Leading Co-Design in Complex Systems: A Few Reflections

Last month, I spent a day in Melbourne at a training called Leading Co-Design in Complex Systems, facilitated by Dr Emma Blomkamp. I work in co-design a lot, but am constantly learning, often from honest reflections in our team on what we could have done better. The session gave me space to slow down, learn and think more carefully about different aspects of co-design. Undertaking this training with Emma and other attendees gave me the opportunity to look through different lenses and learn from other’s experiences.

One of the main things that stayed with me was how much successful co-design is about the foundation, not just what you do with people once they are in the room.

Real systems are messy

The day reinforced that the systems we work in and with can be complex. Something that has stayed with me is remaining vigilant to not place the burden of being ‘complex’ on the external participants invited into co-design, when often is the reflection of the limitations of our own projects and systems.

This vigilance is required at all stages of co-design, as systems drag us back to making decision on behalf of others. Complexities are to be problem solved or identified as limitations transparently, not used as a reason to withdraw power.

That can be uncomfortable, especially in policy and service settings where there is pressure to move quickly, show progress and realise ambitions of systems. This is where the principles of working become so important. What are our non-negotiables when we enter co-design? Are we willing to sacrifice our own comfortability, time and even progress to achieve better results?

This idea of entering each piece of co-design with clear principles as a collective, particularly when working in collaboration, is imperative to working in an ethical and meaningful way.

Learning alongside people in different spaces

Another part of the day I really valued was the chance to learn alongside people working in very different roles and settings. Being in a room with people from across policy, service delivery, community organisations and design helped highlight how differently the same system can be experienced, depending on where you sit.

Those conversations were a reminder that no single role or organisation ever has the full picture. Hearing how others approach similar challenges, and where they get stuck, added depth to the learning and reinforced the importance of staying open and curious when working across sectors.

There is so much value in learning from others experience and hearing their stories. A key takeaway from these conversations was the idea of expertise. Facilitators of co-design, usually those who hold the power, can often center themselves and their organisations as experts, often not without merit.

I’ve observed that this has led to an assumption of expertise collaborating only with lived experience, as if those with lived experience don’t bring their own expertise in numerous ways past just lived experience. I believe there is always greater opportunity for meaningful co-design when we lower our estimation of ourselves.

Why mapping matters

One of the most useful parts of the training for me was the focus on detailed mapping. Taking time to map out the system, the people involved, the relationships between them and where decisions really sit can feel slow, but it pays off.

On reflection, in much of the work I’ve undertaken in co-design I’ve had a clear understanding of stakeholders prior to the projects, which has led me to undervalue importance of thorough and organised planning.

Good mapping helps you see things that are easy to miss. It shows who is often missed and gives opportunity to strategise solutions for greater and more equal inclusion. It also helps create a shared understanding, so people are working from the same picture rather than a set of assumptions.

Just as importantly, mapping supports more honest conversations about what is possible. It helps identify both the limits of a project and the real opportunities for change, which are then able to be clearer explained to participants from the outset.

Participation is not the same as influence

Another strong message from the day was that inviting people to participate is not the same as sharing power. Co-design works best when there is clarity about purpose, limits and shared decision-making points from the start.

Being upfront about what can change, what cannot, and how decisions will be made builds trust. Without that clarity, well intentioned co-design can end up extractive, particularly for communities who are asked to share their experiences again and again without seeing meaningful change.

Our Training

The day after the training, Sean and I delivered our own co-design training in Melbourne. It meant moving straight from reflection into sharing and facilitating with a new group of people with again different lenses.

Our session cantered the principles we work to. What are our non-negotiables? When presented with problems do we withdraw power or do we find a solution? The group were great, and we were able to delve into specific problems participants found themselves in and shift how viewed these complexities.

It was a useful reminder that principles are not abstract ideas. They guide decisions in real time, especially when pressure is applied. It was interesting to examine people deciphering what their priorities really are.

What stood out most was how strongly the conversation resonated when principles were made explicit. Creating space to talk openly about power, discomfort, time pressures and competing expectations helped ground the session in reality. You can check out this highlight from our in-person training - if this is something you or your team are after please sing out.

What this means for leadership

For me, the training was a reminder that leading co-design is about shaping the conditions around the work. The principles and priorities that we work from are key. Being honest with ourselves sounds simple but can be difficult when we know ourselves as well intentioned. How do we balance ambitions from different stakeholders when pressures such as timelines are imposed on us? It can be tricky, and the most well intentioned can be swayed from deprioritising what’s most important for those actually impacted by decisions made.

Leadership in this space means being willing to slow down when needed, hold tension and be honest about both limitations and opportunities. Holding tension sounds simple, but the discomfort it comes with can lead us to making concessions that our values may not align with.

Leadership is carrying what burden you can to alleviate pressure and lessen power imbalance for participants. I’d like to thank Dr Emma Blomkamp for the opportunity to connect, learn and reflect.

Authored by Kuyan Mitchell for Impact Policy