After the first session two months ago in May 2016, Sarah had had time to reflect on the session, the pre-​tools we had generated together, and had prototyped them in test interviews with a few colleagues.

In the first half of the day, we discussed what she did, how they had worked and what would work for her now that she had tested the way she wanted to use the tools.

The tool development built on those created in the last session by tying in their design to Sarah’s emergent interview design. We also determined that a key principle in the tools should be that people are not provided with a frame to describe their creative process, rather the support to determine their own frame in a focussed and self-​challenging way.

In broad terms, the interview structure directed people first to talk about their own engagement innovations in an intuitive manner, and then define what they mean by innovation. Using the tools to generate these responses, would then lead to further conversation and analysis, during which they could use the visual cues and information they had already produced through the tools. Sarah could also use the same visual data for cross analysis. The three tools that follow this design:

  1. Employ the use of postcard images as metaphors to describe creative process,
  2. Name and list a set of values people bring to their own roles and apply a scale of creativity to each value,
  3. Plot points of a project on a matrix on which they define the legends, drawing a distinction between high risk and low risk, innovative and tried and tested.

In the second half of the day, we reviewed and finalised the artwork for the new tools together with Sarah so she was ready to print and use them ahead of interviews. We look forward to catching up with Sarah again and seeing how she got along with using the tools for her project!

Reflecting on how we approached the co-​design process in this project offers up new insight in to our approach to tool co-​design too. We reached a point in the first session of tool ideation where Sarah had enough information for prototyping tools in her own time. She brought reflections of those experiences to the second session in order to refine designs together so that we could finish the session with completed tools. While this amounts to commitment to additional activity for other members of the co-​design group (in this case, Sarah) in between sessions, this work paid dividends in two ways: 1. It kept momentum for the second session and; 2. Sarah’s prototyping provided significant understanding into how she wanted to use the tools to construct the interviews, which helped to quickly accelerate tool development.