Engaging heterogeneous targeted groups: opportunities and limitations

Engaging people unused to having their voices heard demands hard work, sensitivity to their needs, and sometimes extra resources. One of the most important factors to consider is that different groups of citizens – with their own needs and interests – need different type of methods and activities within the process of service co-creation.

«Not all social situations can be realized through innovative, co-creative and experimental approaches: undermining, disruptive behavior and intimidation by criminal groups ask for a more repressive and controlling approach, whereas the other inhabitants in the area need more facilitative community development approach. However, the primacy is with safety. If there is any risk of social disruption and endangerment for community or professionals, innovative ways of working and media exposure and agenda setting activities for co creation will be reduced or even abandoned» (Nieuwegein’s impact report)

A good example is adaptation of hackathons, a well-established means to facilitate innovation through intensive, fast-paced collaboration, originally by prototyping in the IT sector. The Estonian CoSIE pilot succeeded in adapting the format to mobilise people from different backgrounds in ‘social hackathons’ around co-defined problems. There was co-design of some practical solutions (for example healthier food for schoolchildren).  This pilot and others that used ‘Design Thinking’ inspired methodologies  report that the fast-pace is not suitable for everyone but many practical measures can enable more people to take part (eg. shorter sessions, accessibility logistics, mentor support, appropriate communication).

«While planning the social hackathon, the involvement of more vulnerable, “harder to reach” groups must be carefully considered. It requires a special strategy and (human etc.) resources to make it work well and to produce the expected outputs» (Estonia’s impact report).

Moreover, when addressing the needs of a specific group of people, it might be efficient for co-creation to involve other citizens with different needs or with no apparent needs too. This would allow a reciprocal exchange and understanding of perspectives that may result in diversity of ideas and/or actions taken. Indeed, according to participants in the pilots, understanding the problem of another group of citizens from different perspectives is one of the most valued outcomes of the co-creation process. At the end, it might contribute to change the mindset of some people.

«The participants felt uncomfortable with the people with disabilities as the situation was new to them. But as they had to be in that co-creative activities together, it changed the mindset and perspectives of people too» (Estonia’s impact report).

Eventually, much effort needs to be dedicated for explaining to final users what co-creation can do for them. When they understand their possibilities (sometimes even rights) to transform their role from passive receivers to active co-creators, the sustainability of the co-creation process and its results increases. What is important to spread among communities of targeted groups is that co-creation offers opportunity to gain self-awareness, to change the service provision and to increase their role as active citizens and take more control of their lives.

A Hungarian example shows that the targeted families themselves contributed with their own resources to the initiated activities, including energy, feed, gardens, household equipment, knowledge shared, personal networks, or videos and pictures recorded for dissemination activities.

Preparation of co-creation sessions is important to ensure inclusion, but follow-up is even more so. Although the methodologies applied in CoSIE were well appreciated and we can evidence that participants gained confidence and a sense of empowerment, they do not inevitably lead to change. Animating activity, as pilot teams explained in their lessons learned, can be hard work but is much easier than maintaining it.

Real, visible results are essential because without them there is a danger of disillusionment and cynicism, the very opposite of what co-creation should achieve.

For example, this was a serious threat to the pilot in Finland at one stage when the local authority back-tracked on its original intention to implement ideas from young people’s hackathons. The CoSIE team reflected that implementation should happen quickly because the young people’s timespan is relatively short. Fortunately, the university and an NGO stepped in and developed (with the young people) an idea for training about how to encounter a young person as a customer that emerged from a hackathon. This inspiring example is discussed further as a step forward for upskilling staff. It was also an instance of sustainability and scaling.

Visible results formed significant breakthrough points in other pilots, for example cleaner streets in changed approach and routines for meeting people with disabilities who are supported by a social service in Jönköping (Sweden).