co-design Archives | Max Hardy Consulting

What is your approach to consulting? And… which one best works for co-designing solutions with the community?

06/07/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

I’ve been consulting for 23 years, and I think I’ve settled on the consulting approach that works for me. When I say ‘approach’ what I mean is how we work with our clients. I’ve reduced it, somewhat simplistically, to three types of approaches.

The first I would term as ‘the contractor’ approach. It is where you do anything to try to please your client. You do as you are told. You jump through hoops in the hope of winning their approval.

I remember one of my first consulting jobs. I was in my mid-thirties, keen to win the approval of my client, and prove myself to the consulting firm who took a chance with me. It was understandable given my age and lack of experience.

One of the interesting things I learned from this approach is how unsettling it was for the client’s project manager. She was very anxious about this controversial infrastructure project. The more I tried to follow her ideas the more anxious she became. The less I trusted my instincts and the less I tried to negotiate an approach, the more in control she should have felt, but I was wrong. It was only in retrospect that her anxiety was due to me not taking a stronger stand, leading her to feel that I couldn’t give her the help she really needed. Having shared this story a few times I know this is not an uncommon experience.

Behaving as a contractor has some drawbacks; one being that is deprives my client what I have to offer. It can make for a harmonious arrangement if my client believes they have all the answers, and they just need someone to carry out their plans. For complex projects (in the Cynefin sense), no one really has the answer. It’s about trying things, exploring and adapting. Behaving as a contractor may not be the best way to help with complex and controversial projects, in my experience.

Now for the second approach. I’m Struggling for a name for it, but let’s call it the uber-expert approach. This is the approach where the consultant basically tells the client to get out of the way, and to let them ‘run the show’. There’s an underlying belief the client needs help, actually needs rescuing. It works well for consultants who have their favoured methods, and recipe for success. All projects are best fitted into their formula. It means there is less need to think things through; and it makes life easier if clients don’t try to make things messier then they need to be.

It’s not uncommon to hear stories of clients who have been frustrated by consultants who do not appreciate their experience, insights and resources. Moreover, organisations who feel ‘done to’, or ‘done for’ often undermine the process and outcomes. I recall my early days doing some effective community engagement, only to find later, I had not engaged the right people in the client organisation. The result – well the community liked me but still didn’t trust the client. The recommendations of the community were ignored, and all I had achieved was to drive a bigger wedge between the community and the organisation I was meant to assist. The Uber-expert approach certainly does not serve organisations or communities when it comes to complex issues.

The third approach, and the one I try to live up to, is the collaborative consultant. This involves bringing the best of what I have to offer, but not at the expense of what my client has to bring. It’s about making the most of our collective resources and wisdom. It is one where we are all curious about learning from each other, learning something new, and being open to new and better ways. In my experience this is the most constructive way of working with clients to tackle complex projects.

For really complex projects it is also important to work with communities and external stakeholders in this way. Co-designing solutions may be the goal, but it’s important to build a solid foundation for that to be possible. Establishing relationships and co-designing the process is both necessary and incredibly useful. The collaborative consulting approach is the one most conducive in my experience.

If you are a consultant which approach has worked best for you?

If you engage consultants what approaches have you encountered and which works best for you?

If co-designing solutions with communities is something you are interested in you may like to join our Authentic Co-design community of interest.

Getting the ball rolling on co-design

19/06/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

Getting started is often one of the hardest challenges for organisations willing to co-design solutions to complex problems with the community, especially where trust is low.

Let’s consider some of the assumptions behind the reluctance of the community to become involved. For highly controversial projects, such as Murray-Darling Basin Plan, active members, or the hyper-engaged, of the community may assume there is not much to gain by ‘playing nicely’ with authorities, or even community engagement practitioners. For less active members they may assume there is nothing much they can change; feeling defeated already. Getting the ball rolling with the community is an obvious challenge if you are hoping to ultimately co-design a new solution.

So how do you begin building support for such a process? Here are a few things I’ve learned along the way. Firstly, it’s important to recognise it won’t be easy, and you will need to be respectfully persistent.

Secondly, it’s really important to show more interest in listening, than in trying to land your key messages. People will usually choose to start working with you on the basis of whether they believe you ‘give a damn’ about their fears, concerns or aspirations. It is really hard to get anywhere if the community does not believe you do.

Thirdly, there needs to be enough ‘on the table’ to make involvement worthwhile. Being clear on the ‘givens’ or ‘non-negotiables’ is important, but if the things that really matter to people are way out of scope they may rightly believe they have little to gain by playing in the space you are providing.

Lastly, provide opportunities to modify your process and plans based on community feedback, suggestions and ideas. If communities can influence the process they may begin to believe they can shape an outcome, and move to the next stage in the process. What has worked for you in getting the ball rolling when trust in your organisation, or process, is extremely low?

Click here and we’ll send a copy of all common external challenges straight to your inbox.

This is just one of the challenges you may face when considering a co-design process for a complex challenge. I will talk about others in coming blogs. There are also internal challenges, which I believe are even more challenging. Read Anthony Boxshall’s recent blog in this regard.

To learn more about co-design follow this link! We, Susan Carter of the Community Studio, Anthony Boxshall, Science into Action and I) have recently developed a brand new course on Authentic Co-Design which may interest you!

Turning around an inauthentic co-design process

27/05/2020 By Max Hardy Leave a Comment

What is Co-design?
A colleague/friend of mine, Anthony Boxshall, and I had the pleasure of working together on a very challenging project a few years ago. At the time Anthony was working with the EPA, Victoria. It was a co-design project. When I was first approached by the EPA I was asked what I thought co-design actually meant. Apparently, there was no shared view internally about this; and ever since I could confidently say there are many and varied definitions.

I recall a presentation by Ingrid Burkett, Director of Learning and Systems Innovation at the Australian Centre for Social Innovation, where she distinguished between human centred design, design thinking, and participatory design. That was helpful, and when it comes to co-designing solutions to complex issues with communities, we are closest to participatory design.

Recently Anthony Boxshall and I have finished writing a step-by-step manual to Authentic Co-design, specifically relating to complex issues/problems/challenges. Drawing on numerous sources we put forward this fairly straightforward definition:

“Co-design … is a collaborative approach that actively involves all stakeholders (e.g. staff, partners, citizens, customers and end users) in the actual design process, with the aim of ensuring the result meets their needs. In a government or corporation context, co-design can be most simply defined as the act of creating a fit-for-purpose solution or product with stakeholders.”

How do you ensure your co-design process is authentic?
Having a definition is one thing; doing it well, or authentically, is something else again. We outlined five key principles, that for us, help to explain the elements of an authentic process.

But perhaps a better way to highlight what we mean by this is to put forward what an inauthentic process would look like. Sadly, I have seen all of these in practice, and the process has still been loosely referred to as co-design.

Here goes! My tips to guarantee an inauthentic process (and my comments as to how this undermines genuine co-design).

1. Make sure there are so many parameters and constraints that nothing much can be changed or influenced by the process.
What I really think? Although those who do this believe this reduces risk, it will actually increase risk, and will discourage people to participating in the process at all. To turn it around, and make it an Authentic Co-design process:

Principle 1 – Make it substantial

2. Only focus attention on those who are the most powerful AND most interested; don’t waste your time with those who are harder to reach, or those you might need to make more effort to engage.
What I really think? This guarantees that you continue to only here from the people you always hear from, and deprives co-design the diversity you need for innovative solutions. To turn it around to make it an Authentic Co-design process.

Principle 2 – Be inclusive

3. Only provide time and space for debating ideas, not for dialogue and deliberation; minimise opportunities for critical thinking and reflection.
What I really think? Reflection, curiosity and mutual learning are needed to appreciate complexity; and are a cornerstone for authentic co-design. To turn it around to make it an Authentic Co-design process:

Principle 3 – Foster mutual learning

4. Share as little information as possible. Hold your cards very close to your chest, thereby making sure you have more information than anyone else. It gives you the edge!
What I really think? Withholding information is often a control game and fuels mistrust. It is seen as a power trip, and often is. Sharing information which is usually withheld is one way of demonstrating an investment in the process, and respect for those invited to participate. To turn it around to make it an Authentic Co-design process:

Principle 4 – Be transparent

5. Ignore legislation, other policies and guidelines up front – so if you can’t implement what has been co-designed you can blame someone else’s red tape.
What I really think? There are always other factors to take into account. Recognise them. Work with them. Try to stretch them if they are too constraining, but sort that out before you invite people into co-designing anything. To turn it around to make it an Authentic Co-design process:

Principle 5 – Be jurisdictionally aware

So, there we have it. My five top tips for guaranteeing a really inauthentic co-design process and five principles to create an authentic process. Applying the principles of co-design can be a challenge, but not applying them will guarantee a predictably poor, if not disastrous, outcome. Trust in the process, and in all participants, will grow as you work together. Importantly, co-designing the process is a great way to lay the foundation for co-designing a solution.

Find out more about our Authentic Co-design Manual, click here. The manual and online course is coming soon to equip you in tackling your next complex project.

What is fashionable with community engagement?

13/04/2017 By Max Hardy 3 Comments

A blog about Citizens’ Juries, Co-design and Collective Impact

With the more frequent use of citizens’ juries, and deliberation in general, it can be tempting to think such processes as the pinnacle of community engagement. I really, really enjoy designing and facilitating citizens’ juries, and have been promoting them since 1998. They not only demonstrate the wisdom of everyday citizens; they invariably strengthen democracy and build trust between the community and sponsoring organisations.

However, when someone asked me, ‘When are citizens’ juries NOT a good idea?’ I pondered for awhile. In responding to that question I found myself considering two other trends, co-design and collective impact, and thought it would also be worth considering the merit of all three approaches and frameworks in this blog.

But first, when are citizens’ juries NOT a good idea. I would say ‘doing a citizens’ jury’ is not such a good idea when:

…there is little commitment of decision-makers to the process. To be worth the investment decision-makers need to be willing to at least seriously consider the recommendations of the jury, and to respond publicly to those recommendations.
…decision-makers or sponsors believe they will have a better chance of gaining public support for a controversial measure through a citizens’ jury, or worse, a deliberate attempt to socially engineer support for their preferred solution.
…sponsors regard the citizens’ jury as being the entire engagement process, as opposed to being an element of a broader engagement process.
…there are insufficient funds to resource the process adequately.
… the issue is not sufficiently complex to require such a rigorous process.
… the issue is very polarising in a reasonably small community; making it challenging for everyday citizens to agree to participate without fear of recriminations, or adversely affecting relationships.
… the issue is essentially a technical matter, rather than being socially or politically complex.
… there are no ideas or options to assess, or deliberate over, at this point.
… the issue to be addressed is system-wide, so broad and multi-faceted it will require commitment and involvement of a range of organisations to implement any solutions.

I’m sure this is not a comprehensive list, and some points could be debated. But what I believe is more interesting is considering what other approaches and frameworks have to offer, and thinking about how they can potentially interrelate. So, let’s consider co-design- and collective impact, and when they might be useful.

Co-design is well described by John Chisholm, Senior Research Associate, Design Management, Lancaster University,

Co-design is a well-established approach to creative practice, particularly within the public sector. It has its roots in the participatory design techniques developed in Scandinavia in the 1970s. Co-design is often used as an umbrella term for participatory, co-creation and open design processes. This approach goes beyond consultation by building and deepening equal collaboration between citizens affected by, or attempting to resolve, a particular challenge. A key tenet of co-design is that users, as ‘experts’ of their own experience, become central to the design process.

The practice of co-design in community engagement is varied, though becoming more popular. Charrettes, which have been used for over 25 years, is a type of co-design process. Enquiry by Design workshops have also been used. Now co-design is being used for developing public policy, urban development, designing public spaces and reconfiguring human services.

In the latter part of 2016 I have the pleasure of the working with the EPA; co-designing a solution to an environmental issue in the Latrobe Valley. Scientists mingled with everyday citizens for three days, spread over 6 weeks, to arrive at a consensus. It was inspiring and extremely productive, leading to participants insisting on a group photo with public servants and scientists at the conclusion.

However, had several options been developed, with participants evenly divided, then presenting options to a citizens’ jury may well have been helpful to arrive at an agreed solution. Now, to consider collective impact.

Collective Impact is a framework and approach to tackle deeply entrenched and complex social problems. It is an innovative and structured approach to making collaboration work across government, business, philanthropy, non-profit organisations and citizens to achieve significant and lasting social change. It could easily include co-design and deliberative decision-making as part of a long term collaborative commitment to address a complex social problem. Citizens Juries are great for tough decisions; co-design is perfect where no known solution exists; collective impact is useful, probably necessary, to achieve systemic change.

The following illustration depicts how the three frameworks could work together. Co-design could precede a deliberative process such as a citizens’ jury. Both codesign and a citizens’ jury could be part of, and inform, a collective impact process, but would only do so if system-wide change was required.

I’m certain there are other ways these trends in collaboration could intersect. But being clearer about their purpose, and the kinds of issues/opportunities they are useful for, will be a good start for organisations and leaders who are drawn to what is becoming fashionable.

What do you think?

For more information about Collective Impact, Collaboration and complex issues, check out Collaboration for Impact, and the Tamarack Institute.

What is your approach to consulting? And… which one best works for co-designing solutions with the community?

Getting the ball rolling on co-design

Turning around an inauthentic co-design process

What is fashionable with community engagement?

A blog about Citizens’ Juries, Co-design and Collective Impact

Contact Details

Testimonials