What does co-design really mean?

Allen Dorsey:

Hi, I'm your host, Allen Dorsey. I work in our Nous Melbourne office, and I love getting to chat with my really interesting colleagues about all the things they're passionate about.
Today I got to sit down with Rachel, and we talked about something I've been seeing everywhere lately: co-design. We unpack what it really means beyond the buzzword, what happens when organisations genuinely invest in it, what can go wrong when they don't, and, most importantly, the impact when it's done well.
So grab your coffee and let's jump in.

Allen Dorsey:

Welcome to the podcast, Rachel. It's so good to have you.

Rachel Flitman:
Thank you. Great to be here.

Allen Dorsey:

So, you're a Director here at Nous, and you specialise in human-centred design. You work across a range of sectors, including transport, aviation, emergency management and education. A pretty big range.

Rachel Flitman:

It sure is.

Allen Dorsey:

And before that, in a previous life, you were a speechwriter in Canberra for foreign dignitaries. Is that right?

Rachel Flitman:

That's right.

Allen Dorsey:

Amazing. I'm thinking about The West Wing the whole time. That's what I'm picturing.

Rachel Flitman:

Yeah, that's essentially it. There was a lot of walking down corridors, and a very short amount of time to pin down the purpose and content of a speech.

Allen Dorsey:

I love that. Very West Wing. And you're also a lover of two of my favourite things — the Ms, as I call them: markets and mountains.

Rachel Flitman:

Big time.

Allen Dorsey:

A lot of walking.

Rachel Flitman:

Yes. Walking, wandering, climbing — all of the above.

Allen Dorsey:

Sounds fantastic.

You're here today because I've been seeing this term everywhere, especially on LinkedIn. It's becoming a bit of a buzzword: co-design. It feels like a term that can mean a lot of different things. What does it actually mean in practice?

Rachel Flitman:

It's a great question. Co-design is very in vogue at the moment.

I like to explain it by breaking down the words themselves. "Co" means with, and "design" means the creation of something. So, at its simplest, co-design is creating something with people.

Another way to think about it is through the lens of participatory engagement. Participatory engagement exists on a spectrum. At one end, you're listening and responding to people. At the other end, you have what might be considered the purest form of co-design, where people are empowered to drive decision-making themselves.
Most of the work we do tends to sit in the middle of that spectrum, in a collaborative space. We generally know the outcome we're trying to achieve, but we're involving people in designing how we get there.

One of the most important things about co-design is being really clear about what level of co-design you're undertaking. Because it can be such an umbrella term, it's important for organisations to be specific about the role participants will play.

From a risk management perspective, it's critical that both clients and participants understand the purpose of the process, what influence people will have over decisions, and what their involvement will look like.

Allen Dorsey:

You work across a huge range of sectors, bringing different stakeholders together to design solutions. What does co-design look like when it's really successful?

Rachel Flitman:

I think when people hear "co-design", they often picture a workshop full of sticky notes.

And that's certainly part of it, but when co-design is really successful, there's a lot of work that happens before anyone picks up a sticky note.

The first step is clearly defining the problem and understanding whether it's actually the right problem for a co-design approach. Does it stand to benefit from the involvement of people with lived experience? Are we still exploring solutions, or have we already decided what the solution is?

If we already know the solution, co-design probably isn't the right mechanism. In that situation, we might be testing or validating an idea rather than genuinely co-designing it.

So a lot of successful co-design comes down to understanding the context before you begin: the authorising environment, the nature of the problem, existing challenges and opportunities, and the people who should be involved.

That groundwork helps ensure that when people do come together, the process is meaningful and productive.

Allen Dorsey:

So it's really about doing the thinking upfront. Understanding what you're trying to achieve, bringing people together, and then building something from there.

What happens if organisations skip those steps? What's at risk when they decide not to do co-design?

Rachel Flitman:

When we don't co-design, we often end up designing based on assumptions, and that's risky. It can mean investing a significant amount of time, money and effort into creating something that isn't actually fit for purpose.

A good example comes from my previous work in infrastructure. There was a new school that had been designed and built. It looked fantastic and was ready to open. When students started arriving, it became clear that several students who used wheelchairs couldn't open the doors independently because the doors were too heavy. The result was a very expensive retrofit where every door had to be replaced. Had the designers stopped earlier and asked who they were designing for, and involved people with lived experience in the process, the issue could have been identified long before construction was complete.

That's why we often talk about co-design as a way of reducing risk. It helps identify challenges before they become expensive problems.

Allen Dorsey:

That's such an important reminder. Bringing people into the process helps us create something better, more equitable and more fit for purpose.

Rachel Flitman:

Absolutely. The equity piece is critical. It's about being intentional about who we're designing with and who we're designing for.

Allen Dorsey:

We've talked about what happens when organisations skip co-design. What's an example of when it's worked really well and genuinely changed the outcome?

Rachel Flitman:

We recently finished a project with Australian Red Cross. We were supporting the sustainability of their community-led resilience teams in the Northern Rivers region. These are communities that are often affected by floods and bushfires, and can become isolated for extended periods of time. The focus was on helping local people support one another, prepare for disasters and respond effectively without having to wait for outside assistance.

Red Cross wanted to understand how these teams could be supported into the future. We started by spending time with community members. We sat on verandas, had conversations, listened to their experiences and learned about what was working well and what they found challenging.

After several weeks of research, we brought together everything we'd heard, synthesised the insights, identified themes and developed some initial ideas. We then returned to those same communities and ran a series of workshops over several months. We played back what we'd heard and asked, "Did we get this right?" We worked together to refine ideas and design solutions.

What we ultimately created was a package of tools and resources that reflected the experiences and ideas of the people who would actually use them. That was really powerful because people could see their own knowledge and contributions reflected in the final outcome. We also challenged some assumptions along the way. Initially, we thought the solution would involve a sophisticated online resource hub. But community members told us that internet access could be patchy and that some people weren't digitally connected. That changed our approach. The final solution could be accessed digitally, but it was also available as a physical resource folder that people could grab quickly in an emergency. The co-design process didn't just influence the content of the solution — it shaped the form it took as well.

Allen Dorsey:

It would have been such a shame to miss those voices. Without that process, you could easily have excluded exactly the people you were trying to support. And I have to say, the veranda conversations sound wonderful. What a great way to spend a day — sitting down with people, listening and learning.

Rachel Flitman:

Absolutely.

Allen Dorsey:

Thinking about the future, we're moving into an increasingly digital world. What role do you think co-design plays in that future?

Rachel Flitman:

Two things come to mind.

The first is that co-design is inherently human. Part of our role as facilitators is bringing together lived experience, technical expertise and design thinking, and helping those different perspectives work together to create solutions. As we move towards a more digital future, it's easy to become focused on systems, technical requirements and functionality. 

What's often at risk of being forgotten is the fact that we're ultimately designing these systems for people. It's important to think not only about the people in the middle of the distribution but also those on the margins who might otherwise be overlooked. At Nous, we often talk about designing for equity. Co-design frequently involves people whose voices have traditionally been under-represented. It helps ensure that humanity remains at the centre of how we create systems, services and experiences.

Allen Dorsey:

That feels incredibly important. It's reassuring to hear that co-design continues to have a place in the future and perhaps becomes even more important as technology advances. 

Rachel Flitman:

Absolutely.

Allen Dorsey:

Rachel, this has been such a lovely conversation.

We ask every guest the same question. I'm on a mission to read better books this year, so do you have a recommendation for us?

Rachel Flitman:

I do.

A book I've read recently that has really stayed with me is The Art of Gathering by Priya Parker. It's a brilliant book that explores what it means to gather people effectively. Priya Parker is fascinated by why some meetings, events and gatherings succeed while others don't. She examines the role of the host and encourages a much more intentional approach to bringing people together.

One concept she talks about is rejecting the idea of being a "chill host". Instead, she argues that great gatherings require purpose, structure and clear expectations. She examines everything from how people enter a space to how they leave it, and why every part of that experience matters.

What I love about the book is that she approaches gatherings as something that can be designed. She argues that when we design gatherings intentionally, they can become transformative rather than simply transactional.

Allen Dorsey:

You know what? As someone who loves hosting a dinner party, I think that just jumped straight to the top of my reading list. It sounds like essential reading before the weekend. That's a great recommendation.

Well, thank you again, Rachel. It's been an absolute pleasure. I'll see you around the office.

Rachel Flitman:

You sure will. Thanks, Allen.

Allen Dorsey:

And thanks to everyone for tuning in. We hope to see you next time.