Search results

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how vulnerable consumers can be involved in transformative service design and how this approach may enhance the design of such services. The study also analyzes how co-design with vulnerable consumers differs from existing user involvement processes with the purpose of developing a co-design framework.

A case study approach was employed, with six high schools in Australia identified as sites to conduct co-design sessions for a school-based alcohol education program. Adolescents were invited to review and (re)design an existing alcohol education program.

The study indicates that co-design with vulnerable consumers cannot be approached in the same way as conventional user involvement processes. Based on the insights generated from six co-design sessions as well as the examination of user involvement and co-design literature, the authors propose a six-step co-design framework. The six steps comprise resourcing, planning, recruiting, sensitizing, facilitation and evaluation.

The co-design framework illustrates important differences to conventional user involvement processes. However, the generalizability of the research findings is limited to a specific study setting and a narrowly defined sample. Future research in a different setting is needed to further validate the presented findings.

For service design practice, this study provides guidelines on how co-design activities with vulnerable consumers can be effectively resourced, planned, recruited, sensitized, facilitated and evaluated. The framework outlines how co-design may be applied so that vulnerable consumers can become empowered participants during the design process.

This research contributes to the knowledge in transformative service research – a priority in service research – and service design by extending the boundaries of our understanding of processes and tools for the involvement of vulnerable consumers in transformative service design.

The purpose of this paper is to provide an overview of consumer and community engagement in health service planning, quality improvement and programme evaluation in Australia, and key components and importance of a strong suite of tools for achieving effective outcomes.

This paper is a non-systematic review of Australian national, state and territory websites in relation to policy commitment to consumer engagement, best practice framework for consumer engagement and recent project example.

Consumer engagement is a recognised component of the Australian health system. It is reflected in the national and state health policy and is a mandatory requirement of hospital accreditation. The application of co-design principles is gaining increasing popularity in health service planning and programme evaluation. Co-design is an important enabler of patient/community-centred service planning and evaluation; however, on its own it may lead to poorer outcomes. Co-design must occur within a broader systemic framework.

The research identifies a conceptual framework, approaches and tools of value to health service management and planners.

Consumer and community engagements are critical to the development of consumer-centric services. However, this should complement and add value to, not divert attention away from established principles of service planning, continuous quality improvement and programme evaluation. To do so may result in poorer quality health and well-being outcomes, reduced efficiency and ultimately reduced consumer and community satisfaction with services. This paper examines consumer and community engagement within the broader planning and quality improvement framework and practical implications for keeping planning, research and evaluation on track.

The purpose of this paper conducts a co-design framework, thanks to different kinds of interviews with expert pilots in different space contexts for each stage of the technical development of the system.

To speak about the question of “spaces” and especially spaces in the design process, this paper is focussed on the transdisciplinary design research for commercial airline pilots. This design research combined a “Human-Centred Design” approach (Boy, 2015) with an occupational psychology, including a “Clinic of Activity” perspective (Kloëtzer et al., 2016). It integrates experts within the research process to design a new technological tool for indicating weather conditions in flight (Boulnois, 2018).

This study explains how the crossed self-confrontation interview under special space conditions allows dialogue to take place between the designers and the pilots for imagining the future workplace by using an emergent workspace.

The physical, psychological and social “space” conditions were worked on throughout the design process – including during the work analysis and design testing phases – and were revisited.

In this way, the occupational psychologist organised the framework for dialogue about the present situation and future workspaces, to anticipate changes in work organisation, enhance inter-professional collaboration and, finally, increase health and safety benefits for pilots, and potentially other workers, at the same time.

This study aims to address the existing gap in co-design frameworks by introducing the EMPOWER framework, a strength-based co-design methodological approach specifically designed to tackle the key empowerment challenges associated with co-designing alongside individuals experiencing vulnerability. The purpose of this study is to provide a set of easy-to-remember empowering guidelines to enhance the co-design process.

EMPOWER is based on lessons from the field, through five years of working with older adults.

The framework includes seven guidelines to overcome common challenges in co-design research. The acronym EMPOWER refers to guidelines for extending, multiplying, publicising, outsourcing, widening, enabling and reflecting on co-design research.

Although extendable to other experiences of vulnerability, the examples provided focus on the experiences of ageing consumers.

EMPOWER has direct relevance to practitioners wishing not only to work with consumers experiencing vulnerabilities but also to empower these consumers through purposeful research actions.

Although drawing on co-design research with older adults, these guidelines can be applied to empower other groups experiencing vulnerability.

There is a relative lack of guidelines on how to strengthen the co-design process in a way that empowers consumers experiencing vulnerability. To address this, this paper offers a framework and some grounded examples contributing to the current knowledge of co-design in marketing.

Recognising current, significant rates of youth sexual violence and abuse (YSVA) and the need for more comprehensive prevention approaches to combat this social issue, new approaches are required to ensure that agency is given to the people who are most affected and who know their lives the best. This paper aims to report a youth-led (Young Voices United [YVU] Committee) participatory design approach aimed at delivering the highest level of engagement to understand what people agree is needed to reduce YSVA in their own communities.

The seven-step co-design (Trischler et al., 2019) process was implemented following ethical clearance. Over five months, 13 group co-design sessions involving 102 young people aged 12–25 years, 17 parents/caregivers (including young mums) and 9 teacher/guidance officers were conducted. Purposive sampling was undertaken to ensure that young people who had previously experienced YSVA or were most at risk of experiencing YSVA were overrepresented. Convenience sampling was used to gain wider community involvement in co-design. Four sessions were facilitated by YVU members, who were aged between 12 and 25 years, and more than 66 people helped the design team. Inductive thematic analysis identified emergent themes across completed co-design sessions.

New ideas and solutions to prevent YSVA can be identified by young people who have previously experienced violence, carers, other young people and community members. A core finding in this study is the need for positive relationship role models and an enhanced understanding of consent. Education and training, a community promotional campaign, sector involvement, capacity-building and consideration of the unique needs of different target audiences were key ideas emerging from youth-led co-design. The YVU Committee provided recommendations for resource prioritisation.

This youth-led co-design process empowered the community. Project stakeholders have since formed partnerships won funding and used that funding to co-design and trial a new programme aiming to provide a safe haven for young people at risk of YSVA. The pilot programme delivers a safe and supportive environment for young people delivered at a time when it is needed most. Other geographical areas are now seeking to replicate the programme. The co-design processes and tools detailed in this study can be adapted to the design of programmes for those already engaged with the youth justice system and should be considered as part of a public health approach to effectively prevent and respond to YSVA and other youth crimes.

This paper advances understanding, providing a practical approach that ensures youth views are given weight [audience and influence described in Lundy’s (2007) participatory framework]. This paper explains how the YVU Committee, established at the commencement of the project, oversaw the community co-design effort, which followed Trischler et al.’s (2019) seven-step co-design process. Ideas were generated, and consensus views were consolidated, delivering the highest level of engagement according to Willmott et al.’s (2022) methodology, agent of change, training and engagement taxonomy. The participatory design method led to high levels of community engagement, and the success of the project is attributed to the establishment of the YVU Committee and stakeholder support.

This paper aims to investigate in a transformative service research (TSR) context how users can be involved through co-design and what contributions they can make during this process.

A six-step co-design process was used to plan and facilitate two co-design sessions that involved a total of 24 participants. The collected data include field notes, transcripts from group discussions, recordings of idea presentations and the evaluation of ideas.

A recruitment strategy that uses strong networks and sensitizes users through generating awareness of the underlying issue can prevent the waste of valuable resources. During the facilitation stage, experts need to find the fine line between close guidance and giving voice to the users. User-generated ideas set the starting point for new value propositions that more effectively support users in their value creation processes.

The findings are limited to one specific sample and design task. Future research is required that investigates the application of co-design to other TSR contexts.

In TSR, organizations will need to follow a different co-design approach owing to the sensitive nature of the design task and/or users that are not driven by innovation-related motivations. Organizations should tap into their networks to raise awareness and recruit suitable participants. To capture users’ unique insights and foster the collective creativity, facilitation should focus on enabling participants through the use of design tools and team management.

The study contributes new insights into requirements, challenges and benefits of applying co-design to TSR contexts. The study shows that ordinary users, if empowered, can give important insights into the design of new value propositions.

This research describes and evaluates the co-creation of a programme called “A Healthy Choice”. Underpinned by design thinking (DT), this study aims to improve the healthfulness of food choices in supermarkets among consumers to promote their well-being.

The research features two studies. Study 1 included five co-design workshops with consumers and staff (n = 32) to develop a consumer-centred programme. The findings supported the design and implementation of a programme evaluated in Study 2 (an ecological trial). The programme modified a supermarket environment to increase the prominence of healthier products (shelf-talkers and no discount), ran positive food experiences (cooking and label reading workshops) and was supported by a community-wide information campaign in social and local print media.

A total of 15 new strategies were developed by consumers and staff to support health and well-being in supermarkets. Feasibility discussions and staff voting contributed to the development and storewide implementation of the programme. Evaluation showed that the programme was effective in increasing consumer knowledge of healthier food choices (measured via public survey). Sales analysis showed mixed results; sales increased for promoted products in some categories, but there was no effect in others.

Given the real-world setting in which this programme and its evaluation were conducted, there were several innate limitations. The co-design process generated many more ideas than could be implemented, thus creating a healthy “pipe line” for the next iterations of the programme.

The key contribution of this work to supermarket intervention literature is the recommendation to change the paradigm of engagement between the key stakeholders who are typically involved in supermarket programs. Using the co-design and DT frameworks, the authors offer an example of stakeholders working together in close partnership to co-design and collaboratively implement a programme that promotes healthier choices.

This project contributes to the emerging body of empirical work using DT principles in the area of healthy food choices in supermarkets. A rigorously designed evaluation of a co-designed supermarket programme contributes to scholarly evidence on food well-being programs in supermarkets.

This paper discusses how service design can be used to activate a transition of textile artisan communities towards a sustainable future.

Two participatory case studies were undertaken with textile artisans in the UK and South Africa. These led to the development of an original methodological framework for “crafting situated services” – services designed to be meaningful to the local communities within which they are embedded. An evaluation study assessed the originality of the framework, its relevance for tackling real-world problems, its extensibility and the rigour of the research process.

The framework brings together a variety of roles, methods and tools that designers can adopt in order to enter communities, make sense of sustainable futures, facilitate the co-design of situated services and activate legacies within communities. Building on emerging anthropological approaches, the framework makes a bridge between service management and service design for social innovation, advancing the field towards design for social entrepreneurship.

Arguing against the idea of the designer “parachuting” into communities to create services regardless of the local context, the concept of “situated services” is proposed in this paper, alongside a process for “crafting” meaningful social innovations. This requires the service designer to adopt a more situated and embedded approach to designing with communities in order to align with their needs and aspirations, interweave places, time, people and practices within the process, and co-design contextually better services.

Participatory design involves users and other key stakeholders in processes that aim to ensure solutions generated meet their needs. This paper compares the processes and outcomes of two participatory design approaches (design thinking and co-design) to examine their utility in co-creating innovative service solutions for reducing household energy demand.

Design thinking and co-design were implemented in two independent convenience samples of household energy users in Queensland, Australia. Workshops were conducted online using Zoom and Padlet technology. Informed by the capability-practice-ability (CPA) portfolio, a critical analysis based on the research team's experiences with implementing the two participatory design approaches is presented.

The key distinguishing features that set design thinking apart from co-design is extent of user involvement, solution diversity and resource requirements. With a shorter duration and less intensive user involvement, co-design offers a more resource efficient means of solution generation. In contrast, design thinking expands the solution space by allowing for human-centred problem framing and in so doing gives rise to greater diversity in solutions generated.

Mapping the six constellations of service design outlined in the CPA portfolio to the research team's experiences implementing two different participatory design approaches within the same context reconciles theoretical understanding of how capabilities, practices and abilities may differ or converge in an applied setting.

Understanding the benefits and expected outcomes across the two participatory design approaches will guide practitioners and funding agencies in the selection of an appropriate method to achieve desired outcomes.

This paper compares two forms of participatory design (design thinking and co-design) for service innovation in the context of household energy demand offering theoretical and practical insights into the utility of each as categorised within the CPA portfolio.