Co-Creation in Design Labs

Reflections: How not to turn stakeholder gathering & consultations into a workshop? A few months ago, the team at Project Potential conceptualized a series of stakeholder consultations in key cities inviting funders, HNIs, partner NGOs and strategic collaborators. We called it 'Friends of Project Potential' and found generous hosts for the series. We were first hosted by Quest Learning Observatory (QLO) in Bangalore and then followed by Dasra in Mumbai. (Looking at you New Delhi!) By the end of the recent gathering in Mumbai, I started writing down my reflections on how do we make sure stakeholder consultations don't become just another workshop. Here is what I am beginning to experiment with and learn from: 1) Clearly define 'why are we doing what we are doing?' - the answers could range from - "to invite stakeholder feedback, to create an ideation space on a problem statement or even a celebration space with those who support us". Then decide on the tone, physical setting, agenda, messaging and contributors/collaborators for that day and finally, define one success metric - how will we know we achieved what we set out for? 2) Define what is the role of the people in the room - who are perhaps putting aside a precious Saturday morning or a rare Friday evening - They are not coming for an upskilling process, so what are they being invited for. Once you have defined this - consult your internal organizing team and identify who is the right fit. Communicate this intent clearly to stakeholders being invited. Including your own team 3) As the host organization, play the role of the "conductor of an orchestra" - everyone is focused on the music (the content/ experience). You are present but not the dominant voice - design not just for peer interaction but co creation, 'sense making' and acquire new contacts/ connections for possible collaborations in the future. 4) Create something together - Presentations are great for sharing information, but invest time in designing an immersive experience - invite the gathering to create something together - a framework, a timeline, a journey, a design or even a story 5) Make space for your stakeholders to lead the space - a chance to tell their story, share their experiences and insights as an organization or even co-lead a part of that gathering. 6)Create an element of surprise - In facilitation it's called creating disequilibrium. For example, lead with a simulation or even a seemingly fictional case study - and then position the real-life characters and stakeholders into the room. There are many ways of doing this, ping me if you want to know how. 7) Finally, make time as a team to reflect on what went well and what could be better.....and repeat. It gets better each time. I promise! Is there something else you would do? With Project Potential Team - Zubin Sharma Kriti Gupta Abodh Kumar Tonmoy Talukdar and Alex Arockiasamy

Designers + AI > Designers vs AI I love this: Google DeepMind partnered with Ross Lovegrove LTD’s studio to co-create a chair from first sketch to a 3D-printed, metal prototype. Not “AI replacing designers.” Designers with AI, producing something they couldn’t have reached alone. What stood out to me: - Style, distilled. The team fine-tuned an image model on Ross’s own sketches so the AI learned his organic, biomorphic language: the curves, the structural logic, the patterns. - Language, not just pixels. They built a shared vocabulary to steer outputs. Even avoided the word “chair” to push beyond clichés and explore form/function more freely. - Dialogue, not one-shot prompts. Human-led iteration: observe how the model reacts to terms, refine prompts, nudge the search space. Then use Gemini to ideate materials and perspectives, thereby closing the loop from concept to fabrication. The outcome? A physical chair that feels like a true extension of the studio’s vision. Authentic yet expanded by the model’s generative reach. In my opinion this is the real story of creative AI in 2025: curation + vocabulary + iterative co-design. When experts use their taste and constraints within this system, you get acceleration without losing authorship. Where else should we apply this “designer-with-AI” pattern? Architecture, fashion, product packaging, automotive interiors? What’s your take? 👇

Want to build more engaging, impactful, and equitable assessments? Here's why co-creating 𝙬𝙞𝙩𝙝 users is advantageous: ▶️ 𝗜𝗻𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗹𝗲𝘃𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲: When those who will be assessed are involved in the design process, the resulting assessments are more likely to align with real-world needs and objectives. This ensures that the assessments are meaningful and relevant to the evaluated individuals. ▶️ 𝗥𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗕𝗶𝗮𝘀: Co-creation fosters diverse perspectives, helping to identify and mitigate potential biases that might unintentionally disadvantage certain groups. ▶️ 𝗘𝗻𝗵𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗱 𝗘𝗻𝗴𝗮𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁: When individuals feel a sense of ownership over the assessment process, they are more likely to be engaged and motivated to participate. This can lead to increased buy-in and a greater sense of purpose in the assessment process. ▶️ 𝗔𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁𝘀: Co-created assessments often yield more actionable data. By involving stakeholders in the design process, you can ensure that the data collected can be used effectively to inform improvements in decision-making. By embracing co-creation, we can move beyond traditional, top-down assessments and build more effective, equitable, and meaningful evaluation experiences. For a great application highlighting the benefits of co-designing a survey with Parkinson's patients, check out this paper by Thomas Morel, Karlin Schroeder, Sophie Cleanthous, PhD, CPsychol, Geraldine Blavat, and colleagues: https://lnkd.in/gug3q-jv ---- Disclaimer: The opinions and views expressed in this post are my own and do not necessarily represent the official position of the Center for Measurement Justice.

In my last post I shared how I think about Ideation in a Consumer Centric Innovation Incubator, building a listening system that combined digital signals, consumption trends and global flavor data. But insight without action is just research. Prototyping is where you find out whether what you heard was real. It is also where most companies revert to old habits and start designing for consumers instead of with them. Prototyping sounds like a tech word. It isn't. In consumer goods it simply means getting something real in front of a real consumer before you fall in love with your own idea. A recipe. A texture. A package. Anything that can be experienced before it is manufactured at scale. Most prototyping processes are designed to validate what the company already believes. The best ones are designed to challenge it. Consumers and customers need to be in the room early, not to test finished concepts, but to shape them. And one decision changes everything: include consumers of your competitors, not just your own. That is where the bias that quietly corrupts most innovation processes gets removed. The infrastructure has to match the ambition. An R&D environment built for genuine consumer engagement looks different from a traditional lab. It includes spaces designed for co-creation, sensory testing capabilities that generate real time outcomes, and a fully digitalized process that removes gut feel and internal advocacy from the equation. Just consumer response, captured and processed on the spot. When prototyping is done this way, three things happen simultaneously. Products get sharper and faster. Concepts that would have been launched don't survive the room, and that is the point. Killing a bad idea in a co-creation session costs almost nothing. Killing it after launch costs everything. I will share more about Crafting in my next post. Getting consumers into the prototyping room changes what you build. Getting them into the crafting process changes how fast you improve it. That is where the model really starts to accelerate.

Designing digital tools for complex domains like healthcare isn’t about reinventing UX; it’s about adapting it. Traditional design methods still work, but they need to be recalibrated for environments where workflows are nonlinear, decisions are high-stakes, and users are domain experts. From shadowing clinicians to co-creating with medical directors, 𝘴𝘶𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘩𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯 𝘶𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬, 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘳. The takeaway? If your #EHR, #CDS, or analytics platform feels like it was designed in a vacuum, it probably was. Real-world constraints, regulatory nuance, and institutional logic aren’t barriers; they’re the design brief. Want usable, trusted tools? Start by embedding UX into the clinical reality, not the other way around. Executive pearls: ✅ 𝗨𝗻𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗺𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝘄𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗳𝗹𝗼𝘄: observe clinicians in context, not just in usability labs. 🧠 𝗖𝗼-𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗲𝘅𝗽𝗲𝗿𝘁𝘀: bring physicians and nurses into design sessions early and often. 🧪 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝘁𝗼𝘁𝘆𝗽𝗲 𝘀𝗰𝗿𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗹𝘆: low-fidelity mockups can reveal more than polished demos. 🔍 𝗧𝗲𝘀𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗷𝘂𝘀𝘁 𝗰𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗸𝘀: evaluate how users think, not just what they do.

New post in my Building WITH the Public series: This spring, I partnered with high school artists from the High School of Art and Design to co-develop the early visual identity for MuseKat. At the time, my "company" was barely more than a few weeks old, but Amanda Deebrah and Molly Snyder-Fink invited me to collaborate with the Design Agency student interns for an entire semester. What started as a loose sketch of a meerkat sidekick turned into a full-blown creative process: Logo concepts, character cards, merch ideas, and even explorations into AI-native wearables for kids. This creativity ultimately inspired a lot more powerful creative design concepts in my now-logo and brand. Notably, while this wasn’t an internship about AI, it was impossible to ignore my prolific use of AI in the creation and iterative process of building out MuseKat. We asked tough questions: – Can AI be an ethical design partner? – What’s the line between inspiration and iteration? – How do we prepare young artists for a world where the tools evolve faster than the rules? I’m proud to share this case study of our messy, thoughtful, and hopeful collaboration. After all, if we want AI to support human creativity, we need to start by trusting the next generation to lead us there. Read the full post here: https://lnkd.in/evTFej9f #learning #codesign #collaboration #AI #design #creativity #education #technology -- Thank you to Sheen, Iggy, Neil, Titus, Amina, Claire, Dariana, Karen, Mariami, Ulla, Lucas, Michel, Leila, Penelope, Reagan, Hailey, Mark, Asher, Zheng, and Jordan, our fearless agency leader, for all of your creative collaborative energy. You were all right, you really were "in it with me" for these past few months. (And also to Amanda Deebrah, Molly Snyder-Fink, and principal Maximillian Re-Sugiura for cultivating such a fun culture of learning at this school!) -- P.S. If you work with students who love project-based learning and are open-minded about the intersection of creativity and AI and are interested in being a design partner for phase two, let's talk!

Co-creation is a democratic process that fosters a collaborative approach, where all involved (or identified co-leads) share insights, work, and decision-making, with no single person overruling another. This approach, built around shared decision-making, has been used most commonly in research spaces and is becoming the recommended standard by the lived-living experiences (LLE) communities across fields for all work meant to serve them. What this means is that persons with LLE don’t just want to access or use resources or products/content, we also want to help create, deliver, drive, evaluate, and refine the work that serves us. We can and should be involved in all aspects of the work. By leaving us out, you lose the most vital perspectives. Will your effort be well-received? Will it be ignored? Will it reach the communities you hope it will? Is it missing an element that makes it functionally realistic? Will it work in one community or space, but not others? Our insights help you avoid the pitfalls of failed or limited outcomes. We want the work to accomplish what is needed so that it will serve us and people like us. Why wouldn’t you want to strengthen your efforts before they ever go out the proverbial door? Co-creation not only makes things better 💝 but also deepens relationships and facilitates connectedness. 🫂 Co-creation isn’t a suggestion because we feel it is needed; we want it because we know it is. If you aren’t co-creating with us, not only is your work missing out, but so are you. Let me know what questions you have about getting started or revisiting how you currently operate in the comments. Citation/Adapted Definition Source “Co-creation is increasingly thought of as a methodology to make research and service design more inclusive, democratic, and diverse [8, 14], and aspires to create a collaboration that recognizes shared insights, works equitably, and shares power [15].” “Co-creation is a broader methodology that emphasizes collective creativity and collaboration [8], this study focuses on the methods used within co-creation, which are defined by Agnello et al. is, “co-creation methods encompass a diverse range of tools, activities, approaches, and techniques strategically employed across the entirety of the co-creation process. These methods serve various purposes, including but not limited to data collection, facilitation, recruitment, reflection, data analysis, and dissemination, allowing for flexibility in achieving diverse objectives” [9].” Agnello, D.M., Anand-Kumar, V., An, Q. et al. Co-creation methods for public health research — characteristics, benefits, and challenges: a Health CASCADE scoping review. BMC Med Res Methodol 25, 60 (2025). https://lnkd.in/gbXn_QEX

The 𝐏𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐑𝐨𝐨𝐦 𝐨𝐟 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐅𝐮𝐭𝐮𝐫𝐞 (𝐏𝐑𝐨𝐅) teaching case shows how a large healthcare consortium and a small group of manufacturers collaborated to rethink innovation in a highly regulated sector. At its core, the case demonstrates how PRoF turned the interaction between two very different communities into its main innovation engine. The large consortium represents the healthcare user community: nurses, doctors, caregivers, patients, and hospital managers who express the lived reality of care. Their contribution is experiential and value-based. Through structured “brainwave sessions,” they surface latent needs and convert them into broad keywords such as comfort, privacy, dignity, or anti-loneliness. These keywords form a shared language that avoids technical jargon and allows hundreds of users with diverse perspectives to converge around common priorities. The small consortium consists of manufacturers, architects, and designers who have the capabilities to transform these user insights into concrete room concepts. Their commercial goals are kept strictly outside the creative process, allowing trust to grow between the groups. Once the user community defines the keywords, the producer community develops prototypes, after which the large consortium returns to evaluate and refine them. This modular sequencing keeps tensions low, ensures rapid progress, and prevents commercial logic from dominating user needs. The interaction between these two communities solves a longstanding problem in healthcare innovation: suppliers often misunderstand user needs, while users lack the means to innovate. PRoF bridges this gap by letting users drive ideation and letting producers translate that insight into solutions. What emerges is a genuinely user-oriented innovation ecosystem in which neither community could succeed alone, but together they generate concepts that reshape expectations of care design. You can find the case study at HBSP: https://lnkd.in/e6nxTFM7 #UserCentricInnovation #Collaboration #OpenInnovation #CrossCommunityCollaboration #HealthcareEcosystems #CoCreation #Ideation

The classroom went silent when Fernanda wheeled to the front. She'd been my co-facilitator for Design the Future, the person who pushed me to completely reimagine how we approach human-centered design. For 15 years, she'd wrestled with the same exhausting problem every single night. Her electric wheelchair needed charging. But the socket placement meant diving underneath it, contorting her body, spending 45 minutes trying to connect a charging cord in the dark. One wrong angle? She'd wake up with a dead battery. Trapped in her room until someone could help. Thousands of engineers had the expertise to solve this. Nobody asked her about it. Then I brought a group of high school students into the room. Not to design FOR people with disabilities. To design WITH them. "Do you really think teenagers can handle something this technical?" people asked me. My answer: "They're the perfect people for this. They haven't been taught yet that some problems are supposed to stay unsolved." Six days into the program, everything shifted. Fernanda demonstrated the charging adapter those students co-created with her. She reached down. Connected the charger. 20 seconds. Perfect fit every time. The device didn't just work, it gave her back something she'd been denied for 15 years: Control over her own independence. Before she passed away, Fernanda transformed how I think about design entirely. She showed me that proximity matters more than credentials. That lived experience is expertise. That the best solutions come from collaboration, not charity. The framework those students proved works: Start with the person, not the problem → Fernanda wasn't a case study → She was in the room for every prototype iteration → Her lived experience guided every decision Co-create, don't prescribe → Students listened more than they talked → They tested assumptions constantly → They built what she said she needed, not what they thought she needed Measure what actually matters → Did her daily life improve? → Not: How innovative was the solution? → Not: How many awards did we win? Those students? Several are now studying engineering and accessibility design. One started her own consulting firm focused on disability innovation. And Fernanda spent her remaining years with more autonomy than she'd had in over a decade. Here's what I know you already understand deep in your gut: The people living the problem know things that no amount of research can teach you. Yet most nonprofits still build programs in conference rooms, then act surprised when the communities they're trying to serve don't engage. What would transform in your organization if the next program you launched began with this conversation: "Tell me what you're actually experiencing." Not: "Here's what our data says you need."

Collaboration & co-creation are not the same thing.  Collaboration means working with others - who often have their own goals & agendas. These goals have to be matched & if they're not, one person’s gain can be another person’s loss.  Co-creation is about jointly creating something new with input from everyone involved. If we want to do things differently in future, collaboration isn't enough. People need to be near the creation process (co-creation) to work in creative ways. Research from Google shows that to co-create we need to: - have a shared vision - think in questions instead of problems & solutions, - work in ways that level the playing field so the loudest voices don’t get the most attention, - create psychological safety for people to open up - offer good guidance/coaching to facilitate the process in a way that manifests the values of co-creation - make stuff & not just talk: https://lnkd.in/gA2sB4Z9. By Dennis Hambeukers