As modernization progresses, “makers” and “users” gradually separate and turn people into “consumers.” Barriers between disciplines have been created in various fields, and the concept of design with specialized training have become firmly established. At the same time, it has become difficult to see the various interconnections in society, and many complex and troublesome problems that cannot be handled from a particular, specialist perspective have emerged.

In response to this current situation, projects are being created by actively engaging users and stakeholders rather than by the design of a limited group of designers and specialists. Co-design is not confined to a closed environment but rather inhabits an open one as the prefix “co” means “together” or “in collaboration.” Co-design is not an area of products, such as graphics or fashion, but rather an approach in design (a series of processes and ideas for approaching a problem’s subject).

As an example, let us consider a “comfortable workplace.” First, people work every day in a workplace environment, learning from others, devising and modifying their work, and conducting their daily activities. The design of a workplace should not simply consist of the space’s hardware, such as fixtures and lighting, but it should also include its soft aspects, such as a working system in which a diverse range of people, from veterans to newcomers, can cooperate and share their knowledge. As infectious diseases are also a current concern, in many workplaces, the online and real spaces merge with hastily constructed partitions.

In this way, it is evident that the spaces of design are filled with things that cannot be unilaterally determined by an external “system.” A “workplace” is not only a space but a living place that is always changing. The solution is not something simply based on a slice of a particular time, and the answers explored at that time will not necessarily match up in the future. The workplace will always fluctuate, and its final evaluation will be subjective to the people engaged in the work within it. Therefore, it involves not a designer as an agent who magically solves everything, but a designer as a mediator who coordinates the reality of each person with stakes in the workplace, including those who work there, the guests who visit it, and the management. The evaluation could be also an issue of politics surrounding their decisions.

Complexities in design consist of such elements that are involved for a long period. They change as the user learns, have a variety of stakeholders, and are difficult to predict in advance. It is difficult for a designer as an agent to deal with these complexities alone, as has been the case in the past; thus, a “working together” approach is required. By working together on design, people can actively create (1) the ability to present perspectives that are often overlooked, (2) the ability to break down barriers and ties in the domain, and (3) the ability to empower and sustain the parties themselves and go beyond activities that can be done individually (上平 2020).

In addition, another perspective may be mentioned. Designing together creates opportunities to engage the commons (common goods). Because design is an issue that should be shared by “everyone,” and because it has a kind of political aspect to it, a democratic process of “conviction,” rather than a general right answer itself, is important. However, professionals are often in a strong position to tell others what to do, and this causes the problem of “paternalism,” in which they represent and appropriate the interests of those in a weak position without asking them about their intentions. This problem is typically referred to as the doctor-patient relationship in medicine, but it applies equally to design. The lack of authority for the self-determination of “patients” results in a sense of “leaving things to chance” or “giving up” among them. Even if it does not lead to visible results, striving to share the process of confronting problems will shorten the distance between the people involved and foster a sense of ownership.

Co-design has evolved from the Scandinavian “participatory design” of the 1970s. Its roots can be traced to practices in the Norwegian Iron and Metal Workers’ Union, led by computer scientist and politician Kristen Nygaard and others (Nygaard and Bergo 1975), who, influenced by the Social Theory of Science and Technology (STS), attempted to incorporate design as a role in mediating labor disputes. They actively intervened in the workplace to close the distance between management and workers and to form a partnership between the two sides. Tools and games were developed to initiate dialogue and encourage participation; these were initially called the Scandinavian approach and later came to be known as a participatory design (Gregory 2003). This type of design was intended to call for equal perspectives and respect for each individual and was also a concept for achieving a democratic society.

Participatory design, advocated in a corner of Scandinavia, has had an extremely significant impact on subsequent theories of the design process. In the 21st century, the concept of “participatory” design has been used as a counterbalance to the top-down approach to design, and it is now being applied in an increasing number of countries. In the twenty-first century, the term “co-design,” rather than “participatory design,” is increasingly being used with an implication of opposition to top-down design. The word “collaboration,” instead of the opposition between labor and management, calls for a more equal and denser involvement.

The co-design approach can be applied not only to the design of products but also to the design of services and organizations without material form, as well as in various other areas of society. In Scandinavia, the co-design approach has been particularly active, with the world-famous Dokk1 (Aarhus, Denmark) and Oodi (Helsinki, Finland) large public libraries and community centers being well-known examples of its application. It is quite common for residents to be involved in some part of the design process, even in the creation of small municipal public facilities. Nagahama Kaiko, a design center established by the public and managed by the private sector, located in Nagahama City, Shiga Prefecture, which opened in 2022, is an example of co-design approach.

It is important to note that there are many examples of collaborative design, even if they do not advocate “co-design.” In particular, many traditional cultures have established sustainable, high-quality collaborative mechanisms. In this sense, co-design is not a new concept but rather an ancestral attempt to re-establish the distance between “makers” and “users” that has been divided by modernization. Rather than seeking a strict definition or scope, it is important to view it as an attitude of “living together” that seeks to respect the creativity exhibited by people in a community and the small reality that lies before them.

In addition, working together is not limited to human beings. Humans have always been animals that have survived by cooperating with various species; from a broader perspective, even the digestion of daily food occurs with the help of microorganisms. In this era of climate change, a more comprehensive design that does not focus exclusively on humans, but rather on the planet as a whole, is needed, and the concept of co-design can provide a small clue for considering such practices.

（KAMIHIRA Takahito）

References

• 上平崇仁（2020）『コ・デザイン デザインすることをみんなの手に』NTT出版 (Takahito Kamihira, Co-Design: Dezain suru koto wo Minna no Te ni, NTT）
• Gregory, J. (2003) “Scandinavian Approaches to Participatory Design,” International Journal of Engineering Education 19(1), pp. 62-74.
• Nygaard, K..and Bergo, O. T. (1975) “The Trade Unions. New Users of Research”. Personnel Review, Vol. 4 No. 2, pp. 5-10.