Vodafone publication reporting on Co-Design Workshop Lessons learned and guidance for practitioners

1. Collaborate to innovate
Putting co-design to work at Vodafone
Co-design for practitioners
(flip for “Co-design for strategists”)
1

2. Contents 4
6
Co-design Sprints: Our experience with co-design
Introduction
8 Selecting a co-design organisational model
12 Designing with non-designers
14 Organising co-design teams
16 Leveraging online collaboration opportunities
20 Managing co-design teams
24 Keeping co-design teams engaged
28 Finding the co-design ‘sweet spot’
32 Conclusion
34 Our process: a visual journey
43 Hints for getting the most out of co-design
44 Acknowledgements
2 3

3. Co-design Sprints: We took 4 themes from idea seed stage to prototype
in 16 hours of co-design. On the way, we co-designed
Our experience and subsequently had to discard over 100 idea seeds,
of which at least 30 would have benefitted form
with co-design further assessment and development.
When managed and organised correctly, the co-
design process can demonstrably deliver massive
innovation opportunities driven by customer’s needs,
desires and values.
One of these opportunities is evidenced at the end
of this section.
4 5

4. Introduction This exploration was supported by additional
discussion with the Lego Group. They agreed to share
the benefits of the experience they have gained whilst
pioneering co-design in their own product development
process. This helped us validate our own findings and
Vodafone’s Progressive Design Team wanted to gather additional insights.
explore the potential that co-design had to support the
delivery of innovation around the concept definition In common with Lego’s experiences, we found that
stage. The Progressive Design team invited a team of small, consolidated teams, the principles of self-
London based progressive collaborators to work with organisation, tight project boundaries, schedules,
them in the definition and design of a suite of services constraints and clear objectives are all beneficial to the
based around the theme of ‘Micro-futures’. ‘Micro- co-design process. We found that providing individuals
futures’ is the umbrella term for a series of concept with simple to follow, but accurate guidance on factors
seeds that emerged from an internal programme of such as feasibility, technology, business objectives,
ideation focussed on services for 2012. The aim of brand etc., provided the necessary constraint to allow
this practical co-design initiative was to help Vodafone effective design to take place; without constraints
identify through practice: there is no design. We found that as each party brings
their own skills to the table, it is important to identify
• The potential of co-design to deliver value to these specific skills to ensure that co-design yields the
Vodafone greatest benefit.
• The ‘sweet spots’ in the design and definition In this section, we share our experiences of co-design
process where co-design could deliver the and the supporting insights we have gained from our
maximum benefit to Vodafone conversations with thought leaders at Lego.
• Operational lessons that we could employ in future The information provided here are not intended to
co-design initiatives be prescriptive, but offered as practical hints to help
‘would be’ practitioners get the most from co-design.
• How to co-design as sprints, in line with the
move to adopt more agile methodologies within We have found inspiration and insight in several
Vodafone Internet Services sources which we have used to inform the strategic
theory and practical work reported in this document.
These are acknowledged in the acknowledgements
sections of this book
6 7

5. Selecting a co-design organisational model The methods for organising co-design vary. In The key motivator for me getting
involved was the communication,
obviously Vodafone has a reputation
general, your objectives and desired outcomes
for being a communicative
”
enterprise; that’s what they do.
will define the most appropriate“method for your
particular project.
There are two central axes that define types of
co-design:
• Openness: Can anyone join in or are there
selection criteria?
• Ownership: Is the outcome owned by just the
initiator or by the contributors as well?
OPEN-NESS
These two dimensions differentiate the four main
types of co-design. As we shall see, different
organisational models map closely to the
co-design continuum as described in ‘co-design
for strategists’.
OWNERSHIP
8 9

6. Co-design organisational models*
“
Club of experts model The crowd model Coalition of parties Community of kindred spirits
The ‘‘Club of Experts” style of co-design is best suited The crowd model, or “crowdsourcing”, exercises In certain situations, a coalition of parties can team The “Community” model is most relevant when
to specific, time-pressured challenges that demand the latent power of the crowd and allows anyone to up to share ideas. Each of the parties brings a specific developing something for the greater good. Groups
expertise and breakthrough ideas. Contributors meet contribute. It recognises that for any given challenge, asset, knowledge or skill to the group. Technical of people with similar interests and goals can come
certain specific participation criteria and are generally there may be a person ‘out there’ with a brilliant idea breakthroughs and the realisation of standards together and create. This model (so far) works mostly
found through an active selection process. Quality of that deserves considering. Using online platforms, often happen only when multiple parties collaborate; in software development and social innovation
input and chemistry between participants are the key people can propose initiatives and rate and respond to however, the engagement could be as brief as one initiatives, (a good example of this is provided by the
to success. Motivated, innovative thinkers are the most each other’s suggestions. There is often a marketing day. This approach is currently being explored KashKlash forum www.kashklash.net/about) and it
effective collaborators in this model. It is important and seeding component/objective attached to the by Vodafone User Experience Team with other leverages the potential force of a large group of people
to manage these teams and be open with them. Lego process. Crowdsourcing often takes longer than more organisations working at the social software edge or with complementary areas of expertise. The Vodafone
used this approach as the preferred organisational managed approaches; however, the costs of entry are where significant common ground and synergies are User Experience Team is exploring this approach
model to achieve their objectives. This is the model we low for all, the prize can be great and the organisation found. Key success factors include sharing knowledge, through their Code EcoMo09 Dev Camp initiative, in
used in the project reported here. (or initiator) can cherry-pick from contributions. creating common competitive advantage, clarifying conjunction with Betavine. This is a 24-hour dev camp
Cuusoo is a great example of an enterprise that objectives, managing expectations, building an coding competition that will let developers put their
exercises this model of collaboration on behalf of atmosphere of trust and the appropriate “green” coding skills to the test in creating prototype
other organisations. management of IP. mobile software tools designed to help people reduce
their impact on the environment.
(http://www.betavine.net/bvportal/community/sustainability)
*Derived from, and extending work described in the Fronteer Strategy document referenced elsewhere in the ‘Strategists’ Acknowledgements section.
10 11
ION
ION
ION
ION
ION
ION
ION
NT
ION
NT
ION
ION
ION
NT
ION
NT
ION
ION
N
N
N
N
N
T
N
T
N
N
N
N
N
N
T
T
T
N
N
N

7. Designing with
non-designers
Choosing to work with a progressive team Support the skills gaps. We were confronted by
of collaborators means working with bright the fact that structured design thinking and visual
and connected individuals who are able to communication are skills often taken for granted by
think openly and spot opportunities. This designers. At the same time, we realised that these
group is not a conventional set of creatives, are the very skills our customers do not have, so
nor is it representative of our customer we decided to equip each collaboration team with
base, yet it offers a unique perspective a trained visual communicator. This worked well,
that is invaluable. Connecting the right enabling higher quality deliverables and better
individuals to the challenge at hand, communication between teams.
bringing these talents together in the right
way and enabling creative processes are all Encourage a visual approach. We initially designed
vital routes to successful co-design. sessions that were based on discussion and debate.
Communication was verbal and ideas were largely
represented by text and system like diagrams.
What we learned: This, however, favoured those who were better
able to articulate their thinking and tended to stilt
Understand competencies and allocate tasks the overall flow and energy of the session. We
appropriately. We found that we easily slipped into reformatted sessions, making the primary medium of
making unrealistic assumptions about what our communication visual rather than verbal by using tasks
progressive customers could bring to co-design that encouraged visual representation (personas, ideas
sessions. We relearned that our customers are not as pictures and products/services as storyboards).
(necessarily) design professionals and that what Not only did this allow us to draw the most from our
they bring of value is their inherent customer-ness, collaborators, but it also created a more accessible
Understand competencies and allocate tasks appropriately realising that this was something we wanted to keep working environment and effective stimulus for
and encourage. communication.
Support the skills gaps
Encourage a visual approach
12 13

8. Organising are the most productive. Generally, groups become
unmanageable when they exceed the threshold of
co-design 16. It should be noted that Lego’s teams were almost
exclusively composed of customers.
teams Find the balance between numbers and group
dynamics. We found that teams of four generally
worked well. However, we were concerned that
The most effective co-design sessions after some time together, some collaborators were
happen when the right collaborators are becoming overly comfortable with each other, reducing
placed in the right teams. Forming the right the overall ‘energy’ of the group. We subsequently
co-design teams ensures a dynamic flow reduced teams to two (a pair of collaborators), which
of ideas and makes the process easier to successfully addressed this issue. However, as a
manage. For longer projects, the challenge consequence, we found that there was an associated
of finding the correct balance between risk if the collaborators didn’t ‘click’ (e.g., they didn’t
a consolidated team, whilst maintaining get on well as a team); their productivity and the quality
the ‘buzz’ of a fresh team, relies on smart of their output diminished.
engineering of those teams and the co-
design process. We explored online and co- Ensure team consolidation. Throughout the studies,
located team options and found that online we maintained a core consolidated team but allowed
collaborators can successfully work as around 20% churn of collaborators in each workshop.
remote groups or part of a co-located team This approach is supported by Lego’s findings that
as long as they have rich, multi-channel consolidated teams are most effective when striving
methods of communicating amongst their to achieve specific outcomes over the course of a
team. project. We noticed a marked development of skill,
understanding and team spirit over the period.
What we learned: However, we also noticed that ‘buzz’ started to ebb
towards the end of the workshop series as individuals
Find the right group size. We maintained a stable found their comfort zones. Maintaining consolidated
working group size of around 16 collaborators, teams, with a limited turnover of collaborators within
divided into four groups of four. In each session, four those teams, allows the best synergy and ensures that
Find the right group size of the participants were remote workers, sometimes the teams focus on achieving specific outcomes.
working as a remote collective or sometimes within
Find the balance between numbers and group dynamics a co-located team. The ratio of external to internal
collaborators was always around 1:1. Our experiences
Ensure team consolidation with this group size are supported by Lego’s best
practice findings that suggests groups of around 12-15 “‘ Its exciting that brands want to hear from
their customer and its exciting that that’s us!”
14 15

9. Leveraging online
collaboration
opportunities
The project offered an opportunity What we learned:
to understand the possible effect of
remote, online collaboration on the co- Make sure co-located teams ‘adopt’ remote members.
design process. Throughout the study we When working ‘within’ the co-located teams, the
maintained an online team of four members remote participants actively contributed to productivity
working with the same tasks and challenges as long as they felt included. This required at least
as the co-located team. Although we always one member of the co-located team to ‘adopt’ a
had four remote collaborators, we varied remote member (e.g., ensured their web cam could
the way these members worked with the see and hear visual stimulus materials or people
co-located team. Initially, we allocated an talking/presenting, etc). Interestingly, the ‘adoption’
online team member to each co-located relationship manifested itself in the session as the
group. Then, we formed the remote adopter walked around holding the laptop displaying
members into a coherent team to tackle the ‘head’ of the adoptee, pointing it and the laptop
the same brief as the co-located teams. We web cam towards visual/auditory stimuli.
observed several interesting socio-dynamic
outcomes as a consequence of these Provide sufficient ‘presence’ tools. Working within
manipulations. co-located teams required the remote member to have
sufficient natural presence to insist their opinions were
heard. They were given sufficient ‘presence’ tools,
e.g., a ‘voice’ to communicate with sufficient volume to
“
‘ The key motivator for me getting involved
was the communication, obviously Vodafone
has a reputation for being a communicative
interrupt conversations and a two-way web cam link.
enterprise; that’s what they do”
Make sure co-located teams ‘adopt’ remote members
Provide adequate presence tools
16 17

10. Understand the best medium for communication. It is important to bear in mind that the ability of remote
It was initially decided that the remote team would members to actively contribute to sessions also
communicate verbally, through a facilitator nominated varies according to the capability of their personal
as their communicator. We found that this led to some technology solutions. Our remote participants were
frustration from the remote team as the competitive distributed throughout Europe and bandwidth and
nature of the sessions made it important for the teams service levels varied, and we discovered that in a
to communicate their thinking effectively, passionately remote distributed team, progress was dependent
and persuasively; something that the ‘disinterested’ upon the speed of the technologically weakest
communicator didn’t bring. In time, we found it useful member.
(and necessary) for the facilitator to be dedicated to
the team (in the same role as the adopter considered Ensure ‘flat’ and inclusive working style. Within a
before) to help explain tasks, access visual material single remote team, we noted that a dominant and
and take the role of visual communicator – whilst directive team member adopted the role of driving
letting the remote team present their ideas themselves. and organizing the rest of the remote team. This had
The online group was afforded some advantage by a counterproductive effect, as other team members
the fact that their conversations could be reviewed by contributed and communicated less and less as the
themselves and this certainly helped the facilitation session continued. We chose to intervene to resolve
role. this and instructed the team to use IM text instead of
voice communication. This intervention effectively
Understand the role of technology. We noted that changed the dynamic; ‘flattening’ communication to
the richer the technologies, the more effectively the allow for a more egalitarian, inclusive and efficient
participants were able to communicate their ideas (as dialogue to emerge. Members could no longer use
long as the technologies worked reliably and close verbal inflections, tone, volume and interruptions
to real time). At its most technologically mature, our to dominate. As in co-located teams, it is important
remote team used a powerful set of tools comprising that no one person drives a team to the detriment of
a shared online digital whiteboard (Twiddla), Skype, others, and all members are given the opportunity to
an IM application and web cams. However, due to contribute.
bandwidth issues this combination tended to slow
down the process. Furthermore, these tools were
“
difficult to set up and recover when they failed. In later ‘ The fact we know its Vodafone, its not for
sessions, we chose to drop the whiteboard to alleviate some evil corporate company who we don’t
Understand the best medium for communication bandwidth problems. know who it is, they wont go off and ruin the
whole world or anything”
Understand the role of technology
Ensure ‘flat’ and inclusive working style
18 19

11. Managing What we learned:
co-design Decide on a suitable session duration. We decided at
the outset of the project that we would run four seed
ideas each through a four-hour session. We wanted
to see whether we could create ‘incubators’ in which
concepts could be ‘hot-housed’ to a useful level of
We found that providing a clear structure description - this being one that a professional design
to the sessions and setting the parameters team could take away and work with to create service
and rules allowed creativity whilst and product prototypes. In selecting the time frame
maintaining focus on a specific objective. we needed to take into account factors such as the
We achieved this by treating the team as resources that would be required, people’s ability to
a ‘project team’ that needed planning, understand and execute tasks and communicate their
support and reporting throughout that work, facilitation overheads and maintaining the right
needed appropriate resources and level of energy throughout.
information, understood the real project
objectives and the business and technology In essence we created co-design sprints that took
constraints they were working within. ideas, worked them up, evaluated them and iterated
Thinking about the details is as important as them over an accelerated time frame. The search
the macro structure of the workshop, and for the best concepts, or at least those that most
understanding how to reward contributors closely met the task objectives and the elimination of
fairly for their efforts and choosing the weakest was a consistent theme throughout the
appropriate levels of control over IP (or sessions.
otherwise) is critical. People perform best
when they know what is expected of them Find the right facilitation style. We initially allocated a
and when they feel part of the process. facilitator to each team in the group but soon realised
Therefore, it is important to ensure we give that this encouraged team members to sit back and
clear directions and maintain a level playing let the facilitator do the work. The facilitator’s role
field between all collaborators. also seemed to drive the solutions, making the team
members less accountable for the session outcome.
In subsequent sessions, we removed facilitators from
the teams, and encouraged the teams to self-organise
around clear objectives with precise time boundaries.
Decide on a suitable session duration
“
‘ For me the motivation was the challenge.
I felt I couldn’t come up with answers, but
The facilitators then took a central role more akin to
roaming project managers.
Find the right facilitation style working alongside others we did, and I came
out thinking “that’s brilliant! I can’t believe I
thought of that””
20 21

12. Adopt these ground rules and make sure they are Be clear about IP. We maintained tight control over
clearly understood IP, not attempting to share ownership, instead
participants under one-way NDA’s. Lego, for example,
• Impose tight and clearly defined (and enforced) have never let go of their IP, and their collaborators
schedules have accepted this, possibly due to the iconic nature of
their product and the loyalty of their 1%ers.
• Explain why help is needed and set clear objectives
We do think, however, that there may be other IP
• Make sure reporting is regular and public models that may be of value to us; this is considered
more fully in the Vodafone document Co-Design State
• Constrain the focus of tasks to ensure relevance of Play 2009.
• Keep tasks fresh and simple, and set tangible Provide a way to reward contribution. Remote and
objectives (not just the session) co-located collaborators were rewarded for their
attendance at each workshop. We also recognised
• Communicate clearly when divergence or that offering involvement in other initiatives or giving
convergence on solutions is needed recognition for contributing can be another valuable
way of ‘giving back’.
• Insist that teams communicate their ideas
persuasively and competently to the group We do think, however, that using a more sophisticated
incentive scheme tying in outcome or service success
• Articulate the business objective to reward could be usefully explored in the future; this
is considered more fully in the Vodafone document Co-
• Introduced the brand Design State of Play 2009.
• Provide defined, constrained personas
“‘ It makes you feel like you’re making a
difference, but also makes you feel good that
brands are actually wanting to listen to their
Be clear about IP customers rather than trying to think what
they might like”
Provide a way to reward contribution
22 23

13. Keeping
co-design
teams engaged
Having the right people, in the right teams What we learned:
and with the right structure does not
guarantee success. Teams often need a Use the brand to focus the session. We decided
catalyst to inspire creativity and maintain to introduce the Vodafone Brand as a design
motivation, encouraging closer engagement consideration in the third workshop. Insights from an
between collaborators and the task at earlier project showed that (at worst) this was likely to
hand. Tactics such as uncovering the have a marginal effect, although we hoped for a more
brand, introducing elements of friendly positive outcome. In fact, we found that introducing
competition and developing realistic the Vodafone Brand had a very positive impact and
personas add a sense of purpose, energy our collaborators reported becoming more motivated
and flow to the sessions that are necessary upon its introduction. The presence of the brand made
for an effective outcom the task feel real and valuable for our collaborators,
adding energy and focus. The process no longer felt
like an academic exercise; it became apparent that the
designs may actually be built.
“
‘ It makes you feel that your opinion really
does matter, you’re not just a fish in the pond”
“‘ There’s something cool about knowing
its for Vodafone; they’re like, wow, Vodafone,
it’s a really big cool corporate brand”
Use the brand to focus the session
24 25

14. We concluded that our collaborators could design An X-factor style ‘reveal’ of the winners introduced
with the brand in mind and for the brand, making positive tension into the workshop that resulted in each
judgments as to whether their concepts fitted with session ending on a ‘high’. Collaborators reported
their perception of Vodafone’s brand values. This that the competition element of the process was very
was very valuable and enhanced the quality and positive. We found it very important that ‘success’
appropriateness of the solutions. criteria, or the ‘rules of judging’ were clearly defined
throughout.
Provide collaborators with the same resources
you’d expect to do the job. After our first co-design Exploit the value of pre-work. We found that moving
session we realised that our collaborators had not ideation online as a pre-work activity meant that we
truly emotionally engaged with the product definition; could set the parameters for the ideation activity and
the process had seemed like more of an intellectual then use a subset of the material generated online
exercise. On reflection, we realised that we had not in the sessions. Before each session, we asked
provided personas for the services, implicitly expecting collaborators to ideate from a specific service seed
customers to design for themselves. Providing a idea and then populate an online shared blog with very
persona creation exercise proved effective in building concise visual and textual material to illustrate their
emotional engagement and focus for the design ideas. This allowed greater focus and prevented off-
activity. topic ‘wild goose chases’ developing in the sessions.
Introduce a healthy competitive spirit. We introduced
explicit competition between the teams in the second
and subsequent workshops. We used a ‘blind’, peer
voting schema to ensure that tactical voting couldn’t
be undertaken. Ties were resolved by the facilitation
team’s casting vote. This was very effective in raising
“
‘ I was so amazed by the level of detail
and the incredible variety of ideas, the real
creative thinking and total outside of the box
energy and focus during the session. The small prizes stuff – on each task the range of ideas was
that were awarded to the winning team (Amazon really broad”
vouchers) added only a slight edge, as the participants
readily engaged with (and enjoyed) the spirit of
competition.
Provide collaborators with the same resources
you’d expect to do the job.
Introduce a healthy competitive spirit
Exploit the value of pre-work.
26 27

15. Finding the
co-design
‘sweet spot’
We were interested in establishing whether certain We simply defined the design process phases of
design process activities lent themselves more readily interest to us as being the activities usually undertaken
to co-design than others. We had made the decision during concept development:
that the phases we were interested in examining
ranged from ideation to communication of a design • Ideation
(e.g., storyboard). Throughout the sessions, we moved
• Ideation selection
‘our’ window on the design process in order to identify
the ‘sweet spot’ for co-design. • Persona development
In this project we were unable to address whether • Concept formulation
detailed downstream activities such as functional or
• Concept development
visual design, (usually the preserve of information
architects and visual designers) could be effectively • Concept selection
co-designed, instead allocating these tasks to a team
of professional designers who worked with the session • Concept visualisation
output to create prototypes.
• Concept communication (as storyboard of actor(s)
interacting with a service
28 29

16. CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
PE
PE
C OP E
PE
PE
PE
C OP E
PE
PE
PE
C OP E
PE
PE
PE
C OP E
PE
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CO
CONN
CON
CON
CONN
CON
CON
CONN
CON
CON
CONN
CON
CON
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
C
WORKSHOP 1
Text converted to outlines outlines
Text converted to outlines
Text converted to
WORKSHOP 2 WORKSHOP 3 WORKSHOP 4
What we learned:
Shift ideation online. We found that this was best wild and unrealistic. We found it helpful to ask the Allow the team to moderate concept selection. We Support communication with expertise. During
managed online as ‘blogged’ pre-work. This afforded teams to create a ‘dark secret’ for their personas as a found that it was useful for the team to make concept concept visualisation and selection we found that
us greater control over the breadth and nature of way of managing and containing the more amusing and selections at different stages in the process in different the communication of ideas was most effective when
the topics that were addressed before collaborators deviant, but ultimately unproductive suggestions that ways. For example, we allowed individual teams teams had a visual design professional embedded
entered the co-design session. could emerge during persona creation. to decide which of their concepts they would take in the team. Without this, team members struggled
forward and at the end of the sessions we introduced a to formulate and communicate their ideas with the
Ideate in advance. We also found that ideation Develop concepts with constraints. Working up brief blind voting system so that the group could collectively precision, clarity or level of granularity that was
selection and filtering could usefully take place concept descriptions (concept formulation stage) vote for the overall winning concept. Both of these required.
before the workshop. However, we established that from the raw ideas was effective when time for this strategies were effective, raising energy levels and
collaborators could also accomplish further selection activity was constrained, clear objectives were set and generating focus. We found it very important that the
as an initial exercise in the workshop. solutions had to be presented to the group. Personas, evaluation criteria were explicit.
awareness of the brand and other constraints (e.g.,
Develop focused personas. It became clear that it was platforms, customer propositions) were all helpful to
important to provide a fairly constrained and directive the collaborators at this point.
persona framework for our collaborators; we found that We shifted the focus of each workshop further towards concept visualisation
too much freedom allowed the personas to become
and communication. We found that the further towards this end we shifted the
better the output.
30 31

17. Co-design, as focused collaboration with consumers,
Conclusion has the potential to support Vodafone’s current
product and service development process.
If we are to put co-design to work in our
business, we must be clear about what we want
to achieve, what can be realistically achieved
and ensure that our customer collaborators are
engaged as equals throughout the process.
The co-design sessions must be tailored skillfully
to ensure that the culture, organisation, teams
and tasks are such that all collaborators are
encouraged to be incredibly creative, productive
and energised, yet within a framework that
focuses the output to ensure the greatest value
for the business.
32 33

18. Each of the four seed ideas was used as the basis
for a four hour ‘co-design sprint’. Final output from
the workshops was then refined and developed
by professional designers. The finalised service
and product propositions were then visualised
as animated stories. The following pages visually
capture this process. Selecting ideas for further
development
Full details of the final output of the co-design
process is given at www.microfutures.com
Initial ideation in teams and online
34 35

19. Developing personas for services
for added realism
Working as a group to select the
best possible propositions
Working online and in teams to
formulate concepts
Working in teams to develop
concepts
36 37

20. Presenting ideas to the whole group
added realism to the sessions From co-design to pro-design
Participants used templates to
describe their service scenarios
We worked alongside professional
designers to refine concepts and
visualise final solutions.
Film trailers and Flash animations
were produced, examples of which
can be seen overleaf.
38 39

21. 40 41

22. We would like to leave you with some hints for getting the most
out of the co-design process; this concerns the approach not the
methodology and we have taken the inspiration from the from the
Open Sauce document acknowledged elsewhere in this book.
• Be open to letting the customer take the lead. • Speak to your customers authentically in their
When they do, support this and join in, don’t own vernacular. Otherwise, you will alienate them
block their initiatives. irrespective of what you are saying.
• Don’t expect customers to be interested or • Making mistakes is human, admitting them makes
impressed by passive advertising anymore. you seem more human and you’ll be forgiven.
Instead, give them something useful (branded
utility). • Co-design is about people, not technology. If you
want people to get involved, then make it easy for
• If you want your customers’ help, then them to do so.
communicate clearly - vagueness doesn’t
encourage engagement. • Try not to hide the messy reality of day-to- day
working. Behind the scenes views are far more
• The best way to get your customers’ attention is engaging to collaborators than polished corporate
by giving them a platform that will help them look productions and can build trust.
good.
• Treat your customers to some ‘inside info’ and
• Make your offer fun. People like to congregate make them feel special.
around objects, play with them and create their
own meaning. • Prepare to be changed by the experience of co-
design; where and when this happens, let it show.
• Be savvy about what you are doing. Don’t act out
of character or expect excitement because of who • Try and link the people in your company to your
you are or what you do; instead, understand your customers – make it human and make it personal.
customer and the way they relate to you and lead
• Listen carefully to the small minority (the 1%ers)
with that.
of your customers who appear passionately
• Whatever you are asking your customers to do, interested in your product; they are likely to
make sure that you are doing it, too. Don’t expect know far more than you about your products and
your customers to play along unless you appear services.
committed.
42 43

23. Vodafone Collaborators Claire Awramenko
Acknowledgements Steve Wolak
Damon Clarke
Mike Tate
Dug Falby
Mark Hicks
Sense Worldwide Collaborators Steven Heron
Tom Wynne-Morgan
Jess Charlesworth
Raj Panjwani
Members of the Sensor Network
PDD Collaborators James Steiner
Shayal Chhibber
Ian Housham
Liza Makarov
Paul Scrase
Jason Cooper
WriteByte Lisa Moore
44 45

24. Thank you.
46