RETURN ON GIVING. Best mindset and practices for co-designing. Book 1: Design participation and the Lahti design ecosystem

RETURN ON GIVING Best mindset and practices for co-designing Book 1: Design participation and the Lahti design ecosystem Fuad-Luke Salokannel Keinänen

First edition produced and published by LADEC, Lahti, Finland, June 2015 Authors: Alastair Fuad-Luke, Riikka Salokannel and Kristian Keinänen, with contributions from Kaisa Savolainen, Ilona Törmikoski and Karoliina Vilander. This work, copyright 2015 LADEC and the individual contributors, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial- ShareAlike 4.0 International, available here http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0 LADEC (Lahti Region Development / Lahden Seudun Kehitys) Lahti Science Park Building D, 5th Floor Niemenkatu 73 Lahti FINLAND www.ladec.fi

Authors Alastair Fuad-Luke Alastair Fuad-Luke is a sustainable design facilitator, consultant, educator, writer and activist with over fifteen years experience in the UK, Europe, and internationally. Since 2011 he has been a Professor of Practice, Emerging Design Practices, at the School of Arts, Design and Architecture (Aalto ARTS), Aalto University, Helsinki, Finland. Riikka Salokannel Riikka Salokannel is the Business Development Director of Best Before UX Research Ltd. She worked formally as the Director of the Strategic Expertises, Cleantech & Design for Lahti Region Development LADEC Ltd. Ms. Salokannel is enthustiastic promoter of CleanDesign, which combines cleantech and user-driven industrial design. Kristian Keinänen Kristian Keinänen is the a design leader, thinker and entrepreneur working as the Head of Development within the Strategic Enterprise of Design at Lahti Region Development LADEC Ltd. He is an active developer of the Finnish design ecosystem, with more than 15 years of experience in operating with and within international businesses and organisations. with contributions from Kaisa Savolainen Ilona Törmikoski Karoliina Vilander Research Manager, Best Before Ltd., former Business Development Manager, Lahti Region Development LADEC Ltd. Producer, Aalto University, former Design Manager, Polku Consulting, Chairman of Industrial Designers Finland TKO. President, Finnish Association of Designers Ornamo, former Management Consultant, Polku Consulting.

Contents Book 1: Design participation and the Lahti design ecosystem Book 2: Co-designing in the field Book 3: Approaches, methods and tools 8 11 22 27 1.0 Introduction 1.1 A brief history of participatory design and co-design 1.2 Lahti Design Ecosystem as a Co-Design Platform 1.3 Lahden alueen Design-ekosysteemi - Palveluntarjoajat 78 81 85 97 105 2.0 Co-design in practice 2.1 Why co-design? 2.2 Co-Design Finland Network Case study: Co-designing the design strategy for the city of Lahti Case study: Kaupunkilaiset mukana suunnittelussa Lahen D 128 129 134 3.0 Co-design approaches, methodologies and tools 3.1 The co-design cycle 3.2 Tools for co-designing 109 Co-design case: Co-Design-Coachingvalmennuspäivät vuonna 2014 113 Co-design case: Innostava Suomi 2017 117 Co-design Case: 365Wellbeing project Suburban lifestyles

Co-Design Finland network is a co-operation body for design service providers. It offers customer oriented design services to local and international clients through combining high-end professionals from design corporations into tailormade network teams. 1.0 Introduction This manual describes the structure, functions, processes and tools of the Co-Design Finland network. The contents have been gathered from various sources, with the aim to combine the best practices utilized within Finnish design into one comprehensive handbook. The keys to success lie not only in productor brand design, they can be found through a broader strategic view - Enterprise design. Kristian Keinänen Head of Development, Design Lahti Region Development LADEC Ltd. 8

As a partner inside our network you take the role that suits the work in front of us. Everyone is a designer. Everyone can question each other s work. Anyone can recruit someone onto his or her project. Everyone has to function as a strategist, which really means figuring out how to do what s right for our customers. (edit from Valve Ltd s Handbook for new employers) 9

10

1.1 A brief history of participatory design and co-design Over the last decade, there is an emergent trend towards increasing participation in design processes from ever more diverse actors and stakeholders. This participation reaches well beyond the normal professional participants in new product or service development 1. Like all trends, it has strong historical roots, but it is shaped by changing issues, technologies and professional practice. Participation in design processes has gone through three phases, driven by underlying shifts from a manufacturing economy to a service economy. It continues in transition within the tensions between the local and global economies (Figure 1). Participation in designing emerged in the 1970s in Scandinavia u nder a rubric of practices named participatory design (PD) and in USA as usability and later in the 1980s, as user-centred design (UCD) 2. In the Scandinavian context, participatory design projects were focused on resolving the introduction of new technologies into the unionised labour practices of mass production facilities for example, in the NJMF project in Norway, the Swedish DEMOS project and in Denmark the DUE project 3. Participation was encouraged as a means to democratise and legitimise changing practices in the manufacturing industries. After the demise of the labour unions power in Europe in the late 1970s/early 1980s the original agenda of participation in design was supplanted by an interest in engaging users in testing the early development of new products, services and experiences. By the 1980s the early Scandianavian PD methodologies were beginning to be blended with American UCD approaches and to be applied to more immaterial design practices the design of services and experiences. This heralded a third phase of PD development in the early 1990s related to service design and the emergence of new user-orientated approach with its own language around service journey, persona, touchpoints, service blueprint and so on 4. Post millennium developments in PD, from 2000-2010,resulted in an explosion of language, approaches and methodologies for encouraging participation of users and other stakeholders in the early phases of design conceptualisation, prototyping and 11

Phase 1 Objects & Production Phase 2 De-materialising products Phase 3 Social turn in designing Type of participation in design(-ing) USA SCANDINAVIA 1960s usability 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s user centered design (UCD) participatory design (PD) UCD+PD+service design (SD) co-design (CD) co-creation (CC) open design (OD) participatory design (PD) service design (SD) social design (SocD)(DSI) transformative design (TD) user centered design (USD)... Drivers HCI Human Computer Interaction, ergonomics & cognitive psychology Technological changes in manufacturing Application of design processes to material & immaterial outputs Cross-sectoral collaborations, PPP (Public Private Partnerships) 4P (PPP + People Partnerships) BETTER TECHNOLOGICAL PRODUCTS DEMOCRATISE & LEGITIMISE WORK PRACTICES DESIGN OF SERVICES & EXPERIENCES ANALOGUE/DIGITAL PRODUCTS, PRODUCT SERVICE SYSTEMS (PSS) & SERVICES MANUFACTURING ECONOMY SERVICE ECONOMY LOCAL & GLOBAL ECONOMICS Figure 1. Three phases of transition for participation in design practices testing which reached well beyond the application of design practice in the commercial sector. Indeed, long-term advocates of PD note recent evolutionary trends and challenges to embrace socially innovative design, design thinking and design for change 5. A new lexicon of design terminologies emerged - experience design, social design, transformation design, co-design, co-creation and open design sharing an ideology of 12

involving people in designing and encouraging mutual learning from the participants in the process. This third phase in participation in design might be described, in retrospect, as a social turn in design(-ing) where the expertise of users and other participants are seen as an integral part of the design process. This socialisation of design(-iing) 6 is manifest in participation in design processes in private, public, social and informal sectors to enable them to achieve their goals. Design is becoming an important ingredient of social, as well as commercial and public sector innovation (Figure 2). However, the origins of the participatory processes, their supporting ethics and ideology show some differences between the sectors (Figure 3). There is a tendency for private and public sectors to prefer more controlled selection of participants and processes, even when enrolling users and other stakeholders by applying co-design (CD), co-creation (CC), social design (SocD), experience design (ED) or transformation design (TD). The not-for-profit and informal sectors lean towards more open forms of participation perhaps because their roots in the 1970s are founded in alternative technology (AT), human-centered design (HCD) and open source (OS). Today these sectors are starting to embrace design for Public sector Public-private partnerships Co-production Private sector Informal sector Prosumption Shadow state Social enterprise Social movements Non-profit sector Figure 2. The tetrahedron of cross-sectorial possibilities showing the blurring of boundaries between the sectors. Source: Caulier-Grice, J. Davies, A. Patrick, R. Norman, W. (2012) Defining Social Innovation. A deliverable of the project: The theoretical, empirical and policy foundations for building social innovation in Europe (TEPSIE), European Commission 7th Framework Programme, Brussels: European Commission, DG Research, Part 1, p32. social innovation (DSI), open design (OD) and open innovation (OI), all of which use participation in designing. Co-designing, designing together The terms co-design and co-creation are intertwined, and sometimes referred to as Co-X 7. While co-design, which the authors here simply term as designing together, 13

S E C T O R PRIVATE PUBLIC N-F-P (NOT-FOR-PROFIT) 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s CC UCD CD ID SD ED DSI TD OI? PD SocD PD Planning AT HCD SD SD CC CD CC CD DSI DSI OI?? INFORMAL AT OS OD? Key: AT Alternative Technology; CC Co-creation; ED Experience Design; HCD Human-Centered Design; ID Interactive Design; OD Open Design; OI Open Innovation; PD Participating Design; PDP Participatory Design Planning; SD Service Design; SocD Social Design = DSI Design for Social Innovation Figure 3. The evolution of participation in design in private, public, notfor-profit and informal sectors largely figures in the design field, co-creation has been adopted by business developers, managers and entrepreneurs 8. Elizabeth Sanders has figured prominently in introducing the term co-design in 1999 9 but recently, she applied co-creative design to describe the fuzzy front end of design prior to the adoption of more traditional design development processes 10. This lexicological amplitude should not discourage those who wish to design together from using, co-design or co-creation. For the sake of clarity we are going to use, co-design because we believe that the process of co-designing starts upstream of a design brief, i.e. a description of the context and the problem for which we seek (design) solutions, as well as downstream in design ideation, conceptualisation, problem solving, prototyping and developing products and services to market 11. In addition the reader should be aware that definitions of co-design differ according to the ideological and contextual setting. 14

Co-design for business, the public sector or society? Business is focused on co-designing profitable products, services and experiences, so stakeholders are embraced within the co-design processes to contribute their knowledge to maximise market success, which includes technological and cultural acceptability with usability. An appropriate definition of co-design in this context is: the process in which actors from different disciplines share their knowledge about both the design process and the design content in order to create shared understanding on both aspects and to achieve the larger common objective: the new product to be designed - Kliensmann & Valkenburg, 2008 12 The words service and experience could easily be interchanged with product in the above definition. The actors in this case also include the users 13. With the emergence of service design as a sub-field of design, the interest of public sector organisations in applying design thinking and design participation to deal with challenging healthcare and social issues meant that the co-design approach has attracted a lot of attention. Here the focus is generally on delivering more (cost-) efficient services targeted at meeting real needs. The UK Design Council was an early advocate of applying co-design methods in public services, for example the development of sexual health services in Tyneside in the Design of the Times, dott07 project, where co-designers worked alongside other professionals and end-users in a user-centred approach 14. Taking a wider societal view, where co-design is applied to concepts such as sustainability, or social innovation or even, design activism, then the original agenda of participatory design from the 1970s is invoked, and ideas of democratic participation come into focus again. In this context, co-design: is not a single procedure or ingredient. It is a commitment regarding power and inclusion. Co-design involves mutual learning in a multi stakeholder environment Co-design embraces multi-stakeholder involvement, where the stakeholders as designers, and the designers themselves, learn and create together. - Fuad-Luke, 2007 15. Open, closed, hybrid co-design Designing together can be made in closed, controlled environments with 15

invited participants who agree to share the design outputs, including the Intellectual Property. However, with Open Source and, more recently, Open Knowledge and Maker movements have encouraged the emergence of Open Design, where IP becomes part of our digital and intellectual commons 16. Recent examples of open co-design include openideo and the Global Service Design Jam 17. Of course options between closed and open design exist, where certain elements are open and others are closed to produce a hybrid model of co-design. Which model of co-design is chosen depends upon the particular actors and stakeholders, the source of investment (public, private, social, other) and the purpose of the co-design project. Mode Uncut, the Open Fashion Design Network, has recently introduced the concept of an open-o-meter, where designers and other stakeholders can negotiate the degree of openness, shareabilty and pricing of the design 18. Co-design and the mindset The famous Bauhaus luminary and founder of the Chicago School of Design, Maholy Nagy once said that design is an attitude, not a profession. This is a good starting point for developing a healthy mindset towards co-design. The together in co-designing means that a positive attitude towards openness, sharing, listening, participating and doing are essential. The co-designer must also be prepared to take on multiple roles and to accept that the processes involve flexible soft systems methodologies, being: a wisdom/values-based approach that is holistic, intuitive, descriptive, experiential, experimental and pragmatic iterative, non-linear, interactive process action-based research involving top-down and bottom-up contributions stimulating the real world useful for complex systems or problems situation driven satisfying pluralistic outcomes internalised by the system 19 In short, co-designing demands a flexible mindset. It also involves patience and a willingness to develop projects over time, allowing practices to develop and evolve using design seeds and iterating on designin-use 20. It involves a willingness to embrace collective creativity by bringing people together in a design process 16

(Figure 4) 21. To co-design is to share one s creativity for a collective objective or aim and to look for a Return on Giving (ROG) 22 as well as a Return on Investment (ROI). Figure 4. A wordle created from published definitions of co-design. 17

References 1. See, for example, Brown, Tim (2009) Change by Design, London, UK:HarperBusiness; Yee, Joyce., Emma Jeffries and Lauren Tan. (2013) Design Transitions. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers; Walker, Stuart and Jacques Giard. (Eds.) (2013) The Handbook of Design for Sustainability. London, UK and New York, USA: Bloomsbury Academic. 2. Participatory design was first discussed by researchers in Europe at a conference in London in 1971. See Cross, N. (Ed.) Design Participation Proceedings of the Design Research Society s Conference 1971. London,UK: Academy Editions. User-centred design emerged from the fields of ergonomics, early human computer interaction (HCI) and cognitive psychology with a common focus on usability. There is a useful summary of the origins and evolved practices of UCD and PD in Botero, Andrea. (2013). Expanding Design Space(s). Design in communal endeavours, pp40-46, Aalto University publication series, Doctoral Dissertations 85/2013, Helsinki, Finland: Aalto ARTS Books. 3. See definition of Participatory Design in Erlhoff, Michael and Tim Marshall. (Eds.) (2008). Design Dictionary: Perspectives on Design Terminology, pp290-292. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser 4. Ibid, pp354-357, Brigit Mager 5. See the work of Professor Pelle Ehn, School of Arts and Communication, Malmö University, Sweden who has contributed to research on design and participation for over 30 years. See also his recent collaborative paper, Bjögvinsson, Erling; Pelle Ehn and Per-Anders Hillgren. (2012). Design Things and Design Thinking: Contemporary Participatory Design Challenges, pp101-117, Design Issues, Volume 28, Number 3, Summer 2012. Massachusetts, USA: MIT 6. A phrase introduced by Alastair Fuad-Luke in July 2012 at the U12 Design conference at the University of Aveiro, Portugal, July 2012. 7. Mattelmäki, Tuuli and Froukje Sleeswijk Visser. (2011). Lost in Co-X. Interpretaitons of co-design and co-creation. Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, 31 October-4 November, Delft, The Netherlands. Edited by N.F.M. Roozengurg, L.LO.Chen and P.J. Stappers, pp1-12. 8. Ramaswamy, Venkat and Francis Gouillart. (2010). The Power of Co-creation. Build it with them to boost growth, productivity and profits. The Free Press. 18

9. Sanders, E.B.N. and Dandavate, U. (1999). Design for Experiencing: New tools. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design and Emotion, Delft, The Netherlands; 87-92 10. Sanders, Elizabeth, B. N. and Pieter Jan Stappers. (2012). Convivial Toolbox. Generative Research for the Front End of Design, pp22-29, Amsterdam: BIS. 11. The concept of co-designing upstream and downstream of the brief, and linking these in a process was developed by Alastair Fuad-Luke in his Co-design Loop methodology, published in March 2009 at http://www.fuad-luke.com and reported in Fuad-Luke, A. (2012) Co-designing Services in the Co-futured City, pp101-120, in Kuosa, Tuomo and Leo Westerlund. (Eds.). Service Design. On the Evolution of Design Expertise. Lahti University of Applied Sciences (LUAS) Series A, Research reports, part 16. Lahti, Finland: LUAS. 12. Maaike Kleinsmann and Rianne Valkenburg, Barriers and Enablers for Creating Shared Understanding in Co-Design Projects, Design Studies, vol. 29 no. 4 (2008): 369-386 13. Ibid, Sanders & Stappers 2012, p23 refer to synonyms for user in the design literature as consumer, customer, insider, participant, co-creator, beneficiary, human, person and [even] sometimes victim. 14. Thackara, John. (2007). DaSH: How to make sexual helath services more accessible, pp70-73, Wouldn t it be great if we could live sustainably by design?, London, UK: Dott07, Design Council. The UK Design Council has continued to apply co-design to public sector projects initiatives, see for example, the development of Whittington Hospital Pharmacy, http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/news-opinion/tilt-codesigning-whittington-hospital-pharmacy and Active By Design, http://www.designcouncil.org.uk/sites/default/files/asset/document/active_by_design_ Brochure_web_LATEST.pdf 15. Fuad-Luke, Alastair. (2007). Re-defining the purpose of (Sustainable) Design: Enter the Design Enablers, Catalysts in Co-design, pp38-39, in Chapman, J. and N. Gant. (Eds.) Designers, Visionaries + Other Stories. London, UK: Earthscan. See also co-design framed for consensual activism in Fuad-Luke, A. (2009) Design Activism. Beautiful Strangeness for a Sustainable World, pp147-149, London, UK: Earthscan. 19

16. For a good introduction to open design see van Abel, B., L. Evers, R. Klaassen, and P. Troxler (2011), Open Design Now. Why Design Cannot Remain Exclusive. Amsterdam, Netherlands: BIS Publishers. 17. OpenIDEO, http://openideo.com/ and Global Service Design Jam http://planet.globalservicejam.org/ 18. See Alternative Exchanges, Mode Uncut, 08 April 2014, http://modeuncut.wordpress.com/2014/04/08/alternative-exchanges/ 19. after Broadbent, J. (2003) Generations in design methodology, The Design Journal, vol 6, no1, pp2-13. 20. Botero, Andrea. (2013). Expanding Design Space(s). Design in communal endeavours, Aalto University publication series, Doctoral Dissertations 85/2013, Helsinki, Finland: Aalto ARTS Books. 21. This wordle was created by taking published definitions of co-design and entering the words in a Javascript software at http://www.wordle.net. Definitions originate from the following authors - Co-design collective creativity as it is applied across the whole span of the design process, Elisabeth B. N. Sanders and Pieter Jan Stappers, Co-Creation and the New Landscapes of Design, CoDesign 4, no. 1 (2008): 5-18. Co-design- the process in which actors from different disciplines share their knowledge about both the design process and the design content in order to create shared understanding on both aspects and to achieve the larger common objective: the new product to be designed, Maaike Kleinsmann and Rianne Valkenburg, Barriers and Enablers for Creating Shared Understanding in Co-Design Projects, Design Studies, vol. 29 no. 4 (2008): 369-386. both quoted in Steen, Marc (2013). Co-Design as a Process of Joint Inquiry and Imagination, Design Issues: Volume 29, Number 2 Spring 2013, pp16-28. Co-design is a set of creative techniques whose aim is to inspire the design process [c.f. UCD is a precise design methodology whose application conducts designers to develop usable design solutions for end-users, Rizzo, F. (2010) Co-design versus User Centred Design: Framing the differences. In Guerrini,L. (Ed.) Notes off Design Doctoral Research. Franco Angeli Editore. Co-design as people designing together, Elisabeth B.N. Sanders (1999) Postdesign and participatory culture. In Keynote proceedings of the Useful and Critical conference, University of Art and Design, Helsinki. Co-design is about facilitation of exchange between people who experience products, interfaces, systems and spaces and people who design for experiencing, Sanders, E.B.N. and Dandavate, U. (1999) Design for Experiencing: New tools. Proceedings of the First International Conference on Design and Emotion, Delft, The Netherlands; 87-92. Co-design space in which interdisciplinary experts in design and research will 20

work together with ordinary people, Sanders, E.B.N. (2002) Scaffolds for experiencing in the new design space. Information Design Institute fo Information Design, Japan. (Eds.) IID.J, Graphic.Sha Publising Co. Ltd. all quoted in Mattelmäki, Tuuli and Froukje Sleeswijk Visser. (2011). Lost in Co-X. Interpretaitons of co-design and co-creation. Proceedings of IASDR2011, the 4th World Conference on Design Research, 31 October-4 November, Delft, The Netherlands. Edited by N.F.M. Roozenburg, L.LO.Chen and P.J. Stappers, pp1-12. 22. The phrase Return on Giving (ROG) came from an early conversation during the planning of this co-design manual by the editors in March 2014. 21

1.2 Lahti Design Ecosystem as a Co-Design Platform Lahti on muotoilukaupunki. Muotoilustrategiamme mukaisesti erikoistumme elinkeinoelämää hyödyttävään, kestävään teollisten tuotteiden ja palveluiden muotoiluun. Haluamme olla Suomessa sekä teollisen muotoilun hyödyntämisen että osaamisen edelläkävijä, sekä käytännön muotoilutyön työrukkanen. Lahden design-ekosysteemi on monenkeskinen, verkottunut ja osallistava. Alueen toimijoille antamamme muotoilun lisäarvotakuu edellyttää käyttäjälähtöisyydelle ja osaamisen hyödyntämiselle otollisia olosuhteita ja toimintailmapiiriä. Olemme Lahdessa systemaattisesti levittäneet muotoiluajattelua yhteiskunnan kaikille tasoille ja korostaneet monenkeskisten tuotekehitysprosessien tärkeyttä. Muotoilu ei ole vain muotoiluammattilaisten asia-- käyttäjäkokemuksen ja näkemyksen tuottaminen osaksi tuotteen ja palvelun kehittämistä on meidän kaikkien asia. Tämän ajattelumallin mukaisesti pelkästään Lahdessa voi laskea olevan yli 100 000 muotoiluprosesseihin osallistuvaa ihmistä, eli muotoilijaa. Aalto-yliopiston uusien avausten professorin Alastair Fuad-Luken kanssamme fasilitoimissa muotoilijoiden ja muotoilun sidosryhmien työpajoissa tunnistimme, määritimme ja kuvasimme Lahden muotoilu- ja tuotekehityskentän. Kuvasimme sen toimijat, erityispiirteet, monipuolisuuden ja kyvykkyyden. Lahden designekosysteemi pystyy tuottamaan, ja tuottaa maailmanluokan muotoiluosaamista. Totesimme, että vaikka kyseessä oli muotoilun strategiatyö, eivät muotoilijat suinkaan ole design-ekosysteemin keskiössä. Keskiössä ovat ihmiset; alueiden asukkaat, yritysten asiakkaat, tuotteiden ja palveluiden käyttäjät. Eivätkä he suinkaan ole passiivisia kohderyhmiä tai loppukäyttäjätahoja, joille hyvin muotoiltuja tuotteita sitten brändätään, tarjotaan ja myydään. Ihmiset ovat aktiivisia toimijoita, jotka omalla osaamisellaan ja näkemyksellään osallistuvat tuotteiden ja palveluiden kehittämiseen. He ovat mukana muovaamassa omaa elämänpiiriään ja elämisen esineitä, toiveittensa ja tarpeittensa mukaisiksi. Design-ekosysteemikaavion (Kuva 1) toisella tasolla on kuvattu tuotteiden ja palvelujen tuottajat, elinkeinoelämän näkökulma. Nämä ovat niitä yrityksiä, suuria ja pieniä, kotimaisia tai maailmalta, joiden tuotteita käytämme. Kaupunki -nimisen tuotteen ke- 22

LAHDEN KAUPUNKI 4 KV-MUOTOILUYHTEISÖ WDC HELSINKI 2012 LAHDEN SEUDUN KEHITYS LADEC MUOTOILU- YRITYKSET TUOTEKEHITYS- YRITYKSET MUOTOILUINTENSIIVISET TEOLLISET YRITYKSET PÄIJÄT-HÄMEEN LIITTO ELY, EU-RAHOITUS LAKES MARKETING MUOTOILUHANKKEET FREELANCEMUOTOILIJAT KANSAINVÄLISET BRÄNDIT KÄYTTÄJÄT ASIAKKAAT MEDIA MUOTOILU- SÄÄTIÖ 1 SIDOSRYHMÄT MUOTOILUSÄÄTIÖ 2 MUOTOILUA HYÖDYNTÄVÄT P&K YRITYKSET IN-HOUSE MUOTOILIJAT KORKEAKOULUT, TUTKIMUSLAITOKSET TEKES 3 LAMK MUOTOILU- JA TAIDEINSTITUUTTI TKI-OPETUS MUOTOILUKASVATUS KANSALLINEN MUOTOILUOHJELMA LAHDEN TEOLLISUUSSEURA YHTEISÖT, PRO PUU, LUOVAT RY hittämisessä palveluja tarjoavat itse kaupunkiorganisaation lisäksi kaikki kaupunkitilan toimijat, yhtälailla liikekeskukset kuin vaikkapa harrastejärjestöt. Näkökulmana näillä voi olla monia, tapahtumajärjestäminen tai vaikka valtionhallinnon tuotteet ja palvelut. Keskeistä näiden toimijoiden muotoiluosaamisessa on oivaltaa, että loppukäyttäjät "omistavat" ympärillään olevat tuotteet ja brandit, joita sitten kehitetään yhdistämällä erilaisten osaajien tietotaitoa. Tuotteita ja palveluja on tarjolla niin paljon, että se, joka parhaiten oivaltaa näiden, brandiensa todellisten omistajien merkityksen, kykenee muotoilemaan tuotteensa parhaiten ja saa siten pidettyä ne ajankohtaisina ja haluttuina. Tämän tiedostaen Lahden muotoilustrategian laativatkin ne alueen muotoiluintensiivisten yritysten avainhenkilöt, jotka ovat jo osoittaneet asiakaslähtöisen, osallistavan ja monenkeskeisen designin olevan yksi menestyksen ja kilpailukyvyn avaintekijöistä. Figure 1. Lahti design ecosystem 23

MARKKINOINTI Figure 2. Pokkitoiminnollinen, monenkeskeinen, asiakas- ja käyttäjälähtöinen osaamisalueiden yhdistäminen luo arvoa. Haluttava DESIGN Käytännöllinen Helppokäyttöinen TEKNOLOGIA Kaaviosilmän kolmannella tasolla ovat muotoilijat, muotoilun tekijät, tuotekehityksestä vastaavat osaajat. Heiltä tulee löytyä syväosaaminen tuotteen ja palvelun olemuksen luomisesta, visuaalisesta kielestä ja koodistosta, abstraktioiden, kuten laatu- ja bränditekijöiden ilmentämisestä. Muotoilijat eivät suinkaan tee teosta yksin, vaan tuotekehityksessä yhdistetään teknologia-, insinööri-, design- ja kaupallistamisosaamista. Kun kaikkeen tähän osaamiseen yhdistetään asiakkaan, eli ostopäätöksen tekijän näkemykset sekä loppukäyttäjän tiedostetut ja tiedostamattomat toiveet ja tarpeet, voidaan puhua monenkeskeisestä tuotekehityksestä, co-designista (Kuva 2). Hyvän muotoilun laatuun, määrään ja sen tuottamiin tuloksiin vaikuttavat myös muut toimijat. Kaavion (Kuva 1) neljännellä tasolla on kuvattu niitä sidosryhmiä, jotka toimillaan vaikuttavat joko suoraan tai epäsuorasti designekosysteemin toimintaan ja sen kehittämään muotoiluosaamiseen. He toimivat mahdollistajina, esimerkiksi resursoimalla muotoiluhankkeita. He vaikuttavat monenkeskeiselle tuotekehitykselle otollisten olosuhteiden ja verkostojen syntyyn. He jakavat riskiä uuden kokeilussa ja haastavat uudenlaiseen innovatiivisuuteen. He kertovat muotoilun avulla saavutetuista tuloksista, välittävät tietoa saavutuksista, ja auttavat oppimaan niistä. Vuorovaikutuksessa muotoiluekosysteemin muiden toimijoiden kanssa he haastavat ja mahdollistavat, luovat edellytyksiä synnyttää uutta ja merkityksekästä. Lahti on muotoilukaupunki Co-Design Bay Muotoilu on systeeminen prosessi. Designekosysteemi pyrkii tuottamaan hyvää, luonnon kanssa tasapainossa olevaa kulttuurista ja sosiaalista ympäristöä, muotoilemalla sitä. Tätä designkyvykkyyttä kan- 24