Conduit. Coalescence. Conflictollaboration:Considering the “Co” in Co-Design

By Scott Boylston

I recently picked up The Best Dictionary for Students, an elementary school reference that my twin

daughters use daily. It seemed perfectly suited to me because, who, after all, isn’t a

student. This small dictionary has 410 entries that begin with the letter combination ‘co,’

beginning with coach and ending with cozy. Co-design is not one of those words. But many of

the words beginning with these letters are germane to the vibrant conversation around co-

design: commitment, compassion, complex, congregate, consequential, to name a few. This is to be

expected, considering the Latin origins of the prefix: together. With a multitude of English

language concepts fundamentally connected through this prefix, it seems fitting to more

deeply explore some of the affiliations inferred by their shared linguistic origin.

Today’s designers have benefitted from the development of young fields of practice such

as design for inclusivity, and human centered design. These efforts focus on delivering solutions

through immersive (for the designer) and inclusive (for the community) processes, which the

designers then sensitively transform into ‘solutions,’ whether they be products, services,

experiences, or tools (visioning, strategic, etc.). Other fields of practice—emerging more

from the urban design context, and with an emphasis on community resilience—focus more on

designing the potentials for solutions to emerge from the local context itself. As one example,

Asset Based Community Development (ABCD) eschews the all too common ‘needs-based’ approach for the sake of identifying, celebrating and empowering assets that already exist within the

community.

The gap between these two approaches has been narrowing, and the emerging bridge is being

constructed through an array of creative experimentation. Growing trends in mass

customization such as Open Source Ecology, and design-driven community resources such as

frog’s Community Action Toolkit are examples of this materializing connective tissue. This

essay is an invitation to more deeply consider the ideas that have been percolating in some

of these spaces. I discuss two words from this ‘co’ bounty that are associated with the

practice of co-design, then introduce a third word—quite literally—which explores a paradox

borne of two contradictory root words. Together, the words act as a framing device that can

aid in the exploration of the concepts behind this evolving process we call co-design,

specifically in the social sector. The three ‘co’ words do not constitute strategies as much

as reflections on the nature of committing to this dynamic arena. I invite more terms to be

added to create (co-create) a Designer’s Dictionary of ‘Co.’ Those compelled to consider the origins

of co-design can find many sources dedicated to more rigorous investigations, such as Sanders

and Stappers’ Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design, as one of example of many.

Design as ConduitA conduit is an entity of transition between spaces, states or usages. Accordingly, if the

energy on one end of a conduit lacks sufficient order or density, or if there is an inability

on the other end to ‘carry the charge’, then this kind of channel is little more than the

means by which energy is transferred from one unproductive space to another, or worse, from a

productive space to an unproductive one. Co-design is a conduit. And the energy that co-

design aims to transfer exists within the wisdom, passion, creativity, and tacit knowledge of

the parties involved.

Yet, there is another dimension here that relates to the nature of connectivity with

individuals not in immediate contact with the initial co-design process. The people in these

concentric and loosely defined rings represent not only those who may be influenced or

changed in some way, but those who would influence still others further from the original

process. This focus on connectivity and continuity is an important facet of co-design, and

not merely as a cautionary reference to the law of unintended consequences—as important as

that is—but as a reminder that ideas which emerge from co-design must be so deeply embedded

in the community that members of that community who were not directly involved in the co-

design process gravitate toward them intuitively. With IDEO’s Human Centered Design approach

in mind, the arc of progression for the design process might run through stages that focus

on: observations, stories, themes, opportunities, solutions, prototypes and implementation plans.11 Yet, the means

by which designers build capacity within the community to design solutions themselves requires

that this process is fully owned—and operated—by the community before the end of this

sequence.

A key aspiration of co-design could then be said to enhance the efficacy of other people

to deliver energy further into their own social milieu. By this, we might mean nudging a new

relationship into existence; nudging an old relationship into a new sphere; nudging the will

of an individual toward a point of action; nudging a new or under-utilized tool into use; or

nudging an idea out of an eddy of habitual neglect and back into a more active current.

Is it too provocative to ask the question; how is a community like an organization? Or, in systems

language, where are the invariances of form2 between communities and organizations? In his book

The Necessary Revolution, Peter Senge speaks of the need for organizations seeking a

transformation toward sustainable operation to develop strategic microcosms and getting the system in

the room, in this fashion: “…in practice, convening usually becomes a step by step iterative

process—considering the system you seek to influence, thinking about the variety of key

actors in the system; and remembering to include those who traditionally lack a voice in

formal decisions or official policies, but who possess important circles of influence

nonetheless.”3 Continually asking the question, “who is not in the room?” can prevent

assumptions from building up, and increase the potential for ideas to spread through a

community in ways that build consensus rather than mistrust.

Assessing the capacities to provide on one end of the conduit, and the capacities to apply

on the other, becomes a task that is as essential in determining the efficacy of a conduit as

assessing the conduit itself. Extending the system boundaries of managing an effective co-

design strategy is therefore necessary in ensuring a flow of energy from a productive space

to a more productive space, or from an unproductive space to a productive one. This extension

of the horizon, so integral in assuring continuity of forward motion, might require other

strategies and partnerships that designers are not used to considering, as well as a rigorous

challenging of the designer’s own blind spots.

1 IDEO’s Human Centered Design Toolkit2 A Systems’ View of the World: A Holistic Vision for our Time, by Ernie Lazlo, 3 The Necessary Revolution: Working Together to Create a Sustainable World, by Peter Senge, Bryan Smith, Nina Kruschwitz and Joe Laur

Design as CoalescenceSpontaneous connections between strangers are notable for the profound impacts they can have

on everyone involved. And, the more intense these ephemeral connections are, the more lasting

their residual effects are likely to be. This intensity can be heightened even more when the

connections between individuals transcend cultures, backgrounds or socio-economic status.

Such moments feel magical because they are uncommon, unexpected and instantaneous.

Designers and their equals in the co-design space don’t have the benefit of encountering

each other in such unexpected situations. The need for planning precludes the serendipity

that chance meetings afford. In fact, unless the co-design process is handled carefully, the

convergence of community members and ‘outside’ designers can set a tone far different than

one of serendipity. Yet, to achieve the rarified atmosphere that an accidental encounter

provides is a goal worth setting—a benchmark worth acknowledging for its opportunities for

heightened connectivity. This is no ‘feel good’ suggestion, and no pie-in-the-sky ambition.

This is not a suggestion that the room should be filled with jovial backslappers. What these

encounters instead produce is a form of charged quietude, when a cacophony of words

eventually gives way to a deeper form of communication, and a common, if unstated,

understanding of a singular purpose drives the action forward. Discovering commonalities,

seemingly through chance, can provide a cathartic atmosphere that is even more remarkable in

the quiet restraint in which that catharsis plays out. In effective co-design scenarios, this

energy is not moving in any one direction; it’s moving in all directions. And in doing so, it

transforms all participants. A realization that everyone is both vulnerable and valuable to

the process at hand is cause for this intensified focus, bringing participants closer

together, even as the autonomy of individuals is reinforced.

In this way, co-designing with communities is a form of experience design, where the sought

after intangible elements exist at the moment of co-creation, not merely as the result of it.

Designers are designing the experience of the design process itself, with the very moments of

interaction between the community members and the community and the designers being the

target experience. And part of that design process—the most essential part—is ensuring that

participants have been adequately consulted, and aware of the basic framing, yet perhaps

surprised by some of the conditions that allow the process to unfold with a serendipity of

its own. And, facilitating the emergence of novelty, as Fritjof Capra describes it in his book, The Hidden

Connections4, can be a powerful focus for designers interested in leading such collaborative

efforts.

Co-design could be said to ultimately exist within the scope of a meaningfully charged

relationship—between people, between people and ideas, and between people and the material

world. In short, developing the appreciation for connecting one form of energy to another is

quite at the heart of co-design. Coalescence thus becomes the binding agent for the myriad

conduits that co-design activates.

4 The Hidden Connectons: A Science for Sustainable Living, by Fritjof Capra

Design as ConflictollaborationTo strike together (conflict) + to labor together (collaborate)

Collaboration is like sex (not to mention that sex is collaboration). Everyone has a vision

of the exemplar, yet few are prepared for the messiness that can arise from the process.

Collaboration. Collaboration. Collaboration. Today’s designers are enamored with it. And even

more so are those designers in the co-design arena. Yet individuals who are new to co-design

often end up frustrated, and surprised at the lack of glamour associated with the term’s

promise.

Thankfully, a new breed of designer has flowed into the co-design space; individuals who

embrace the entirety of the collaborative milieu, and individuals for whom ideas such as

empathy are not words in a dictionary as much as ways of being. That there is tension in the

collaborative process that must be managed in as creative a fashion as any of the real-world

problems co-design attempts to address is no surprise. That many designers consider conflict

something to avoid or to smooth over in the collaborative environment is unfortunate. Perhaps

a new word is necessary: one that clarifies the true nature of collaboration once and for

all, so that anyone interested in working in the space can be prepared for what it entails.

Collaboration is a fine word, it’s just too damn salacious these days. Conflictollaboration

is honest. It reminds us that the nature of working with other people is dappled with

imperfections and disagreements. Yet, intertwined with those differences are more

commonalities than we realize. Commonalities can often be shrouded in veils of difference.

Commonalities wrapped in differences, and differences wrapped in commonalties: anything less

complicated would be less human.

And the term conflictollaboration is more than simply honest; it’s lilting, even goofy.

It reminds us that we are never always right, that we are never always rational, and that we

are never always above a self-deprecating glance in the mirror. Even if there are serious

differences of opinions or ideas; even if our commitments run deep enough to make us

vulnerable; even if we’re grappling with serious matters that have direct and lasting

consequences, we should not take ourselves too seriously. We will disagree, we will err in

judgment, we will occasionally get facts wrong; we will trip over pebbles of disagreement

even on broad paths of consensus. And acknowledging the shortcomings of our own will help us

realize the true value of collaboration—only with others can we hope to get things right. The

individuals we work with in the co-design process are conduits of ideas and energy that

complement what we bring to them. Conflictollaboration: A celebration of differences through

the merging of visions.

Conduit. Coalescence. Conflictollaboration. Three words of many that help us understand

where design is headed in the 21st century. Let’s continue to build our new vocabulary.

NOTE: Images, courtesy of Robynn Butler, are from a co-design initiative with Savannah High

School students and SCAD Sustainable Design students, piloting frog’s Community Action

Toolkit. For more information on the initiative, visit designethos.org

BIO: Scott Boylston is program coordinator of the Masters in Design for Sustainability at

Savannah College of Art and Design (SCAD), and professor of Design for Sustainability. He is

the author of 3 books, including Designing Sustainable Packaging. Scott is President and co-

founder of Emergent Structures, a non-profit organization dedicated to the innovative re-use

of C+D waste material for community benefit. He is also founder of SCAD’s Design Ethos

conference and ‘DO-ference,’ an interactive workshop-based conference that brings together

international design practitioners with community leaders in order to address pressing social

and economic concerns within the local community. Scott speaks internationally on design and

sustainability, and holds a masters from Pratt Institute. He is a former State Board of

Directors for the US Green Building Council of Georgia, steering committee member of Healthy

Savannah, and member of the Chatham Environmental Forum.