D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

This project has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and
innovation programme under grant agreement No 693319
D1.2 Interim study on co-creation
practices
Project acronym: Mobile-Age
Project full title: Mobile-Age
Grant agreement no.: 693319
Responsible: ifib
Contributors: ULANC
Document Reference: D1.2
Dissemination Level: PU
Version: Draft
Date: 31/01/17
Ref. Ares(2017)535002 - 31/01/2017

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices
2 | P a g e
© Copyright 2017 <ifib>
History
Version Date Modification reason Modified by
0.1 21.11.16 Initial draft JJ, UG (ifib)
0.2 06.12.16
Revision based on PMB
meeting/workshop
JJ (ifib)
0.3 23.12.16 First draft JJ, HK (ifib)
0.4 10.01.17 Input South Lakeland BA, AB, NH (CSTO)
0.5 10.01.17 Input methodology section LI (CSTO)
0.6 16.01.17 Final draft for internal review JJ, HK, UG (ifib)
0.7 19.01.17 Feedback internal review
NH (CSTO),
OC (UPM)
0.8 24.01.17 Revised input South Lakeland NH (CSTO)
0.9 29.01.17 Final version JJ, HK (ifib)
1.0 31.01.17 Final reviewed deliverable BA, AB, NH, LI (CSTO)

3 | P a g e
Table of contents
History.............................................................................................................................2
Table of contents .............................................................................................................3
List of figures ...................................................................................................................6
List of tables ....................................................................................................................8
List of abbreviations.........................................................................................................9
Executive summary........................................................................................................10
Introduction ..................................................................................................................11
1 A Framework for Co-Creation of Public Services ...................................................... 13
1.1 Stages......................................................................................................................... 14
1.2 Roles .......................................................................................................................... 15
1.3 Co-creation Methods................................................................................................. 15
2 Our own research methodology..............................................................................20
2.1 Action research adapted ........................................................................................... 21
2.2 Co-creation and reflective practices.......................................................................... 23
3 Co-creation in South Lakeland.................................................................................24
3.1 South Lakeland: The Field Site................................................................................... 24
3.2 Interventions in South Lakeland................................................................................ 26
3.2.1 Interventions in the Exploration and Recruitment Stage.................................. 26
3.2.2 Interventions in the Idea Forming Stage........................................................... 29
3.2.3 Interventions in the Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Stages........... 35
3.2.4 Service and Diffusion Stage ............................................................................... 40
3.3 Learning and Reflection on Co-Creation Methods.................................................... 42
3.3.1 Exploration and Recruitment Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods........... 43
3.3.2 Idea Formation Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods ................................ 44
3.3.3 Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Lessons about the Co-Creation
Methods 47
3.3.4 Service and Diffusion Lessons about the Co-Creation Methods....................... 49
3.4 Learning and Reflections about the Co-Creation Process......................................... 50
3.4.1 Exploration and Recruitment Lessons about the Co-Creation Process............. 50
3.4.2 Idea Formation Lessons about the Co-Creation Process................................... 51
3.4.3 Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Lessons about the Co-Creation
Process 53

4 | P a g e
3.4.4 Service and Diffusion Lessons about the Co-Creation Process ......................... 55
3.5 Summary of Reflections of Co-Creation Activities in South Lakeland....................... 56
3.6 Comparison of Planned & Conducted Activities ....................................................... 57
4 Co-creation in Bremen............................................................................................62
4.1 Bremen Osterholz: The Field Site.............................................................................. 62
4.2 Interventions in Bremen............................................................................................ 64
4.3 Exploration & recruitment......................................................................................... 67
4.3.1 Engagement with local stakeholders & collaborators....................................... 67
4.3.2 Communication: Local newspaper articles........................................................ 68
4.3.3 Recruitment events ........................................................................................... 69
4.3.4 Methods: Paper card game ............................................................................... 69
4.3.5 Core co-creation group...................................................................................... 71
4.4 Idea forming .............................................................................................................. 71
4.4.1 Cultural Probes .................................................................................................. 72
4.4.2 Interviews with intermediaries and other stakeholders................................... 74
4.5 Service and data definition........................................................................................ 75
4.5.1 Personas ............................................................................................................ 75
4.5.2 Workshops on informational content and on applications............................... 77
4.6 Co-Design and Data Creation .................................................................................... 79
4.6.1 Mobile-Age data tables with attributes ............................................................ 80
4.6.2 Scenarios & paper prototyping.......................................................................... 84
4.6.3 App use: Provision of tablet pcs ........................................................................ 88
4.6.4 Digital prototyping and editorial work .............................................................. 89
4.6.5 Reflection on co-design and data creation........................................................ 94
4.7 Service and Diffusion................................................................................................. 97
4.8 Reflection/lessons learnt on process and roles......................................................... 98
4.8.1 Process............................................................................................................... 98
4.8.2 Roles .................................................................................................................. 98
4.9 Comparison planned & conducted activities............................................................. 99
5 Conclusion: Co-creation as situated and reflective practice.................................... 103
5.1 Recruitment and engagement................................................................................. 103
5.1.1 Recruitment and engagement with intermediaries........................................ 103
5.1.2 Recruitment and engagement of older citizens.............................................. 103
5.1.3 Building trust and commitment ...................................................................... 104
5.1.4 Roles ................................................................................................................ 104
5.1.5 Degree of involvement.................................................................................... 105

5 | P a g e
5.2 Methods .................................................................................................................. 106
5.2.1 Inclusive co-creation methods ........................................................................ 107
5.2.2 Cultural probes................................................................................................ 111
5.2.3 Personas & scenarios....................................................................................... 111
5.3 Process..................................................................................................................... 111
5.4 Implementing co-creation as situated and reflective practice in Mobile-Age........ 114
6 References ........................................................................................................... 117
Appendix I: Template for fieldwork data capture and reflection.................................... 120
Appendix IIa: Interventions in the Exploration and Recruitment Stage........................... 121
Appendix IIb: Interventions in the Idea Forming Stage .................................................. 124
Appendix IIc: Interventions in the Service and Data Definition/Co-Design Stage ............ 125
Appendix III: Calendar Exercise South Lakeland ............................................................ 126
Appendix IV: Events Exercise South Lakeland................................................................ 128
Appendix V: Services exercise South Lakeland .............................................................. 132
Appendix VI: Potential prototype visual South Lakeland ............................................... 139
Appendix VIIa: Personas: Terry..................................................................................... 140
Appendix VIIb: Personas: Dorothy ................................................................................ 141
Appendix VIIc: Personas: Linda..................................................................................... 142
Appendix VIII: Media profiles of South Lakeland participants........................................ 144
Appendix IX: Overview of interventions in Bremen....................................................... 147
Appendix X: Media profiles of participants in Bremen................................................... 152
Appendix XI: Cultural Probes as developed in Bremen .................................................. 157
Appendix XII: Personas in Bremen................................................................................ 163
Appendix XIII: Co-creation activities in phase 2............................................................. 166
Co-creation plan Bremen .................................................................................................... 166
Co-creation plan South Lakeland......................................................................................... 167
Co-creation plan Zaragoza................................................................................................... 168
Co-creation plan Thessaloniki ............................................................................................. 169
Appendix XIV: Co-creation observation templates ........................................................ 170

6 | P a g e
List of figures
Figure 1: Stages of co-creation .........................................................................................13
Figure 2: Potential methods per co-creation stage ............................................................16
Figure 3: Co-creation Life-Cycle.........................................................................................16
Figure 4: Stages of action research ...................................................................................20
Figure 5: Adapted stages of action research for co-creation processes...............................22
Figure 6: Co-Creation in South Lakeland............................................................................25
Figure 7: Recruitment at Exercise Club event Figure 8: Recruitment drive at Young @
Heart Fun ‘O’lympics in Kendal (Kendal) 28
Figure 9: Sample of the ideal week calendar .....................................................................31
Figure 10: Participants working on the Calendar Exercise..................................................32
Figure 11: Prioritisation Example from one of the Co-creators ...........................................34
Figure 12: Basic prototype of an app.................................................................................37
Figure 13: Events app prototype.......................................................................................38
Figure 14: A show of gadgets developed in earlier projects................................................45
Figure 15: Impressions from our field work in a multi-faceted district ................................63
Figure 16: Methods as applied in co-creation stages in Bremen.........................................64
Figure 17: Co-creation activities and methods in Bremen...................................................65
Figure 18: News article 23/05/16 featuring researcher and local stakeholders...................69
Figure 19: News article 06/07/16 featuring researchers ....................................................69
Figure 20: News article 22/08/16 featuring researchers and participants...........................69
Figure 21: Card game as developed at information event 23/05/16...................................71
Figure 22: Card game as further refined and played at neighbourhood festival and kick-off
workshop.........................................................................................................................71
Figure 23: Examples of cultural probes artefacts as used in Bremen...................................73
Figure 24: Participants discussing their maps and post cards.............................................73
Figure 25: Collecting results from group work ...................................................................77
Figure 26: Group work at workshop..................................................................................78
Figure 27: Group work situation at workshop ...................................................................78
Figure 28: Workshop in Internet café................................................................................78
Figure 29: Co-design and Data Creation methods in Bremen..............................................80
Figure 30: Picture of one of the focus groups displaying some of the relevant artefacts......81
Figure 31: First data table with "our" attributes................................................................82
Figure 32: Slowly completing the data tables....................................................................83
Figure 33: Data table online in Mobile-Age app ................................................................83
Figure 34: Picture of scenario 1.........................................................................................84
Figure 35: Pictures of scenario 2 .......................................................................................84
Figure 36: Paper prototyping in Bremen ...........................................................................85
Figure 37: Paper prototyping in Bremen ...........................................................................85
Figure 38: Start page........................................................................................................85
Figure 39: Paper prototype presenting objects on map vs. list ...........................................86
Figure 40: Paper prototype presenting filters ....................................................................86
Figure 41: Paper prototype preview on map .....................................................................87
Figure 42: Paper prototype - detailed description..............................................................87
Figure 43: First idea on welcome page..............................................................................88

7 | P a g e
Figure 44: Participant using the Mobile-Age app on a tablet .............................................88
Figure 45: Different visualisations / maps of the same part of Osterholz............................89
Figure 46: Final map design featuring bus stops as orientation points ...............................91
Figure 47: Final map visualisation featuring toilets and benches .......................................91
Figure 48: Collection of ideas about start page of Mobile-Age app ....................................91
Figure 49: Digital translation of start page discussion .......................................................91
Figure 50: Paper prototypes - visualising maps or lists.......................................................92
Figure 51: Start page tiles.................................................................................................92
Figure 52: Paper prototype list .........................................................................................93
Figure 53: List first digital demo........................................................................................93
Figure 54: Paper prototype preview on map .....................................................................93
Figure 55: Preview on map - first prototype ......................................................................93
Figure 56: Display of benches and toilets (clustered) .........................................................94
Figure 57: Co-creation Life Cycle .....................................................................................107
Figure 58: Adapted co-creation process model from fieldwork in phase 1 ........................113
Figure 59: Adapted stages of action research for co-creation processes ...........................114

8 | P a g e
List of tables
Table 1 : Description of Co-creation Methods as employed in Bremen and South Lakeland.19
Table 2: Interventions in South Lakeland in Phase 1 ..........................................................26
Table 3: Co-creation research methods used in Phase 1 in South Lakeland .........................42
Table 4: Co-creation planning and reflection South Lakeland.............................................61
Table 5: Overview of Bremen Osterholz ............................................................................62
Table 6: Overview about methods/interventions in Bremen from May 2016 to mid-January
2017 ................................................................................................................................66
Table 7: Considering social inclusion and accessibility systematically through personas .....76
Table 8 : Co-creation planning and reflection Bremen .....................................................102
Table 9: Overview methods as used in field sites.............................................................110

9 | P a g e
List of abbreviations
<Abbreviation> <Explanation>
Age UK SL Age UK South Lakeland
FTB Forschungsinstitut Technologie und Behinderung,
Evangelische Stiftung Volmarstein
ifib Institut for Informationmanagement Bremen
IS Information System
ISD Information System Development
IT Information Technology
OAP Old Aged Person
PSD Participatory System Design
SLDC South Lakeland District Council
SLH South Lakeland Housing
UML Unified Modelling Language

10 | P a g e
Executive summary
This document provides an interim study of the co-creation activities conducted in Bremen
and South Lakeland between April 2016 and January 2017. In the Mobile-Age project, we
conceive co-creation as being more comprehensive and effective than traditional
participatory system design, including the stages of forming ideas, defining a service,
collecting data and designing, implementing and evaluating a technological solution. In this
interim study, we critically reflect on the co-creation activities that took place in Bremen
and South Lakeland during the first project year.
While in South Lakeland greater emphasis was placed on the insights from intermediaries
about the information needs of older adults (in particular with respect to issues around
independent living such as loneliness), the interventions in Bremen placed more weight on
the co-creation of a new map-based service and the necessary (open) data (identification,
collection, creation, and validation). The different weighting of co-creation interventions was
based on
• the different topic areas (independent living vs. social inclusion)
• the different anticipated mobile services (provision of an event calendar vs. map-
based neighbourhood guide)
• the different geographical locations (rural vs. urban)
Our co-creation activities are analysed across three levels:
• Recruitment and engagement
This section includes considerations about roles, degree of involvement and trust.
• Methods
We reflect on the methods employed and analyse their effectiveness for our co-
creation interventions and for their suitability with respect to facilitating and enabling
accessibility and access (this relates to D1.1 interim study on accessibility, digital
mobility and open data).
• Process
We propose an adapted process model, based on the empirical insights from our own
co-creation activities and the participatory open data study (D1.9).
Finally, we will conclude with some considerations for phase 2. All results will feed into the
Co-Creation Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3).

11 | P a g e
Introduction
Interactions between public authorities and citizens are increasingly mediated by digital
technologies as more and more public services are provided via digital channels. But in many
cases these services are not used widely and in particular, older citizens are excluded above
average as digital services do not meet the needs and expectations of older adults. Recently
the idea of ‘open government’ (European Commission, 2014; House - Oversight and
Government Reform, 2007; Office of the President, 2009; Presidential Directives EO 13392,
2005) has attracted attention, encouraging the development of so-called civic apps (digital
applications that are based on open government data and developed by civil society actors
such as Code4Germany). These civic apps are meant to provide for better and user-centred
services and to foster public participation and engagement in the development and provision
of public services through the use of open government data.
Senior citizens—if at all—are often only marginally involved in such kind of civic technology
engagement. They very rarely constitute the focal user group of civic apps; commercial web
applications mainly focus on their assumed deficits and limitations (e.g. physical and cognitive
decline, loneliness, dependency) (Angeletou, 2016). Hence such mediated services are
predominantly based on stereotypical images of ‘being old’ and/or inscribe ideals of active
and healthy ageing in the technology, that correspond with contemporary neoliberal
concepts of optimisation and self-responsibility (Suopajärvi, 2015, 2016).
Governments are placing an increasing emphasis on opening their data repositories so as to
encourage new forms of service design and delivery (e.g. Shakespeare, 2013).1
A growing
number of European cities are making their data openly available. However, such open data is
normally read-only (that is, citizens are usually not able to easily suggest changes, correct
errors, etc.) and there is little return for local governments (Lee, Almirall, & Wareham, 2015;
Hunnius & Krieger, 2014). Often developers anticipate the needs and wants of citizens based
on their own experiences with lack or insufficient knowledge about prospective user groups.
In this respect it is important to engage citizens early on in order to gain an understanding
of their everyday practices, resources and challenges. In order to create value that benefits
administrations as well as citizens, it is crucial to engage citizens into the process of open data
service app development, especially those who are often forgotten when it comes to
technological innovations.
Thus there is a need to bring together city administrations as data owners, technology
developers and older citizens as knowledgeable individuals and prospective users in order to
co-create valuable public services based on open data in participatory design processes
(Sieber & Johnson, 2015). Such co-creation initiatives aim to engage citizens (also with non-
technical backgrounds) in practices relating to technology design and different levels of open
data re-use such as the requesting, digesting, contributing, modelling, and contesting of open
data (Schrock, 2016).
In the Mobile-Age project, we conceive co-creation as being more comprehensive and
effective than traditional participatory system design, including the stages of forming ideas,
1
Examples of such initiatives include the open government partnership (OGP) and open data portals.

12 | P a g e
defining a service, collecting data and designing, implementing and evaluating a technological
solution. In this interim study, we will critically reflect on the co-creation activities that took
place in Bremen and South Lakeland during the first project year. Here, we are particularly
interested in how older citizens (also with non-technical backgrounds) became engaged in
public service co-creation activities. More specific questions are:
• To what extent was the co-creation of public services with older citizens in Bremen
and South Lakeland possible?
• What methods may be most effective for engaging older citizens in the design and
development of open public services?
• What issues/topics may emerge? What are challenges of co-creating civic apps with
and for older citizens?
• What is the role of researchers and other stakeholders in such initiatives?
In the following we will first provide our Framework for Co-creation of Public Services
(chapter 1). In this chapter we will outline out our co-creation methodology including
considerations about different roles of co-creators, different levels of involvement, and
different stages of the process. We will also provide a first overview about appropriate and/or
innovative methods for each of the co-creation stages.
The primary aim of this deliverable is to provide a reflective account of our own co-creation
activities.2
Before providing empirical material on South Lakeland (chapter 3) and Bremen
(chapter 4), we will first introduce the methodological framework for studying our own co-
creation activities (chapter 2).
Subsequently we will synthesise the findings from Bremen and South Lakeland and draw
some first conclusions (chapter 5). This includes an update of our process model. In chapter 6
we will outline the plans for phase two for all field sites.
2
We have reviewed other projects as part of our state-of-the-art research in D1.9 (Study on
Participatory Open Data Initiatives).

13 | P a g e
1 A Framework for Co-Creation of Public Services
The current discourse about co-creation has two main origins: One is an orientation shift
within business administration towards the customer or user in order to recognise demands
on the market and to use external knowledge to create products and services that fit the
users’ needs and hence succeed on the market (Piller, Ihl, & Vossen, 2010). This service-logic
or user-centricity is particularly relevant to public authorities in order to perform their task of
providing suitable services for citizens, as well as to enhance the participation of citizens in
the definition and provision of such services (Nambisan & Nambisan, 2013; Aichholzer &
Strauß, 2015). The other origin is the involvement of users in the design of IT-solutions, which
stems from the 3 different participatory design (PD) approaches: The UK-based approach and
prominent ETHICS-Method (Mumford, 1981; Mumford & Henshall, 1979), the Scandinavian
approach with the famous DEMOS and the UTOPIA projects (Ehn, 1988) and the US-American
approach on “Cooperative Design” (Greenbaum & Kyng, 1991). In this tradition the focus on
involvement of future-users and their ‘collective creativity’ (Sanders & Stappers, 2008, p. 6) is
idealistically applied throughout the entire design process. Following the process course of
traditional PD, we have developed a stage model that represents the different stages of the
co-creation process.
The figure below shows the process model as amended in D1.9 (Participatory Open Data
Study). During the first months of our field work and based on the review of existing
participatory open data initiatives it became clear that our process model needed to
emphasise interventions around data definition, data collection, validation, creation and
integration. Hence the original model as developed in D6.3 (Co-creation Recruitment and
Engagement Plan) was adapted and the “service definition” stage as well as the “co-design”
stage amended.
Figure 1: Stages of co-creation
•exploration of
vision
•stakeholder
analysis
•definition of
roles
•recruitment &
engagement
plan
Exploration &
Recruitment
•further
exploration of
visions and
needs
•generation of
ideas and the
solution to be
co-created
Idea Forming
•developing
ideas into
concepts
•defining
relevant
(open) data
Service & Data
Definition
•prototpyes are
designed,
build and
tested
• collecting,
validating
creating and
integrating
(open) data
Co-Design &
Data Creation
•finalisation of
product
•dissemination
of results to
ensure
adoption
Service &
Diffusion

14 | P a g e
1.1 Stages
When involved in the early stages of the co-creation process, participants take part in the
decision of what is going to be developed. They can ‘explore’ problems and ‘form ideas’ on
solutions. At this stage, the degree of influence is much higher than in the design stage,
where the focus is on practical questions of usability instead of more essential issues of
relevance and significance. However, in particular aspects related to data collection and
creation, and editorial work (as demonstrated in the empirical sections below) may limit the
degree of influence.
The exploration and recruitment stage aims to define the thematic space and service
domain of a co-creation project, as well as recruit co-creators. In this stage the importance of
local champions cannot be underestimated. As will also be demonstrated in the empirical
sections, they are crucial for
• enrolling local older citizens’ groups,
• convincing intermediaries to participate,
• support communication as well as
• building trust relations with the participants.
Both field sites (Bremen and South Lakeland), were able to secure commitment of the local
government and key stakeholders. In addition, it was important to establish the older
citizens as experts of their life course and of experiencing the process of becoming
older/ageing. Mutual respect was of utmost importance as all participants (including older
citizens and civil servants) wanted to learn from each other. Co-creation methods at this stage
included interviews, focus groups, desk research, information events.
During the stage of idea forming, the participants’ visions and needs are further explored.
Ideas are formed about what may be co-created. Co-creation methods at this stage included
interviews, focus groups but also diaries, observation, walking workshops and cultural probes
(Boehner, Gaver, & Boucher, 2012; Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999).
Within the stage of service and data definition the goal is to develop ideas into concepts.
Methodologically this is accomplished through personas and scenario-based design
evaluation (Rosson & Carroll, 2002; Carroll, 2000). The personas are co-created based on the
insights of the previous stages and differ according to a number of important dimensions
(such as socio-economics, health, mobility, media literacy). Personas provide a good basis to
discover and discuss the information needs of older citizens. They are helpful in order to
make the participants think not only of their own wishes and needs, but to relate to others
who might be different from them. Further, intermediaries may support the identification of
relevant objects and related data sources as well as existing services.
The most wide-spread stage in co-creation is the co-design stage in which the key
functionalities are developed as well as data collected and integrated. Based on (1) the
personas and (2) a review of relevant objects, and available data sources and existing
information services, a set of meaningful scenarios is developed that support the software
development. What is often underestimated is the time and effort to collect or create,
validate, and integrate meaningful and relevant (open) data. As demonstrated in the
empirical sections, a greater number of older citizens and intermediaries may be included in
this co-creation stage. One example is a snowball data collection process in Bremen as a
necessary supplement to smaller core-co-creation groups, for putting the content
generation on a much broader and more representative set of sources, needs and views.

15 | P a g e
The final stage concerns service and diffusion. It is important to consider how the co-creation
services are integrated in existing organisational processes and how data will be maintained
afterwards, not only in this stage but throughout the process.
1.2 Roles
While participation in some co-creation initiatives is limited to co-design of the interface of an
application, others also involve citizens in generating topics and contents. In this regard, the
stage model allows us to identify and capture the degree of involvement, and hence the
quality of co-creation. According to the stages in which they are involved, participants can
take different roles in the co-creation process.
According to the literature (Nambisan & Nambisan, 2013) these roles may be:
• Explorer: Identify problems to be solved.
• Idea former: Generate solutions to well defined problems.
• Designer: Design and/or develop implementable solutions.
• Diffuser: Facilitate the adoption and diffusion of the developed solution.
In our conclusion we will also argue for a fifth role: Data editor. This is based on our empirical
evidence as well as the insights gained from the participatory open data study. By and large,
when involved in the early stages of the co-creation process, participants take part in the
decision of what is going to be developed. They can ‘explore’ problems and ‘form ideas’ on
solutions. At this stage, the degree of influence is much higher than in the design stage,
where the focus is on practical questions of usability instead of more essential issues of
relevance and significance.
Furthermore, we can distinguish the activities in each of the stages regarding the openness
and, respectively, the predefinition of the particular tasks that the participants perform:
• selection from a number of given alternatives
• selection from self-defined options
• selection and realisation of self-defined options
According to the stages in which participants get involved, the role they perform, and the
degree of openness of the tasks they fulfil, we can classify and compare different co-creation
approaches and applications. Thereby we have shown in the Deliverable D1.9 “State of the
Art in Participatory Open Data Approaches” that the degree of openness is particularly
important in the initial stages of the co-creation process that lead to the definition of the
service to be developed. Furthermore, the study showed that most co-creation approaches
offer quite limited space for substantial participation for older citizens in these significant
early stages. In contrast, our own approach to co-creation allows for substantial involvement
in all stages of the co-creation process, with an emphasis on the frontend activities. However,
as our reflection of the activities of stage one will show, the definition of roles for
participant’s performance and the openness of tasks in the different stages have to be
reconsidered according to participants’ interests, motivations and resources.
1.3 Co-creation Methods
In the following, we present a range of established and innovative methods that were applied
in our co-creation process to generate creative ideas, requirements and assessments. The
figure below provides an overview of the methods used per stage, in the subsequent table we

16 | P a g e
Exploration
Idea
Formation
Service
Definition
Co-Design
Service &
Diffusion
give a short introduction to each method and outline for which stages it may be relevant. We
will review this overview at the end of our interim study and reflect on the experiences in
Bremen and South Lakeland.
Figure 2: Potential methods per co-creation stage
Below we evaluate the methods with respect to
their usefulness of co-creating ICT-enabled open
government services with and for older citizens.
Also, we will refine and update this list in our
further iterations of this deliverable.
The figure on the right presents the co-creation
life cycle. In the table below only those
stages/steps are coloured for which a method is
deemed appropriate. We have included only
those methods that were used during the first
phase in Bremen and South Lakeland.
Figure 3: Co-creation Life-Cycle
• interviews
• focus
groups
• literature
review
• state-of-
the art
review
Exploration
•cultural probes
•interviews
•focus groups
•surveys
•observation
•diaries
Idea Formation
•personas &
scenarios
•focus
groups
Service
Definition
•participatory
design
•design
workshops
•focus groups
Co-Design
• qualitative
and
quantitative
evaluation
interviews
• workshops
• focus
groups
• survey
Service &
Diffusion

17 | P a g e
Method Description Purpose/objective Stages
Role of
stakeholders
Task of
researchers/co-
creation manager
Time
expenditur
e
Limits
Indicative
literature
Semi-
structured
Interviews
A partly structured conversation
between a researcher and a respondent,
where the researcher guides the
conversation according to her or his
research question but at the same time
is open to unexpected topics that might
be of interest.
To collect data about prospective
services, users and stakeholder, co-
creating knowledge, identify needs,
visions, expectations, (design-)
problems through a confidential
conversation between researcher
and respondent.
Senior citizens,
intermediaries
and/or members
of public
government as
experts and
explorer
Create a natural
and comfortable
environment,
prepare a guideline
Time
intensive
No
generalisation
possible,
knowledge that
cannot easily be
verbalized might
not be captured
(Thorpe & Holt,
2008; Myers &
Newman, 2007;
Bogner, Littig, &
Menz, 2009; Flick,
2014)
Focus Groups
A focused discussion led by a moderator
through a set of questions on a specific
topic. Focus groups can be newly
created groups or pre-existing groups
consisting of 6-12 persons who share a
common interest
Collect data about prospective
services, users and stakeholder, co-
creating knowledge, identify needs,
visions, expectations, (design-)
problems through stimulating
statements through the interaction
in the group.
Senior citizens,
intermediaries
and/or members
of public
government as
experts and
explorer
Create a natural
and comfortable
environment,
moderate
Time
intensive
No
generalisation
possible,
cautious group
members might
not get heard
(Kamberelis &
Dimitriadis, 2013;
Rodriguez,
Schwartz, Lahman,
& Geist, 2011;
Stahl, Chiarini
Tremblay, &
LeRouge, 2011)
(Media-)
diaries
Participants are provided with a diary to
record their experiences, feelings,
impressions during the use of a device
or application and/or before or after the
use. The diary can be a booklet, an
application or a voice recorder.
To collect temporal and longitudinal
information gathered in a natural
context of the interaction and to get
insights in the impression of a
specific device, usage of features,
technological acceptance, emotions
associated with task performance,
or learnability of an application.
Senior citizens as
explorer or test
users
To provide media
diaries, motivate
and explain their
use and ensure
their return
Low
expenditur
e of time
Requires high
motivation on
the participants
side, there is low
control of the
process, data is
prone to
distortions
(Lallemand, 2012;
Palen & Salzman,
2002)

18 | P a g e
Role of
stakeholders
Task of
researchers/co-
creation manager
Time
expenditur
e
Limits
Indicative
literature
Participant-
observation
Observing and recording people and
their activities and interactions.
Participant observation involves active
engagement in activities in contrast to
observation where researchers simply
observe without interacting with
people.
To collect information on people’s
activities and interactions and
thereby get insights in the behaviour
of people and their interactions in a
group or with a technology. Can also
be used to learn about collaborative
design activities to learn about
resources and obstacles for
participatory design.
Senior citizens as
designer and/or
user
In participant
observation the
task is to observe
attentively while
being involved in
the activities and
interactions and to
take notes while or
after the activities
Time
intensive
The researcher is
part of the object
of study and
influences the
situation,
participants may
feel
uncomfortable
and behave
differently
(DeWalt & DeWalt,
2002; Adler &
Adler, 1994; Tang
& Leifer, 1991)
Cultural Probes
or Design
Probes
Tools including descriptive and
exploratory tasks that are (typically)
based on self-reporting, are handed
over to the participants. Participants
collect data on themselves, their lives
and culture. Briefing and follow-up
interviews are conducted to prepare
and accompany the process and a de-
briefing session to supplement, validate
and explore the data
Collect data about prospective users
and stakeholder and their daily
contexts, sensitizing the participants
to observe, reflect upon and report
their experiences, stimulate
imagination of the researchers
Senior citizens as
experts and
explorer
Provide proper
tools, brief the
participants,
organize follow-up
interviews
Time
intensive
No
generalisation
possible, no
concrete insights
in design
solutions
(Mattelmäki, 2006;
Gaver, Dunne, &
Pacenti, 1999;
Mattelmäki, 2005;
Boehner, Vertesi,
Sengers, &
Dourish, 2007;
Boehner, Gaver, &
Boucher, 2012)
Survey Collect data through surveys
To collect data on a large amount of
people and thereby identify general
needs of a large group of people
Senior citizens as
explorer
To develop and
diffuse a
questionnaire
Relatively
low
expenditur
e of time
Due to the
standardisation a
deeper
understanding of
needs is not
possible
(Flick, 2014)
Role of
stakeholders
Task of
researchers/co-
Time
expenditur
Limits
Indicative
literature

19 | P a g e
creation manager e
Personas
A persona is a representation of a
fictitious user that includes a concise
summary of characteristics of the user,
their experience, goals and tasks, pain
points, and environmental conditions.
Personas describe the target users of a
tool, site, product or application, giving
a clear picture of how they are likely to
use the system, and what they’ll expect
from it. Personas are user models
developed on the basis of qualitative
research data and/or the expertise of
involved stakeholders.
A persona allows the designers of an
interface to consider the needs,
wants, expectations etc. of wider
user groups, without involving them
directly in the design process. By
drawing attention to potential users
the creation of a common
understanding of the users is
supported and designers are
engaged to implement this
understanding in their design
decisions
Senior citizens and
intermediaries as
experts for their
generation and
representatives for
not participating
senior groups
To identify the
significant and
meaningful
patterns in user
behaviour based
on research data,
to encourage
participants to
imagine needs,
problems,
interests, wishes,
skills and
expectations of
other potential
users
Time
intensive
(data has
to be
gathered)
As models
personas are
likely to
generalisations
and stereotypes
(Cooper, 1999;
Cooper, Reimann,
& Cronin, 2007)
Scenarios
A scenario is a description of a particular
situation of (potential) use of a design to
predict or explore future use
To provide information about the
context in which a system has to
operate, in a user- and task-oriented
way, to foresee and consider future
use cases including problems,
conflicts etc.
Seniors citizens
and intermediaries
as experts on
relevant context
for use
To identify
relevant situations
based on research
data and to
encourage
participants to
imagine relevant
situations
Time
intensive
especially
when
involving
multiple
stakeholde
rs
By forecasting
and planning
scenarios of use,
the use of
scenarios for
design is prone
to predict
futures and
thereby
constrain
possible use
(Rosson & Carroll,
2002; Carroll,
2000; Alexander &
Maiden, 2004)
Table 1 : Description of Co-creation Methods as employed in Bremen and South Lakeland

20 | P a g e
© Copyright 2017 ifib
2 Our own research methodology
We did not just apply or implement the co-creation process described section 1 above, we
also aimed to learn from our process and practices of applying it. Differently stated, we
engaged with the co-creation process as action researchers. The purpose of this action
research is to develop insights that can be incorporated into the Good Practice Guidebook
(D1.3). The insights generated are specific situated knowledge about how to implement a co-
creation process with our target population (older citizens), appropriately and meaningfully.
The action research tradition emerged from the work of Kurt Lewin in the 1940s. The
fundamental idea of action research is to combine the generation of theory (or knowledge)
with the actions of changing the social processes (co-creation in our case) by the researchers
acting on, or in the social process itself. Thus, the co-creation action is directed at both
affecting change and generating critical knowledge from such change. The premise of the
approach is that researchers and practitioners (older citizens) should collaborate to find
appropriate ways of co-creation. The classical action research typically has five stages as
represented below
As is clear from the figure above, action research is typically problem oriented. That is, it is
attempting to gain knowledge and solve specific social or organizational problems. Action
research is an appropriate approach for our purposes because:
Figure 4: Stages of action research

21 | P a g e
• It is future oriented – it is our purpose to develop insights that can guide phase two
of our project but also to create a meaningful and appropriate Good Practice
Guidebook (D1.3).
• It is collaborative – we are working directly with older citizens to develop knowledge
and insights relevant to them
• It implies development – the purpose is to develop an appropriate co-creation
methodology and approach, not just to develop theoretical knowledge.
• It is grounded in the situation to be understood – the action learning is grounded in
the specific situation and involves specific knowledge and insights about the co-
creation process.
2.1 Action research adapted
To use the action research approach, we had to adjust it to our specific situation. We also
defined five stages as represented in the figure below.

22 | P a g e
Stage 1: Planning co-creation interventions
Our starting point for every intervention was firstly the co-creation methodology and
secondly the particular methods that we were going to use in our co-creation activities. We
considered carefully the methods and tried to imagine how the older citizens might respond
to them. For example, what they might find easy or difficult; what they may misunderstand or
find difficult to understand; what might be inaccessible to them and for what reasons; and so
forth. Thus, how we might want to adapt the standard method to be more appropriate for
our target group.
Stage 2: Implement co-creation Interventions
Having agreed our approach and how we were going to do it, we implemented the particular
method, such as a cultural probe, in a particular workshop, in our empirical site (either
Bremen or South Lakeland).
Stage 3: Observe interventions
During the implementation of the method, we did not only do the relevant activities we also
carefully noted what happened. Thus, we were always taking two perspectives, one as a
participant and one as a researcher. Notes were made, often quite cryptically as part of the
ongoing process.
Stage 4: Reflect on interventions and observations
Figure 5: Adapted stages of action research for co-creation processes

23 | P a g e
Afterwards the research team shared their notes and observations and discussed the
implications of the co-creation activity. In these discussions, alternative explanations and
interpretations were explored. In some cases, these were also shared with the older citizens
involved to capture their reaction and observations.
Stage 5: Record learnings and insights
In the final stage, we recorded our learning and insights, and considered how these might
feed into the next cycle of co-creation activities in stage one.
To document this five stage process, we developed a set of templates that was completed for
all interventions (see section 7).
2.2 Co-creation and reflective practices
One of the key deliverables of the project is the Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3). The
purpose of this guidebook is to provide practitioners with a valuable resource, full of insights,
on how to do co-creation activities with older citizens. A keyword in this name is the word
practice. By practice, we mean a set of purposeful activities that can become accomplished,
more skilfully, through learning. Thus, practices become more skilful if we learn in and
through doing them. To learn from practices, we need to engage with them reflectively. The
pragmatist philosopher John Dewey suggested that “we do not learn from experience...we
learn from reflecting on experience.” By this he means that we must not just do things (like
following a recipe) we must rather attend (take note of) our doing, as we do it, in order to
understand the consequences of our actions so that we can modify them appropriately, as
and when needed. Somebody that reflects on their own practice—and thus, learns from it—
is called a reflective practitioner. Thus, we do not see the Good Practice Guidebook (D1.3) as
a ‘recipe book’ that can simply be followed. We rather see the Good Practice Guidebook
(D1.3) as a starting point for reflective practitioners. Differently stated, all reflective
practitioners, using the Guidebook must also be action researchers of their own practices.
This will allow them to adjust the co-creation methodology in ways that are meaningful and
appropriate for their own situation. In implementing our co-creation methodology, we were
action researchers and reflective practitioners, as will be clear from our accounts of our co-
creation interventions in South Lakeland and Bremen provided below.

24 | P a g e
3 Co-creation in South Lakeland
3.1 South Lakeland: The Field Site
South Lakeland is a district in Cumbria, England. The population in the 2011 Census was
103,658. The administrative town is Kendal. The district includes several other small towns
such as Windermere, Ulverston and Barrow. However, the majority of the area is rural and
comprises of many small villages, hamlets and isolated properties. Our focus is on
independent living for older adults. South Lakeland District Council (SLDC) and Age UK South
Lakeland have identified three issues that they consider central to independent living –
loneliness and social isolation, and relatedly access to transport and to technology. Indeed,
these issues are the focus of several Age UK national reports. Along with our co-creation
activities, these reports have informed the framing of our project3
. Loneliness is claimed to be
the cause of many physical health and mental health conditions. South Lakeland District
Council (SLDC) and Age UK South Lakeland (Age UK SL), the major NGO for older adults in the
area, have agreed to participate in our project.
Our co-creation research set out to explore how tablet computers may allow older adults to
access public services that support their independent living. We have focused on exploring a
range of related services provided to older adults: Social security (access to information on
funding for housing and other benefits); Day-to-day social opportunities (e.g. lunch groups,
accessing friends/visitors); Government services (meals on wheels, refuge collection;
handyman scheme). The aim of the co-creation is to leverage new capabilities through
technology to support independent living. In Phase one this has focussed on day-to-day social
opportunities and how they can address loneliness and social inclusion.
To address loneliness and social isolation, we initially focused our work around an award
winning assessment (The Compass Assessment) that Age UK SL undertakes with their clients.
The assessment seeks to identify older adults that may be at risk and considers five domains:
• Locality - such as access to doctors, chemists and shopping facilities. This is ranked
according to seasonal weather conditions.
• Home - such as mobility requirements, refuge collection and ongoing repairs.
• Social connectedness - such as regular contact with family, friends and local groups.
• Financial situation - services that may require payment if there is government / NGO
financial support.
• Health - physical and mental health.
The second (and related) theme identified was transport. Both the Age UK national report
(ibid), and Age UK SL, identify technology and transport as being key gateway services. They
highlight that transport is crucial in order for older adults to access group and individual social
opportunities. However, due to the recent government austerity measures in the UK, there
has been a reduction in funding to transport. This has exacerbated existing limitations
pertaining to transport in this rural area. Technology may provide a gateway service by
opening up opportunities for one to one and group social opportunities.
Accessing services is a third key theme that has emerged. We focused on how access relates
to the disjointed ways in which services are made available and are provided within
3
http://www.campaigntoendloneliness.org/wp-content/uploads/Promising-approaches-to-reducing-
loneliness-and-isolation-in-later-life.pdf

25 | P a g e
government and between government and NGOs. For example, services such as physical
exercise, luncheon clubs and IT training are provided by Age UK SL, while benefits, handyman
schemes and assisted refuge collection are provided by SLDC.
Our fieldwork began in May 2016, when we gained access to a pool of older adults and began
our recruitment drive. Our study of co-creation has sought to describe our three goals.
• What interventions did we undertake in South Lakeland? (Section 3.2)
• What are our reflections and learning from the methods we used for our co-creation
activities? (Section 3.3)
• What are our reflections and learning from the process of co-creation in South
Lakeland that will feed into Phase two in all field sites? (Section 3.4)
• Vision
• Expert interviews
• Literature review
• State of the art
• Recruitment
Exploration
• Interviews
• Focus groups
• Workshops
• Cultural Probes
Formulating
Ideas
• Workshops
• Observation
• ‘Events‘ module
feedback (Workshops 7
& 9)
• Feedback –develop
loop
• Documentation
• Talks of hosting of
product
Service &
Diffusion
• Interviews
• Workshops
• Surveys
• Probes
Service Definition
Co-Design
Recruitment
phase
Engagement phase
Transitioning
Figure 6: Co-Creation in South Lakeland
To support the attainment of these three goals we created a template (see Appendix I).
Drawing on our previous deliverable D6.3 (Recruitment & Engagement Plan Bremen & South
Lakeland), our planned co-creation activity stages are the following: (a) Exploration and
Recruitment, (b) Idea Forming, (c) Service and Data Definition, (d) Co-design and (e) Service
and Diffusion. Figure 6 highlights our co-creation stages and methods. The template provides
a way to first record our plans for co-creation, second to capture the process of co-creation
and the participants and third to capture our learning and reflections from each stage4
. This
template has been fundamental in planning and undertaking the co-creation activities. It has
also been central for us to capture the learning that arose and how we have modified the co-
creation approach throughout the first phase of work. This section is structured in relation to
the three goals mentioned above: first through review of our interventions, second through
reflecting on our methods and finally by capturing the learning from the co-creation process.
4
The service and diffusion stage of work is very preliminary at the moment and so we have provided a
note in Section 3.2.4, but not accounted for this in detail in this document.

26 | P a g e
3.2 Interventions in South Lakeland
This section will provide an account of the interventions we have undertaken in South
Lakeland during Phase one. This accounts for the work undertaken between May 2016 and
1st January 2017. The entire list of interventions undertaken during Phase one is shown in
Table 2. The right hand column of the table highlights the stakeholders we have worked with
while the left hand column highlights the form of intervention.
Activities Location Number Attendees
Meetings
ULANCS internal meetings
Kendal
Lancaster
5
38
SLDC, Age UK SL, SLH
Interviews Kendal 24 SLDC, Age UK SL, older adults
Casual chats (exploration and
recruitment)
Kendal, Ings,
Staveley
18
Older adults, volunteers, Age
UK SL staff
Focus groups Kendal, Ings 3
Exercise group participants, Knit
and Natter Club participants
Observation Kendal
In ‘design’
workshops
Our workshop participants
Workshops (Exploration + Design
+ Prototype feedback/test)
Kendal 9 ”
Contacting other organisations
Kendal,
Grange
2 --
Table 2: Interventions in South Lakeland in Phase 1
3.2.1 Interventions in the Exploration and
Recruitment Stage
The intentions for the exploration and
recruitment stage were fourfold. First, we
sought to explore the issue of independent living
with the key stakeholders, SLDC and Age UK SL
and with older adults themselves. Second, to
consider the issues of accessibility and open
data. Third, we wanted to consider the
secondary data relevant to this domain. Fourth,
to recruit older adults to join us as co-creators.
During the exploration and recruitment stage,
we held meetings with our stakeholders, SLDC and Age UK SL. Our meetings had a number of
objectives. First to explore what they considered to be fundamental with regard to
independent living. In our initial meetings we sought to explore and understand their
concerns pertaining to independent living. During these meetings it became clear that we
Exploration
&
Recruitment
Idea
Forming
Service &
Data
Definition
Co-Design
& Data
creation
Service &
Diffusion

27 | P a g e
should focus on loneliness and social isolation. Subsequent meetings explored this theme in
more detail.
The second objective was to understand accessibility to information technology and open
data/services in South Lakeland. We sought to understand the extent and nature of
engagement with technology that older adults had. From the outset we were made aware of
the low uptake of information technology by older adults in the district (estimated to be
16%). We also reviewed secondary data, where available, relating to access and information
technology for older adults. We also reviewed existing applications and web sites5
. In relation
to open data, there is no open data available via either stakeholder organisation. However,
we are negotiating with SLDC about what might be possible in this area. While the provision
of open data remains uncertain, SLDC are committed to opening up their services to older
adults.
A third objective of these meetings was to agree the shape and nature of our access to staff in
both organisations as well as to older adults. It was important that we establish what they
would support, and also who we could and could not contact. For example, Age UK was
divided into two departments, services and retail. We were granted full access to the services
part of the organisation but specific permissions were required each time we contacted one
of their retail stores. We interviewed six staff members of SLDC and two staff within Age UK
SL. In addition to meeting with senior SLDC managers, we have interviewed a number of
reception and customer service staff. Both of the people in Age UK SL we interviewed
undertook the detailed assessments with individual older adults. We have also participated in
a number of formal meetings with staff from both SLDC and Age UK SL.
A fourth objective was to discuss and gain access to the older adults themselves. At this initial
stage, we wanted to gain access to a wide variety of older adults. We did not want to only
restrict ourselves to those who were already interested in information technology. We were
conscious that it was important to gain an understanding of the issues relating to
independent living for all older adults before we embarked on our co-creation activities. This
meant we could attend better to the issues of accessibility from the outset of the study. This
saw us attend a number of events that Age UK host such as knitting classes and exercise
classes. We conducted three focus groups with participants at exercise or knit and natter-
clubs. While attending these events we also sought to recruit participants who would
participate in our co-creation project workshops.
During our recruitment drive at the social events for older adults, researchers often
participated in activities at the meets (e.g. exercise at exercise clubs) or volunteered in
assisting in the organisation of activities (e.g. in a leisure centre fun ‘O’lympics’ meet). This
helped us become a part of their group thereby enhancing the scope for casual conversations
with the organisers. This proved invaluable in both gaining a better understanding of
independent living and also, due to Age UK SL staff’s knowledge of those that attended their
events, and to gain their assistance in identifying older adults who might participate in our co-
5
For example some of the popular services that are available through open data supported apps deal
with refuse collection-- http://whatbinday.com/, road safety--https://data.gov.uk/dataset/road-
accidents-safety-data , bus timetables-- http://www.busguru.co.uk/ , housing and care options in later
life--http://www.firststopcareadvice.org.uk. In Cumbria our desktop research and correspondences
with various organisations highlight a few pointers to Network Infrastructure: Connecting Cumbria
(http://www.connectingcumbria.org/) and b4rn (https://b4rn.org.uk/) alongside BT.

28 | P a g e
creation workshops. However, most of the older adults we talked to were not interested in
technology and could not see any benefit from using it. This was repeated time and again.
The outcome of this first co-creation stage was that while we were able to recruit a number
of participants for our workshops, it amounted to about half the number that we had aimed
to recruit. However, the older adults that we have recruited have become strong supporters
of the project. We have approached other organisations to assist with the further recruitment
of participants, for example, we met with South Lakes Housing (SLH) who provide
accommodation (sheltered and otherwise), to gain access to new participants. We will carry
out additional exploration and co-design activities in early 2017 in rural areas of South
Lakeland. We were also aware of the challenges of accessibility to the internet and the
limited uptake of technology by older citizens in the district. These were significant challenges
to end this first stage of our research.
Figure 7: Recruitment at Exercise Club event Figure 8: Recruitment drive at Young @ Heart
Fun ‘O’lympics in Kendal (Kendal)
A detailed breakdown of our interventions in the exploration and recruitment stage is
presented in Appendix IIa.
Summary
In summary, our interventions in this first stage of co-creation have broadened our
understanding of the contexts and issues pertaining to independent living and specifically
loneliness and social isolation. It has also allowed an understanding of the ways in which SLDC
and Age UK SL seek to support older adults. Additionally, we have also been able to gain an
understanding of the issues relating to loneliness and social isolation from the perspective of
a wide range of older adults. Importantly, this included older adults who did not have
experience or interest in technology. This allowed us to gain an understanding of the
struggles, fears, limitations, possibilities and pleasures of older adults in this region. We also
sought to recruit participants to become co-creators. The detailed views of both service
providers and service users helped us to plan and initiate the co-creation workshops with a
good understanding of the complexities of living life independently for older adults in the
South Lakeland region. We were also aware of the services provided by both organisations.
Further, our research during the exploration and recruitment stage raised questions

29 | P a g e
pertaining to the extent to which a technological solution may be widely adopted by older
adults across South Lakeland.
Key insights: Exploration & Recruitment stage
• Narrowed down independent living to focus on loneliness and social isolation.
• Considered understandings of independent living and technology with a broad
range of older adults.
• Understand the perspectives and priorities of key service providers.
• Identified and recruited co-creators.
3.2.2 Interventions in the Idea Forming Stage
We have had seven regular participants who
have attended our workshops (five females and
two male participants with an age range
between 66 and 80). Their media profiles are
presented in Appendix VIII. We have conducted
four exploration workshops with our
participants in this second co-creation stage in
order to understand and formulate ideas
relating to loneliness and social isolation
(including accessibility and open data). We
concluded this stage with a separate workshop
with staff from SLDC and Age UK SL. The
purpose of this final meeting in stage two was
to feedback the progress of our fieldwork to
these organisations and to gain their agreement and support for the focus of our project.
Workshop 1 – Familiarisation
The intention of the first two-hour workshop was first to familiarize participants with each
other, second to outline the aims of our project and third to introduce the key ideas of co-
creation to our participants.
The first workshop was semi structured, in the sense that we had a plan for what we aimed to
do, but no specific activities we would undertake with participants. We introduced the
project, the members of the team and asked everyone else to introduce themselves. Most of
the participants knew one another (as we did) from attending the same social events. This
was very helpful as introductions were short and people felt at ease with each other. We also
had to factor in time for participants to read and sign the very detailed ethical consent forms.
We then introduced the overall aim of the project and explained how we would like them to
become co-creators. This led to some of the participants saying that they did not know much
about technology. We expected this and steered the conversation to each of them wanting to
say something about technology, and specifically what they had used it for, and what they
want to use it for. It became apparent that many in the group were interested but had very
limited knowledge of using technology. However, they were all interested to learn more
about technology. A large part of this workshop was then spent reassuring participants about
their important role in the project and our expectations of them.
Exploration
&
Recruitment
Idea
Forming
Service &
Data
Definition
Co-Design
Service &
Diffusion

30 | P a g e
The final part of the workshop focused on practicalities such as how best to schedule and
organise future co-creation workshops. What transpired at this early stage was how busy
many of our older adults were. It proved hard to find a regular time and day when they were
all available. We also had to work around the availability of the room.
The outcome of the workshop was that all participants seemed positive to come to the next
workshop, all had signed the ethics forms to allow for their participation, and that we had
fixed a date that suited everyone.
Reflection
• Important to make time for ethical consent.
• Important to explain the vital role they will play as co-creators.
• Important to build in time to develop good relations.
Workshop 2 – Calendar Exercise
The intention of the second workshop was to find out what the older adults do during a
typical week. This was in part a response to our reflections from the first workshop and from
the discussions during the recruitment stage pertaining to how busy many of the older adults
were.
The second workshop attracted several new participants. We began the session with brief
introductions, and due to the new participants, reiterated the aim of the project. We waited
until after the session had finished to ask them more about themselves and about their use of
/ interest in technology after the event. While we were pleased to welcome new participants,
it was disruptive to the start of the workshop. However, it is something that we recognised
may happen again.
This workshop was designed around a structured calendar exercise. The calendar exercise
(see Appendix III) sought to explore the “ideal” week and the “actual week”. Participants filled
in a paper calendar listing the actual activities they had done, or had planned to do, that
week. They were also asked to complete another calendar that listed the activities that would
be included in their “ideal” week. What emerged was the importance of ensuring that they
had social interaction throughout the week. All participants shopped daily, volunteered,
attended social events, educational events and physical exercise activities. All participants
highlighted the challenges of transportation. Further, planning their week ahead was also
important to them. Indeed, we got the sense that knowing that they had something planned
for most of the week was almost as important as attending the social events. Figure 9
provides an illustration of the activities that older adults liked to undertake in an ideal week.

31 | P a g e
Figure 9: Sample of the ideal week calendar
A second intention was to develop a good relationship with all participants. While completing
the calendar form a researcher worked closely with the participants. This not only allowed an
opportunity to better understand the reasons for what they recorded on the calendar. It also
provided a means to develop good inter- personal relationships with the participants.

32 | P a g e
Figure 10: Participants working on the Calendar Exercise
The two new participants, who had missed the introduction to the project and to the co-
creation process required extra support and explanation. However, it transpired that they had
thought it was an extension of an existing tablet/mobile phone training workshop. For
example, one participant [Julie], came to the workshop because she wanted to learn specific
things about using technology, for example how to sell items on eBay. Indeed, she raised a
specific question– “I’ve got an old mobile, and I don’t know how to retrieve messages” and
expected us to help her with this during the calendar exercise. These two participants
dropped out of future workshops.
The outcome of the session was positive nonetheless. We had a good account of the activities
they did and would like to undertake, and several participants took blank sheets with them to
ask their friends to complete. The importance of social interaction and planning a busy week
become a key lesson that has followed us through the co-creation process.
We also decided that if new people joined in future, we would have to go to a separate part
of the room and explain the purpose and the process of our co-creation work.
Reflection
• Older adults like to plan their week so as to know that they will be busy. This is just as
important as the social activities themselves.
• Transportation in this rural district is limited.
• We need to plan for new members joining our workshops.
Workshop 3 - Plan B
The intention of the third workshop was to seek to prioritise the themes that emerged from
our analysis of the calendar exercise. We had developed cards with some of the key things
that participants had recorded such as shopping, exercise, education, walking, knitting,
technology classes etc. for them to work through and prioritise.
Unfortunately, only two participants attended. Both had completed their calendar in more
detail and one had asked a friend to complete a calendar. We discussed which aspects of the
week were especially important to them. The discussion then moved into a free ranging
discussion about transportation in rural areas, living alone, the need for social interactions,
use of services (particularly refuse collection) and crucially, what the older adults considered

33 | P a g e
to be important for them to remain independent. One outcome was that it became clear how
fiercely independent both people were. They actively sought out opportunities for social
events and were keen to learn how to optimise their use of information technology.
The second intention of this workshop was to know what other older adults thought about
technology and/or used technology for. We asked them to discuss what other older adults
they knew used technology for. Asking about the use or non-use that other older adults made
of technology led to less candid responses. People are more critical of others than they were
of themselves. They explained few of their friends and neighbours have an interest in
technology, that they do not see why they need to use it and what they can gain from it.
While clearly challenging for us, this was a helpful confirmation of what the Age UK SL
representatives had told us. It also reconfirmed the findings from the recruitment co-creation
stage. One outcome was that while we needed to build something initially for the co-
creators, we also needed to keep in this group of non-users in mind if our project would have
any significant penetration.
Finally, it transpired that Age UK SL had organised a special social event at the same time as
our workshop (which was unknown to us). It highlighted that we needed to ensure that we
were informed about events Age UK SL were hosting when organising future workshops and
interviews etc. It also highlighted the importance that older adults place on attending social
events.
Reflection
• Older adults are often very independent and actively seek out opportunities for social
interaction.
• Need to not rule out creating something for the ‘majority’ of older adults in South
Lakeland.
• Ask people to talk about others to elicit less candid responses.
• Organising times for workshops needs to also factor in Age UK SL hosting one off
events.
Workshop 4 – Prioritising Exercise
The intention of this workshop was to start to prioritise what activities we should seek to
design technological support for. Thus, for the final workshop with older adults in this second
stage of co-creation, we ran the prioritisation exercise that had initially been planned for
Workshop 3.
The activity was designed so as to ask the participants to rank issues that had emerged from
the calendar exercise, informal discussions and interviews. We circulated cards with the
themes that they had provided from previous workshops (and interviews) and asked each
person to comment on each theme. We also asked participants to volunteer additional
themes. This prompted considerable discussion. We then asked participants to place each
theme in rank order of importance. The aim of this activity was to prioritise different themes
to gain a clear understanding of what we would initially develop. Figure 11 below indicates
the text provided by our most advanced co-creator under one of the themes (transport) that
we asked them to prioritise.

34 | P a g e
Figure 11: Prioritisation Example from one of the Co-creators
The outcome from this exercise was that social events and opportunities to meet other
people was the most highly ranked theme that emerged. The other themes in rank order
were transport, information provision, trusted trader, benefits and shopping.
However, when we started talking about technology, the issue of trust arose as a key concern
for several in the room. They were concerned that their details may not be safe and they may
be subject to phishing or other unsolicited contact. They were also distrusting of recording
financial details. They did not want SLDC, and to a lesser extent Age SL to know about their
financial circumstances.
Reflection
• Social events were ranked as more important that government services.
• Trust is a key concern – trust in technology and in government / NGO organisations.
Feedback/consolidation Workshop with SLDC and Age UK South Lakeland
The intention of this workshop was first to feedback the themes to the key stakeholders that
had been prioritised though our co-creation workshops. Gaining SLDCs and Age UK SL’s
continued and future support is crucial to the success of our project.
The emergent themes of the fieldwork were grouped under the following broader categories:
(a) The older adult experience of technology, (b) Social activities, (c) Interactions with
government services and (d) Trust. Each theme was discussed in detail with the
representatives from both organisations. Both Age UK SL and SLDC concurred with our
findings and agreed that we should prioritise developing an events application, a services
application and a trusted portal. The safe / trusted portal was something that both
organisations were especially keen to pursue. SLDC have provisionally agreed to host the
service once it had been developed.
A second intention was to consider the issue of designing for the majority population of
South Lakeland. Here we refer to those that did not have access to technology – persona C
(Appendix VIIc). We discussed a number of possibilities: First, whether we could design
something related to Age UK SL’s ‘village agent’ services. Village agents provide local support

35 | P a g e
Exploration
Idea
Formation
Service
Definition
Co-Design
Service &
Diffusion
for older adults in need of services in rural regions of South Lakeland. Village agents were
often mentioned by participants as being highly beneficial. Second whether we could use SMS
based invites for events and other activities. Both of these areas were supported by Age UK
SL and SLDC as possible ways to develop the project in the second year.
The issue of automated form-filling also arose during the discussion. We discussed and
reflected together on the fact that one of the reasons for older adults’ reluctance to use
technology was because they were put off by the requirements to complete numerous
different, and sometimes complex and confusing forms in order to access services. We agreed
that these were potentially important issues that we would explore in Phase two. Low
recruitment was also reported and discussed.
The outcome of this workshop was that it allowed us to agree with Age UK SL and SLDC what
we would focus on in the next stage of co-creation – the design of the app. A detailed
breakdown of our interventions in the Idea Forming stage is presented in Appendix IIb.
Reflections
• Social events were agreed as the priority with key stakeholders.
• A trusted portal was also welcomed.
• Plans were discussed to develop something for non-users/limited technology users in
South Lakeland.
Summary of the Idea Forming Stage
In summary, we identified, explored and prioritised a range of important issues pertaining to
independent living for older adults in the South Lakeland region. We agreed on the next steps
with both the co-creators and the stakeholders. We agreed to proceed to the Service and
Data Definition stage of co-creation with a specific emphasis on (a) social events of interest to
our participants, (b) developing a trusted portal and (c) exploring possible services. We also
identified issues that we would explore in Phase two of the work in South Lakeland. This
would focus on intermediaries and the related provision of information to relevant services
and how non-users of the technology (persona C) may benefit.
Key Insights: Ideas forming stage
• Explored issues pertaining to independent living and specifically loneliness and
social isolation.
• Considered a range of technological functionalities.
• Prioritised the services that would be beneficial with service users and providers.
• Enrolled key stakeholders for stage three.
3.2.3 Interventions in the Service
and Data Definition and Co-
Design Stages
We ran five workshops during this stage.
The aim was to focus on the issues
agreed at the end of the previous stage,
namely events, a trusted portal and the
provision of services. Our two September
workshops were geared towards data

36 | P a g e
definition and designing around ‘events’ and the October workshops around ‘services’. Our
November workshop continued our research investigations and discussion around
government services. Additionally, this workshop was also used to gather feedback on the
content and design of our ‘events’ app. While our original plan was to organise our activities
around the distinct Service and Data Definition stage and the Co-Design stages (see
Deliverable 6.3), however, our experiences while running the co-creation activities saw a
strong overlap between the stages.
Workshop 5 – Social Events
The intention of this workshop was to show our co-creators a picture of a potential prototype
of the events application (a mobile phone with apps—see Appendix VI). We outlined its
suggested functionalities. We received some feedback about this interface. What was clear
was the participants liked to be involved in this design work, and appreciated that we had
followed their suggestions to focus on events.
The second intention of this workshop was to ask the participants to help identify where they
looked for events. We showed the older adults a list of events we had collated from
information that was provided by SLDC and Age UK SL. These were events run by a wide
range of different organisations (See Appendix IV). We also discussed their needs and
difficulties in accessing information and attending events. The issue of searching for
information and using search facilities became the main focus of discussion.
The outcome was that they were unaware of many of the events and indeed, of the
organisations hosting them. Second that they would have difficulty getting to some of the
locations due to limited transportation.
Reflection
• Participants liked to see their input in the design of the phone screen.
• Participants were unaware of many organisations that hold events.
• That transportation to the areas where events are held proses challenges.
Workshop 6 – Information Searching
The intention of this workshop was to consider what information search functionality we
could build into the events app. It was clear from the previous workshop that information
searching was not something participants were necessarily familiar with (other than Google).
We observed how participants searched for information. We did this by asking them to test
out a range of different search filters that were available on popular websites. These included
a property website (Rightmove), a car sales web site with extensive filtering capability and a
website providing ‘commute times’. Three researchers were present at this workshop. This
allowed us to work with participants individually. We observed the participants as they
navigated these websites on their mobile phones / tablets and, for one participant, on their
laptop. We answered questions that the participants raised and steered them through the
search navigation process when necessary. We wrote up the observations after the
workshop.
We had planned to run the remainder of the session as a design experiment on paper
prototypes. However, due to the length of time required for some participants to use the
search functionality websites, this was not possible.

37 | P a g e
The outcome was that we developed a clear understanding of how difficult search filters may
be for some older adults. This suggests that the search functionality will need to be intuitive
and possibly based on preferences.
Reflection
• Searching and filtering searches was challenging and time consuming.
• Preferences thus would need to be built in.
• This functionality would not be easily / readily used by older adults using the events
app.
Workshop 7 – Events App Prototyping
The first intention of this workshop was to show the first stage of the events app and to gain
feedback on its design. The second intention was to highlight the search filter design.
Figure 12: Basic prototype of an app

38 | P a g e
Figure 12 illustrates the basic prototype of the app’s home launcher screen and the events
app itself. Figure 12 highlights the events component. This was co-created with participants
who provided feedback and suggested new features (e.g. a weather icon) that might
potentially be included in the ‘app’. Some of the other ideas and requirements suggested
included, location, sunset time and transport information. Interestingly with location, it was
not about how to get to the location, but merely confirmation of the location. Being a district
of small villages and towns most people knew where everything was and could easily find
places they did not know. There was discussion about providing names of people attending
the event. However, views differed on this issue due to privacy concerns. The issue of trust
emerged once more.
Figure 13: Events app prototype
The outcome of this workshop was first feedback about the size of the different components
and second more detailed feedback on the design of search filters.
Reflection
• Expanded functionality was suggested
• Participants were enthused that they could see the fruits of their co-creating labour!

39 | P a g e
Workshop 8 – Accessing Government and NGO Services
The intention of this workshop was to focus on considering the development of the services
app. Specifically, we sought to identify the services that the older adults considered to be
especially valuable.
We designed the workshop around a list of services. The list of services (See Appendix V) was
drawn up by the researchers based on information provided by SLDC. This session was
devoted to discussion around participants’ knowledge of accessing of existing local
government services. Participants suggested and discussed issues of access to information on
services and sources of information. The discussion revolved around participants’ experiences
of access and whether there were services that they were unaware of (and why). This list was
extensive and there was insufficient time to review all the services during the workshop. The
outcome was to complete this exercise at a later workshop.
Reflection
• We should have shortened the list prior to the workshop by talking to the NGO.
• The services considered valuable are very much dependent on the individual’s
financial and physical circumstances.
Workshop 9 – Events App Prototyping
The intention of this workshop was to complete the discussion around the list of services.
Second to demonstrate the prototype. However, our third and primary intention was to
consider developing services for the non-users of technology in the district.
During this session the researchers reported on a more developed prototype—an ‘events’
app with certain functionalities. The app was discussed with participants and further
suggestions for refinement were noted.
The discussion around the unfinished list of services from the previous workshop was
completed with the workshop participants. The agreed list of services to consider was trusted
handyperson services, and community news.
We explored once more with our co-creators the possibility of developing services for “non-
users”. We asked how their friends and relatives might benefit from this events app. They
discussed and suggested other ways that that we could reach out to non-users (persona C):
• Public (interactive, and non-interactive) displays
 Libraries, Post Office, Supermarket, charity shop, SLDC offices.
 Non-interactive displays (simple carousel with, for example, nearby events –
perhaps mix displaying random with 10 frequent “featured” events). These
could be expanded beyond events to other Mobile-Age apps and info.
SMS based messaging to mobile phone and landlines was also considered. This offers
opportunities to overcome some of the challenges relating to accessibility to the internet and
the cost associated with purchasing devices and monthly internet subscriptions. This latter
option is one that we will explore further in Phase two of co-creation.
The outcome of this workshop was a clear definition of the events app to be developed and
second a clear prioritisation of services. Finally, we continued to develop our understanding
of persona C – the non-technology user.

40 | P a g e
Exploration
Idea
Formation
Service
Definition
Co-Design
Service &
Diffusion
Refection
 There are some interesting possibilities to explore to make the app accessible to the
non-technology users.
 Friends or relatives could use the app on their behalf.
Summary of the Service and Data Definition and Co-Design Stages
In summary these workshops sought to narrow down and define the development of an
events application. This stage focused on developing an ‘events’ app that would facilitate
attendance at social events. It has led to the design and specification of the functionality. The
workshops also assisted in understanding the nature of services used most frequently by
participants and the challenges they faced in using them. This has led to the initial scoping of
the services app to potentially include services such as handyman and community news.
Further, and perhaps most fundamentally, it was apparent during this stage first, that
provision of services within one application/container was required and second, that this
application must be a trusted/safe enclave. A detailed breakdown of the interventions in the
Service and Data Definition Stage, as well as the Co-Design Stage that ran simultaneously, is
provided in Appendix IIc.
Key Insights: Data Definition Co-design stage
• Further defined issues relating to events.
• Further defined and prioritised government and NGO services.
• Considered issues such as search functionality.
• Considered issues such as transport, weather and darkness.
• Demonstrated and refined the interface of the app.
• Reviewed and identified open and proprietary data sources.
• Considered ideas to make the technology accessible to a wider number of older
adults in South Lakeland.
3.2.4 Service and Diffusion Stage
This stage comprised of three distinct
activities: evaluation, documentation and
sustainability. In this subsection we
account for our progress in Phase one
with regard to these activities.
Preliminary testing of prototypes for the
‘events’ app has commenced. Thus far we
have focused on developing a
demonstrator events app. This has
allowed us to gain feedback on its design
from our co-creators prior to further
development. Simultaneously, work has
been undertaken to develop the
architecture and functions of the app itself. This will be piloted in a future workshop with our
co-creators. This stage is thus ongoing, and we will continue to refine the design and
robustness of the events app. It will be tested by our group of participants and a wider group

41 | P a g e
of older adults. On the issue of sustainability, researchers have initiated discussions with SLDC
to explore whether they will host the app. They are supportive of this but we will work out
the specificities and gain final agreement once the app is fully developed and tested. Further
diffusion will take place once our app is hosted by SLDC. We also seek to engage other
organisations such as Age UK (nationally) who may support the wider roll out and
sustainability. We will do this once we believe we have a strong product to demonstrate and
market to them.
In addition to this interim report on co-creation, we have highlighted our learning and
reflections on accessibility in the accessibility interim report and in the communication and
dissemination reports.
ULANC has also submitted papers to two conferences, viz. CHI (2017)6
and DIS (2017)7
. If
accepted, these papers will not only allow for wider dissemination but also provide
opportunities for further feedback.
Key Insights: Service and Diffusion Stage
• Ensure sustainability by creating ownership - SLDC to host the app
• Test prototypes with a wide group of older adults
• Gain feedback from wider NGO, government and academic stakeholders
6
https://chi2017.acm.org/ “Mobile-Age: open data mobile apps to support independent living”
7
http://dis2017.org/ "Reflecting on the “co” in co-creation"

42 | P a g e
3.3 Learning and Reflection on Co-Creation Methods
This section will consider our reflections and learning from the methods we used in South
Lakeland in the five co-creation stages of our project in Phase one (year 1). An overview of
the methods used in South Lakeland is provided in Table 3.
Method Stages
Exploration
and
Recruitment
Idea
Forming
Service and
Data
Definition
Co-design Service
and
Diffusion
(ongoing
stage)
Formal Meetings X X
Informal meetings X X
Secondary Data X
Participating/volunteerin
g in older adult activities
at social meets
X
Interviews X X
Focus groups X
Discussion X X X X
Probes --
Calendar
Exercise
--IT
possibilitie
s
-- Experiences
of existing
apps/website
s
-- Searching
existing
websites
Observation
--
Demonstrat
ors
Survey -- List of
activities and
events of
interest to
participant
-- List of
government
services
X
Persona X X
Stake-holder buy-in Feedback and
Consolidation Workshop
Table 3: Co-creation research methods used in Phase 1 in South Lakeland

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Ähnlich wie D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices

Ähnlich wie D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices (20)

Mehr von Mobile Age Project

Mehr von Mobile Age Project (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

D1.2 Interim study on co-creation practices