Pirinen, Antti: The Barriers and Enablers of Co-Design For Services

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.
This reprint may differ from the original in pagination and typographic detail.
Pirinen, Antti
The Barriers and Enablers of Co-design for Services
Published in:
International Journal of Design
Published: 31/12/2016
Document Version
Publisher's PDF, also known as Version of record
Please cite the original version:

Pirinen, A. (2016). The Barriers and Enablers of Co-design for Services. International Journal of Design, 10(3),
27-42.
This material is protected by copyright and other intellectual property rights, and duplication or sale of all or
part of any of the repository collections is not permitted, except that material may be duplicated by you for
your research use or educational purposes in electronic or print form. You must obtain permission for any
other use. Electronic or print copies may not be offered, whether for sale or otherwise to anyone who is not
an authorised user.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Antti Pirinen
School of Arts, Design and Architecture, Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland
As interest towards co-design for services in the public sector and in companies is growing, the benefits and challenges of applying
it in organisations have become a topical issue. This article opens up factors that influence the success of co-design activities in the
development of services among cross-disciplinary networks. It presents the findings from follow-up interviews assessing the impacts of
six service co-design projects realised by a university with partners from healthcare, education and technology. The focus is on the barriers
and enablers of co-design that the participants had encountered. The central findings are that a university-led service co-design project
remains a superimposed activity with low impact on actual design decisions or core activities in the client organisations and that the
utilisation of co-design greatly relies on individual, committed participants. Based on the empirical material, 20 barrier-enabler couples
related to collaboration, the organisation, processes, implementation and methods are identified and described, the consideration of which
can lead to more impactful service co-design practice.
Keywords – Co-design, Collaboration, Design for Services, Organisational Change.
Relevance to Design Practice – The study provides empirically grounded guidelines for developing the methods and practices of service
co-design towards greater leverage and viability. The results can be utilised by practitioners when designing for services in complex
real-life contexts.
Citation: Pirinen, A. (2016). The barriers and enablers of co-design for services. International Journal of Design, 10(3), 27-42.
Introduction Vaajakallio, & Honkonen, 2013). Thus, service design and

co-design are gaining importance as part of the public innovation
The growing scale and complexity of design problems has system. They can be applied for public policy making and
engendered a move towards more open and collective design implementation (Bason, 2014; Junginger, 2013) or in cities for
activity where multiple stakeholders, particularly the end users addressing topics related to the urban environment and its services
but also professionals from other fields, are included as equal that are beyond the scope of the urban planning process (Design
partners in the design process. Co-design, defined by Sanders Driven City, 2015; Fuad-Luke, 2012).
and Stappers (2008) as the “creativity of designers and people
As co-design for services is increasingly utilised by public
not trained in design working together in the design development
and private organisations, more knowledge is needed on the
process” (p. 2), reflects a shift of focus from products to broader
method-related, practical, organisational and other factors that
human goals and propagates the ability of design to tackle
impact its effectiveness and play a part in its diffusion.
complex societal problems.
At the same time, Western societies are moving into
service-based economies. To improve their competitiveness in Focus and Objectives
conditions characterised by diversification of customer needs, This paper aims at shedding light on the prerequisites of
immaterialisation of products, flexible manufacturing methods co-design for services by identifying empirically grounded
and co-creation of value, businesses are shifting from goods- barriers and enablers that hinder or support co-design activities
dominant to service-dominant logic, where services offered to in cross-organisational networks that are developing services.
customers in continuous interaction with them become the means The focus is on co-design as facilitation of collaboration rather
of value creation (Lusch & Vargo, 2006). than on participatory design with users. The paper is based on
In this situation, service design has emerged as a new area follow-up interviews that assess the course and impacts of six
of design practice and research that brings the user into the centre
of the development of services (Kimbell, 2009; Mager, 2008). Received Dec. 18, 2015; Accepted Aug. 12, 2016; Published Dec. 31, 2016.
From its early focus on service touchpoints, service design has
Copyright: © 2016 Pirinen. Copyright for this article is retained by the authors,
expanded towards ‘designing for services’ in broader multi-actor
with first publication rights granted to the International Journal of Design. All
service systems where it can have more profound, transformative journal content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative
effects to organisations and people’s lives (Meroni & Sangiorgi, Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 License. By virtue of
2011; Stickdorn & Schneider, 2010). their appearance in this open-access journal, articles are free to use, with proper
The public sector, such as healthcare and social services attribution, in educational and other non-commercial settings.
providers, has begun to adopt approaches from (collaborative) *Corresponding Author: [email protected]
design for services (e.g. Design Commission, 2013; Keinonen,
www.ijdesign.org 27 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

publicly funded, research-driven co-design projects in which spanners-in-practice”, agents who engage in negotiating the
designerly methods were used for supporting collaborative boundaries of diverse fields to create new joint fields of practice
service development. The main objectives are: (Levina & Vaast, 2005). Carlile (2002) and O’Flynn (2014) also
• To gain a more structured and comprehensive stress the role of shared ‘boundary objects’ (see Star & Griesemer,
understanding about the barriers and enablers experienced 1989), such as diagrams or other simplified visual representations
in cross-organisational service co-design endeavours. in aligning of interests, transfer of knowledge and learning
• To increase the knowledge on the role, advantages/ across boundaries. Boundary objects are plastic enough to be
disadvantages and effectiveness of specific methods and perceived and used differently by different actors, yet commonly
skills in facilitating co-design for services. understandable across social worlds.
The study seeks to contribute to research and practice. It Previous research lists a number of obstacles to
complements previous research through a cross-project analysis, inter-organisational, intra-organisational and inter-disciplinary
with a focus on service co-design methods and skills. As a collaboration in the public and private sector as well as means
practical outcome, learnings from the case projects are brought to overcome them (Axelsson & Axelsson, 2006; Huxham,
to a broader audience, providing guidelines for developing the 1996; Kanter, 1994; O’Flynn, 2014; Widmark, Sandahl,
methods and practices of service co-design towards more leverage Piuva, & Bergman, 2011). The impediments include rigid
and viability. hierarchies, prejudices and mistrust, conflicts of interest, a lack
The paper begins with an overview of previous research of clarity about common goals, differences in organisational
from the fields of organisation studies and design, after which the culture, poor allocation of responsibilities, a lack of resources
case projects and the analysis method are opened up. The main and management, a lack of commitment or incentive, and
findings are presented as 20 barrier-enabler couples, explained discontinuity. Correspondingly, equality, trust, common interests
with the help of the data. The implications to design research and and goals, facilitation, accountability and budgeting, managerial
practice are discussed in the conclusion chapter. support, formalised support structures and continuity can
promote collaboration.
The “power and politics” aspect of collaboration (O’Flynn,
Boundary-crossing Collaboration and
2014), somewhat overlooked in the management field, is evident
Organisational Change in the public realm, especially in healthcare and participatory
The nature and prerequisites of collaboration are a widely urban planning (e.g. Till, 2005). A Swedish study on the obstacles
researched topic in organisation and management studies (e.g., of collaboration between healthcare, social services and schools
Gray, 1989; Huxham, 1996; Kanter, 1994). It is acknowledged in an urban district identified lack of confidence and problems in
that a combination of viewpoints enables the parties to see the way the professionals encounter each other, such as inequality
beyond their own limited vision, increasing the potential and territorial thinking, as major barriers (Widmark et al., 2011).
for innovation and creativity in what Kanter (1994) calls The authors stress the value of creating a “holding environment”,
‘collaborative advantage’. However, it has also been recognised an open and equal social context that reduces disturbing affect and
that organisations and their members resist change and external facilitates common sense making. This resonates with the goals of
impacts—individuals because of habit, need for security or fear, co-design events and empathic design.
and organisations due to structural inertia and threats to expertise, In university-industry collaboration, the different incentive
the power hierarchy and resource allocation (Robbins, 1991, p. systems and nature of knowledge create a barrier that can be
639-643). Collaboration requires a change of organisational mitigated by experience, using a variety of formal and informal
culture, which is slow and difficult, especially on a level which interaction channels and building trust (Bruneel, D’Este, & Salter,
addresses underlying values and assumptions (Gagliardi, 1986; 2010). As for internal obstacles, inter-unit collaboration in large
Schein, 1985). Collaboration is typically realised by temporary companies in a study by Hansen and Nohria (2004) was hampered
multidisciplinary teams (“adhocracies”, Mintzberg & Mintzberg, by unwillingness or inability of people to seek input and learn
1988, p. 182), which are fragile and need a lot of management from others or to transfer knowledge. To avoid this, management
support to survive (Axelsson & Axelsson, 2006). should integrate collaboration into leadership, values and goals,
Co-design for services necessitates working across hire people with collaborative tendencies and offer ways for
organisational, sectoral and jurisdictional boundaries and divergent best-practice transfer and for the cross-pollination of ideas.
realms of knowledge or “thought worlds” (Carlile, 2002; O’Flynn, To sum up, in the light of organisation and management
2014). The ability to build new “boundary-spanning” practices studies, collaboration is a transformative capability that necessitates
that draw on diverse bases of expertise has been identified the crossing of the structural, cultural and other boundaries of
as a key competence in organisations. It requires “boundary individuals, organisations and networks and can be supported
by strategic, operational and cultural integration, by the creation
Antti Pirinen is University Lecturer in Spatial and Service Design at Aalto of trust and through the recognition of mutual value among the
University’s Department of Design and is a member of the ENCORE (Engaging
Co-design Research) team. He holds a Doctorate of Arts in Spatial Design. His actors. Next, these insights are brought into focus by illustrating
current research interests include co-design, user-centred design and conceptual them using more method-specific experiences drawn from design
design in the case of housing, the built environment and related services.
research and practice.

A. Pirinen
Co-design for Services in 1988). The representations by designers (personas, scenarios,

concepts, process maps, etc.) can become effective boundary
Cross-organisational Networks objects (Carlile, 2002).
Co-design for services among multi-disciplinary networks of Vaajakallio, Lee, Kronqvist, and Mattelmäki (2013, p. 8)
stakeholders constitutes a particular case of cross-organisational state that explorative, provocative “design thinking and making”
collaboration that is characterised by human-centredness and can challenge established viewpoints and practices and reveal
utilisation of designerly methods and tools to acquire contextual unrecognised solution opportunities. The co-design approach
knowledge, to bring the actors together and to create and visualise provides “a platform for public sector representatives and citizens
new viable solution ideas. There is a considerable amount of to physically meet, share and negotiate their perspectives” and
literature about the characteristics as well as the benefits and supports the creation of trust. Empathic methods bring the
hindering factors of applying design in organisations. citizens into the centre of service development and help non-
Junginger and Sangiorgi (2009, see also Sangiorgi, 2011) designers in articulating their ideas. As prerequisites of co-design,
emphasise that design is inseparable from organisational change Vaajakallio et al. stress the design maturity of the organisation
and can operate in an organisation in many ways and depths. and the importance of committed “change agents” who spread the
Similarly, Meroni and Sangiorgi (2011, p. 202-204) note that outcomes in the organisation and build co-design skills internally
service designers can work on different levels (from operational (as also suggested by Levina & Vaast, 2005).
to strategic) and with varied methods and aims, ranging from Regarding practical barriers and enablers of co-design,
designing interactions to exploring new service models and Dutch researchers (Kleinsmann, Valkenburg, & Buijs, 2007;
imagining future directions for service systems. Kleinsmann & Valkenburg, 2008) have studied the factors that
Within service systems and networks, co-design can facilitate support or hamper the creation of a shared understanding in
the identification of user needs and shared innovation processes co-design. Their cases are from the automotive industry and are
(e.g., Cottam & Leadbeter, 2004). However, companies have been limited to the perspective of the design team. They identify factors
slow in adopting co-design because it threatens existing professional that influence the effectiveness and quality of co-design on three
hierarchies, is antithetical to consumerism and is considered an levels. On the actor level, the most important factors are the actors’
academic effort with little business relevance (Sanders & Stappers, ability to transfer knowledge and the equality of the language,
2008). In the public sector, fear of novelty, avoidance of risks and on the project level the efficiency with which information is
prejudices towards unconventional methods may hamper service processed and the quality of project documentation, and on the
design experiments (Bason, 2014; Kurronen, 2014). company level the organisation of resources and the allocation of
When aiming at embedding co-design for services in tasks and responsibilities.
organisations, building design capability over time and sustainable Analysing one of the case projects in this article,
co-design practices would be more beneficial than short-term Hyvärinen, Lee, and Mattelmäki (2015) identified the complexity
interventions (Bailey, 2012). It should also be recognised that and fragmentation of services, top-down thinking and a lack of
organisations are on a different maturity level regarding the organisational support for building new networks as main barriers
utilisation of design (Brown, 2009). Moreover, each organisation to cross-organisational collaboration in developing services
has its individual “design legacy” that determines present for the elderly in an urban area. They pinpoint that aside from
solutions. This needs to be understood for new solutions created customer-centredness, it is crucial to develop methods and
through the collaborative process to be adopted (Junginger, 2014). practices for facilitating actual collaboration between actors in a
Steen, Manschot, and De Koning (2011) identify three types particular context.
of benefits of co-design in service design projects: co-design can In summary, research on cross-organisational (service)
benefit the design project itself by increasing knowledge relating co-design, largely in line with the research on collaboration in
to user needs and by triggering better design ideas, can benefit the general, highlights organisational hierarchy and culture as the
service’s customers by leading to services that match better their main barriers to co-design, and shared user focus, openness
needs, or co-design can benefit the participating organisation(s) and inspirational, experimental methods as the main enablers of
by improving cooperation between people and disciplines or by co-design. The existing research, however, is rather general in its
enhancing innovation practices. Aside from practice, co-design outcomes or limited in scope. A more systematic “typology” of
can affect the actors’ thinking (mindset) e.g. by making them hindering and supporting factors across cases has been missing.
understand the value of co-creation and the importance of This article seeks to fill in the gap through an analysis of empirical
empowering external stakeholders and customers (Suominen & data covering an array of different types of service co-design
Pöyry-Lassila, 2013). projects in the fields of technology, healthcare and education.
Methods play a crucial role in crossing design boundaries
and reconciling differences in cross-organisational service
networks. In contrast to traditional development work, co-design
The Case Projects
for services is supported by inspirational visual methods and tools, The study material derives from a trans-disciplinary research
design games, graphic representations and artefacts that facilitate project called “ATLAS: Map for Future Service Co-development”
the sharing of user knowledge, the negotiation of controversies, (2012–2014). The project aimed at developing a “big picture”
the generation of new solutions and rapid experimentation (Ehn, of service co-development methods through an analysis of 13

university-led applied research projects in Finland with different employees. The project was led by a global technology
theoretical starting points and in different service contexts. The manufacturing corporation and was overseen by a research
selection criteria used for focusing on these particular studies unit in industrial engineering and management. The methods
included their focus on cross-organisational service development, included process simulation, future recall, personas and
their use of designerly methods and access by the researchers to scenarios.
the project data. The follow-up interviews used as material in this • The Service Design Project (interviews 12–13) explored
paper focus on six of the case projects, carried out between 2006 service co-design as a strategic means for building novel
and 2012 by two research units from the fields of industrial design business partnerships, for promoting the pilot company’s
and industrial engineering and management (see also Table 1). willingness to understand their end users, and for
• The School Project (interviews 1–8) studied the communicating its new user-centred slogan within the
collaborative public-private service innovations in the organisation. The interviews focus to a case concerning the
“extended teaching processes” of comprehensive schools, recognition of novel partnership possibilities between three
developing new, networked service concepts and business companies in senior housing. The project was led by the
models of the “extended school”. The project had several same technology corporation that was involved in the Virtual
cases focusing on different schools. The interviews mostly Innovation Project and was overseen by a research unit in
deal with a case that focused on the merger of two schools industrial design. The methods included design games,
in Helsinki. The project was conducted by a research unit personas and acting and drama.
in industrial engineering and management. The partners • The City Services Project (interviews 14–16) looked at the
included several schools, the city and companies. The application of human-centred co-design and service design
methods that were used included process simulation, future methods in the development of public services provided by
recall, personas and scenarios. the city. The partners included the city (who also funded the
• The Virtual Innovation Project (interviews 9–12) was work), healthcare service providers and a consulting firm.
designed to develop innovation processes and practices and The interviews deal with a pilot focusing on the development
new ways of co-creating ideas. It focused on the internal of customer-centred networked service models for carer
service development of a pilot company’s innovation families within an urban neighbourhood. The co-creation
processes and related digital tools. The process of introducing part in the project was realised by a research unit in industrial
a new software for submitting ideas was studied and ways design. The principal methods were design probes, design
to improve its adoption were sought in collaboration with games, storytelling and scenarios.
Table 1. Comparison of the case projects.
School Virtual innov. Service design City services Wellbeing Hospital

project Project project project project project
Public Sector ● ● ● ●
Private Sector ● ● ● ●
Participants
Employees ● ● ● ● ●
Users, Customers ● ●
Product, Service, Tool ● ● ● ● ●
Space, Facility ● ● ●
Focus
Process, Practice ● ● ● ● ●
Network, Partnership ● ● ●
Workshops ● ● ● ● ● ●
Process Simulation ● ●
Future Recall ● ●
Personas ● ● ●
Scenarios ● ● ● ●
Methods Design Probes ● ● ●
Design Games ● ● ●
Acting and Drama ●
Storytelling ●
Customer Journey ●
Prototyping ●

A. Pirinen
• The Wellbeing Project (interviews 17–18) dealt with the co- collaborative development activities led by researchers where the
design of human-centred wellbeing and healthcare services object of development was conceptualised broadly as a service and
together with municipalities. The interviews are from a where creative and collaborative methods were utilised.
case focusing on the development of psychiatric treatment The methods are summarised in Table 1. As a general
environments and services in public healthcare. The case distinction, the two projects led by the industrial engineering
was realised as a study project by a multi-national group of research unit relied on specific methods for creating visualised
students of industrial design. Design probes and co-design process models (business process simulation) and common
workshops were the main methods. visions of the future (future recall). The future recall method
• The Hospital Project (interviews 19–23) aimed at bringing was originally developed for facilitating network dialogue in
forth the needs of the patients for improving and designing social services (Seikkula, Arnkil, & Eriksson, 2003). It is based
patient-centred healthcare services in a university hospital. on imagining a desired future and “reconstructing” the path
The first phase aimed at improving the patient service and to it from the present. The design-led projects utilised more
patient experience of sarcoma-type cancer patients through experimental and user-centred methods, including design probes
design research. The second phase focused on prototyping for gathering contextual user knowledge (see Mattelmäki, 2006),
the future work, care and recreation spaces in the hospital design games (see Vaajakallio, 2012) and storytelling/acting.
with the help of a cardboard model. The project was realised Actual service design methods (customer journey mapping
by researchers in industrial design with personnel in the pilot and elementary service prototyping) were only used in the
hospital. Design games, customer journey, scenarios and Hospital Project.
prototyping as well as a design probes type task were utilised. The concrete outcomes of the projects varied. The
As seen, the case projects represent a broad array of researchers mostly contributed to the overall goal indirectly
topics, objectives, actors and approaches. Four projects were by providing user knowledge, design guidelines, development
situated in the public sector, either education (the School Project) ideas, concepts and scenarios. Implementation and real-life
or healthcare services (the City Services Project, the Wellbeing design decisions were left to the clients. During the projects,
Project and the Hospital Project). Two projects were industry-led, the researchers produced reports, presentations, diagrams, other
incidentally by the same large technology company. Regarding visual material and tangible artefacts such as rapid prototypes or
the facilitator side, the projects divide into those grounded in mock-ups, design games and other co-design tools.
industrial engineering and management (the School Project and Various terms were used in the projects for describing
the Virtual Innovation Project) and those driven by the design the collaborative activities, namely co-design, co-creation and
discipline (the Service Design Project, the City Services Project, co-development. The interpretations of the two first notions have
the Wellbeing Project and the Hospital Project). been discussed by Mattelmäki and Sleeswijk Visser (2011), who
The participants to the collaborative activities were conclude that from within the design field, co-design can be
representatives of the client organisations, typically people in seen as the overall approach within which specific co-creation
managerial and development roles (see Table 2). Also other activities take place to harness the collective creativity of the
personnel, such as teachers in the School Project and nurses in actors. In line with them and to anchor the work to design studies,
the Hospital Project, were involved. External users participated the term co-design for services is used here regardless of variation
in the City Services Project (seniors and home carers) and in in the sources.
the Hospital Project (patients). However, in most projects some Co-design in the projects was not primarily participatory
methods for bringing in the user perspective were used. design, even if users or customers were involved, but rather
Importantly, the focus and scale of development also designers working as facilitators in cross-organisational networks,
varied, ranging from the improvement of a web-based tool (Virtual enabling people from different backgrounds to work together
Innovation Project) to the development of the spatial solution and towards a common goal.
operations of a new hospital unit (Hospital Project), and to the
creation of a new service model and network of actors supporting
home care (City Services Project). Some of the projects focused
The Data and Analysis Method
more on the physical space while in others the intangible service The aim of the follow-up interviews conducted in the ATLAS
or the network was emphasised. project was to evaluate the methods, processes and impacts
The wealth of foci in the projects necessitates a broad of co-design in the case projects and to gather the participants’
definition of service. The School Project approached the school as a experiences to benefit academic research. The framework for the
service. The Virtual Innovation Project developed a digital service. semi-structured interviews was devised by the research team.
The Service Design project targeted services for senior housing. The interviewees, recruited among key project members, were
The City Services Project, the Wellbeing Project and the Hospital asked to reminisce about the co-design project in which they had
Project focused on healthcare and related services. Along the lines participated and to assess it critically. The main themes were:
of Meroni and Sangiorgi (2011), all can be described as design for • The co-design project and its impacts: Own role and role of
services. All projects included what can be called service co-design others; the goals of the project; outcomes and development
interventions (Suominen & Pöyry-Lassila, 2013), that is, short-term ideas based on the project; implementation of the results.

• The methods, tools and artefacts used in co-design: Experiences For this paper, the complete collection of interview data
of using specific methods; their advantages and disadvantages; were analysed by the author with the aim of identifying barriers
later adoption of methods in own work or organisation. and enablers. The starting point was a hypothesis based on existing
• Present utilisation of co-design: More general discussion on research about the role of supporting and hindering factors in
the nature and challenges of co-design and other development co-design. The analysis method was mainly content-driven. The
activities from the interviewee’s perspective. aim was to look for occurrences of perceived barriers and enablers
In total, 23 interviews were conducted by four researchers. in the data without a preconceived framework. The results could
They lasted from about one to two hours. One interview was with then be reflected against previous research.
a group of three persons (1, 2, 3) and one with two persons (20, The method for eliciting the barriers and enablers can be
21). Written transcripts of the interview recordings have been described as factoring (Miles & Huberman, 1994). In the first
used as primary sources in the analysis. phase, the interview transcripts were read closely by the author
The distribution of the interviewees according to project, and all instances that could be interpreted as a barrier or enabler
their occupation and organisation is shown in Table 2. There were were marked in the text. Some of the barriers and enablers were
eight interviewees from the School Project, three from the Virtual explicitly mentioned by the informants while others were more
Innovation Project, two from the Service Design Project (of whom implicit in the material. At this point, all articulated or implied
one had also participated in the Virtual Innovation Project), three barriers/enablers were considered.
from the City Services Project, two from the Wellbeing Project In the second phase, the large number of identified
and five from the Hospital Project. Among the participants barriers/enablers were categorised according to affinity. This led
were 14 public sector employees (five teachers, five healthcare to the emergence of broader categories dealing with certain themes
professionals and four city development officers), five company or aspects of co-design. In general, a category was included if
representatives and four researchers or students who had worked there was evidence for it from multiple informants. Marginal or
as facilitators in the projects. weak categories were left out or combined into others.
Table 2. The interviewees.
ID Project Occupation Organisation
1 School Project Principal Comprehensive School, Lower Stage
2 School Project Principal Comprehensive School
3 School Project Principal Comprehensive School
4 School Project Communications Manager City, Education and Cultural Services
5 School Project Administration Manager City, Education and Cultural Services
6 School Project Development Director City, Education and Cultural Services
7 School Project Lecturer Comprehensive School, Upper Stage
8 School Project Special Education Teacher Comprehensive School, Upper Stage
9 Virtual Innovation Project Research Director Technology Corporation
10 Virtual Innovation Project Senior Usability Specialist Technology Corporation
11 Virtual Innovation Project Development Director Technology Corporation
12 Virtual Innovation Project and Service Design Project Product Release Manager Technology Corporation
13 Service Design Project Project Manager Technology Corporation
14 City Services Project Special Advisor City, Economic Development
15 City Services Project Doctoral Candidate in Design University
16 City Services Project MA Student in Design University
17 Wellbeing Project Chief Physician Psychiatric Clinic
18 Wellbeing Project MA Student in Design University
19 Hospital Project Orthopediatrician and Traumatologist University Hospital
20 Hospital Project Service Planner University Hospital
21 Hospital Project Nurse University Hospital
22 Hospital Project Customer Services Development Manager University Hospital
23 Hospital Project Doctoral Candidate in Design University

A. Pirinen
In the third phase, the categories, each comprising many interviews (see Figure 2). They relate to the broader themes of
singular examples of barriers/enablers from the material, were collaboration, the organisation, processes, the implementation of
further reduced and generalised into more abstract factors. The outcomes and the co-design methods. The barriers and enablers
resulting higher-level barriers and enablers were described and offer an overview of some of the critical issues and challenges
named to crystallise their core content. To test accuracy, they faced by professionals undertaking service co-design (see also
were also discussed with the researchers who initially conducted Kleinsmann et al., 2007; Hyvärinen et al., 2015).
the interviews. The barrier-enabler couples are described in greater detail
During the analysis, it became evident that many of the below. There is a short description of each complemented by
identified barriers and enablers seemed to mirror each other. An examples and quotes. The first chapter describes the barrier
enabler could be seen as the solution to a barrier. This led to the and the second chapter the corresponding enabler. The numbers
forming of barrier–enabler couples. However, the correspondence in brackets refer to the interviews in which the particular
between a particular barrier and enabler may sometimes be a bit barrier/enabler came up (see Table 2). They are included for
forced. More research would be needed on their interconnections. reasons of transparency and to allow the reader to go into more
Moreover, the results mainly reflect the participants’ subjective detail regarding the experiences of specific actors. The term
experience. Many of the participants were also proponents of facilitator refers to the researchers or students who planned and
co-design in their organisation, which may have induced a bias realised the co-design activities.
towards overt positivity.
Several articles making use of some parts of the interview Collaboration: Finding a Common Ground
data have been published previously (Hyvärinen et al., 2015;
Suominen & Pöyry-Lassila, 2013; Vaajakallio et al., 2013). This The first six barrier-enabler couples (1–6) describe the general
paper is the first to provide a comprehensive cross-case analysis. prerequisites of cross-organisational collaboration: the creation
The main results are presented in the following two sections. of trust, overcoming cultural differences, finding shared value,
dealing with hierarchy and complexity and taking responsibility
for collaboration.
The Tension in Co-Design for Services
A tension concerning the impacts and outcomes of co-design 1. Prejudices and misconceptions → Trust through
emerged in the interviews (see Figure 1). In terms of outcomes, it making together
seems that a service co-design project conducted by a university
There were prejudices among the organisations that required time
easily remains a superimposed one-off activity with weak
and social interaction to overcome. Design and particularly service
connection to actual end solutions and with relatively little value
design were unfamiliar to many. The partners typically were
or impact on the participating organisations’ core activities, aside
suspicious about the co-design approach in the beginning. They
from a change of mindset towards more user orientation or some
had misconceptions about the leverage of design and questioned
incremental development ideas. More sustained co-design that
the relevance of the methods and the return on investment.
would truly add value for the organisations seemed difficult to
Prejudices could exist on both sides: in the Wellbeing Project, the
attain. The perceived impacts of the co-design projects would be
hospital staff understood design as superficial decoration whereas
the topic of another paper. Here, the tension provides a starting
the students had prejudices about mental healthcare patients,
point for understanding the barriers and enablers in co-design that
doubting for example their ability to use digital services. Co-design
influence effectiveness of the projects.
was basically seen as something positive but it also required a
lot of justification to the client. In many other fields, people are
used to finished solutions. Prototyping and experimentation with
unfinished, open solutions could be hard to accept. (7, 12, 15, 17,
18, 19)
Starting to make things together created commitment and
trust. Embarking on the co-design events typically gradually
changed the participants’ attitude towards design, diminished
opposition and created trust. The mindset and atmosphere among
Figure 1. The tension in co-design for services. the participants influenced how the collaboration ended up. Setting
the stage and overcoming prejudices was an important task for
The Barriers and Enablers of Co-design the facilitators. Their confidence was especially important when
using unconventional methods, such as the design probes in the
for Services hospital context or the design game in the City Services Project.
In the material, the participants brought up some barriers, that They needed to overlook initial objections and prime the client
is, constraining factors that hindered the success of co-design well beforehand. Importantly, getting to know people personally
for services and eroded collaboration in the projects. They also lowered the threshold of opposition to collaboration. Personal
discussed various enablers that contributed to making the project chemistry and unofficial networks were deemed important in
succeed. 20 barrier–enabler couples could be deduced from the sustaining the collaboration. (7, 8, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 22)

2. Differences in language and culture → Credible, Ideally, participants with divergent agendas and roles (academia
responsive communication vs. companies; see also Bruneel et al., 2010) can work together
and yet fulfil their own goals. The conflux of expertise at best
The participants experienced major differences in language and
adds value to all involved. It seems to be an important enabler
vocabulary in cross-disciplinary collaboration. Unfamiliar words
of co-design that there exist a shared high-level agenda that all
and terms created misunderstandings and it took time to find a
participants see as valuable in their own way and can relate to
common ground. The administrative language of the city, the
in their everyday practice. Well-chosen methods can support
language in healthcare, the business language, the laypeople’s
the search for mutual value and the reconciliation of goals. The
language and the researchers’ language each have their own
concrete expectations of participants from the co-design project
terminology and way of speaking. Many field specific things also
should also be made explicit in the beginning. (1, 6, 9, 22)
seemed self-evident, and tacitly known. Truly being listened to
and getting the message through was a challenge. The nurses in
4. Complexity of organisations, processes and
the Hospital Project for instance were concerned that the designers
real-life contexts → In-depth understanding of the
didn’t comprehend their needs. The organisational culture
nature and characteristics of the target system
differed even between sectors or units. Some were more open to
collaboration than others. A “wrong” message by the facilitators The complexity of large organisations and networks was
could also hamper collaboration. For instance, the users should recognised as a barrier to co-design. The facilitators had a hard
not be given too positive promises on their ability to influence. time trying to figure out the operating principles of an organisation
(6, 14, 17, 19) like a city or a hospital and identify where and how co-design
In line with Kleinsmann and Valkenburg (2008), the could add value. The informants noted that idealistic models
material shows that to achieve a shared understanding and to imposed from outside do not work in complex real-life contexts.
integrate knowledge, effort is needed in co-design projects to The public administration system in cities is slow and rigid. It
overcome the differences between professionals, each with their hinders experimentation and the fast adoption of things that are
particular language and conceptualisation of design. Finding a novel. There were particular challenges also in the healthcare
common ground can be supported through personal face-to-face sector, for example due to the laws on privacy in healthcare
communication. The participants need to explain, show, make, that are in contrast with the openness of design. The division of
adjust the message, and translate among disciplines. Designers responsibilities in large organisations and lack of central process
also need to adjust their communication according to the context management presented a barrier as well. The characteristics of the
and the identity of the receiver. Especially in the process-driven system also impact the selection of participants. Involving the end
and hierarchic hospital organisation, “hard” vocabulary is needed users can be difficult in cases relating to mental healthcare. (1, 3,
to ensure the credibility of the designers. “Soft” communication 14, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 23)
(emphasising feelings) was considered not factual and scientific For co-design to be able to make an impact, designers
enough. It should also be noted that the participants have different should properly familiarise themselves with the complex
level of familiarity with co-design vocabulary and methods. (6, system or organisation they are working with in order to gain an
10, 14, 19, 22) understanding of its basic principles and operational logic. For
instance, when working with a city, it was deemed important
3. Conflicting goals and expectations → Search for to understand the public decision-making process. Similarly, in
mutual value healthcare, there are many particular requirements that need to
be taken into consideration, such as high confidentiality. It is
According to the material, organisations have divergent goals,
important to understand the historical development and roots
agendas and expectations from co-design. Conflicts between
of the organisation because they influence current practice (see
sectors can also hinder collaboration. Notably, the motivation for
Junginger, 2014). In the hospital cases, it was recommended that
co-design and user-centredness in public and private sectors can
researchers should observe and participate in the patient work with
differ. In companies, the driver for adopting co-design often is
nurses to really understand their requirements. There were doubts
profitability, whereas in a hospital ethical reasons and savings due
about the designers’ ability to design hospital spaces because of
to increased efficiency justified the service design approach. In the
their lack of everyday experience from healthcare practice. (6, 14,
merging of two schools in the School Project, the challenge was
18, 20, 21, 22)
to combine the practices and cultures of two schools. Moreover,
there were conflicts between the expectations of researchers and
the expectations of the client organisations. The city officials,
5. Systemic resistance and professional power
for example, would have wanted more concrete output from the
hierarchies → An informal arena for different
project. (1, 4, 16, 22)
expertises to come together as equal
Hence, co-designers should think beyond professional Systemic resistance to change is a common barrier met by
sectors and individual tasks, seeking to define the bigger picture co-designers (e.g. Robbins, 1991). Again, the hospital organisation
and the strategic goals. A successful co-design project requires in particular was protective against the co-design approach. This
negotiation and balancing between the goals of all participants. was justified by the perception of the hospital as a special realm with

A. Pirinen
a clear core mission, tied by extensive regulation and committed to 7. Lack of organisational justification and commitment
its refined care processes (see also Vaajakallio et al., 2013). It was to co-design → Support from management,
not easy to persuade doctors to commit to a co-design project where connection to strategy and everyday goals
the benefits were uncertain. It was difficult to introduce new roles
Several respondents, particularly the pioneers of co-design
to the strong professional power hierarchy in healthcare. Hierarchic
in their organisation, experienced a lack of organisational
relations affected the social dynamics and willingness to bring forth
support. It was often one person’s responsibility to further the
problems in the co-design sessions. The facilitators had to conquer
co-design project. There was little understanding elsewhere in
the response that only “us experts” can understand the needs and
the organisation of what co-design is and no ability to utilise the
requirements. As it was difficult to see and measure the benefits
outcomes. Due to poor commitment of organisations, especially
of co-design, some participants felt that it was just increasing their
on the management level, there was also a lack of continuity as
workload. (17, 19, 22, 23)
changing representatives were attending the co-design sessions.
One of the key perceived benefits of the co-design approach In some publicly led projects, companies were “just there to look
was that it created an open space for exchanging experiences and responsible”, and no real co-design was achieved. Because of lack
ideating together in an environment where all actors could come of true interest, the ideas never took off. (3, 7, 16, 17)
together as equals and look at things holistically, outside from their
Support from management as a central prerequisite of
narrow professional roles and formal hierarchy. This could induce
co-design came up in many interviews. Co-design requires explicit
a shift of mindset to more openness and collaboration. Special
managerial support on all levels. In the School Project, the school
focus in service co-design should be put into facilitating this kind management team was assigned to participate in the project.
of informal situation. It was noted that an external facilitator can Inclusion of teachers plus higher-level decision-makers eased the
give people more courage to express problems. An important dissemination of results. It also helps if co-design connects to the
enabler for the co-design approach to break through the power organisation’s strategic goals. The technology corporation, for
hierarchy is the professionalism and credibility of the facilitators. example, had a strategic agenda towards customer-centredness,
It was emphasised that the researchers need to understand the which justified the co-design project. However, it was stated
hierarchy to avoid superimposed solutions and to overcome that in the hospital, strategy works for management but does not
scepticism. Designers seeking to change a complex situation also impress clinical staff that needs more concrete motivation. The
should accept that organisational change is slow. (1, 2, 3, 8, 12, material shows that co-development activities are more easily
14, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21) undertaken if they connect to the participants’ everyday work. (1,
2, 3, 13, 16, 17, 19, 22, 23)
6. Lack of ownership and leadership → Taking
responsibility for co-design 8. Lack of time, resources and funding for doing
One problem in co-design projects involving many parties was anything out of the ordinary → Allocation of time,
a lack of proper management and leadership of the collaboration resources and funding for co-design
network – who initiates the partnership and is in charge? Lack of working time allocated for the co-design project was
Unclear roles and nobody “owning” the outcome results in low a major barrier for the participants. People in most cases were
commitment to the project. For instance, in the School Project so busy with their regular work that they had a hard time doing
the commitment of companies to co-design remained superficial anything out of the ordinary unless they could expect high benefits
due to a lack of true ownership in the project. They were merely from it. Lack of time and resources led to a fluctuating degree of
invited to the meetings in the role of external partners. Also commitment, breaks, inefficiency and “loosing the thread”. There
the lack of perceived value for the organisation could prevent also were many ongoing renewal projects in the organisations.
commitment. (3, 4) It was hard to find time and energy for continuous development.
Good leadership of the co-design process and the partner Several participants realised during the projects that their
network enables commitment to it. In cross-organisational organisation would not have the resources to realise co-design
collaboration, there is a need for an actor who leads the development with such a broad agenda and so many stakeholders, but would
activities and takes responsibility for the implementation of the need external facilitation and funding. (6, 9, 12, 17, 19, 20, 21, 22)
results. According to the material, successful co-design requires Organisations must allocate time, person resources and
the responsibilities of the partners be spelled out clearly and that funding to co-design activities for them to have an impact. It should
every participant has a personal interest at stake. (1, 4) be acknowledged that co-design requires concrete dedication. In
the School Project, project funding enabled common trips and
other activities that started collaboration between the schools
Organisation: Creating Commitment
beyond the official meetings. The city also recognised the need
The second theme that emerged from the data (barrier-enabler to allocate time and budget specifically for the co-design project
couples 7–9) addresses the commitment of organisations and and for collaboration with academia. An organisation can also
individuals to co-design work, an issue also brought up in support co-design by creating special positions. In the hospital,
previous research (e.g., Axelsson & Axelsson, 2006; O’Flynn, a Customer Services Development Manager was the advocate for
2014; Widmark et al., 2011). service design. (1, 2, 3, 8, 10, 14)

9. Lack of personal motivation and incentive to To increase the usefulness and return of investment from
participate → Meaningful personal role in co-design a co-design project, the client organisation should invest time to
and benefit to one’s own work clarify for themselves what they expect from the intervention. The
organisation should investigate its own processes to identify the
The informants emphasised that a personal incentive is needed
critical points where co-design could truly add value. The brief
for people (especially laypeople) to commit to co-design. For for researchers is an important aspect of co-design that should be
example, parents, in their leisure time, are more likely to commit thought out beforehand and made explicit. In the Virtual Innovation
to their own child’s issues than to the development of the school Project, the technology corporation had carefully defined goals for
of the future. Lack of personal motivation is also a challenge for co-design that was connected to the development of an innovation
professionals. If they do not see some value in the project from service. The research project was used as a source of insight and
the perspective of their own everyday work they either avoid findings were developed for the practical use of the development
participation or are not really committed. Moreover, people team. The researchers provided a temporary resource for the
are different and have different skills, which should be better company and were required to work on a topic where the approach
recognised and balanced in co-design. People also have different was anticipated to have value. (3, 5, 11, 15)
attitudes to development. For instance, there is a broad range in
teachers’ skills and in the adoption rate of ICT in teaching. (1, 3, 11. Disconnection from other development activities
6, 7, 8, 16, 20, 21) → Integration of co-design to the core
It was deemed important that everyone should have a
A typical problem with the co-design research projects was that
role in co-design that benefits his or her own work. Individuals they were not well integrated with other development activities
should be attached to the projects concretely by clarifying to in the client organisations but existed as isolated efforts on the
them, “what am I in the whole, what is expected from me and fringes of “real” development, the outcomes of which were
how can I contribute”. In the case projects, the workshops in not even realistically expected to be implemented. In the City
particular boosted the work of the participants. More involvement Services Project, the co-design activities remained marginal in
led to more learning. The role of participants could also vary: in the consultant-run process. The complexity of the project made
one project a person could be planning the methods, in another a it difficult to incorporate service design methods and to develop
person could be a mere participant. Also, people could be given the idea of user-centredness. It would have taken some time to see
individually sized and focused “burdens” in co-design depending where these could be beneficial and to apply them appropriately,
on their personality and skills. It was brought up that there are but the project was already fixed and planned. (6, 15, 16)
individuals in all organisations who tend to support or turn down In light of the data, service co-design and its methods
new approaches. For instance, the Wellbeing Project could not should be brought closer to the core operations of organisations
have been realised without the chief physician’s enthusiasm. (2, and integrated with other development work. This would mean
3, 6, 12, 17, 19) rethinking the whole co-design chain from its goals to the actors,
resources, methods, outcomes and implementation to better benefit
Processes: Being Integrated the whole organisation. At best, inputs from different directions
come together in the right time. The Hospital Project was made
The third set of barriers and enablers (10–13) deals with the possible by public funding directed to the topic. That coincided
targeting and coordination of service co-design activities in with the trend in the field towards multi-professional development
relation to other processes in the participating organisations. and patient-centredness. Hospital management at the same time
begun to see co-design as a promising approach. Yet, a lot of work
10. Misfocused co-d esign → Finding where was needed to convince the doctors and managers. (6, 16, 19, 22)
co-design truly adds value
Because of the unfamiliarity of the co-design approach, 12. Asynchrony of the development processes →
organisations utilising it often realised only in retrospect that the Coordination and timing of co-design
focus of co-design should have been other than it was. A very Co-design can take place too early or too late to make an impact
broad or vague focus easily led to outcomes that were too generic on the “real world”. Also it seemed that the many development
to provide input useful for actual development. It seems that the streams in organisations rarely were integrated, resulting in gaps
results of projects with a clearly defined and limited focus (such between separate projects and cycles of development. This was
as the Virtual Innovation Project or the Hospital Project) yielded made evident in the School Project, where there was a break
better results. In the Wellbeing Project, the actual needs of the between the visionary research project and the school building
organisation would have been input to help with spatial design or project, which in the end was diluted due to the economic
with the administrative functions in the clinic. Instead, the design situation and political decisions. The research project failed to
students concentrated on the patient’s process. There were many have an impact on the design of the school because it was too late.
elements in the School Project that eroded efficiency. It was felt Moreover, different actors were operating on different time scales.
that the project was just scratching the surface of many areas. The goal of a new school building stretches out so far (5-8 years)
Better focus could have enabled a change of practices. (3, 17) that third sector organisations cannot commit to its development.

A. Pirinen
Also the goal is too far for companies because they want rapid Several interviewees stated that it is a special skill to
outcomes. The citizens’ needs also only extend for the next few be able to utilise the outcomes of design research. Usually a
years. (4, 5, 6, 19) “translation process” is required for the implementation where
Right timing of co-design work in relation to other the most promising results are picked up and translated into the
development projects is crucial if the objective is to implement organisation’s own “language” (see also O’Flynn, 2014). In the
the results. The right moment and place for co-design to make technology firm in the Service Design Project, images and other
an impact needs to be recognised. This is crucial if novelty is findings from project workshops were presented to the virtual tool
to get through and be incorporated into the general stream of project steering group and via them to upper management, after
activities. Wrongly placed co-design can wane to nothing. The which they were transformed into “the language of roadmaps,
more complex the project and the actor network are, the more action points, project budgets, Outlook and Excel”. In this way, the
effort is needed in timing and coordinating the various streams results “swam into” the system. Implementation required further
correctly. Different time scales as well as different amounts of sorting, modification and an iteration of results by managers. (9,
available resources need to be considered. The slow, democratic 11, 16)
processes of urban development need to be matched with the fast
processes of business. It is also important to continuously monitor 15. Reliance of the implementation on a few insiders
the process. (6, 10, 11, 12, 17) → Becoming an agent of co-design
Dissemination of the results of service co-design projects seemed
13. One-off, short-lived development spurts →
to primarily depend on the few individuals who participated to
Continuity beyond singular projects
the project, especially on the persons who were responsible for
The interviews showed that one-off co-design workshops or producing the project material and presenting it to management
short-term projects were more typical than the construction of and other employees. The acceptance and utilisation of co-design
continuous co-design practices. It is difficult to disseminate the were affected by the personal skills, communication style and
results of small experiments to the broader organisation. They do commitment of the individual participants. (6, 7, 8, 9, 13, 15)
not easily become a standard practice or policy. It takes time to Experts participating to co-design events can become
incorporate new things into the everyday life of an organisation distillers of ideas into practice, reflecting the outcomes with
and without that time they are just forgotten. Continuous changes their own professional knowledge and complementing it with
in project organisation also disrupt the continuity of development. their expertise (Levina & Vaast, 2005, and Vaajakallio et al.,
(8, 13, 20, 22) 2013). Two of the participants had become agents of co-design
In order to have a more long-lasting and deep impact, in their own organisation or network. They acted as messengers,
collaborative service development needs to be a continuous making people more responsive for new methods. They were
activity on many fronts and levels. The outcomes of service convincing colleagues, interpreting the organisational culture to
co-design need to be processed further within the organisation researchers and acting as “softening buffers”. After the School
and connected to other types of knowledge. Assigning more Project, the schools had begun to use teachers as trainers for
permanent service developer positions as was done in the hospital disseminating the results. They were familiar with the methods
can enable this. (22) but had “school credibility” unlike external consultants. In this
way, implementation can make use of the knowledge and skills
existing among personnel. An agent with insider knowledge is
Implementation: Making an Impact
more influential than an external facilitator with mere method
The implementation of the results of university-led service co-design expertise. (2, 4, 10, 12, 13, 15, 22)
efforts by service development networks and organisations presents
the fourth theme (barrier-enabler couples 14–16). 16. Systemic barriers to dissemination → Pilots as
seeds of broader transformation
14. Poor ability to utilise the outcomes → Skilful
In large organisations, the outcomes of co-design competed
“translation” of the outcomes
with many other types of knowledge and ideas coming from
The fundamental “difference” between the service co-design different sources that needed to be incorporated into the overall
intervention and the organisations’ regular processes made it development. Such intra-organisational barriers seemed difficult
difficult for the outcomes to be used in any meaningful way. The to overcome. The developer-agents had met resistance when
participants did not always see the value of the results of co-design trying to take the results of co-design further. They needed to
for their own services or products. It was also recognised that the “sell” the novel ideas internally to management and other units
organisations’ ability to select useful ideas from the rich material or sectors. For example, there was resistance towards the user
available and to consider them in the light of their own needs were personas created in one project from the more technical R&D
underdeveloped. It was stressed that the client needs to be able people. (8, 11, 13)
to utilise the outcomes of academic collaboration and that there Gradual transformation of the broader system through
must be added value. Often new ideas, practices and methods pilot projects and good examples building on what exists was
were short-lived in organisations. (9, 10, 19) seen as the most realistic way of implementation (cf. the notion

of incremental change by Gagliardi, 1986, and Junginger & Co-design methods should be effective, well focused and
Sangiorgi, 2009). As put by one participant, “someone changes well prepared and deliver outcomes in a format that is useful for
first and others learn from her one by one”. It was also stated the client organisation. Some methods in the case projects were
that it is easier to co-design among an already existing network. more credible than others. Design probes and customer journey
The implementation of the concept of the extended learning mapping for example proved to be useful in the healthcare sector
environment in the School Project, for instance, was seen as a and visualised user personas in the technology company. Design
stepwise process that demands cultural change, new practices, games and visual material facilitated collaboration and acted as
changes to management and new tools. In the hospital, service sources of inspiration. It was stated that visualisations “carry
co-design would require a shift of attitudes, a turn towards the through thick piles of paper”, make visible key issues and act as
patients and a reconfiguration of the resources. In the technology points of discussion. Level of realism and connection to design
corporation, designerly prototyping with an “eye-candy aspect” solutions in methods were deemed beneficial.
was seen as important part of the internal sales of new ideas. (5,
Facilitation of co-design was recognised as a special area
6, 8, 13, 20, 21, 22, 23)
of expertise. The co-design event can be designed to inspire
experimentation and to shift mindsets. Good preparation and
Methods: Becoming a Practice “owning the method” conquers resistance. The facilitator can
Finally, four barrier-enabler couples (17–20) could be detected that break cliques and encourage participation. Actively participating
relate to the viability of the specific methods used in the service to the situation, seizing the ideas and building the outcome on
co-design interventions. Consideration of them could support the the spot was also deemed beneficial. The facilitator also needs
diffusion of co-design in organisations and its development into a to take flexible roles during the project, alternating between user
sustained practice. orientation, solution orientation and systems thinking. (4, 10, 12,
13, 15, 16, 18, 23)
17. Superimposed methods with weak connection to
implementation → Integration of co-design methods 19. Rigid, strenuous methods → Open and
into project planning flexible methods
The co-design methods in several of the case projects Too rigid and fixed, pre-planned methods and overt use of written
remained rather superimposed, with weak connection to actual material can impinge on free discussion, and on the exchange and
implementation. They were not allowed to interfere with the iteration of ideas in co-design events. Some interviewees criticised
“hard” world of implementation, nor were they capable of doing too much emphasis on process diagrams in the projects using the
that because of their detachment from tangible implementation process simulation method. As further example, the presence of a
design. On the other hand, the designer-facilitators in some designer-facilitator in their table discouraged the laypeople carers
projects felt that their input was reduced to mere illustration with in engaging in the co-design task of ideating a service tray in the
no real impact to the core development project. The potential of City Services Project. The participants should feel comfortable and
design was not fully utilised in the projects. However, several be able to express their opinion regardless of the methods used.
other participants emphasised the value of visualisations in The slowness and work-intensiveness of the methods hindered the
creating a shared understanding. (5, 15)
application of co-design in organisations after the externally funded
Designers should be involved already in the planning stage projects with facilitator resources were over. (9, 14, 15)
for their methods to be influential and incorporated into the whole.
Openness and flexibility of methods would enable their
The methods should be thought as a sequence where all parts
wider adoption. Co-design methods should be adaptable and
support each other and the common goal, and not as separate tasks.
scalable to different situations ranging from fast, small-scale
The methods should be targeted according to the audience and
experiments to long-term, large-scale service development. The
purpose and connected to the existing workflows and tools. (15, 16)
co-design processes led by a university were seen as heavy and
18. Poor leverage of the methods, unconvincing slow. “Light” versions of the methods could be made available
outcomes → Effective, well-focused and as well, such as a fast and easy design probes type application for
well-prepared methods, facilitation and reporting gaining customer insight. (13, 15, 22)
The quality and scope of the outcomes of co-design methods did 20. Reliance of the methods on an external facilitator
not always meet the expected standards. The documentation and → Portable method toolkits and facilitator training
other outcomes from workshops were too generic or distant from
the reality of the participants. Lack of confidence and training also The uniqueness of co-design methods and the reliance of their
hindered the acceptance of the methods. The shift from “talking to application on the design researchers present a barrier for co-design
doing” through the methods was seen as crucial. The limitations to develop into a more widespread practice in organisations.
of workshops in innovation was also pointed out: “Nowadays we Researchers can use more time for planning the methods, for
are focusing so much on workshops and trying to find new ideas facilitation and for compiling the results than a client organisation
and innovations that it is really rare to come up with something usually can. In general, there was poor ability in the organisations
totally new which hasn’t been invented already twice or three to realise co-design due to a lack of experience on the practical
times before.” (13, 23) application of the methods. The principals in the School Project

A. Pirinen
stated that collaboration nowadays is increasingly expected from Conclusion: Towards Impactful
the school but that there are no models or tools available for
realising it. In the multi-national technology corporation, adapting
Co-design for Services
the co-design methods to different cultures was a challenge. (1, The 20 barriers and corresponding enablers of co-design for
10, 11, 12) services elicited from the data (Figure 2) consolidate the findings
To be disseminated, co-design methods would need to work of previous research but also add some detail to the picture. The
also without the design researchers present. Developing portable interviews showed obstacles in cross-organisational collaboration
co-design toolkits and facilitator training could make this possible. and in implementation of project ideas, misuse of co-design
The participants stressed easy availability of the methods without methods, and problems in integrating co-design projects with
the need to hire an external co-design consultant. As a solution, they other projects. The results highlight the importance of well-chosen
suggested facilitator training plus a toolbox for running the methods, methods and professional facilitation as well as the role of “change
including systematic processing tools. In the education sector, there agent” participants as success factors in co-design for services.
was a need for generic ways for facilitating collaboration that could In the light of the study, co-design for services across
be adopted in many schools. The participants were wondering how organisations and disciplines requires the building of trust, the
to make the methods portable so that they could be used by (ever reconciliation of divergent goals and a search for mutual value.
new) teachers lacking excellent technical or drawing skills. (1, 2, 3, The participating organisations’ core purpose and operations,
7, 9, 12, 13, 14, 15, 22) history, design maturity, organisational structure, power hierarchy
Figure 2. The barriers and enablers of co-design for services.

and culture and the responsibilities, skills and interests of the • Service co-design methods should be integrated already in
participants affect how co-design is realised. Its benefits can be the project planning phase and be well focused and effective,
lost through poor management, a lack of resources or incentives, yet open to respond to unexpected situations in real-life
conflicts, a wrong focus or timing, discontinuity, or the inability to contexts. Wider adoption of the methods could be supported
utilise the outcomes. An unfamiliarity with co-design can create by portable method toolkits and training.
resistance and weak methods lead to disappointment. It also The barriers and enablers described in this paper offer
seems that designers are not always capable of articulating the some insights for making the practice of co-design for services
potential of their methods. more viable. As described in this paper, the major challenge in
As a limitation, the study relies on the subjective research-driven service co-design projects was a disconnection
experiences of relatively few persons, many of whom were from “real” development and implementation. However, despite
advocates of co-design in their organisation or were themselves initial doubts, the professionals in city administration, healthcare,
researcher-facilitators in the projects. On the other hand, the education and technology came to value the co-design approach
study can also be considered valuable because it opened up because of its holisticity. It made possible the sharing of
the perspectives of both the clients and those who planned and experiences across boundaries where the users were also given
executed co-design activities. The results also remain on a rather a voice.
practical level. They should be validated further in reflection with
theory. For instance, many of the barriers and enablers could
Acknowledgments
arguably be found in any design project or cross-organisational
collaboration. Their design for specific service aspects should be The author would like to thank the research team in the ATLAS
investigated further. The reliability and validity of the study could project, particularly Anna Salmi, Jung-Joo Lee, Svante Suominen
have benefited from data triangulation and an analysis by more and Sanna Tuononen who planned and conducted the follow-up
than one person. However, the findings were assessed with other interviews. Thanks are also due to the Finnish Funding Agency
researchers in the project and in the light of existing research. for Innovation for funding the work and to Professor Tuuli
How then could designer-facilitators and organisations Mattelmäki for commenting on the manuscript.
move towards more impactful practice of co-design for
services? As a summary of the results, the following factors can References
be highlighted:
1. Axelsson, R., & Axelsson, S. B. (2006). Integration and
• Finding a common ground for co-design requires mutual
collaboration in public health: A conceptual framework.
communication to create trust, facilitation of collaboration,
International Journal of Health Planning and Management,
and making things with others. Providing an informal arena
21(1), 75-88.
for people to come together as equals can support this. To
2. Bailey, S. (2012). Embedding service design, the long and
make an impact, the designer-facilitators should command
the short of it: Developing an organisation’s design capacity
the process confidently and know their target system.
and capability to sustainably deliver services. In Proceedings
• Creating commitment to co-design in organisations and
of the 3rd Conference on Service Design and Innovation.
among individuals can be enabled by management, e.g.
Linköping, Sweden: Linköping University Electronic Press.
through allocation of time, resources and funding for
Retrieved November 4, 2015, from http://www.servdes.org/
co-design activities and recognition of co-design as an
conference-2012-helsinki/
integral part of the operation. Employees should also be
3. Bason, C. (Ed.). (2014). Design for policy. Farnham, UK: Gower.
helped in finding themselves a meaningful role and incentives
to commit to the project. 4. Brown, T. (2009). Change by design: How design thinking
transforms organizations and inspires innovation. New York,
• To enhance the integration of service co-design activities
NY: Harper Collins.
with other development processes, organisations should
find where co-design truly adds value, embed co-design 5. Bruneel, J., D’Este, P., & Salter, A. (2010). Investigating
activity closer with their core operations, put effort into the factors that diminish the barriers to university-industry
the coordination and timing of all development processes, collaboration. Research Policy, 39(7), 858-868.
and seek for ways to ensure the continuity of development 6. Carlile, P. R. (2002). A pragmatic view of knowledge and
beyond one-off projects. boundaries: Boundary objects in new product development.
• For service co-design projects to succeed, their outcomes Organization Science, 13(4), 442-455.
need to be translated to the language and needs of the client 7. Cottam, H., & Leadbeater C. (2004). Health: Co-creating
organisation. In line with previous research, it seems that services (RED paper 01). London, UK: Design Council.
committed individuals acting as “agents of co-design” have 8. Design Commission. (2013). Restarting Britain 2: Design
a key role in implementing the results, bringing the message and public services. Retrieved November 4, 2015, from
further and working for the diffusion of methods in their own http://www.designcouncil.org.uk
organisation or network. Moreover, tangible, designerly pilots 9. Design Driven City. (2015). Retrieved November 4, 2015,
and rapid prototypes can act as vehicles of transformation. from http://www.toimivakaupunki.fi/en/

A. Pirinen
10. Ehn, P. (1988). Work-oriented design of computer artifacts. Palvelumuotoilu saapuu verkostojen kaupunkiin [Service design
Stockholm, Sweden: Arbetslivscentrum. arrives to the city of networks] (pp. 29-51). Helsinki, Finland:
11. Fuad-Luke, A. (2012). Co-designing services in the Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture.
co-futured city. In T. Kuosa & L. Westerlund (Eds.), Service 26. Levina, N., & Vaast, E. (2005). The emergence of
design: On the evolution of design expertise (pp. 101-120). boundary spanning competence in practice: Implications
Lahti, Finland: Lahti University of Applied Sciences. for implementation and use of information systems. MIS
12. Gagliardi, P. (1986). The creation and change of organizational Quarterly, 29(2), 335-363.
cultures: A conceptual framework. Organization Studies, 27. Lusch, R. F., & Vargo, S. L. (2006). Service-dominant logic:
7(2), 117-134. Reactions, reflections and refinements. Marketing Theory,
13. Gray, B. (1989). Collaborating: Finding common ground for 6(3), 281-288.
multiparty problems. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass. 28. Mager, B. (2008). Service design. In M. Erlhoff & T.
14. Hansen, M. T., & Nohria, N. (2004). How to build Marshall (Eds.), Design dictionary: Perspectives on design
collaborative advantage. MIT Sloan Management Review, terminology (pp. 354-357). Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser.
46(1), 22-30. 29. Mattelmäki, T. (2006). Design probes (Doctoral dissertation).
15. Huxham, C. (1996). Collaboration and collaborative Helsinki, Finland: University of Art and Design Helsinki.
advantage. In C. Huxham (Ed.), Creating collaborative 30. Mattelmäki, T., & Sleeswijk Visser, F. (2011). Lost in
advantage (pp. 1-18). London, UK: Sage. co-x: Interpretations of co-design and co-creation. In N.
16. Hyvärinen, J., Lee, J. -J., & Mattelmäki, T. (2015). Fragile Roozenburg, L. -L. Chen, & P. J. Stappers (Eds.), Proceedings
liaisons: Challenges in cross-organizational service networks of the 4th IASDR Conference on Design Research [CD
and the role of design. The Design Journal, 18(2), 249-268. Rom]. Delft, The Netherlands: TU Delft.
17. Junginger, S., & Sangiorgi, D. (2009). Service design and 31. Meroni, A., & Sangiorgi, D. (Eds.). (2011). Design for
organisational change: Bridging the gap between rigour and services. Farnham, UK: Gower.
relevance. In Proceedings of the 3rd IASDR Conference on
32. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data
Design and Research (4339-4348). Seoul, South Korea:
analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand
Korean Society of Design Science. Retrieved November 4,
Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
2015, from http://www.iasdr2009.or.kr
33. Mintzberg, Y., & Mintzberg, H. (1988). Strategy making as
18. Junginger, S. (2013). Design and innovation in the
craft. In K. Urabe, J. Child, & T. Kagono (Eds.), Innovation
public sector: Matters of design in policy-making and
and management: International comparisons (pp. 167-196).
policy-implementation. In Proceedings of the 10th European
New York, NY: Walter de Gruyter.
Academy of Design Conference. Retrieved November 4,
2015, from http://ojs.unbc.ca/index.php/design/article/ 34. O’Flynn, J. (2014). Crossing boundaries: The fundamental
view/542/475 questions in public management and policy. In J. O’Flynn,
D. Blackman, & J. Halligan (Eds.), Crossing boundaries in
19. Junginger, S. (2014). Design legacies: Why service
public management and policy: The international experience
designers are not able to embed design in the organization.
(pp. 11-44). London, UK: Routledge.
In Proceedings of the 4th Conference on Service Design
and Service Innovation (pp. 164-172). Lancaster, UK: 35. Robbins, S. P. (1991). Organizational behavior: Concepts,
Lancaster University. controversies, and applications (5th ed.). London, UK:
20. Kanter, R. M. (1994). Collaborative advantage: The art of Prentice-Hall International.
alliances. Harvard Business Review, 72(4), 96-108. 36. Sanders, E. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the
21. Keinonen, T., Vaajakallio, K., & Honkonen, J. (Eds.). (2013). new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5-18.
Designing for wellbeing. Helsinki, Finland: Aalto University 37. Sangiorgi, D. (2011). Transformative services and
School of Arts, Design and Architecture. transformation design. International Journal of Design, 5(2),
22. Kimbell, L. (2009). The turn to service design. In G. Julier & 29-40.
L. Moor (Eds.), Design and creativity: Policy, management 38. Schein, E. H. (1985). Organizational culture and leadership.
and practice (pp. 157-173). Oxford, UK: Berg Publishers. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Publishers.
23. Kleinsmann, M., Valkenburg, R., & Buijs, J. (2007). Why 39. Seikkula, J., Arnkil, T., & Eriksson, E. (2003). Postmodern
do(n’t) actors in collaborative design understand each society and social networks: Open and anticipation dialogues
other? An empirical study towards a better understanding of in network meetings. Family Process, 42(2), 185-203.
collaborative design. CoDesign, 3(1), 59-73. 40. Star, S. L., & Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional
24. Kleinsmann, M., & Valkenburg, R. (2008). Barriers and ecology, ‘translations’ and boundary objects: Amateurs and
enablers for creating shared understanding in co-design professionals in Berkeley’s museum of vertebrate zoology.
projects. Design Studies, 29(4), 369-386. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420.
25. Kurronen, J. (2014). Muotoilu osana julkisen sektorin 41. Steen, M., Manschot, M., & De Koning, N. (2011). Benefits
innovointia [Design as part of the innovation system in of co-design in service design projects. International Journal
the public sector]. In A. Jyrämä & T. Mattelmäki (Eds.), of Design, 5(2), 53-60.

42. Stickdorn, M., & Schneider, J. (Eds.). (2010). This is service 46. Vaajakallio, K., Lee, J. -J., Kronqvist, J., & Mattelmäki, T.
design thinking: Basics – tools – cases. Amsterdam, the (2013, July 2). Service co-design with the public sector:
Netherland: BIS Publishers. Challenges and opportunities in a healthcare context. Paper
43. Suominen, S., & Pöyry-Lassila, P. (2013). Effectiveness of presented at the 7th Conference of Include Asia. Retrieved
co-design intervention: Adopting service co-development October 30, 2015, from http://include13.kinetixevents.co.uk/
thinking. In R. Smeds & O. Irrmann (Eds.), Proceedings of rca/rca2013/paper_final/F1113_4459.PDF
the Conference on Co-design in Innovation (pp. 697-708). 47. Widmark, C., Sandahl, C., Piuva, K., & Bergman, D. (2011).
Espoo, Finland: Aalto University, School of Science. Barriers to collaboration between health care, social services
44. Till, J. (2005). The negotiation of hope. In P. Blundell-Jones, and schools. International Journal of Integrated Care, 11, e124.
D. Petrescu, & J. Till (Eds), Architecture and participation
(pp. 23-41). London, UK: Spon Press.
45. Vaajakallio, K. (2012). Design games as a tool, a mindset
and a structure (Doctoral Dissertation). Helsinki, Finland:
Aalto University School of Arts, Design and Architecture.

Pirinen, Antti: The Barriers and Enablers of Co-Design For Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pirinen, Antti: The Barriers and Enablers of Co-Design For Services

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

Pirinen, Antti: The Barriers and Enablers of Co-Design For Services

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

This is an electronic reprint of the original article.

Please cite the original version:

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

The Barriers and Enablers of Co-design for Services

Keywords – Co-design, Collaboration, Design for Services, Organisational Change.

Introduction Vaajakallio, & Honkonen, 2013). Thus, service design and

www.ijdesign.org 27 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 28 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

Co-design for Services in 1988). The representations by designers (personas, scenarios,

www.ijdesign.org 29 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

Table 1. Comparison of the case projects.

School Virtual innov. Service design City services Wellbeing Hospital

www.ijdesign.org 30 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 31 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

Table 2. The interviewees.

ID Project Occupation Organisation

1 School Project Principal Comprehensive School, Lower Stage

2 School Project Principal Comprehensive School

3 School Project Principal Comprehensive School

4 School Project Communications Manager City, Education and Cultural Services

5 School Project Administration Manager City, Education and Cultural Services

6 School Project Development Director City, Education and Cultural Services

7 School Project Lecturer Comprehensive School, Upper Stage

8 School Project Special Education Teacher Comprehensive School, Upper Stage

9 Virtual Innovation Project Research Director Technology Corporation

10 Virtual Innovation Project Senior Usability Specialist Technology Corporation

11 Virtual Innovation Project Development Director Technology Corporation

13 Service Design Project Project Manager Technology Corporation

14 City Services Project Special Advisor City, Economic Development

15 City Services Project Doctoral Candidate in Design University

16 City Services Project MA Student in Design University

17 Wellbeing Project Chief Physician Psychiatric Clinic

18 Wellbeing Project MA Student in Design University

19 Hospital Project Orthopediatrician and Traumatologist University Hospital

20 Hospital Project Service Planner University Hospital

21 Hospital Project Nurse University Hospital

22 Hospital Project Customer Services Development Manager University Hospital

23 Hospital Project Doctoral Candidate in Design University

www.ijdesign.org 32 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 33 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 34 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 35 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 36 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 37 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 38 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

Figure 2. The barriers and enablers of co-design for services.

www.ijdesign.org 39 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 40 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 41 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

www.ijdesign.org 42 International Journal of Design Vol. 10 No. 3 2016

You might also like