Ideation and Collaborative Co-Design

Introduction

Ideation is the stage in which research evidence is transformed into possible responses to a user need. It follows problem framing but precedes detailed prototyping and evaluation. In user experience (UX) work, ideation is not simply the production of many attractive interface concepts. It is a disciplined process for generating, extending, combining and selecting ideas that may improve people’s experiences.

Collaborative co-design extends this process by involving users, stakeholders and multidisciplinary team members as contributors to design activity. It recognises that people who experience a service possess valuable contextual knowledge, while designers contribute facilitation, synthesis and prototyping skills. Effective ideation therefore combines divergent thinking—opening up possibilities—with convergent thinking—organising, evaluating and prioritising them.

The central challenge is to evaluate ideas without prematurely suppressing creativity. A workshop that judges every suggestion immediately tends to produce safe, familiar solutions. A workshop that never evaluates ideas may produce a large collection of impractical or harmful proposals. Good facilitation separates generation from judgement, makes participation inclusive and uses explicit criteria when moving toward decisions.

Learning Objectives

By the end of this chapter, you should be able to:

• explain the purpose of ideation in a user-centred design process;
• distinguish divergent and convergent thinking;
• apply brainstorming, brainwriting, sketching, Crazy 8s and SCAMPER;
• plan and facilitate an inclusive collaborative co-design workshop;
• evaluate and prioritise ideas without prematurely restricting creativity;
• identify ethical, practical and organisational limitations of co-design; and
• translate selected ideas into testable design concepts.

Ideation in the Design Process

A typical user-centred design cycle can be represented as follows:

Research → Synthesis → Problem framing → Ideation → Prototyping → Evaluation → Iteration

The cycle is not strictly linear. Research may continue during ideation, and evaluation may reveal that the original problem was misunderstood. Nevertheless, ideation is most productive when participants have a shared understanding of the design challenge.

A useful design challenge is neither excessively broad nor prematurely solution-specific. “How might we improve healthcare?” is too broad for a short workshop. “How might we help first-time clinic visitors understand where to go after checking in?” is more actionable while still allowing multiple solutions.

Divergent and convergent thinking

Divergent thinking expands the solution space. Participants are encouraged to produce numerous possibilities, including unusual or incomplete ideas. Convergent thinking reduces the solution space by identifying ideas that best address user needs, feasibility constraints and ethical requirements.

These modes should be deliberately separated. If participants critique an idea while it is being generated, the social and cognitive cost of participation increases. A person may withhold a potentially valuable idea because it is not yet fully formed. Conversely, if all ideas are treated as equally suitable at the end, the team cannot make responsible decisions.

A practical sequence is:

1. Frame: clarify the user, context, need and design question.
2. Generate: produce many ideas without detailed criticism.
3. Build: combine, extend and sketch ideas.
4. Screen: remove ideas that violate essential constraints.
5. Select: compare promising ideas against agreed criteria.
6. Prototype: make selected concepts concrete and testable.

Core Ideation Techniques

Brainstorming

Brainstorming is a group method for generating ideas around a defined challenge. Classic brainstorming principles include deferring judgement, encouraging quantity, building on others’ ideas and welcoming unusual suggestions. In contemporary UX practice, these principles are treated as facilitation guidelines rather than guarantees. Groups do not automatically become creative merely by being told to brainstorm.

A facilitator should state the challenge, establish time limits, provide relevant research insights and record every contribution visibly. Prompts such as “What would make this experience easier for a person with limited digital confidence?” can focus attention without dictating a solution.

Common weaknesses include domination by confident speakers, production blocking—where participants wait to speak—and conformity to the first plausible idea. These weaknesses are reduced by combining spoken brainstorming with silent methods such as brainwriting.

Brainwriting

Brainwriting asks participants to write ideas individually before sharing them. For example, each participant might write three ideas in five minutes, exchange the sheet with another participant, and then extend the existing ideas. The method increases the number of people contributing and gives reflective participants time to think.

Brainwriting is especially useful when:

• the group contains status differences;
• participants use different first languages;
• the topic is sensitive;
• remote collaboration makes turn-taking difficult; or
• the facilitator wants to reduce anchoring on the first idea.

Anonymous digital input can support psychological safety, but anonymity should not be used to excuse disrespectful or discriminatory contributions. The facilitator remains responsible for moderation.

Sketching

Sketching is a thinking tool, not merely a presentation technique. A rough sketch externalises an idea so that participants can inspect, modify and combine it. It can represent an interface screen, a service journey, a physical environment, a conversation or an organisational process.

A useful sketching activity asks participants to show:

• the user’s goal;
• the principal action or interaction;
• information the user needs;
• what happens before and after the interaction; and
• any assumptions or unresolved questions.

The purpose is not visual polish. Low-fidelity sketches reduce attachment to a particular design and make revision inexpensive. Facilitators should explicitly state that drawing skill is not being assessed. Icons, labels, boxes and arrows are sufficient.

Crazy 8s

Crazy 8s is a rapid sketching exercise commonly associated with design sprint practice. Participants fold a sheet into eight sections or use eight digital frames. They create one distinct idea in each frame, usually spending about one minute per frame.

The time constraint encourages fluency and prevents over-investment in the first concept. It also reveals how a participant’s ideas evolve under pressure. The exercise should be introduced as a generator of alternatives, not a competition for artistic quality.

After sketching, participants may explain their concepts briefly. The group can then identify recurring patterns, surprising directions and ideas that deserve prototyping. A limitation is that rapid production may disadvantage participants with motor, visual or cognitive impairments. Alternatives include longer time, verbal description, collaborative sketching, templates and accessible digital tools.

SCAMPER

SCAMPER is a structured prompting framework for modifying an existing idea or experience:

SCAMPER is useful when a team is stuck or when an existing service needs improvement. It can generate incremental innovations, but it may not challenge the underlying assumptions of the service. It should therefore be combined with broader “How might we?” questions and direct attention to user needs.

Collaborative Co-Design

Co-design is a participatory approach in which people affected by a design contribute to understanding the problem and developing possible responses. Participants may include end users, carers, frontline employees, subject-matter experts, administrators and technical specialists. Their roles should be made explicit because “participation” can otherwise mean anything from meaningful decision-making to merely providing feedback.

Co-design is grounded in several principles:

1. Experience is expertise. Users possess situated knowledge that may not be available to designers.
2. Design is social. Meaning and feasibility are negotiated among people with different perspectives.
3. Making supports expression. Participants can often communicate needs more effectively through maps, objects, scenarios or sketches than through abstract discussion.
4. Power must be acknowledged. Organisational authority, professional status, language, disability and social identity affect whose contributions are heard.
5. Participation requires reciprocity. Participants should understand how their contributions will be used and what influence they have.

Co-design should not be presented as a guarantee that every participant preference will be implemented. Constraints such as safety, law, budget, technical architecture and organisational policy remain relevant. Ethical practice requires transparent explanation of these constraints.

Selecting participants

Recruitment should reflect the people affected by the design, especially those whose needs are often overlooked. Relevant dimensions may include age, language, disability, digital confidence, cultural background, frequency of use and access to devices or services. Avoid treating a single participant as representative of an entire demographic group.

Participation may involve compensation, travel support, accessible venues, interpreters, captioning, breaks and flexible scheduling. These are not optional benefits; they influence who can participate and the quality of the evidence produced.

Materials and activities

Suitable co-design activities include:

• journey mapping to identify moments of difficulty and opportunity;
• card sorting to organise content or priorities;
• role-play to explore service interactions;
• storyboarding to describe a future experience;
• scenario building to examine edge cases;
• collaborative sketching to develop interface or service concepts; and
• prioritisation exercises to compare opportunities.

Activities should move from concrete experience to possible change. For example, participants might first map what currently happens when a customer reports a problem, then identify frustrations, and finally sketch improved interactions.

Planning an Inclusive Ideation Workshop

A workshop is a designed experience. Its quality depends on preparation as well as facilitation.

Before the workshop

Define the decision or learning purpose. A workshop intended to generate concepts requires different activities from one intended to prioritise already-generated ideas. Prepare a concise design brief containing the target users, relevant research evidence, constraints and the question to be explored.

Create an agenda that alternates individual reflection, small-group interaction and whole-group synthesis. Individual work reduces conformity; small groups support dialogue; plenary discussion enables shared understanding.

A short agenda might be:

Use plain language and explain specialist terms. Provide multiple ways to contribute: speaking, writing, drawing, voting, typing or using assistive technology. Do not require participants to disclose personal experiences publicly. Establish ground rules such as listening without interruption, criticising ideas rather than people, respecting confidentiality and allowing people to pass.

During the workshop

The facilitator manages both task and group dynamics. Important behaviours include:

• restating the design question when discussion drifts;
• inviting quieter participants without putting them under pressure;
• interrupting interruptions respectfully;
• distinguishing evidence from assumptions;
• recording ideas neutrally rather than paraphrasing them into a preferred solution;
• making decisions and unresolved questions visible; and
• monitoring time while allowing useful discussion to develop.

A co-facilitator can observe participation patterns, manage materials, capture quotations and identify accessibility problems. In remote sessions, facilitators should plan for unstable connections, screen-reader compatibility, keyboard access and unequal familiarity with collaboration software.

After the workshop

Document ideas, rationales, assumptions, concerns and points of disagreement. Send participants a plain-language summary where appropriate. Explain what will happen next; otherwise participation may feel extractive. The design team should preserve the provenance of ideas while avoiding the assumption that an individual’s proposal is automatically validated by its origin.

Evaluating Ideas Without Suppressing Creativity

Evaluation should occur after a sufficiently broad generation phase. It should be transparent, evidence-informed and proportionate to the decision.

Essential screens and desirable criteria

Some conditions are non-negotiable. An idea may need to comply with accessibility law, protect personal data, avoid foreseeable physical harm and fit a critical technical constraint. These are essential screens: an idea failing one may be rejected or substantially redesigned.

Other criteria support comparison among viable ideas. Common criteria include:

• value to users;
• inclusivity and accessibility;
• desirability or usefulness;
• feasibility within available technology and skills;
• viability for the organisation;
• alignment with evidence;
• implementation effort; and
• risk, privacy and safety.

A simple score can support discussion, but it should not create false precision. If a team rates value, feasibility and risk from 1 to 5, the numbers are ordinal judgements, not objective measurements. The team should record the reasoning behind a score and revisit it when new evidence appears.

A useful technique is the two-stage review:

1. Sense-making: cluster similar ideas, clarify intent and identify combinations.
2. Decision-making: apply explicit criteria and select concepts for prototyping.

This avoids rejecting an idea merely because its initial wording is unclear. It also permits weak ideas to contribute components to stronger combinations.

Dot voting and its limitations

Dot voting allows participants to distribute a fixed number of votes across ideas. It is quick and visual, but it measures preference within the workshop, not user value or implementation success. Participants may vote for familiar ideas, attractive sketches or proposals made by high-status people. Use voting as an input to discussion, not as an automatic decision rule.

The prototype test

The most reliable way to evaluate an uncertain idea is often to build a small prototype and test it with representative users. The team should state the assumption being tested, such as “People can identify the next required step without assistance.” The prototype should be no more detailed than necessary to investigate that assumption.

Applied Case: Co-Designing a Public-Library Renewal Service

This is an illustrative case.

Background

A public library wants to improve its online renewal service. Research shows that many users are unsure whether an item has renewed successfully, while library staff receive repeated telephone enquiries. Some users have limited digital confidence, use mobile phones with small screens or require screen-reader support.

Problem

The initial design brief—“Create a better renewal page”—is too solution-focused. The team reframes it as: How might we help library members renew items and understand their borrowing status with confidence?

Analysis and workshop approach

The team invites library members with varied access needs, two librarians, a service manager and a developer. Participants receive compensation and can choose an in-person or remote session. The facilitator begins with a journey map showing the current process: finding the account page, locating an item, selecting renewal, interpreting a message and checking the new due date.

Participants use brainwriting to list moments of uncertainty. They then use SCAMPER on the existing process. “Eliminate” prompts discussion about unnecessary navigation. “Combine” leads to an idea that joins renewal confirmation with the updated due date. In Crazy 8s, participants sketch different ways to display status, including a plain-language message, a colour-independent icon and a spoken confirmation option.

Evaluation

The group clusters concepts into three directions: clearer confirmation, proactive reminders and staff-assisted renewal. The team does not select only the most popular sketch. It applies essential screens: the concept must work with a screen reader, avoid relying on colour and protect account information. It then prototypes two alternatives and tests them with library members.

Outcome

Testing reveals that participants understand “Renewed” but are uncertain about which date applies to which item. The team creates a card-based layout in which each item displays its title, renewal status and new due date in a consistent reading order. A plain-language explanation is available for exceptions such as renewal limits. Staff receive a separate view of unresolved cases rather than access to unnecessary personal information.

Learning points

The improvement did not result from a single creative technique. It emerged from combining research, inclusive participation, structured prompts, rapid sketching and prototype-based evaluation. The workshop also demonstrated that accessibility requirements can improve clarity for everyone rather than acting only as a compliance obligation.

Challenges, Ethics and Governance

Tokenism and extractive participation

Inviting users to a workshop does not necessarily give them influence. Tokenism occurs when participation is symbolic, when decisions have already been made or when only convenient perspectives are included. Teams should state which decisions participants can influence and report how contributions affected the outcome.

Confidentiality and emotional safety

Co-design can elicit personal stories about health, finances, discrimination or exclusion. Collect only information necessary for the design purpose. Obtain informed consent, explain recording and storage practices, allow withdrawal where feasible and avoid pressuring participants to disclose sensitive experiences.

Accessibility and inclusion

Accessibility includes physical space, communication, materials, software and the social environment. Avoid equating fluent speech or artistic ability with expertise. Design activities so that a participant can contribute without drawing, reading small text, using a mouse or speaking rapidly.

Power and professional bias

Employees may defer to managers, and users may assume that professionals know best. Separate voting from authority where possible, use anonymous idea generation, and ask facilitators to monitor whose suggestions are developed or ignored. A design team should also examine its own assumptions when interpreting participant contributions.

AI-supported ideation

Generative AI can produce alternative prompts, personas, interface variations or workshop stimuli. It can help a facilitator overcome a blank page, but it should not replace participant knowledge or be treated as an independent source of user truth. Sensitive research data should not be entered into a system without appropriate governance. Teams should check generated content for stereotypes, inaccessible assumptions, copyright concerns, fabricated evidence and exclusionary language. Human participants remain the source of lived experience, and accountable designers remain responsible for decisions.

Best Practices

• Begin with a user-centred opportunity rather than a preferred feature.
• Share enough research evidence to ground creativity without narrowing it unnecessarily.
• Separate idea generation from evaluation.
• Use individual, paired and group activities to distribute participation.
• Make roughness acceptable through low-fidelity materials and time limits.
• Offer several modes of participation and plan accessibility in advance.
• Treat criteria as conversation aids, not as substitutes for judgement.
• Prototype uncertain assumptions before investing in detailed production.
• Document disagreements, constraints and unanswered questions.
• Tell participants how their contributions influenced subsequent work.
• Protect privacy and compensate participation fairly.
• Evaluate concepts with representative users, not only with workshop participants or internal stakeholders.

Chapter Summary

Ideation transforms a framed design opportunity into a range of possible responses. Effective UX ideation alternates divergent activities, such as brainstorming, brainwriting, sketching, Crazy 8s and SCAMPER, with convergent activities that clarify, screen and prioritise concepts. Collaborative co-design treats users and other affected people as contributors whose situated experience is valuable, while recognising that participation must be ethical, accessible and transparent.

Inclusive workshops require careful recruitment, preparation, facilitation and follow-up. Individual reflection, multiple communication modes and explicit attention to power can improve participation. Ideas should not be judged while they are still being generated, but they must eventually be assessed against evidence, accessibility, feasibility, viability, safety, privacy and user value. Structured criteria, discussion and small prototypes provide a stronger basis for decisions than popularity voting alone. The outcome of ideation is not a final design; it is a set of testable concepts and clearer assumptions for the next cycle of design.

Key Terms

Brainstorming: A facilitated group activity for generating ideas around a defined challenge.

Brainwriting: A written, often silent, method for generating and extending ideas.

Co-design: A participatory approach in which people affected by a design contribute to its development.

Convergent thinking: Narrowing possibilities through analysis, comparison and decision-making.

Crazy 8s: A rapid exercise in which participants create eight alternative sketches.

Divergent thinking: Expanding the number and variety of possible ideas.

Design challenge: A concise question that frames an opportunity for design action.

Dot voting: A rapid prioritisation method in which participants distribute votes among options.

Essential screen: A non-negotiable requirement that an idea must satisfy.

Facilitator: A person who structures and supports a group’s participation and progress.

Ideation: The generation, development and initial assessment of possible design concepts.

Inclusive design: Designing for a wide range of abilities, identities, contexts and access conditions.

Low-fidelity prototype: A rough representation used to explore ideas and assumptions inexpensively.

Power dynamics: The ways authority, status and social position influence participation and decisions.

SCAMPER: A modification framework based on Substitute, Combine, Adapt, Modify, Put to another use, Eliminate, and Reverse or Rearrange.

Sketching: Externalising an idea visually or spatially to support thinking and discussion.

Tokenism: Superficial participation that gives the appearance of inclusion without meaningful influence.

User-centred design: A design approach grounded in users’ needs, contexts and evaluation of proposed solutions.

Review Questions

5 Short Answer Questions

1. What is the difference between divergent and convergent thinking?
2. State two advantages of brainwriting over spoken brainstorming.
3. What is the purpose of Crazy 8s?
4. Name the seven SCAMPER prompts.
5. Why should dot voting not be treated as a final design decision?

5 Long Answer Questions

1. Explain how a UX team can separate idea generation from idea evaluation while maintaining momentum.
2. Describe how you would plan an inclusive co-design workshop for a mobile service.
3. Compare brainstorming, brainwriting, sketching and SCAMPER, including a suitable use for each.
4. Discuss the ethical responsibilities of a design team when co-design activities involve sensitive personal experiences.
5. Explain how low-fidelity prototyping strengthens the evaluation of ideation outcomes.

3 Analytical / Application Questions

1. A workshop is dominated by two senior stakeholders, while users contribute very little. Diagnose the likely causes and propose specific facilitation changes.
2. A team has generated 40 ideas for improving an online appointment service. Develop a transparent process for clustering, screening, prioritising and prototyping the ideas.
3. Design a co-design activity for people with varied literacy, language and accessibility needs. Justify the materials, sequence, participation modes and ethical safeguards you would use.

Multiple Choice Questions with Answers

Question 1

Which activity most directly supports divergent thinking?

A. Applying a fixed feasibility score to each concept

B. Generating many alternative responses before judging them

C. Selecting the concept with the lowest implementation cost

D. Testing one finished interface with users

Correct Answer: B. Generating many alternative responses before judging them

Question 2

What is a principal advantage of brainwriting?

A. It guarantees that every idea is technically feasible

B. It removes the need for facilitation

C. It gives participants time to contribute independently before group discussion

D. It produces only fully developed interface specifications

Correct Answer: C. It gives participants time to contribute independently before group discussion

Question 3

In Crazy 8s, participants are primarily asked to:

A. Create eight rapid alternative sketches

B. Rank eight existing products by market share

C. Write eight pages of usability findings

D. Interview eight users individually

Correct Answer: A. Create eight rapid alternative sketches

Question 4

Which SCAMPER prompt asks what could be removed from an experience?

A. Adapt

B. Combine

C. Eliminate

D. Reverse

Correct Answer: C. Eliminate

Question 5

Which statement best describes co-design?

A. Designers make decisions and users approve the final result

B. People affected by a design contribute to developing it

C. A design team copies a competitor’s interface

D. A manager assigns tasks to a design team

Correct Answer: B. People affected by a design contribute to developing it

Question 6

Why should evaluation usually follow an initial generation phase?

A. To prevent all ideas from being recorded

B. To allow participants to explore possibilities before criticism narrows them

C. To ensure that only senior staff speak

D. To avoid building prototypes

Correct Answer: B. To allow participants to explore possibilities before criticism narrows them

Question 7

Which is an essential screen rather than a desirable comparison criterion?

A. The concept uses a fashionable visual style

B. The concept complies with required accessibility obligations

C. The concept received the most informal praise

D. The concept contains the greatest number of features

Correct Answer: B. The concept complies with required accessibility obligations

Question 8

What is a limitation of dot voting?

A. It cannot be performed with more than one participant

B. It measures workshop preference rather than proving user value

C. It always suppresses unusual ideas before generation

D. It requires a mathematically exact utility function

Correct Answer: B. It measures workshop preference rather than proving user value

Question 9

Which practice most supports inclusive participation?

A. Requiring every participant to draw polished screens

B. Allowing only rapid verbal responses

C. Providing multiple ways to contribute, including writing and accessible digital tools

D. Letting the most senior participant summarise all ideas

Correct Answer: C. Providing multiple ways to contribute, including writing and accessible digital tools

Question 10

What is the most appropriate use of a low-fidelity prototype after ideation?

A. To test an important assumption with limited investment

B. To demonstrate that the final product is complete

C. To replace all further user research

D. To prevent changes to the selected concept

Correct Answer: A. To test an important assumption with limited investment