Quadruple helix model organisation and tensions in participatory design teams

Co-design projects often include multiple partners from diverse organisations in a Quadruple Helix model for innovation. While literature on co-design and participatory design (PD) projects often focus on how to co-design with end-users or citizens, our paper discusses collaboration issues among citizen, industrial, public and academic partners in a living lab-based co-design project. Through analysis of end-project interviews with these partners, we identify a number of tensions that were negotiated in the course of the project, and identify team management, collaboration and facilitation strategies for putting PD to work among this group of citizen, industrial, public and academic partners. We discuss the conflicting discourses of the Quadruple Helix model and the co-design approach to innovation as a possible reason for such tensions. We understand tensions in PD projects organized in a Quadruple Helix model for innovation as both unavoidable and in some cases even productive in driving forward innovative design.

[1]  Per Kristensson,et al.  Team diversity and its management in a co-design team , 2018 .

[2]  Sampsa Hyysalo,et al.  What difference does a living lab make? Comparing two health technology innovation projects , 2014 .

[3]  Helena Karasti,et al.  Infrastructuring in participatory design , 2014, PDC.

[4]  Loet Leydesdorff,et al.  A Triple Helix of University—Industry—Government Relations , 1998, Scientometrics.

[5]  Roger S. Pressman,et al.  Software Engineering: A Practitioner's Approach , 1982 .

[6]  Anne Marie Kanstrup,et al.  Living in the lab: an analysis of the work in eight living laboratories set up in care homes for technology innovation , 2017 .

[7]  Anna Seravalli.  ReTuren : participatory design, co-production and makers’ culture for sustainable waste handling , 2017 .

[8]  Jill Palzkill Woelfer,et al.  A value sensitive action-reflection model: evolving a co-design space with stakeholder and designer prompts , 2013, CHI.

[9]  John Cullen,et al.  Democratizing Innovation , 2020, Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship.

[10]  G. Mulgan,et al.  The open book of social innovation , 2010 .

[11]  V. Braun,et al.  Using thematic analysis in psychology , 2006 .

[12]  Jörn Messeter,et al.  Negotiation of values as driver in community-based PD , 2016, PDC.

[13]  Pieter Jan Stappers,et al.  Co-creation and the new landscapes of design , 2008 .

[14]  David Geerts,et al.  The GLID method: Moving from design features to underlying values in co-design , 2017, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[15]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  The Logic of Open Innovation: Managing Intellectual Property , 2003 .

[16]  Volker Wulf,et al.  Designing for the living room: long-term user involvement in a living lab , 2013, CHI.

[17]  E. Coiera,et al.  Research Paper: Building a National Health IT System from the Middle Out , 2009, J. Am. Medical Informatics Assoc..

[18]  Sonja Pedell,et al.  Deepening user involvement through living labs , 2017, OZCHI.

[19]  Henry Chesbrough,et al.  Open Innovation: The New Imperative for Creating and Profiting from Technology , 2003 .

[20]  Christopher Frauenberger,et al.  In pursuit of rigour and accountability in participatory design , 2015, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[21]  Ernesto Damiani,et al.  Exploiting Participatory Design in Open Innovation Factories , 2012, 2012 Eighth International Conference on Signal Image Technology and Internet Based Systems.

[22]  Wijnand A. IJsselsteijn,et al.  Design for Agency, Adaptivity and Reciprocity: Reimagining AAL and Telecare Agendas , 2015, Designing Socially Embedded Technologies in the Real-World.

[23]  Kim Halskov,et al.  Rekindling values in participatory design , 2010, PDC '10.