used: either we ran out of time, or
citizens were too involved in discussing other issues, or they were
exhausted after a particularly demanding phase.
As designers managing the sessions, we have to be able to recognize
when it is time to change something or to simply leave space for
improvisation, feeling the “momentum” of the session and letting it flow.
SPREAD: the “idea cards” used to generate visions included a blank
area for comments, and some completely blank cards were provided to add
participants’ practices and knowledge. Generally speaking comments were
added though hardly any cards were created from scratch. Paper notes were
provided for noting barriers, drivers and gatekeepers and these were instead
fully used, as we dedicated a specific exclusive slot for this activity.
Visual Thinking
The construction of 2D and 3D visual material (pictures, images, charts,
mock-ups, and also 4D simulations) is extremely effective in creating
boundary objects, since it permits the stimulation of both “perception” and
“conception” (in the words of philosopher Dewey) therefore facilitating
understanding and creativity. In the inspiration phases in particular,
pictures are more effective than diagrams in helping people to think
creatively while, conversely, different forms of data visualisation may help
in decision-making, selection phases and, finally, convergence.
Moreover, visual material seems to be more effective when used as
input in codesign processes than as output: in fact, montages of images,
drawings, mock-ups or other artefacts potentially generated in a session
may hardly be decipherable and interpretable beyond the actual scope of a
workshop. This is particularly the case in the codesign of services, the
intangibility of which makes it even more difficult for non-expert designers
to visualise evidence or, even more so, “tone of voice”. For this very
reason, the chance and convenience for a designer to work on the visual
material produced as an output of codesign activities is clear.
Examples:
CIMULACT: As well as the “Codesign Workshop”, in which we used
an extensive amount and a wide range of visual material, overall the project
did not benefit from visualisations as enhancers of complex content. The
168
“Codesign Workshop” was the most familiar ground for visualisations
being aimed at designers, but we could have challenged ourselves even
more, using a more visual language with other audiences as well.
During the “Co-creation Workshop”, for example, we used text almost
exclusively. We were of course limited by the fact that research
programmes are written, therefore we were somehow induced to use text.
However, during the session, we looked for images to accompany the
concepts outlined, but it was very difficult to find something that could be
representative of such deep and intellectual ideas so quickly.
Creative Citizens: we designed a great variety of 2D and 3D visual
material, mainly as inspiration for starting the conversation and to make the
sessions more interactive and imaginative. This was particularly necessary
because Creative Citizens dealt essentially with services, which being
intangible meant we had to find a way to make every last detail visible. In
the warm-up meetings we used numerous inspirational pictures and ad hoc
photomontages, including them in the “Suggestion Cards” or the “Good
practice boards” and citizens often referred to those images in their
discussions. When we had to design the user journeys, we mainly created
diagrams and schemes which were less powerful in terms of inspiration,
but which helped participants envisage each service stage. We printed them
in large formats so we could all work on the same template in view of
establishing actual interaction. They also functioned as a final “deliverable”
during the generative sessions.
169
3.2 An Actionable Collaborative Design
Framework
This chapter discusses the action research projects previously presented

in the Collaborative Design Framework and suggests some final directions
on how to plan, design and implement codesign activities for massive
collaborative processes.
3.2.1 General Considerations
We have organised our thoughts on the practice in 3 main clusters of

issues, each one characterised and discussed with reference to the 4
quadrants of the Collaborative Design Framework (chapter 1.3).
The first cluster is about how to design effective boundary objects

(prototype and tools) and how to manage the interaction with them. A first
general consideration concerns the potential of the artefacts to bridge
different worlds and cultures. We have seen that it is not easy to find
objects that can adapt to very diverse communities as is the case in massive
processes in which many different people are engaged often all at the same
time. In fact, it implies that boundary objects are either changed from
session to session (this is be the case of some phases of the CIMULACT
project) to comply with the kind of participants, or built in multiple layers
of complexity and with adequate languages.
Another general consideration regards the importance of flexibility and
manipulability of the boundary objects, which goes together with
dedicating enough time during the sessions for imagination, improvisation
and personal expression. In the case of codesign activities populated by
numerous participants with dissimilar backgrounds (such as experts and
citizens together), there is a high risk of losing some voices. Self
170
expression can be facilitated by assigning roles and isolating moments for
individual reflection and collective sharing to ensure that everybody can
contribute without anyone feeling inadequate.
A third requirement in complex and massive processes, is to design
boundary objects that can facilitate the capture of feedback and inputs from
participants. Given the huge amount of data that is likely to be generated,
the management of the data must be well planned before the activity in
order not to rely only of the work of a reportee as a source of synthetic
information. This is connected with reflections around the process.
The second cluster of issues regards how to approach and conceive a

codesign process in the emerging fields of systems and service design. A
first question is how to enrol participants: we have seen that the risk of
recruiting solely via the researchers’ network is to reduce the variety of
people and perspectives. This can result in serious biases in projects in
which the collection of multiple and diverse inputs is a key factor of
success.
A second general consideration is how to manage the complexity of a
flow of data that increases as the process unfolds. In extended consultations
this flow is massive and continuous. While the design community is
increasingly getting familiar with online tools for conducting surveys or
questionnaires, this is less the case for artificial intelligence, data mining,
machine learning or other recent digital technologies. This includes
learning to understand and organise data through visualisations.
Finally, it is worth reminding the importance of being particularly
attentive to the design of the beginning and the end of the processes in
order to correctly frame the state of mind of the participants and to make
the logic and concatenation of the activities comprehensible and the results
produced together understandable. This is in line with the consideration of
Aguirre, Agudelo and Romm (2017) that the experiential qualities of a
design facilitation process peak at their inception and end. «At the
beginning of these events, experiential facilitation tools may have been
used to create momentum among participants. And when events were close
to finishing, experiential tools were likely used to support the participants’
collective memory and shared sense of accomplishment» (p. 206).
The third cluster of issues is about the expected results of the codesign
activity that are to be analysed from two perspectives: their impact on
participants and the quality of the outputs actually generated.
There is a well established narrative in design about codesign as a way
to create engagement, ownership and awareness. The same holds for its
171
role in building relationships with stakeholders and enabling them to act
and create networks from which new opportunities may arise (Hillgren et
al., 2011). Yet, it is worth observing that, when participation is wide and
multi-actor, the triggers to engage people are necessarily very different and
we have found that focussing on a common intention, rather than on
motivations is more effective. In fact, when there are so many parties
involved, the attempts to create a common alignment on a shared vision by
leveraging motivations might results completely pointless.
A second general consideration concerns the requirement of keeping all
stakeholders and people engaged in the previous phases updated over the
whole timespan of a project. This is crucial in massive processes because it
helps to secure a base of trust and respect for the project and the approach,
contributing to create a solid culture of participation and collaboration.
A final point to ensure that codesign has an impact on participants,
regards the ability of the process to transfer “design thinking” competencies
and to empower participants to make things happen by providing a cultural
and technical “infrastructure” for doing, rather than doing things for them.
This approach is crucial in projects with social innovators, so that the
capacity of operating as “coach” of groups and communities is one of the
crucial skills of a designer in this context.
With regard to the results generated in terms of design ideas, the wider
and ambitious is the project, the more diversified is the chain of codesign
intermediary outputs (from visions, to product/service specificities). Here,
the ability of the designer lies in controlling this evolution, curating
consistency, meaning and features of the design object.
When it comes to services, this normally implies an increase in the
number of stakeholders and relevant parties. In large participatory projects,
the outputs generated at the beginning of the chain inform the whole
process and therefore are crucial for its quality and success. Therefore, we
must pay special attention to the design of the first phases, which produce
the knowledge basis and the insights that will inform all the following
activities. This could require testing the codesign activities (not only the
process but also the actual outputs) with a limited number of participants,
before implementing them on a bigger scale.
Without expecting to be fully exhaustive, in the following, concluding,

paragraphs, we will outline a series of proposals on how to tackle the
design of the boundary objects, of the process and how to set the
expectation of the results in the four quadrants of the Collaborative Design
Framework.
172
Fig. 3.1 – The Collaborative Design Framework
3.2.2 Quadrant: Topic-Driven / Facilitating
This area is about discovering and exploring options. Collaboration is

aimed at taking into account the needs and experiences of relevant
stakeholders and users, in order to capture their knowledge and/or engaging
them in the process.
Boundary objects – Tools and prototypes:

• Boundary objects used in this context are a series of toolkits which
work as “scavenging” devices, to extract the experience, knowledge,
173
desires and needs of users and stakeholders to scope the project and
frame its fundamental assumptions.
• Visual materials such as pictures, 3/4D mock-ups and spatial
environments are effective ways to stimulate people’s thinking in the
“discover” phase, while graphs and charts summarising information
and (big) data, are tools that help the selection and decision process
in the “define” phase.
• The openness of tools and attitudes (blank spaces, unfinished
artefacts, open room for contribution, etc.) is key to create a genuine
environment for listening (designers) and being heard (participants).
Approach and process:

• Asking questions that are too wide or addressing values that are too
fundamental can produce answers that are generic and idealised.
Focussing on more specific issues accelerates the dialogue and helps
address key aspects more critically.
• When codesign activities are focussed on broad topics, an ice-
breaking activity can help include all participants and allow them to
get to know the designers and each other. This can be designed as an
opening “ritual” that helps to generate a collaborative state of mind.
• The analysis of the data produced in this phase can be supported by
artificial intelligence, data mining, machine learning or other digital
technologies. This implies to take into consideration the digital
competencies of the codesign participants.
• Activities in this area overlap with rapid-ethnography, so that
boundaries between the methodologies are occasionally blurred.
Expected outputs and outcomes:

• The outputs of this stage are stories, knowledge, insights and visions
that will inform the following stages of the project, laying its
foundations and ensuring its legitimacy.
• A huge quantity of outputs is likely to be generated in these phases.
Appropriate recording instruments and activities need therefore to be
planned in the process and potentially, be embedded in the codesign
toolkit.
• For the participants, an expected outcome is a heightened sense of
engagement and binding with the project and the design team.
174
3.2.3 Quadrant: Topic-Driven / Steering
This area is about imagining and considering options beyond the world
as it is. Collaboration is aimed at stimulating the capacity of stakeholders
and users to envision options beyond the existing way of doing things, so to
challenge behaviours and conventions.

• Boundary objects used in this context are toolkits working as “seeds”
of knowledge and glimpses of practices that can inspire participants
and stimulate them to think out of the box and the current constraints
or habits. Their role is to provide the “bricks” for envisioning future
possibilities.
• Materials challenging and provoking the participants with unusual
viewpoints, thoughts associations or creative practices, help steering
imagination through a sort of “wow effect”. This is amplified by the
use of expressive visual material and storytelling.
• The openness of tools and attitudes (blank spaces, unfinished
artefacts, open room for contribution, etc.) is key to gather
suggestions from the participants and to open up otherwise
uncovered project’s directions.

• Functional or fictional role-playing activities are useful to facilitate
the contribution to the project of all participants, because it allows
for balancing the powers, giving voice to weaker subjects, stepping
into the shoes of the others, representing all viewpoints and
leveraging expertise.
• Sharing operational charges and duties with the participants relives
the designer from the responsibility being the only one to support the
interaction and to report the work done, while it ease the design
knowledge transfer to non-designers.
• A proper time for individual reflection must be planned, besides the
one for sharing with the others, in order to let everybody finds
her/his room for expression.
• Voting ideas and concepts rather than trying to converge toward
shared ones preserves from losing the most original and ground-
breaking inputs with distinctive features and unique meaning.
• As for the previous quadrant, the analysis and scrutiny of the many
data produced in this phase is better to be aided by artificial
175
intelligence, data mining, machine learning or other digital
technologies.

• Main project outputs are visions, clusters of ideas and strategic
orientations to be used to steer and ground the following decisions
about the project.
• Visual material such as assemblages of images, drawings, mock-ups,
or other artefacts generated during a session are often hard to
decipher and interpret if not combined with clear explanations. A key
role of the designer is to visualise the outputs of these activities.
• The expected impact of these activities on the participants is
nourishing their curiosity, stimulating their imagination and
appealing to their personal motivation in taking part to the project.
3.2.4 Quadrant: Concept-Driven / Facilitating
This area is about expanding and consolidating options. Collaboration is

aimed at expanding or assessing given concepts, adding elements of
interests, feasibility and concreteness.

• Boundary objects used in this context are combinations of prototypes
and tools. They provide different options to choose from or open
rooms for free expression about one or more given concepts. As
such, they help participants to make up their mind about some topics
and give them a way to integrate their knowledge into the proposal.
• Digital tools for consultations and assessments are useful to reach a
vast audience, but need to carefully adapt their language to the target
or/and provide participants with multiple levels of explanation.

• The “what” and the “how” of the concept(s) discussed with the
participants are inseparable and must be articulated through
interconnected questions that help them to consider why and at what
behavioural costs an innovation could be introduced in people’s
lives.
176
• Involving stakeholders in managing the process and not only
contributing to the outputs is a way to train their skills as service
designers.

• Main project outputs are enrichments, ranking, prioritisations and
assessments that can be considered ad pre-prototypes.
• The expected impact on participants is an increased interest and
commitment to the project. Skill training and progressive transfer of
knowledge about the topic and the process may derive from the
involvement of the participants in running some codesign activity.
• Discussing about prototypes is not always the most effective way to
evolve the design of products or services, but it can make questions
and opportunities emerge unexpectedly. A listening stance on the
part of the designer allows to learn from these moments and to
incorporate them into the design process.
3.2.5 Quadrant: Concept-Driven / Steering
This section is about creating, envisioning and developing options.

Collaboration is aimed at generating new possibilities or elaborating on
existing ones. The creative and thought provoking process may also
question some basic principles.

• Boundary objects used in this context are combinations of prototypes
and tools to intervene on the concepts.
• Modularity, scalability and transformability of the prototypes are
mandatory to ensure that the creativity of the participants is not
inhibited.
• Boundary objects must help designers step into other peoples’ shoes
and reflect outside their own worldview.

• Designing a good experience for the participants is crucial for the
positive outcomes of the work in this phase: nicely designed
materials (prototypes and tools) and environments, well organised
spaces and good food, help to release creativity during the
demanding codesign sessions which characterise this quadrant.
177
• Time for fun, enjoyment and mutual discovery feeds imagination and
creativity.
• Functional or fictional role-playing is an effective way to stimulate
the contribution of all participants in this highly creative phase,
balancing the power dynamics, giving voice to weaker subjects,
taking other perspectives, representing all viewpoints and leveraging
expertise.
• The involvement of stakeholders in designing the process of the
codesign activity rather than only its outputs, is a way to foster
project ownership and advocacy. This may contribute to generate the
level of commitment needed to continue the project after the
departure of the designer.

• Main project outputs are scenarios, concepts and prototypes of
services.
• As for the previous quadrant, the visual material such as assemblages
of images, drawings, mock-ups, or other artefacts that might be
generated during a session, being referred to services or scenarios,
are often hard to decipher and interpret, if not associated to
explanations. A proper role of the designer in visualising the outputs
of these activities is key.
• The expected impact on the participants is the development of a
sense of ownership for the project and a service design mindset and
skills to implement it.
3.2.6 Conclusions: From Experiments to a Standard

Approach
The previous set of practice-led and pragmatic guidelines aims to

facilitate the replicability of the codesign experiences. At the beginning of
this book, we claimed that the design of increasingly complex socio-
technical artefacts, that we define scenarios and services, calls for
engagement and participation; and that, for their very nature, these projects
can be defined “massive”. Despite the complexity of a collaborative design
approach, we believe that this could become a new standard for most
projects, and for those regarding public interests, complex societal issues
and policies, in particular. Furthermore, such an approach might help
service organisations to create the social infrastructures that empower
178
human beings to creatively and continuously support each other and take
projects forward (van der Bijl-Brouwer, 2017).
Adopting a definition by Hillgren (2013), these massive codesign

projects are characterized by a «continuous process of building relations
with diverse actors and by a flexible allotment of time and resources»
(p.81): this makes it difficult to precisely plan efforts and assets and
increases the risk of uncertainty in terms of the financial and human costs
of implementation. The designer exit strategy also needs to be organized
from the outset of the project. A requirement for the project to continue
after the designers leave the team is how successful they have been in
creating commitment and skills in the participants. This is due to the fact
that the project is not only in the designers’ hands, but is a shared
endeavour of multiple actors, a form of collective intelligence in action to
create more inclusive and effective solutions. Massive codesign projects,
can in fact, be seen as systems which are shaped and directed by different
purposes and worldviews: as Sangiorgi, Patricio and Fisk (2017) suggest,
complex systems cannot be thoroughly understood or designed, therefore a
codesign approach helps to interpret them collectively through a
collaborative process.
Streamlining and optimising the processes, sharing experiences and
lessons learnt is therefore a significant step into making massive codesing
processes more feasible.
Aguirre, M., Agudelo, N. and 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, Vol. 3, 3: 198-209.
Hillgren, P.A. (2013), “Participatory Design For Social and Public Innovation:
Living Labs as Spaces of Agonistic Experiments and Friendly Hacking”, in
Manzini, E. and Staszowski, E., eds., Public and Collaborative: Exploring The
Intersection of Design, Social Innovation and Public Policy, DESIS Network,
pp. 75-88.
Hillgren, P.A., Seravalli, A. and Emilson, A. (2013), “Prototyping and
infrastructuring in design for social innovation”, Co-Design Vol. 7, Nos. 3-4,
September-December 2011, 169–183.
Directions, Bloomsbury Press, London, pp. 49-64.
179
van der Bijl-Brouwer, M. (2017), “Designing for Social Infrastructures in Complex
Service Systems: A Human-Centered and Social Systems Perspective on
Service Design”, She ji The Journal of Design, Economics, and Innovation,
Vol. 3, 3: 183-197.
180
10319.1-7000.403_319.1-7000.319 27/03/18 22:11 Pagina 1
This book focuses on “massive codesign”: the idea that multiple and/or
MASSIVE CODESIGN
7000.403
numerous participants having different voices collaborate in a design pro-
cess broken down into different steps and formats and resulting in a relevant
and diversified amount of data. A Proposal for a Collaborative Design Framework
Services, strategies and scenarios are presented as the main field of ap-
plication: these are complex items that demand complex processes be tac-
A. MERONI, D. SELLONI, M. ROSSI MASSIVE CODESIGN

kled, processes in which it is necessary to involve a variety of players who
are largely interdependent and therefore who must collaborate in order to
achieve any goal.
The book essentially makes two main contributions: a “Collaborative De-
sign Framework” to identify and structure codesign activities, methods and Anna Meroni, Daniela Selloni, Martina Rossi
tools within massive creative processes; a “set of quick lessons learnt” to
provide guidance to the conception and organisation of other massive crea-
tive processes.
The whole book is oriented at practice: it discusses codesign activities from
the designer’s point of view, detailing issues such as process from beginning
to end, activity flow, manipulability of tools, roles and rules for participants
and many others. It is intended as a support for designers dealing in massive
codesign processes and aims towards improved results.
FrancoAngeli ISBN 978-88-917-3481-5

La passione per le conoscenze
D.I. F RANCOANGELI

Massive Codesign Anna Meroni

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Massive Codesign Anna Meroni

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Massive Codesign Anna Meroni

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10319.1-7000.403_319.1-7000.

319 27/03/18 22:11 Pagina 1

A. MERONI, D. SELLONI, M. ROSSI MASSIVE CODESIGN

FrancoAngeli ISBN 978-88-917-3481-5

Direction: Silvia Piardi

Per saperne di più:

I lettori che desiderano informarsi sui libri e le riviste da noi pubblicati

Anna Meroni, Daniela Selloni, Martina Rossi

Essays by: Stefana Broadbent, Christophe Gouache, François Jégou

Cover image: Elahe Rajabiani

Copyright © 2018 by FrancoAngeli s.r.l., Milano, Italy.

PART 1: Scoping Codesign » 16

PART 2: Experimenting with Codesign » 50

This publication has received funding from the European Union’s

Daniela Selloni is a Service Designer, Ph.D in Design, Research Fellow

Martina Rossi is a Service Designer, Ph.D candidate and teaching

Christophe Gouache is design project manager at Strategic Design

François Jégou is founder and head of Strategic Design Scenarios. He

This book focuses on codesign, and, more specifically, on “massive

This book essentially makes two main contributions:

(2) The second part of the book analyses 4 applied-research activities

All these projects include a number of codesign activities that are

The book concludes with a prediction: massive codesign processes

In this book, we refer in particular to the codesign of complex items:

Today, therefore, the label “codesign” covers various forms of

Closed models of innovation are currently considered as having been

Another of the main current challenges for codesign lies in public

The final challenge for codesign that we wish to highlight is connected

Codesign is a complex, contradictory, sometimes antagonistic process, in which

Here, Manzini outlines a codesign space which is the same area in

By analysing a number of codesign activities carried out in 4 applied

Anthropologists have a tense relationship with rapid design-oriented

1.2.1 Design Oriented Rapid Ethnography

The critiques waged by anthropologists against ethnography

Furthermore, anthropologists rely on other anthropological studies to

The issue of complexity is particularly relevant when thinking about

The challenge for ethnography is therefore to be able to provide the

1.2.3 Producing Ethnography to Enable Discovery and

To study practices means to understand those habitual activities that

1.2.4 Building an Ethnographic Body of Knowledge for

Anthropology as a discipline has built a body of knowledge over time,

Over a period of a few years the Observatory managed to collect

1.2.5 Discovery, Ethnography and Codesign

Building a repository of ethnographic research on the daily practices of

Baba, M. (2005), To the End of the Theory-practice Apartheid: Encountering the

Today, collaborative practices influence all phases and circumstances of

1.3.1 Collaboration Within a Creative Process: the Design

If we take the example of one of the most common and acknowledged

Considering this sequence of phases as a linear (yet iterative, because of

1.3.2 Collaboration within a Creative Process: the Style of

The way collaboration takes place in design is not only dependent on

A “thought-provoking” style, on the other hand, leads the participants’

By polarising these two styles of guidance, we can create an axis that

The two so created axes can be inter-crossed to generate a framework of

• In the “Topic-Driven” and “Facilitating” quadrant, we can classify the

1.3.4 Infrastructuring Community Centred Design

This Framework will therefore be used in this book to: 1) contextualise

1.4.1 Boundary Objects in Codesign: a Proposal for a

• Boundary objects: “representatives” of the subject matter of design