The Co-Design Hub · Step 3 of 4
Three things matter most here: power, access, and the common mistakes that turn co-design into something thinner than it claims to be. The point isn’t to make the work feel heavier. It’s to make the standard clearer.
Arnstein’s ‘ladder of participation’ still matters because it asks one simple question: are people shaping decisions, or mostly being invited to comment on them? You don’t have to claim the top rung. Describe where you really are, and be clear about what would move you up.
Top of the ladder · Real power
People have real say over decisions, money, or both. Not every project gets here, but if you call it co-design, this is the direction it should be heading.
Middle · Tokenism
Where most projects sit. People are asked for their views, but the decision stays somewhere else. Consultation can still be useful. It becomes a problem when it’s described as sharing power.
Bottom · Not taking part at all
‘Participation’ is used to win support for a decision already made, manage pushback, or look inclusive. It isn’t designing anything together.
Ask yourself
What has already been decided, and who decided it?
Who can still change the direction, budget or scope?
Would the people taking part call this shared decision-making?
What would move the work one rung up?
Which barriers to sharing power are practical, and which are about culture?
If people can’t take part properly, the work might still be efficient. But it isn’t co-design.
Access isn’t something you bolt on once the session plan is done. It’s built in from the start. If only people with time, money, confidence and fluent ‘organisation speak’ can take part, you’ve already narrowed who gets to shape the work.
Step-free venues, accessible toilets, a clear layout, a quiet space, seating that works for different bodies, and enough time to arrive without stress.
Plain language, clear agendas, interpreters where needed, large print or other formats, and no expectation that people will follow professional shorthand.
Pay people for their time and expertise, sort travel and childcare properly, and make sure taking part never costs anyone anything.
Predictable pacing, regular breaks, more than one way to contribute, and sessions that don’t depend on one way of communicating.
Trauma-aware facilitation, content warnings when needed, no pressure to share personal stories, and a clear plan for support if difficult things come up.
Realistic timings, information sent in advance, online and in-person options where useful, and follow-up that helps people stay involved.
Weak co-design tends to follow a familiar pattern. These are the mistakes worth spotting early, before they become part of how the project works.
People are there for the photo, not for their influence.
Instead: involve people early enough to shape the problem, the options and the decisions.
People are asked for their expertise without fair pay or support.
Instead: budget for payment, expenses and practical support from the start.
Stories are collected, but the work gives little back and changes little.
Instead: show what changed, credit people’s contribution, and stay in touch after the session.
Everyone in the room is treated as equal when confidence, language, status and authority clearly aren’t.
Instead: name the power in the room and design the session to reduce its effect.
Frameworks and jargon get more attention than the problem people are trying to solve.
Instead: keep methods in proportion and explain them in plain language.
It’s called co-design after the most important choices have already been fixed.
Instead: be upfront about the limits, and only promise influence where it’s real.
The process jumps to outputs before relationships and confidence have had time to form.
Instead: build in enough time for trust, reflection and changes.
The session ends and nobody hears anything again.
Instead: share back quickly, explain next steps, and come back when decisions are made.