Designing energy solutions: a comparison of two participatory design approaches for service innovation

Abstract

PurposeParticipatory design involves users and other key stakeholders in processes that aim to ensure solutions generated meet their needs. This paper compares the processes and outcomes of two participatory design approaches (design thinking and co-design) to examine their utility in co-creating innovative service solutions for reducing household energy demand.Design/methodology/approachDesign thinking and co-design were implemented in two independent convenience samples of household energy users in Queensland, Australia. Workshops were conducted online using Zoom and Padlet technology. Informed by the capability-practice-ability (CPA) portfolio, a critical analysis based on the research team's experiences with implementing the two participatory design approaches is presented.FindingsThe key distinguishing features that set design thinking apart from co-design is extent of user involvement, solution diversity and resource requirements. With a shorter duration and less intensive user involvement, co-design offers a more resource efficient means of solution generation. In contrast, design thinking expands the solution space by allowing for human-centred problem framing and in so doing gives rise to greater diversity in solutions generated.Research limitations/implicationsMapping the six constellations of service design outlined in the CPA portfolio to the research team's experiences implementing two different participatory design approaches within the same context reconciles theoretical understanding of how capabilities, practices and abilities may differ or converge in an applied setting.Practical implicationsUnderstanding the benefits and expected outcomes across the two participatory design approaches will guide practitioners and funding agencies in the selection of an appropriate method to achieve desired outcomes.Originality/valueThis paper compares two forms of participatory design (design thinking and co-design) for service innovation in the context of household energy demand offering theoretical and practical insights into the utility of each as categorised within the CPA portfolio.

Design thinking capabilities in the digital world: A bibliometric analysis of emerging trends

“…Indicative is as well a sub-cluster revolving around DT in the service context. This sub-cluster includes topics such as teaching data-driven marketing (Micheaux and Bosio, 2019), designing smart energy solutions (Willmott et al, 2022), enabling participatory public service design (Baek and Kim, 2018), and as an innovation approach in technology start-ups (Korper et al, 2020).…”

“…The fourth cluster (yellow) revolves around the DT for service design and service innovation via user-centred, participatory and co-design approaches that increase stakeholder engagement in business contexts. These topics are a part of the service management discourse of DT (Willmott et al, 2022). The cluster emphasises artificial intelligence as a Visualisation network of keyword co-occurrence in DT field related to (competencies in) digital era; co-word analysis.…”

Co-creating and evaluating social marketing programs: a living lab approach

“…Stakeholder orientation is an emerging principle for social marketers informed by varying streams of literature such as systems and macro social marketing (Domegan et al , 2019; Flaherty et al , 2020) as well as co-creation methods (e.g. co-design [Trischler et al , 2019], co-production [Voorberg et al , 2015; Cosgrave et al , 2022] and participatory design [Willmott et al , 2022]). Stakeholder orientation demands an equitable approach to understand different voices (citizens, public authorities, businesses, academia and other stakeholder groups) and then working with them to co-create collectively endorsed solutions.…”

Editorial: Nothing about us without us: participatory design application in social marketing

“…Moreover, as the range of PD methods being developed and appropriated by different fields increases, there is a need for greater critique and reflection on how PD and related approaches are used and communicated in social marketing. Importantly, there is a need to advance current understandings of how to enable and prompt meaningful participation to ensure people feel empowered to understand, realise and claim their right to participation (Willmott et al, 2022a(Willmott et al, , 2022b.…”

“…The agile nature of persona building is uniquely suited to responding to public health and other crises. Although engagement varies based on the level of agency, input and empowerment afforded by a given PD method (Willmott et al, 2022a(Willmott et al, , 2022b, viewing PD methods as substitutionary rather than complementary compromises the depth of audience insight and orientation. This paper demonstrates how different PD methods offer complementary value with each generating unique insights on target population values, motives and behaviours.…”