One example of a boundary object that Boland and Tenkasi provide is that of a cause map depicting a physician's understanding of quality in medical care. By drawing the map, the physician makes his or her perspective visible (possibly even for him or herself). The map can then be exchanged with other physicians in different departments of the hospital. As such, this map (or boundary object) allows for perspective taking across different communities of practice (p. 362). Figure 13, was adapted from Boland and Tenkasi (1995) and depicts their concept of perspective making and perspective taking.

In Mobile Age we have used and amended a number of methods to allow us the facilitation of perspective taking and perspective making amongst the older participants as well as between older participants and the Mobile Age teams. Some of these methods will be introduced in the next chapter and discussed in the chapters presenting the three co-creation projects.

#### *Enabling Individual and Social Change*

Finally, all approaches (co-production, co-design, civic open data use) recognise that participatory processes are motivated by enabling (or enforcing) some kind of change. This change may either be on the individual or social/organisational level. In order to creating a lasting impact, co-creation needs to understand peoples' current practices, experiences and how future design products may become appropriated (ISO 9241-210, 2010; Vines et al., 2013). Table 4 below summarises the goals from all four approaches with respect to kinds of change they are pursuing.

**Fig. 13** Perspective making and perspective taking (adapted from Boland & Tenkasi, 1995)

**Individual Change** In particular participatory design and user-centred design aim to induce individual change and ensure the uptake of a design solution through user involvement. Co-creation aims to create value beyond the mere development of technical artefacts. In the three co-creation projects described in this book, the value proposition of the co-creation processes related to more age-friendly communities and neighbourhoods which allow for social participation. To assist older adults to remain in their communities and neighbourhoods with some level of independence, rather than in residential care homes, requires to consider not only their immediate housing options but also 'transportation, recreational opportunities, and amenities that facilitate physical activity, social interaction, cultural engagement, and ongoing education' (Wiles, Leibing, Guberman, Reeve, & Allen, 2012). Appropriate information about the available resources in a neighbourhood can have a positive effect on social participation, if it relates to the (mediated) information practices, the abilities and limitations of older adults (Beneito-Montagut, Cassián-Yde, & Begueria, 2018). A study conducted by Wiles et al. (2012) characterises "ageing in place" by the positive perceptions of older adults as a sense of attachment and social connection, a sense of security and familiarity and a sense of identity, linked to independence and autonomy. Hence, mobility and social connectedness within the

**Table 4** Summary of relevant goals for enabling change for different participatory approaches

immediate environment are particularly relevant when engaging older adults (Manchester & Facer, 2017; Wiles et al., 2012).

**Social Change** As such, the output of a co-creation process (e.g. digital public service) refers to a socio-technical innovation in the form of software and data that is embedded into a larger public information infrastructure and provided to (all) citizens. The value of such a service for older adults needs to meet a value proposition and provide a more relevant service of higher quality and better usability than existing ones. Above all, and this is the tension that I alluded to above, the service needs to be sustainable. True change may only be implemented, if the co-created service is provided on a permanent basis. Co-creation methods hence need to be evaluated against their ability to contribute to a service's sustainability and enabling lasting change.

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Mobile Age: Co-creating Digital Public Services with and for Older Citizens**

# **Introduction to the Project**

The co-creation projects reported in this book were part of the EU-funded project Mobile Age1 in which digital public services were co-created with substantial participation of older citizens. The overall aim of Mobile Age was to develop and test methods for *co-creating open digital services for age-friendly cities and communities*. This included objectives such as

So far, older adults are using the internet and in particular, eGovernment services to a much lesser degree than other age groups (digital divide as age divide). Mobile Age assumed that a way to make digital services more attractive and beneficial for older adults was to involve them in the process of identifying, conceptualising and designing relevant and usable digital services. As such, Mobile Age followed and extended an approach to co-creation that exceeds traditional ways of citizen participation. It explored, developed and tested new methods and tools.

This book is based on three of the six co-creation projects conducted in Mobile Age: two in Bremen, Germany and one Zaragoza, Spain. In a first phase, a pilot cocreation project was conducted in Bremen (district Osterholz) from May 2016 to February 2017. The learnings from this project fed into the planning and implementation of two further projects from May 2017 to February 2018: In a second district in Bremen (Hemelingen) and in Zaragoza to experiment with different forms of engaging stakeholders, project governance and methods. In this book, I have selected the two co-creation processes from Bremen for an in-depth analysis and the

1 https://mobile-age.eu/.

© The Author(s) 2021 53

J. Jarke, *Co-creating Digital Public Services for an Ageing Society*, Public Administration and Information Technology 6, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52873-7\_4

co-creation process from Zaragoza as a comparative case. The reason is that both, Bremen and Zaragoza, had a focus on information services concerning the neighbourhood in urban settings by relating to policy objectives such as age-friendly cities and communities. The projects ran over a similar length of time while following different governance structures, engagement strategies and co-creation methods. There is hence enough commonality and difference to provide a meaningful comparison between the three projects in relation to the sharing of control and expertise as well as the enabling of change.

#### **A Framework for Co-creation**

A co-creation project can be roughly split into four phases (1) a planning phase in which a *problem focus* of the project is determined; (2) a phase in which the problem area is explored and co-creators decide on a joint *problem definition* and articulate a value proposition; (3) a phase that develops and evaluates *possible solutions*; and (4) the post-project phase in which the service runs (Fig. 1). The chapters that report on our co-creation projects in Bremen and Zaragoza are concerned with the second phase (find the right problem) and third phase (find the right solution). Because of the logic of funded research projects, much of the planning had to be done prior to the project start for the funding proposal (see also Bischof & Jarke, forthcoming). In a first attempt to receive project funding, we left the planning deliberately open in order to increase the scope for action in the co-creation projects. This was however rejected by the funding agency because proposals needed to be very specific on how and why they would spend taxpayer money. In the project proposal that received funding, we provided a frame for the problem focus, the problem definition itself was co-created with older adults, social care service providers and local governments during the co-creation projects. The running of the service also lies outside of the scope of a funded research project. However, we allowed ample time to ensure the sustainability of the services developed. For now,

**Fig. 1** Four phases of a co-creation project

**Fig. 2** Adapted business model canvas to describe co-creation process and output

I outline the results of the first phase (the problem focus) as this had implications for the choice and adaptation of methods in the subsequent phases.

When considering and planning a co-creation project (*phase 1*) there are a number of aspects to consider which frame and determine the project. Similar to a business model canvas one can depict the key dimensions of a co-creation project in a canvas (see Fig. 2). Initially, there needs to be a general idea about the *problem focus* and *target audience*. As the co-creation project proceeds the problem focus will become more refined (*phase 2*—find the right problem) and a solution is being developed (*phase 3*—find the right solution). This process is at the heart of cocreation and shaped by those engaged from the target audience and by *key partners*. The role that co-creators assume in a co-creation project depends on the *relationship* they have to the problem area and their willingness and ability to become engaged. Another relevant aspect are the *communication and engagement channels* (e.g. how citizens are approached and recruited to the co-creation project; how the service will be delivered). In addition, it is important to consider the *existing resources* (e.g. of a neighbourhood) that may support a service and what *kind of activities* are suitable and required in order to engage with the target audience and key partners in a meaningful and targeted way. For the sustainability and maintenance of the proposed solution (*phase 4*), the *revenue streams* and *cost structure* need to be evaluated.

These aspects are described in more detailed in the following. I will start with the *problem focus* of Mobile Age and detail the specific foci of Bremen and Zaragoza. Subsequently the *target audiences* and *key partners* are described. I provide a summary of *key resources* and subsequently refine the *problem definitions & value propositions*. This includes a summary of the *solution*: output, outcome and sustainability of the co-created services. Finally, *key activities* are reviewed considering how methods from e.g. co-production, co-design and civic open data use may be adopted to suit the needs of our co-creation projects. The chapter concludes with a summary of the Mobile Age co-creation methodology.

#### **Problem Focus**

One of the basic assumptions of Mobile Age was that if digital services are more relevant to older adults and more user-friendly, they may raise interest in and use of digital public services (even for those with little or no digital skills). The corresponding term in the digital agendas of the European Commission and EU Member States is "e-inclusion". The main reason for political action in the field of e-inclusion is the risk of excluding those citizens that are not digitally literate and do not use digital media. In other words e-exclusion increases social exclusion. Thus, social inclusion and e-inclusion were two mutually depending policy aims of the Mobile Age project and the co-creation processes. The co-creation processes described in this book focused in particular on "social participation" (Bremen) and "a safe and accessible city for older citizens" (Zaragoza).

#### *Problem Focus: Social Participation (Bremen)*

Social participation is a societal (or political) goal that aims to enable any person no matter what age—to participate in the social, political, economic and cultural life (Naegele, Olbermann, & Kuhlmann, 2016). It hence links to the promotion of citizens' empowerment and participation (as individuals, as groups or communities). Factors that may hinder the social participation of people are a "combination of linked problems such as unemployment, poor skills, low incomes, poor housing, high crime, poor health and family breakdown" (Lyons & Huegler, 2013).

While there are several policy-related measures on the macro-level aiming at social participation (e.g. social policies, labour market reforms), the focus of Mobile Age was on the meso-level (neighbourhoods & districts) and micro-level (individual & families). On an individual level, social participation may be understood as participation in (Naegele et al., 2016, p. 45):

The British ELSA report proposes the term "social detachment" to measure the disadvantage on six indicators of social participation: (1) contacts with other people, (2) social support, (3) civic/political involvement, (4) participation in culture, (5) participation in recreational activities/hobbies and (6) participation in leisure (Banks, Breeze, Lessof, & Nazroo, 2008; Tomaszewski & Barnes, n.d.). In this perspective, improving social participation is meant to be achieved by strengthening social capital and circumventing social detachment through appropriate neighbourhood development. The neighbourhood not only affects outcomes such as education, employment and health, but also the opportunities for building social capital (Atkinson & Kintrea, 2000). Enabling older adults to remain in their communities and neighbourhoods allows them (1) to connect and interact with other locals and to be part of a "safety net of people who look out for you and would come if something was wrong", and (2) know "where specific resources (e.g. health services and shops) are and how they work" (Wiles, Leibing, Guberman, Reeve, & Allen, 2012).

The study conducted by Wiles et al. characterises "ageing in place" by the positive perceptions of older adults as a sense of attachment and social connection, a sense of security and familiarity and a sense of identity, linked to independence and autonomy. In the WHO framework, social participation is an issue of neighbourhood development in terms of public infrastructure, the availability and quality of local institutions and services in each of the action areas. To assist older adults to remain in their communities and neighbourhoods with some level of independence, rather than in residential care homes, requires to consider not only their immediate housing options but also "transportation, recreational opportunities, and amenities that facilitate physical activity, social interaction, cultural engagement, and ongoing education" (Wiles et al., 2012).

Hence, neighbourhoods play a central role for social participation/inclusion as social exclusion is often concentrated in certain neighbourhoods of a city or region (Ellen & Turner, 1997; Pickett & Pearl, 2001). Some European governments (e.g. Germany, UK) fund so-called neighbourhood managers in deprived communities who among other things collect:

They are also called "pathfinders", as one of their functions is to give evidencebased recommendations to local government which services in their neighbourhoods are missing or are of poor quality in order to improve social cohesion and combat poverty. A British evaluation report found that from the experience of neighbourhood management pathfinders it has become clear that

[…] baseline information at neighbourhood level is not always available, or not very accessible […] improving information about levels of service and service expenditure at neighbourhood level continues to be a challenge (The National Evaluation of the Pathfinder Programme, 2006, p. 14).

Social participation can hence be understood as an interplay between the resources of a neighbourhood and the resources of older people living there. People with low social and cultural capital, little financial resources and poor health will use the local resources to a lesser degree and participate less in (public) social life. If there is a lack of services and facilities in a neighbourhood even a high degree of personal resources does not lead to high a degree of social participation. Appropriate information about the available resources in a neighbourhood can have a positive effect on social inclusion, if it meets the media habits and abilities of the target audience.

# *Problem Focus: Safe and Accessible City for Older Citizens (Zaragoza)*

In Zaragoza, the problem focus was specifically on a safe and accessible city for older citizens. The rationale for Zaragoza's problem focus was linked to the idea of "ageing in place" and the importance of neighbourhood for older residents as described for Bremen. It was also linked to Zaragoza's strategic policy objectives of becoming a WHO age-friendly city.

On March 27, 2009, the City Council unanimously approved the integration of Zaragoza into the WHO Global Age-Friendly Cities and Communities Network (GNAFCC). In March 2011, the accession to the network was formalised, with Zaragoza being the second Spanish city to be included. In a first phase of work, a "participatory diagnosis process" about high-impact areas was carried out using a methodology established in accordance with the Vancouver Protocol (Investigation-Participation-Action). This diagnosis (or baseline report) included quantitative and qualitative research on the city, taking into account the eight different WHO areas. In the process, the city government collected information on every aspect of the city affecting older adults, and subsequently conducted focus groups with older citizens to seek their opinion on this information. The mechanisms and areas of participation of senior citizens in the process were defined in order to develop a diagnosis that would allow to measure the age-friendliness of the city with older people involving the participants in the analysis process and improvement proposals regarding programs, services and characteristics of the city for its older residents and to generate a series of proposals that would allow a plan of action adapted to the needs and demands of older citizens.

The development of the first phase of action generated a diagnostic document of the city, which not only evaluated its age-friendliness, but also analysed in each of the areas defined in the Vancouver Protocol the strengths and weaknesses in the opinion of its older residents, in addition to proposing improvement actions.

This information allowed the development of 25 proposals, with different levels of detail. These proposals informed an Action Plan. One of the projects in this Action Plan concerned "Walk and discover a safe and accessible city", relating to the articulated needs of older adults to increase security and accessibility in the city.

Participants in focus groups proposed the co-creation of "age-friendly routes" which could be digitised and accessed through the City Council's web page. An age-friendly route was defined as follows:

#### **Target Audiences and Key Partners**

At the start of the Mobile Age project, the target audience was defined as older adults (>60). In chapter "Ageing Societies and Technological Innovation", I argued that even though older adults are not a homogeneous group and differ for example with regard to their personal resources (e.g. social capital, financial resources), aspirations and abilities, it does make sense to group them as a "target audience" of public services—based on life events—and of digital public services—based on their birth-cohort shared experiences with (media) technologies.

A digital application on its own cannot solve social problems. As discussed in chapter "Ageing Societies and Technological Innovation", the striving to "fix" social problems through technology, produces its own manifestations of these "problems" (e.g. old age as problem that needs to be fixed). Rather, a digital information service can only complement and inform about existing (neighbourhood) resources and/or support local service providers in their service provision. *Hence, the target audience of a digital information service, mainly includes those older adults who are also targeted by the resources it provides information about.* People in their Fourth Age (Laslett, 1987, 1991) can benefit from neighbourhood-related digital information services when *intermediaries* (such as family and service providers) are considered as well. For example in the case of Bremen, neighbourhood managers, as well as community managers and social care service providers can use digital information services in the communication with older adults. Apart from older adults as co-creators broadly representing the target audience, other *key partners* had to be involved in order to develop a service, which is comprehensive, sustainable and embedded in the neighbourhood.

The roles as depicted in Fig. 3 are partly overlapping. *Intermediaries* serve as *information brokers* and provide information about services, events and resources in digital or printed form to different groups of older adults. They may be professional neighbourhood managers, social workers in the field of elderly care or volunteers in community building, editors of community newsletters or city web portals, but also family members and acquaintances. In addition to older adults, intermediaries are the second target audience and user group of the services to be developed (as it should support their daily work). Considering the digital divide, they play an

**Fig. 3** Stakeholders in co-creation of open data-based public services

important role in making the content of a co-created digital service available to older citizens. It is hence important, that they provide input for specific tasks in the co-creation process.

*Social care service providers* are offering services to older adults in the neighbourhood. They include government units, utilities such as transport providers, social welfare organisations, religious congregations, NGOs, and commercial business (cafés, pharmacies etc.). They are the subject of the information service to be co-created. They may provide information about themselves and the details of their services and they have to agree to the publication of these data. In many cases, *local/ regional government* and *public administrations* will be initiating and managing the co-creation activities to provide financial resources, become the owner of the new service and maintain it.

A co-creation process needs *facilitators* as convenors and moderators. Facilitators in Mobile Age were either researchers (in Bremen) or experienced individuals in the work with older adults and/or groups (in Zaragoza). They supported the co-creation activities through, for example, running workshops, focus groups, and interviews. A digital service needs to be developed by *software developers***.** Developing a usercentred application may be undertaken by IT-departments of the local government (Zaragoza), research institutes (Bremen), commercial companies or civil society organisations such as the Open Knowledge Foundation.

Finally there are *other organisations & individuals* that have to be engaged in order to provide missing information, financial resources or support the use and outreach of the service, including for example senior citizens' organisations, senior citizens' clubs (e.g. computer clubs) but also media and journalists that may report about their co-creation activities and the service and politicians engaged on social policy and elderly care.

#### **Key Resources: Information About the Neighbourhood**

Overall, the problem focus and domains of interest in the Mobile Age project related to different domains for age-friendly cities and communities as proposed by the World Health Organisation (WHO). Between the pilot sites, we had an overlap of topics as Bremen and Zaragoza shared an interest in map-based services and the importance of local infrastructure for supporting ageing-in-place. These services related to digital information and communication services (and not transaction or integration) about existing neighbourhood resources.

Figure 4 depicts the interrelation of age-friendly neighbourhood resources and the personal resources of its older residents. There exists a plethora of information about the resources of a neighbourhood, however in order to participate in social life and use those resources, they need to be accessible to older adults. A digital service

**Fig. 4** Co-creation of a digital public information service as conducted in Bremen

may complement the information about these resources (but cannot substitute for them).

For engaging senior citizens to co-create a digital service that meets their needs and that offers gratifications to a larger group of older adults, *information about the resources in their immediate neighbourhood* has proven to be a good starting point. The co-creation process as conducted in Zaragoza also allowed for a communication service in that the citizens could propose changes to the built environment (addition grey arrows) (Fig. 5).

#### **Problem Definition and Value Proposition**

The *value proposition* summarises in a few sentences in which respect the planned service will solve a particular problem and in which respect it is better than existing services. In most cases, a service may provide benefits not only to older adults, but also relieve family members or caretakers and/or save the costs of service provision for local government or social welfare organisations. Therefore, it is important that for each target audience a value proposition is defined. The problem definitions and value propositions for each of the three co-creation projects are described in detail in the respective chapters.

**Fig. 5** Co-creation of digital public service allowing information and communication as conducted in Zaragoza

#### **Solution: Output, Outcome and Sustainability**

In Mobile Age, we defined the co-created services as "*solution*" to the co-created *problem definitions*. The "output" of the projects were a demonstrator app and the co-created data, the usage of the service is its "outcome" in quantitative and qualitative terms (e.g. number of users and immediate benefits). Depending on who provides the service, quite different outcomes are to be expected. For example, in Zaragoza the map-based service was part of the local government's online service portal from the beginning and was continued after the project without any interruption or modification. In contrast, in Bremen, the map-based district guides were developed by the Mobile Age technical partner FTB on their own server and were after several months of pilot operation—migrated to the city's information portal featuring the same data, similar functionality and look & feel. A more detailed account on the output and outcome of the each of the co-creation projects is provided in the subsequent chapters.

#### **Expected Impact**

The usage of the new digital public services is an important aim in itself but in the context of public services at the same time a means to achieve more general social policy objectives such as social participation or age-friendly environments. These kinds of impacts are difficult to assess but an important argument for local governments to invest in the co-creation such digital services. However, it is possible to collect assessments by different *key partners* involved in the respective fields of elderly care and social work as well as local government. This assessment is provided for each of the three co-creation projects in the subsequent chapters.

## **Key Activities: Adopting Methods for Co-creation with Older Adults**

In Mobile Age, we identified a number of streams of activity that need to be considered for the co-creation of digital public services. These streams of activity are not sequential but run in parallel and inform each other.

These streams of activity need to facilitate the sharing of knowledge and control amongst participants and across participants and facilitators as well as enable opportunities for individual and social change. In the co-design literature, there exists a manifold of research papers and studies presenting tools and methods to involve users through e.g. *cultural probes* (e.g. Boehner, Vertesi, Sengers, & Dourish, 2007; Jarke & Maaß, 2018); *personas and scenario-based design* (e.g. Alexander & Maiden, 2004; Carroll, 2000; Neate, Bourazeri, Roper, Stumpf, & Wilson, 2019) or *walks* (e.g. Hunter, 2018; Kanstrup, Bertelsen, & Østergaard Madsen, 2014). However, there is only limited experience in the adaptation of these methods for digital public service design, which comes with its specific requirements in terms of scalability, accountability and sustainability.

One of the most common ways of eliciting users' expertise in co-production as well as co-design projects are workshops in which teams of researchers, service providers, future users and other stakeholders come together to identify challenges and develop new ideas. Depending on the design context and the quality of user participation, the interpretative weight of the design team differs. For example, Bødker, Grønbæk, and Kyng (2012) doubt whether personas are helpful in designing public services because those defining the personas cannot really comprehend and represent the heterogeneity of the target population and future users. This is in line with reports that in the case of user participation in government services, government officials doubt the relation between user participation and later acceptance because nobody can tell to which extent the people who are interested to participate represent the target user group of a service (Gidlund, 2012). Overall, there are three challenges to user participation in digital public service design, that need to be considered: (1) the target user (segments) need to be identified clearly; (2) the modes of participation need to be in line with democratic goals and (3) if citizens lack sufficient ability and skills the successful outcome may be endangered (Karlsson, Holgersson, Söderström, & Hedström, 2012).

Each of the phases in a co-creation process has its own conditions; they each require different types of methods. Figure 6 provides an overview about the four distinct stages of co-creating a digital public service (as described in Fig. 1): its planning, its design (defining the problem and developing a solution) and its

provision. The figure lists some indicative methods for each of the phases and related objectives. A detailed description of each of the methods can be found in the interactive guidebook we developed after the finalisation of the Mobile Age project.2

The abstract concepts of use and user as promoted in many participatory projects, encourage particular practices while discouraging others (Gidlund, 2012, p. 18). It is hence important to consider how different methods produce different subject-positions of citizens as co-creators. Interviews, focus groups, prototyping or user testing are well-known methods in design projects and power relations have been well-covered (e.g. Carroll, 2000; Carroll & Rosson, 2007; Neate et al., 2019; Oates, 2006; Sanders & Stappers, 2008; Simonsen & Robertson, 2013). In the following, attention is paid to methods that are less known for their use in co-creation settings and it is explored how they can be adapted to contribute to the objectives described above in Fig. 6:

	- exploring life worlds of participants;
	- allowing for reflection and the sharing of knowledge;
	- developing a shared problem definition.
	- developing shared classification schemes;
	- co-designing solutions.
	- exploring life worlds of participants;
	- allowing for reflection and the sharing of knowledge;
	- developing a shared problem definition;
	- developing shared classification schemes;
	- co-designing solutions.

The focus is on phases 2 (find the right problem) and 3 (find the right solution). Probes, standardised forms and data walks are introduced below and their application in Mobile Age described in the respective chapters reporting from our co-creation projects in Bremen Osterholz (probes and standardised forms), Bremen Hemelingen and Zaragoza (walks and standardised forms). In chapter "Learning from Co-Creation Practice", the methods are analysed and discussed across the three co-creation projects, considering their suitability for facilitating the sharing of power, the sharing of expertise and the enabling of individual and social change in co-creation with older adults.

2 https://co-creation.mobile-age.eu/.

#### **Probes3**

Probes were originally conceived by a group of researchers/designers within an EU-funded project to engage older adults in user-centred design (Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999): The cultural probes—a pack of maps, postcards, a camera, a photo album and media diary—"were designed to provoke inspirational responses from elderly people in diverse communities" (p. 22). Gaver et al. conceived of probes as something like astronomic or surgical probes, which are left behind when researchers leave and over time return fragmentary data. The probes were part of an experimental design, in which a group of researchers wanted to explore new ways for designing technology for unfamiliar user groups.

Understanding the local cultures was necessary so that our designs wouldn't seem irrelevant or arrogant, but we didn't want the groups to constrain our designs unduly by focusing on needs or desires they already understood (Gaver et al., 1999, p. 22).

In contrast to scientific probes, cultural probes were meant to be a source for inspiration, not information. The approach aims to be a resource for surprise and creativity.

In subsequent years, probes became widely adopted in user-centred and participatory design and were amended to include concepts such as "design probes" (Mattelmäki, 2006), "technology probes" (Hutchinson et al., 2003), "mobile probes" (Hulkko, Mattelmäki, Virtanen, & Keinonen, 2004) or "digital probes" (Koch & Maaß, 2018). For Boehner, Gaver, and Boucher (2012); Boehner et al. (2007) probes are different from other social research methods as they embrace uncertainty and ambiguity and therefore invite interpretations by designers and participants:

They [probes] aim to open up possibilities, rather than converging towards singular truths, and can be understood as part of a conversation among designers and the people and places for which they design (Boehner et al., 2012, p. 185).

One way in which probes came to be appropriated was as a tool for data collection. Most studies, as Boehner et al. (2007) point out in their review, adopt probes as part of their initial investigation for understanding a particular use context. Often they are coupled with interviews and at times supplement ethnographic approaches. Some studies integrate probes in participatory design exercises; for example, similar to our approach in Mobile Age, Maaß and Buchmüller (2018) discuss the probe returns with participants. Hence across different use contexts, probes are either used to understand current use situations or for ideation and prototyping (Jarke & Maaß, 2018).

Some studies take the participatory aspects of probes further and insist that participants should also be involved in the translation of the probes into design ideas (Boehner et al., 2007, p. 1079). Others see probes as a possibility to allow participants to reflect on their own practices and to express these reflections (Boehner et al., 2007; Vetere, Davis, Gibbs, Francis, & Howard, 2006, p. 1477). Participants decide and control what information they record and share, and in so doing secure their privacy.

3This section is part of an article published by Ulrike Gerhard and myself (Jarke & Gerhard, 2018).

Importantly are probes not an alternative formal or objective method for simply "getting data" but rather "frame an alternative account of knowledge production in HCI design" (Boehner et al., 2007, p. 1078). In their review of how HCI researchers have appropriated probes, Boehner et al. (2007) suggest that there has been a shift in the definition and interpretation of probes from response to representation: "from seeing interpretation as a researcher responding to what was expressed by the researched to seeing interpretation as a researcher ascertaining facts about the research" (p. 1082). The idea of *interpretation as response* understands the process as dialogical in the sense that researchers articulate their research questions and instruments, which are interpreted by the participants. The participants in turn respond by expressing their interpretations; researchers respond by expressing their interpretations through potential design ideas. There is never an attempt to "fix the true meaning of any particular response". In contrast, the idea of *interpretation as representation* aims to "fix the true meaning of what users said, who they are, what they do, and what they need" (p. 1083). Boehner et al. (2007) criticise that "a major focus of probes' uptake in HCI has been to use probe returns to develop objective, factual descriptions of user needs" (ibid).

In the context of co-creation, I want to propose a different understanding of the role of interpretation when using probes. Probes as boundary objects that enable/ facilitate the articulation of users' tacit knowing and the shared interpretation of their accounts. Others have pointed to the ability of probes to act as "boundary objects" (e.g. Bjögvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren, 2012; Ehn, 2008). What is of particular interest for this book are the ways in which probes allow for collaboration and sharing of knowledge across social worlds and facilitate the ways in which expertise is being negotiated and made accessible across communities of practice.

#### **Standardised Forms**

While probes may serve as boundary objects for sharing expertise and knowledge, standardised forms are more structured boundary objects that facilitate other dimensions in co-creation processes. Standardised forms (along with methods and procedures which enforce normative practices across knowledge boundaries) provide a shared format for solving problems. They are one way to attend to the challenges posed by co-creating shared classifications and developing solutions. These objects can circulate easily and provide a standardised way of collecting information (Star & Griesemer, 1989). What is hence required are interventions that allow for the development and use of standardised forms in order to complement open methods such as probes. Standardised forms are for examples tables or templates in which data (and information) are collected. Within co-creation the structure of these tables or templates—the types of objects and their attributes—should be co-developed by citizens and reflect their life worlds.

#### **Data Walks4**

Walking is a human activity, engrained in urban and rural culture. It is also becoming a prominent method in projects related to co-design and critical data studies

4This section is part of an article published by myself in (Jarke, 2019).

(Wieringa & van Es, 2018) as well as participatory design (Kanstrup et al., 2014). What makes walks an interesting and appealing tool for engaging older citizens (critically) with data is their embeddedness in everyday urban life. Data walks have been proposed and conducted in a number of projects aiming to engage with data and putting an 'emphasis on the everyday experience of data' (Wieringa & van Es, 2018) as well as the relationality of design (Kanstrup et al., 2014).

Wieringa and van Es (2018) have mapped a number of different formats each comprising of different set-ups and goals. For example Greenfield and Kim (2011) set out to raise awareness/literacy on "networked urbanism" among citizens. Van Zoonen, Hirzalla, Engelbert, Zuijderwijk, and Schokker (2017) took city employees on walks through their own smart city. While Greenfield and Kim only delimited an area on a map, Van Zoonen et al. defined the routes beforehand. The focus of their walks was "identifying big data in the city and connecting it to political and ethical issues" (Wieringa & van Es, 2018). In so doing, Van Zoonen et al. not only raised awareness on data issues amongst civil servants, they also learned about the knowledge and beliefs of their participants with respect to the datafication of their city. Building on Greenfield and Kim, Powell (2018) experimented with different forms of data walks: initially to teach students about big data related to urban issues, later to create "bottom-up knowledge". In her walks, participants assumed different roles from note-taker to photographers. Yet another format of data walks was conducted by Hunter (2018), who did not only want to raise awareness amongst participants but also collect environmental data on specific areas and built multi-layered "dataspaces". Table 1 provides an overview on these different types of walks.

In sum, one question that civic open data approaches such as data walks allow to ask is what kind of (digital) information are relevant and useful to (a variety of) older adults and what kinds of data, data visualisations and data processing (e.g. filtering, searching) are required in order to provide information about neighbourhoods. These are questions that relate to the ways in which information about neighbourhoods are being classified and presented in e.g. pocket guides, catalogues or leaflets.

#### **Summary**

Probes, standardised forms and walks are methods that were developed in specific participation approaches: cultural probes are derived from design research, standardised forms from knowledge management research and different types of walks are deployed in various forms of civic open data use. The next three chapters describe in detail how we conducted our three co-creation projects and how these methods were amended to suit our co-creation needs. The chapters feature all the other methods we adopted such as interviews, focus groups, questionnaires, card games, co-design workshops, paper and digital prototyping, and user tests. In chapter "Learning from Co-Creation Practice", these methods are analysed and discussed with respect to enabling us to share control and knowledge with and amongst different groups of co-creators, and ultimately facilitating individual and social change.

**Table 1** Inventory of different data walks (excerpt from Wieringa & van Es, 2018)

**Open Access** This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and indicate if changes were made.

The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter's Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the chapter's Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder.

# **Co-creation in Practice I: Co-creating a Digital Neighbourhood Guide (Bremen Osterholz)**

# **Summary of Co-creation Project1**

#### **Problem Focus**

The broad problem focus of this case study is on social inclusion of older adults as indicated in the previous chapter. For this, neighbourhoods play a very important role. Social connections, cultural participation, support, infrastructure (i.e. shopping opportunities, doctors) as well as opportunities for outdoor activities are crucial for the well-being not only of older adults but all citizens. However, even if these resources exist in a neighbourhood they need to be findable and accessible. In this co-creation project, we identified a gap between existing resources that can facilitate older adults' social inclusion in the neighbourhood on the one hand and the knowledge and awareness about these resources on the other hand.

#### **Value Proposition**

Enabling older adults to remain in their communities and neighbourhoods allows them the opportunity to connect and interact with other locals and to be part of a network of people looking after each other. The value proposed in this co-creation project is to better inform older adults about resources that facilitate their everyday lives and thereby help them to stay independent, socially included, active and healthy. An easy to find and usable digital district guide can support this because it is comprehensive and up-to-date. In addition, such a service can also support the work of intermediaries working with older adults in that their services are easier to find. Through the co-creation process, we identified that a comprehensive informa-

© The Author(s) 2021 71

1This introduction is derived from the case study of our Interactive co-creation guide: https://cocreation.mobile-age.eu/guidebook/case-studies/bremenosterholz.

This chapter is based on the Mobile Age project deliverable D3.2 Senior Citizen Engagement Report Bremen: https://mobile-age.eu/images/pdf/deliverables/WP3/D3.2.pdf.

J. Jarke, *Co-creating Digital Public Services for an Ageing Society*, Public Administration and Information Technology 6, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52873-7\_5

tion service of all institutions as well as nice outdoor places will facilitate outdoor activities and represent the district in a positive and welcoming way.

## **Limitations of Existing Services**

There are several services that support community building and location-based neighbourhood information. In any district office, one can find dozens of flyers of a broad range of services for older adults provided by government units, welfare organisations and other NGOs. Departments of elderly care issue catalogues with information about relevant institutions and services, and there exist different kinds of district or neighbourhood guides, some with more commercial background (where to shop and spend money); others with a focus on social support. However, the advantages of e.g. searchability and findability at the same time proof disadvantageous as they require particular mental skills and digital literacy compared to using print media. And of course there is a need for technical devices and infrastructure which require additional technical skills and investment.

## **Field Site**

The co-creation project was conducted in the city district Bremen Osterholz. The district is located in a suburban area and consists of six neighbourhoods, some of which were separate villages in the middle ages. The neighbourhoods differ very much with respect to the social status of their residents as well as infrastructure and architecture. Whereas some neighbourhoods are known as socially deprived and have high unemployment rates and a high share of people with migration background, others can be characterised as well-off middle-class neighbourhoods. The image of the district in the rest of the city however is characterised through its reputation as socially problematic. It is the wish of many residents that this bad image is improved.

#### **Co-created Service**

The result was a digital district guide for older adults that provides information on all points of interest in the district relevant for senior inhabitants. It includes 17 nice places and 75 organisations relevant for senior citizens. It is integrated in the official online portal of the city of Bremen2 and is maintained there after the project terminated. The content of the digital district guide, has also been printed in a brochure featuring the textual and visual descriptions of the 17 nice places in the district. The booklet is distributed via the local government, local social care service providers and reaches out to older adults who do not use digital devices.

2www.bremen.de/osterholz/senioren.

#### **Introduction to Field Site**

We conducted our pilot co-creation project in Bremen's district Osterholz. Following our strategy to collaborate with relevant local stakeholders, we selected Osterholz as our field site because it was the only district with a voluntary but officially acknowledged online service provided through older residents and volunteers (BORIS).3

Osterholz is a district in the East of the Free Hanseatic City of Bremen with 37,554 inhabitants.4 In 2015, 22% of the population (8590) were 65 years or older. This is similar to overall Bremen. By 2020, the number of older adults is expected to increase from 8389 to 9048. While a decline is projected amongst the 65 to 80 year olds, the number of persons over 80 is expected to increase. Of the current 8590 residents who are 65 years or older living in Osterholz, almost 3000 live alone, the biggest share being women (2124). Most older citizens (4330) live in two-person households. Almost 50% of the people living in Osterholz (18,702) have a migration background while Bremen overall has only 15%. Amongst the older citizens in Osterholz (65 and above), the share of people with migration background is 23%. The unemployment rate is 14.9%, which is slightly higher than the Bremen average. The district has its own local government (Ortsamt) and elected district council (Ortsbeirat) and consists of six neighbourhoods (Ortsteile), some of which were separate villages in the middle ages (Table 1).

Osterholz is characterised by six very diverse neighbourhoods that give the district its multifaceted character. Tenever is mainly known for its high percentage of inhabitants with migration background and was for a long time presented as socially troubled area with big apartment building complexes. While social problems are still concentrated in Tenever, social and constructional investments have changed its image to a showcase for social urban development and peaceful multicultural coexistence. Neighbourhoods such as Ellener Feld or Osterholz feature a very different scenery with detached houses and different socioeconomic structures. Due to its comprehensive provision of care residences, Ellener Feld is the neighbourhood with the highest proportion of pensioners. The neighbourhoods are important points of reference for the identity (Fig. 1).

3 http://www.bremen.de/stadtteilredaktion-boris-osterholz-1896518 BORIS stands for Citizen Online Editorial Office in the District.

4Source: http://www.statistik-bremen.de.

**Fig. 1** Impressions from the different neighbourhoods in Bremen Osterholz

Three of the district's neighbourhoods of are officially recognised as deprived areas with a neighbourhood manager employed by the office of social affairs and paid from federal funds.

#### **Co-creation Process**

#### *Governing and Managing Co-creation*

The initial and broad problem focus of our first co-creation project was on social inclusion of older adults for which neighbourhood play a very important role. Social connections, cultural participation, support, infrastructure (i.e. shopping opportunities, doctors) as well as opportunities for outdoor activities are crucial for the wellbeing of older citizens. However, even if these resources exist in a neighbourhood they need to be findable and accessible to a broad range of older adults. Through the co-creation process, we identified a gap between existing resources that can support older adults' social inclusion in the neighbourhood on the one hand and the knowledge and awareness about these resources on the other hand. A gap that is partly caused by the different ways of classifying information.

At the beginning of our process, it was not obvious which information about resources in a neighbourhood are most relevant to older adults, which information are available and how it should be depicted. For our planning, we referred to the eight dimensions of age-friendly cities and communities as proposed by the WHO. For each dimension, the report defines several action areas and objectives. With respect to social inclusion, a number may be relevant such as places to be and stay outdoors, infrastructures for active mobility and walkability.

As shown in Fig. 4 of chapter "Mobile Age: Co-creating Digital Public Services with and for Older Citizens" there exists already a variety of printed material about resources for Third Agers in this district. They each provide information in different formats and different degrees of detail. Most of them have been compiled and designed for senior adults but not with them. The way information is assembled usually represents a categorisation that makes most sense for those publishing the information (as part of their information infrastructure).

The benchmark in our view was a printed district guide for senior citizens, coproduced with service providers and senior citizens by a small design and media agency from Bremen. Since 2011, they develop map-based district guides in a pocket format. Until the start of our project, district guides for nine of the 16 districts of Bremen were produced.5 The map design is optimised for older adults and the collection of points of interest conducted in a participatory process. The media company secured funds from district boards and neighbourhood development funds and established project groups of intermediaries that worked with different groups of older adults in each of the districts. The members of the project group conducted focus groups with a structured interview guide in order to identify relevant services and nice places, including comments on what was nice about them.

However, the small pocket guide for each service and place could present only minimal information. For Osterholz such a map did not exist. At the start of our project, we contacted the editor of the media company to explore whether she would be interested in collaborating: She supported the collection of information about points of interest in Osterholz and we used this information as input for a multimedia digital guide that would include additional information according to the needs of our own co-creator group.

To summarise: There were different district guides and readers covering different kinds of resources of the district in different formats and taking the particular needs of senior citizens into account to different degrees. The co-created pocket guides ranked high on comprehensiveness and relevance but low on information richness. The digital city portal bremen.online provided a high degree of information richness but was not particular well-organised for a district and not optimised for the target audiences of Third Agers and intermediaries.

#### **Project Organisation/Governance**

While in Zaragoza, a government unit initiated and coordinated a co-creation process for a government service, in the case of Bremen a team of researcher of the Institute for Information Management Bremen (ifib) at the University of Bremen acted as initiator, coordinator and facilitator. The governance model chosen was not a two layer model with a project group of intermediaries and groups of older adults as information suppliers. Rather we wanted to have older adults as the main contributors and decision makers of the process. Therefore, we decided to establish a permanent group of eight to twelve Third Agers who would contribute to the whole

5 http://editionaxent.de/Stadtteilplaene/planefuraltere.html.

process, including idea generation and developing of the service concept to software and data design to the implementation and maintenance of the service.

In our co-creation project, the role of software developers was assumed by the Mobile Age project partner FTB, responsible for developing a demonstrator; the final service provider was bremen.online, the city's information provider.

## *Engaging Stakeholder: Establishing Older Adults as Expert Co-creators*

The initial tasks for the activities relating to the engagement of stakeholders were the setting-up of a core project group, and to recruit *older citizens*. Recruiting people for a co-creation process, lasting about half a year, with open objectives and tasks unfamiliar to most was a great challenge. We had to provide a notion of the project's objective and what people would commit themselves to, what kind of input, in particular what kind of knowledge and lived experience, we would like them to contribute. As these issues are difficult to communicate clearly, for the information event and the kick-off meeting we were looking for a venue which was easy to reach for people in the district and a host that was trustworthy. We asked the head of the local district council and he agreed to open the assembly room and welcomed participants at both meetings.

All participants received a participant information sheet. Recruitment activities must consider the context in which they address older citizens as potential cocreators. "Cold recruiting", e.g. on fairs, markets etc. did not work well, as one intervention showed. Recruitment may be effective when starting from already existing groups and aligning with their interests (e.g. older citizens' computer clubs, local history clubs). Nevertheless, there is a tension between recruiting for welltargeted and well-framed activities, and simultaneously keeping the co-creation process open.

A number of *local/regional government* partners participated in the co-creation process. They were mainly involved in order to identify local stakeholders, support our recruitment and provide data about the district (Table 2).

In addition, we collaborated with social welfare organisations and other *social service providers* to older adults in order to gain support for the recruitment of older adults and to acquire information about the district. Some service providers supported our data collection process by conducting focus groups with older adults.

**Table 2** Key partners in co-creation project Bremen Osterholz

Engaging stakeholders in the process and recruiting co-creators proved to be a continuous activity throughout the process. While ideas developed, the service concept became more refined and the required data were defined and collected, complementary focus groups and engagement with additional local stakeholders (such as service providers or data owners) were required. However, the recruitment of a core group of older adults was mainly conducted via newspaper articles, were we

addressed older adults in the district that were knowledgeable and/or interested in their district. Although we explicitly addressed people with and without experience with digital technologies, most of the participants were already using smartphones, PCs, tablets and/or the internet. All of them shared an interest in these new media technologies.

For the main part of the co-creation process (June 2016 until March 2017), a core-group of 11 older adults participated in Bremen Osterholz. The group consisted of seven females and five males aged 55–80.6 They were comparably well educated, physically and psychologically healthy and all lived independently. Most of the Bremen participants (5) lived in partnerships. Two lived with a family (including teenage children) and four participants lived on their own. None lived in an institutional setting. Overall, the participants were familiar with digital technologies. Only one participant had never used a computer. Two participants were still employed. Almost half of participants engaged actively in political and volunteering work in the district. With regard to social inclusion they can be considered as quite well included. Most participants were quite mobile.

In addition, through our collaboration with the design team around the printed district map and their engagement with different existing senior citizen groups (e.g. men's breakfast, pottery groups) to collect information about relevant places and institutions, twelve groups with a total of more than 80 female and male participants were interviewed. The design team included two social workers working within two church congregations, one neighbourhood manager and one member of the Mobile Age research team.

Overall, the strong involvement of the local government has been fruitful for recruitment in the district because it is a small and intimate district, where people know and trust the local administration and certain local champions. One aspect to be considered though is who had *not* been attracted by this strategy, which might influence their positive attitude towards the (local) government authorities.

To start the co-creation process, we wanted to provide a notion of the project's objective and what kind of input, in particular local knowledge, we would like participants to contribute. As these expectations are difficult to communicate verbally, we decided to begin the process with something tangible: An activity that would be fun and attract interest in the project. We choose to develop a card game in order to (1) learn about the district, (2) facilitate the communication between participants and (3) provide low-tech engagement. At an *information event,* participants were asked to fill out questions on the cards which related to their district. In doing so, they not only shared their knowledge about the district (e.g. what is beautiful in Bremen Osterholz) but also considered questions that could be relevant to other residents. For the *kick-off workshop* we prepared a proper card game (with pictures)

6One of the five male participants left the project early on (after the cultural probes) whereas one of the female participants joined later (in September). In between, we had another male and female participant that attended a few workshops. We have not considered them in our overview, as we did not interview them separately. Overall, we had a stable group number of about 11 participants throughout the process.

**Fig. 2** Card game as developed at information event 23/05/16

**Fig. 3** Card game as further refined and played at neigh-bourhood festival and kick-off workshop (blue and green dots signify relevance)

based on the participants' input. Their task at this workshop was to evaluate each other's input via blue and green points (for relevance) and leave remarks. The two steps of this card game are depicted in Figs. 2 and 3.

The participants appreciated the refined version of the card game, as they could see that their work had been valuable and were actively engaged with the card game. To see pictures of their district and discuss them was motivating as the focus was on the district, not on technology.

As stated in our co-creation framework, it was important to establish the participants as experts (of the process of ageing in the neighbourhood) and to appreciate their local knowledge. It was important to establish this role as early on in the process as possible. The card game offered a first interaction to establish this relationship early on.

# *Co-creating a Service Concept: Probes as Tool for Sharing Tacit Knowing and Co-creating Scenarios7*

The initial tasks for the co-creation of a service concept included a preliminary survey and analysis of existing services as well as the development of first ideas. The service to be developed was defined in the co-creation process, but we had to have a concrete idea about

The service to be developed in our co-creation process needs to be better than the existing ones in several respects:

*Comprehensive and relevant information supporting the planning of activities* (accessibility of buildings and routes, information about toilets and benches): The points of interests had been proposed by members of the target audience and included nice places, outdoor and indoor offers for recreation, where older adults can meet others in their district as well as information about local organisations, offering advice on different matters of everyday life. For different kinds of points of interest (objects) different sets of qualifying information (attributes) according to the information needs of older adults are provided.

*Usable and accessible technical design for older adults*; Relevant and up-to-date information facilitating social participation of older people in the district of Bremen Osterholz. Information may be searched via a map that is optimised for older people and via listings. All information is provided by a responsive application, which can be accessed from desktop PCs, tablets and Smartphones, with particular emphasis on accessibility.

In addition, the service *needs to be based on open data* (up to date, accessible via API, machine readable) and co-created data, relevant to the citizens' needs. If the service is linked to open data, the respective data providers are responsible for updates and the service provider is relieved from this job. Looking for and linking to available open data therefore is another part of the co-creation process. Where no open data is available to meet the information needs, data has to be collected and edited within the co-creation process.

7This section is part of a paper published by Jarke and Gerhard (2018) as part of a special issue on Probes as Participatory Design Practice (Jarke & Maaß, 2018).

**Adopting Probes for Co-creation** In order to address these kinds of questions, we had to understand the everyday practices of older people in the district better: To understand what it means to age in this particular place. While the card game offered a first interaction with the participants, there was a need to explore and jointly learn about their everyday lives in a more structured way. For this reason, we developed a set of 'cultural probes' (Boehner, Gaver, & Boucher, 2012; Gaver, Dunne, & Pacenti, 1999; Jarke & Maaß, 2018) which are self-documentation materials.

In contrast to more traditional approaches to probes which are used in usercentred design (Sanders & Stappers, 2008), probes in our project were used as a method and tool for co-creation. Hence, in addition to their inspirational function and tool for the requirements elicitation, we also used the probes as a communication and engagement tool for the subsequent co-creation process. In a follow-up workshop, the participants jointly reflected on the activity and their experience. The aim was (1) to jointly reflect on the probes activity and experience, and (2) to identify some key characteristics that defined their everyday practices in the district.

For the participants the probes raised their awareness of everyday practices and practices related to ageing in the district. The probes sensitised participants about certain aspects of their everyday practices and were hence tremendously helpful in identifying needs as well as resources. For the researchers they allowed to develop a better and more profound understanding of these practices. This demonstrated that probes were superior to interviews in which participants could, for most parts, only report on their everyday live without prior reflection.

In the following, I present the way in which we used probes in Bremen. I will demonstrate how they allowed us to explore and learn about the everyday lives of older adults in Osterholz in a structured and reflective way, but also to establish participants as experts of their district and ageing in this place. In particular, I analyse to what extent the probes served as "boundary objects" (e.g. Bjögvinsson, Ehn, & Hillgren, 2012; Ehn, 2008) among users and between users and researchers, and how they facilitated individual and communal perspective making and perspective taking.

The set of probes we developed for Bremen Osterholz included maps, a diary, postcards and a disposable camera (Fig. 4).8 The participants kept the cultural probes for 10 days. They collected data on themselves, their lives and their sociospatial and media use practices. Follow-up interviews were conducted individually to prepare and accompany the process and a de-briefing session (workshop) to supplement, validate and explore the material.

In a subsequent workshop, the participants jointly reflected on the activity and their experience (Fig. 5). The aim was to define some key characteristics that would serve to develop personas. In the Appendix to this book, I provide an overview table of the probes that were developed for the field site in Bremen Osterholz.

8For a detailed description of the probes used in Bremen Osterholz, please see the appendix of this book.

82 Co-creation in Practice I: Co-creating a Digital Neighbourhood Guide (Bremen Osterholz)

**Fig. 4** Overview of probes pack in Osterholz

**Fig. 5** Participants discussing their maps and post cards

When participants compared the individual maps, they discussed what they believed to be differences that would eventually allow for the development of different personas. Some of the key differences where: biographical (on whether somebody just recently moved to Osterholz), related to retirement/employment, living circumstances (alone vs. partnership vs. caring for partner) related to mobility and health, related to the financial situation and how active people were in terms of charity work and hobbies. All these considerations were documented and informed the subsequent development of personas.

#### **Mapping Socio-Spatial Networks: Explicating Perspectives and Demarcating Areas**

One probe we gave to participants was a map of the district (Fig. 6). The main aim of this probe was to understand social inclusion with respect to primary networks and space. Participants were asked to mark where they live (red dot), where friends and family live (blue dots), where important places for their everyday are (yellow dots). In addition, participants were asked to highlight areas they particularly like in green, and areas they dislike in pink.

What we were interested in learning from this map concerned for example how connected our participants felt to people/places and the spatial dimension of their primary networks (neighbourhood, quarter, district, and clubs). We were also interested in learning which social networks the participants were part of and where they meet.

**Fig. 6** Probe—district map

**Fig. 7** Cutout of map s from participant 5 (left) and participant 10 right

The returned maps differed greatly with respect to the extent of their networks and the mobility patterns. The maps were supplemented with diaries and a set of seven maps in which participants documented their mobility patterns for a week. Not surprisingly, we found in the analysis of the district map that the participants' social networks were very much centred around their respective neighbourhoods. Since the participants lived in very different neighbourhoods their social interactions took place in different areas of the district. Preferences for certain areas as well as aversion regarding others also differed with regard to their primary networks.

Below are cut-outs from the maps of two participants (Fig. 7). They both comprise of the same area. Yet, whereas participant 5 has highlighted an area in pink (signaling that this is an area she does not like), participant 10 marked the area with a blue and yellow dot (important places) and highlighted an area close-by in green (areas participants like). In the interview, participant 10 explained that this is where she walks her dog. Again, the participants lived in different neighbourhoods and hence had very different mobility patterns and social relations in and to the area.

Later on, such conflicting perspectives became a rich resource for discussion, when determining which places would be included as "nice places" in our district guide.

Another difference in marking locations on the map was based on the different practices of people and what associations they had with particular places. For example, while a number of participants (e.g. participants 3 and 7) marked the big cemetery as an area in which they liked to spend time, participant 5 only marked it as place she routinely visits because of the graves she has to attend to (Fig. 8). The

**Fig. 8** Cutout of maps from participant 7 (left), participant 5 (middle) and participant 3 (right)

places were hence associated with the practices in which people engage and through these practices became part of the socio-spatial network.

Finally, many participants marked similar places in the district as reference to where they routinely go. Yet even here, we found differences with respect to whether these were also considered or known as recreational places (Fig. 9).

These initial findings were further explored in individual interviews with the participants. Talking about the maps and the mappings in the interviews encouraged almost all participants to reflect on the district as a whole, its multifaceted character and its image. Here we found that the spatial separation depicted in the maps corresponded with a stereotypical and often negative attitude towards other neighbourhoods. In particular two neighbourhoods, one characterised by tower blocks and widely known as socially diverse and troubled area (Tenever), the other one with a rural character and detached houses (Alt-Osterholz), were important points of identification and demarcation for the residents. As participant 1 who lives in Alt-Osterholz explains:

My own neighbourhood, I like that one. […] I wouldn't like to live in Tenever for example. […] I'd rather be in the area where I live now or I prefer this. It's kind of like that, a little bit closed off and you know a lot of people and there's a lot of greenery and gardens. Whereas in this tower block neighbourhood, that doesn't suit me at all, I don't like that. I don't want to say that it is terrible, but for me personally, if I had an apartment there, I think I would be truly unhappy. Those tall houses, that overwhelms me. At least to live there. And I never actually go there. If we go on excursions, all right, then we go here to the dike [points to dike on the map] or, if we say "come let's go for a little walk in the evening", then we move around the clinic park, which is also very nice, because it's a lot of greenery and some nice old buildings and if you walk around there for an hour, then you have a little bit of time off your mind.

Participant 7 who also lives in Alt-Osterholz, had a more nuanced view on Tenever. He praised the success of social urban development actions and said that he had "learned to appreciate" the area since there had been renovations that "have made Tenever somehow attractive". However, he mentioned the neighbourhood only when asked why he had not marked any areas that he did not like in the map. Seemingly, his assumption was that we have had this specific neighbourhood in

**Fig. 9** Cutout of the same part of the map from different participants

mind when asking for disliked areas. Further, he confirmed that there are prejudices amongst his neighbours:

Nevertheless, it is the case that as resident of Alt-Osterholz you actually avoid Tenever. Because there were also incidents that young gangs somehow attacked people in the early evening hours or something like that.

The *map was hence not a mere representation of the participants' place-making practices* and tacit knowing of the district *but also a performance of what they considered to be socially acceptable*, e.g. to mark Tenever negatively or not.

In contrast, participant 9 who lived in Tenever produced a very different image of her neighbourhood. She had lived there for a very long time and had "always found it exciting, always interesting". She told us that

… acquaintances of ours had said that you can't move to Tenever […] but I was still unbiased, I thought I'd take a look and now I'm living there and the apartments are really nice and we have a great view from the seventh floor.

She explained that in her opinion the bad image of the neighbourhood was no longer justified today. She had a strong attachment with the neighbourhood and the residents that was rooted in the togetherness of the people living there. She appreciated the ways the residents interact and treat each other, and recounted her negative experiences with neighbours when living in a different neighbourhood for a short while:

The others who owned the condominiums, they were upset that some families had a barbecue. So that was ONE situation, no, that's how it went. And then you really don't feel well. And then other things like that, like bullying and harassment. [...] Something I don't know from here [Tenever] at all. Because here its really such a peaceful togetherness and doesn't matter whether one is running around in pyjamas or not. Maybe we smile about it (laughing), but there is no one to blame for such things. That was a little bit there, as I said, it was a little bit different.

Despite these divergent perspectives on the different parts of the district, the participants realised some commonalities regarding preferred and avoided spaces: They differed with respect to the specific areas that they like or dislike, but the reasons for these preferences are the same. All participants like to visit calm, green recreational places and they avoid places where young people often meet. Participant 9 explains:

[…] and that's the big parking lot and there are a lot of young people meeting with the car and so on and sometimes it's a bit uncomfortable. I don't really know any really unpleasant places like this. But these are such meeting places for young people, where you just feel insecure and you think they're talking to accost me and stuff like that, yeah.

Participant 5 who differs quite a lot from participant 9 with regard to her sociospatial networks perceived the same sense of discomfort at places with many young people:

I don't like to go to the lake anymore, because of things that you don't like as an old person anymore, yelling youths and barbecue sessions, where the rubbish is just left and so on and so on. […] I don't want to get upset about it. When I was younger, I was able to ignore these things but with increasing age it is strangely more difficult and since I don't want to become a militant old one I choose the avoidance tactic.

Hence, what could be derived from the individual probes and interviews was an appreciation of the participants for green and recreational spaces. Despite differences on where these areas could be found in the district, all participants emphasised the importance of green areas. Similarly, we noticed an agreement to avoid places where young people hang out and may intimidate older citizens. These were all individual perspectives that participants made through their engagement with the probes and while reflecting on this exercise during the interviews.

However, it was only during a workshop in which the *participants jointly interpreted the differences in the maps* (which were displayed on a pin board as depicted in Fig. 10) that we started to understand some of the reasons for these differences. These interpretations were based on taking their respective perspectives and through interpretation of the assembled maps the participants created a joint, communal perspective.

One of the biggest differences—according to the participants—was whether somebody grew up in the district and still had friends, acquaintances and family from that time or if most members of the social network live somewhere else.

**Fig. 10** Participants discussing their maps during a workshop

Participants pointed out that this could be seen in particular in the number of blue marks on the map (representing family and friends). A second difference was considered whether somebody still works and also where somebody has worked (as these could have included long commutes with little chance of colleagues living in the district). The financial situation was considered another defining difference (e.g. with respect to buying organic food or owning a house and garden). Participants argued that this made a difference in terms of shopping behaviour or whether somebody goes to public parks more often for recreational purposes. Furthermore, the functional health was considered to be important with respect to people's mobility in the neighbourhood and beyond. Lastly, it made a difference whether people are engaged in charity work and if so, where (some people work within in the district, others across the city).

Relating these accounts of our field work back to theoretical framework (see Chapter 3: Co-creating Digital Public Services), we can see that working with the neighbourhood map facilitated the perspective making and perspective taking of participants in three ways: The neighbourhood maps served (1) as a standardised form and method, (2) as a coincident boundary and (3) as an ideal type.

*Standardised forms,* methods and procedures enable a shared view by enforcing particular work practices across participants and provide a shared format for providing input. The neighbourhood map acted as a standardised form by asking people to identify where they live, where family and friends live and where important places are. By asking participants to follow this particular procedure when working with the map, it became a standardised form (or method). In so doing, it allowed for the translation of different contexts into the same pattern (colour-coded dots).

The map served also as a *coincident boundary* in that it outlined the demarcation of the district. Through this framing only those activities became visible (and relevant) that took place inside this boundary. Many of our participants reflected on this. For example, participant 5 reflected about how she perceived of the district differently when she was still working and commuting to another district in comparison to her reduced mobility patterns within the district since retirement. Participant 7 reflected in the final focus group about how many of his activities took place outside

of the district and how much he used the car to get to places. This coincident boundary later became inscribed into the app we co-created with the participants.

Finally, the neighbourhood map facilitated the creation of *ideal types* such as "nice places and walks" as we asked the participants to mark places/areas they like and dislike in the map. These were later turned into key categories of our information service. There was an initial broad understanding of what a nice area would qualify as. This "ideal type" became more and more refined as the design process progressed. Initially our participants had different ideas and understandings of what qualified as a nice place and also where they might be found in the district. These differences were important for negotiating the future design and categories of the information system. For example, the conversation about the nice places informed the definition of attributes to describe nice places later on (e.g. how to get there, whether there are benches and toilets, whether there are possibilities to get refreshments). This was hence, an important activity for negotiating classifications for the information service to be developed.

The probes pack consisted of other materials as well. They are all summarised in the appendix of this book and include a disposable camera to capture how participants "see" their district; postcards to imagine an emblem of the district and identify its unique characteristic as well as envisage the future of the district.

The postcard relating to future-making facilitated participants' joint perspective taking and making on how they envisioned the future of the district. The taking of the individual perspectives allowed to develop a joint perspective with respect to thinking about how to tackle challenges rather than being trapped in a diffuse fear. Figure 11 depicts some of the participants during the workshop while reading each others responses. In addition, participants reflected upon what they were missing in the district (e.g. young people). Some said that this was also reflected in the fact that there are only few places for going out (e.g. for a coffee in the afternoon or a drink in the evening). Some believed this was also an infrastructural problem (e.g. with respect to the tramline).

A further part of the conversation circled around charity work in the district and how this may support the development of the district. One idea was an app to support this, e.g. a platform for people that need help in their neighbourhood. Some participants reported on how they were already helping older neighbours with their weekly shopping. Another discussion was around the idea to build student houses and make the district more attractive for younger people and in this way "raise" people who are willing to take over charity work.

Hence, when displaying the postcards in our workshop they served again as a *repository* that allowed to be queried as various ideas, concepts, objects were collected and allowed for a creative process. It also served to envision an ideal future.

#### **Proceeding to Develop Personas and Scenarios**

Based on the insights gained through the probes, we co-created personas with our participants. Usually, personas are defined as "hypothetical archetypes" of real users (Cooper, 1999). Very often personas are created by the research and design team from insights gained through other research methods (e.g. interviews, ethnographic observations/participations in activities with older adults, focus groups, demographic data on older adults). Hence, personas are a representation of

**Fig. 11** Participants discussing the postcards at a workshop

a fictitious user that include a concise summary of characteristics of the user, their experience, goals and tasks, pain points, and environmental conditions. Personas allow the developers to consider the needs, wants, expectations etc. of wider user groups, without involving them directly in the design process. Very rarely are persons developed in collaboration with users (Neate, Bourazeri, Roper, Stumpf, & Wilson, 2019 is an exception). By drawing attention to potential users, the creation of a common understanding of the users is supported and developers are engaged to implement this understanding in their decisions.

In Bremen Osterholz, personas were jointly developed with older adults. We developed three personas based on the probes and individual interviews with our participants as well as statistical data on older adults. We used personas to examine communication- and information needs as well as resources of older citizens in Osterholz. The personas played an important role throughout the co-creation activities as they allowed to investigate and discuss the information needs of older citizens further. They were helpful in order to encourage participants to think beyond their own wishes and needs and to relate to others who might be different from them. Furthermore, they allowed participants to address sensitive issues by referring to a third person. Importantly, the personas were not developed through stereotypical ideas about older adults but rather in collaboration with them.

The personas still differed according to a number of important dimensions (Table 3).

The participants worked in three groups, each on one persona in order to identify their information needs and interests.

The results were noted on cards (colour-coded according the points above) and pinned on a wall (Fig. 12).

**Table 3** Considering social participation through personas

**Fig. 12** Collecting results from group work

Based on the personas we developed two use case scenarios. Overall, the result was a set of relevant classifications in terms of object categories and attributes to be visualised on the map, which later turned out to be too numerous for the scope of the project. Further, the personas helped to develop different viewpoints on the types of classifications that are sensible and generate ideas for the service definition. The main point here was that the participants felt that it was important to focus on the resources of older adults: They told us how they were helping friends, relatives and neighbours for example support in housekeeping or getting somewhere. Here it became eminent how the participants experienced and represented themselves as efficacious with respect to themselves and to others. One idea for a service was to support the exchange of time, goods, or abilities. These considerations were in stark

contrast to most of the services developed for older adults that centre around their deficits and aim to support for example, health-related support service.

As part of the service and data definition, we held two further workshops: one on the informational content and one on interactive elements of the Mobile Age app. The aim of these workshops was to select the categories of objects to be shown on the map, to determine attributes for each category of objects and further to define relevant information about these objects. During the workshop, we divided the participants in groups of 2–3 to work on different categories of objects. We had prepared lists of objects per category. As we were interested in considering what kind of information would be interesting about the objects, we had also provided supplementary information in form of leaflets and Websites print-outs to the groups. The workshop concluded with presentations and discussions of the results.

In a subsequent workshop, we decided with the participants to develop a mapbased service. We agreed that only a limited number of categories of objects could be included in the neighbourhood guide as only very limited data was available and hence an intensive data creation process was ahead of us. The decision was supported by the argument to focus on those categories of objects that were not yet systematically captured elsewhere (e.g. nice places, informal meeting places). This would constitute a benefit, particularly with regard to the content (as making available informal local knowledge). Finally, we defined the value proposition and target audience of the service:

The target audience consists firstly of older adults living in the district, in their Third Age, and with an interest in digital technologies, and secondly, of intermediaries that are providing information about the resources in the neighbourhood. Beyond these two groups, the service may be interesting for other audiences such as local politicians or relatives of members of the first group. However, their needs were not of primary concern during the development process itself.

The desired impact was to improve social inclusion of Third Agers in the district by providing such a service and measured by an increase in social participation as defined by the British ELSA report. However, as shown in Fig. 4 of chapter "Mobile Age: Co-creating Digital Public Services with and for Older Citizens" this depends on the availability of resources in the neighbourhood and the resources of the older adults themselves:

The service shall provide all relevant information about resources in the district in order to support mobility and social connectedness of older adults in the district and improve access to different types of services. Compared to existing guides and services, it shall be more relevant and comprehensive, exploit the full potential of digital media technology, optimise usability for older adults and be easily accessible.

#### *Working with Data Through Data Tables*

One of the first steps in our co-creation project was to generate a report about the data that were available for our topic and determine how appropriate these were. Subsequently the stream of activity led to the collection and validation of data that were identified as relevant but were not yet open or needed to be collected across various data owners. In a number of workshops dedicated to the development of ideas and defining a service, we had selected categories of objects to be displayed on a map as well as relevant attributes for each of these categories. According to the selection of categories and attributes, we decided to differentiate between two main kinds of objects, with differing attributes:

We created a matrix table with a line for each object and several columns for the different attributes. These two data tables (one for nice places, one for services) became the central working tool for the data collection and co-creation process with two objectives: (1) *Completeness*: identify all the relevant objects in Bremen Osterholz for each category; (2) *Richness of relevant details*: collect data on as many aspects as possible for each object. All the interventions mentioned above served these two purposes and gradually completed the tables. While information on attributes such as address, contact, website was evident and easy to collect, the description was the most difficult one. The purpose of the description was to communicate why a place is nice or a facility of interest to older people. For the description, our core group participants mainly had contributed keywords. In order to acquire this information, participants assumed responsibility for particular objects (e.g. places), validated the information (e.g. through going there) and creating data (e.g. photographs).

Through a number of iterations we gradually completed the tables. In addition, a main task for the researchers was to standardise the data, e.g. to find the right format to describe different kinds of objects. This format also had to comply with the data structure of the city information provider (Bremen.Online) as they were envisaged to sustainably maintain the final product.

Below are three Figs. 13, 14, and 15 that illustrate the progress of completing the data tables throughout the co-creation process. There is a line for each object (place or facility) and the columns contain relevant attributes, e.g. name, address, description, offerings, transport, contact, and website etc. Altogether, 19 nice places and walks and more than 70 institutions and services were identified, but there was little precision on attributes. All in all, the project team conducted 12 focus groups (e.g. men's

**Fig. 13** First data table with "our" attributes

**Fig. 14** Slowly completing the data tables

breakfast club, pottery groups) with more than 80 older residents, where the participants named places they considered to be nice and places where they meet other people as well as institutions offering different kinds of services relevant to them.

Most of the focus groups were conducted with people that had lived in Osterholz for a long time. People were deeply rooted in the district and had a vast knowledge about the history of the district, interesting places and events. Some participants were very active themselves in organising meetings, gatherings and other informal

**Fig. 15** Data table online in Mobile Age app

social events. The discussions were usually very fruitful as groups were very engaged and had many stories to tell about the district as well as lots of practical information on places and events.

*Information on attributes* largely came from a printed neighbourhood guide. But this guide did not cover all the objects proposed by our core group of participants and not all desired attributes. Therefore, the first tables contained several blank fields due to participants contributing limited information, in some instances (Figs. 13 and 14).

Because of these gaps, it was also important to recruit knowledgeable people (beyond our core group) for data collection and for supporting the drafting and editing of the data collected on nice places and walks. In our "collaboration meetings" with local stakeholders we presented our "data tables" and discussed either possible collaborations or received input on specific categories/objects. We met with three members of the "men's breakfast club" (a group of mostly older men meeting for breakfast and discussing issues in the district on a monthly basis); a member of the BORIS editorial team, a member of a group concerned with the district's history, one representative of a church congregation and the neighbourhood manager of "Schweizer Viertel". They provided useful information on differing aspects on nice places and walks which were noted by researchers.

This complementary task was important as it was relatively easy to get people to name nice places and give a few keywords to describe it. It was however, harder to get information on a pre-defined set of attributes, and even more difficult to complete this for all the points of interest. A major challenge was to identify people who could take over editorial tasks and write clear and relevant texts based on the initial sets of keywords collected through the focus group (as described above). Yet this was important for future users of our Mobile Age neighbourhood guide.

Figure 14 shows the progress as we proceeded with the data validation. Throughout it was important to provide informants and co-creators with printed tables as they were not always prepared to work in a digital file.

While information on attributes such as address, contact, and website was evident and easy to collect, the description was the most difficult one. The purpose of the description was to communicate why a place is nice or a facility of interest to older residents. For the description our participants had contributed keywords. The ifib team wrote complete sentences and a coherent structure of the description. For a few nice places, a member of the BORIS team, prepared texts based on the keywords from our participants. Another member of the BORIS team, also engaged in a history workshop for the district, checked and amended the texts edited by the ifib team.

Finally, the largely completed tables were transformed into digital data tables by FTB and used as input for the data base, which was made accessible to our participants who added further information, e.g. keywords, and uploaded photos. In order to acquire this information, participants assumed responsibility for particular objects (e.g. places), validated the information (e.g. through going there) and creating data (e.g. photographs) (Fig. 15).

Some basic information was provided with permission of different data providers. The data sets were supplemented by our core group. Information about public toilets and benches/seats were uploaded by the German OpenStreetMap community9 for which one of the co-creation participants checked all public toilets and added information (e.g. opening hours). The integration of data regarding public transport was realised by linking to the public transport association.

Overall, we had to realise that very little open government data was available on the content identified as most relevant by our participants (social, cultural, leisure activities). Some participants engaged extensively in collecting data, while others were happy to name objects of interest but not to collect or validate detailed data on attributes.

## *Co-creating Software10*

The visual design and functionality of the app were co-created through a number of paper-prototyping exercises and subsequently transformed into digital prototypes. A first step for the co-creation of software was to identify concepts and app ideas, then gather requirements from each stakeholder group. These ideas became more

9 https://www.openstreetmap.de/.

10The software development and design work in this co-creation stream was led by our Mobile Age partner FTB.

refined as the service co-creation activities proceeded and relevant data sets were identified (and created). The stream of activities concluded with the testing and reviewing of the app's functionality.

#### **Map Design Workshop**

In order to discuss the design of the digital map to be used for the Mobile Age neighbourhood guide, we conducted a workshop dedicated to map design. This included a presentation of different kinds of maps as well as an individual task for participants to navigate three different map applications (Google, Bing, OSM) and search for a point of interest. This was an ideal way for participants to experience a variety of existing services. Below is a screenshot of the three different maps (Fig. 16).

After the hands-on exercise, we discussed the different aspects of the maps like contrasts, content density and content presentation. The participants were told not to argue just from their perspective but also from the co-created personas' perspective.

It was important to draw the participants' attention to aspects of usability, accessibility and user experience. The personas helped the participants to focus on practical decisions. The participants found the following aspects positive, in particular with respect to orientation:

**Fig. 16** Visualisations/maps of the same part of Osterholz with different map designs and different objects visible (Bing, OpenStreetMap and Google Maps)

**Fig. 17** Mobile-Age map for older citizens with improved features as developed by Mobile Age partner FTB

Subsequently Mobile Age developers presented a demonstration of the map they had developed and which was based on the experiences of their former work with older citizens and visually impaired people. The map uses high contrast for textual information such as street names, names of districts as well as street- and building outlines. Figure 17 below provides an overview of some of the features that are improved in the Mobile Age map.

One of the ifib researchers suggested the option of filters: In order to provide more information, that could be shown or hidden depending on specific filters. The participants considered this aspect very helpful. In the following, FTB researchers demonstrated how objects could be visualised in the map using benches and toilets as examples. Below we show the final result (Figs. 18 and 19).

Subsequently, we conducted **four digital design workshops** along with activities related to **editorial data work**. In the workshops we aimed to (1) demonstrate and discuss the welcome page, (2) discuss the experiences with tables and prototype, and (3) validate information. This was accomplished through a mix of presentations, group work and group discussions.

#### **Welcome Page**

As for example, for the welcome page, participants favoured tiles. FTB developers demonstrated a number of visualisation options and all came to an agreement (Figs. 20 and 21).

The agreement was reached on basis of the following criteria:

**Fig. 18** Final map design featuring bus stops as orientation points

In the discussion on how much information each tile should contain the participants agreed, that they did not want too much text. One group worked on a welcome text/note. One important point of discussion was the question which term they wanted to use to describe the target audience (older citizens) of the web page. Some participants did not want to name the target group at all, but then agreed with the researchers that it should be clear who is addressed. One participant proposed the German term "Menschen im fortgeschrittenen Alter" (people in advanced age), but another participant preferred the term "seniors" and another one said, that he does not care at all, what term we choose. It was a very lively discussion and at the end we decided to use the term "older adults".

#### **List or/and Map?**

We had a long conversation over several workshops as to whether the app's content should be visualised on a map or in a list as a first output. Below are the two examples from the paper prototype session. Finally, we agreed to list all five object categories on the start page and provide the users with the possibility to select either a list or map representation (picture on the right hand side).

The list view was implemented according to the ideas of the senior participants (Figs. 22 and 23).

#### 100 Co-creation in Practice I: Co-creating a Digital Neighbourhood Guide (Bremen Osterholz)

**Fig. 19** Final map visualisation featuring toilets and benches

**Fig. 20** Collection of ideas about start page of Mobile Age app

**Fig. 21** Digital translation of start page discussion

**Fig. 22** Paper prototype list

102 Co-creation in Practice I: Co-creating a Digital Neighbourhood Guide (Bremen Osterholz)

**Fig. 23** List first digital demo

In contrast to the paper prototype, participants decided on the necessity to visualise the boundaries of "places to go" or walks. This has been implemented in the digital prototype map view as shown below (Fig. 24).

#### **Toilets and Benches**

Toilets and benches were not only considered as attributes of places but also as standalone categories. All of them should be visible on the map in relation to the location of the user, in order for the user to find the nearest one (Fig. 25).

#### **Test Tablets**

In order to enable members of our core group to test the application prototype and to validate and complete the information, we provided the participants with tablets. The participants kept the tablets for eight weeks. They received a short introduction on how to use the devices and how to test the first prototype.

In the observations of their use practices and a focus group around the use of these tablet, we developed a better understanding of the participants' motivations to use certain "new" media technologies. Our participants' overall curious attitude towards new media technologies was not primarily rooted in an enthusiasm for these technologies themselves. Rather they shared a self-perception of socially engaged and politically interested citizens and they were aware of the growing

**Fig. 24** Preview on map—prototype

importance of the internet and digital devices for society at large and social relations, in particular. In order to be able to fully participate in today's society they felt the need (and to some extent social pressure) to keep up with these technological developments. In this regard our participants perceived themselves as pioneers/trailblazers in their generation and felt a sense of responsibility to convince "off liners" to start using mobile devices and the internet (i.e. by showing funny YouTube videos on the smartphone).

#### 104 Co-creation in Practice I: Co-creating a Digital Neighbourhood Guide (Bremen Osterholz)

**Fig. 25** Display of benches and toilets (clustered)

In particular, those participants who only had a desktop computer and no mobile device appreciated the opportunity to test a tablet. The introduction of tablets and the opportunity to test the co-created service was an important step in the process. In addition to experience the use of a tablet, participants could experience how their efforts and input had been integrated and valued.

Regarding the technical solution, it was necessary to consider the technological infrastructure available in the district. This included internet coverage as well as the supply of devices. Furthermore, the engagement with technology among the concerned older population had to be taken into account. This was partly done by reviewing statistics/studies on infrastructure and access for the Bremen Osterholz.

The city district guide for older citizens had to meet several requirements with regard to content and technical functions. With respect to content, the relevant objects had to be covered as comprehensibly as possible, e.g. all existing places and meeting points with all the relevant attributes. With regard to functionality, it had to be easy to find these objects. To meet these two requirements, different competences in the project team were required (e.g. for content, functionality, design). While for some design questions it was appropriate to present different existing websites, for other aspects paper prototyping was more adequate. It turned out that the exercise with an open screen and several paper elements for possible menus, left room for discussion of many associated issues. While some participants enjoyed the paper prototyping others were hesitant to "glue" their proposition on paper. For those who were not too acquainted with digital media, the design task appeared to be too tedious. For those that regularly used digital media the ideas about design were mainly derived from their own experience with existing websites and applications.

**Fig. 26** Final canvas for co-created service in Bremen Osterholz

# *Exploiting the Service*

For the initial planning of co-creation activities, a first definition of targets, outputs and value propositions was defined and throughout the project continuously refined. This also included initial considerations about the sustainable deployment of the service and its required data and technical infrastructure as well as *key neighbourhood resources*. Subsequently we developed ideas on how the service might be maintained beyond the end of the project. We agreed that the city information portal would maintain the app and technical aspects (*cost structure* & *revenue stream*), whereas a group of local actors (*key partners*) would be responsible in maintaining the content (*key activities*). To communicate the service, it was provided through a *multi-channel approach*: in digital form and in a printed version. The following figure summarises the canvas for Bremen Osterholz (Fig. 26).

## **Summary of Co-creation Process and Output**

Overall, there was an emphasis of activities in the engagement with stakeholders, the working with data and the co-creation of software which allowed participants to share control and knowledge throughout the co-creation process. The table below provides a summary about the types of activities/methods we used during our cocreation process and the stakeholders involved (Table 4).

**Table 4** Overview of activities/methods deployed in Bremen Osterholz from May 2016 to January 2017

There are three kinds of output of the co-creation process of an interactive digital district guide for Bremen-Osterholz:

As it has been described above the guide contains all points of interest in the district relevant for senior residents. The list has been checked with several experts and nobody mentioned something missing. It includes 17 nice places and 75 organisations relevant for senior citizens.

In order to assess to which extent the service provides relevant information to older adults and other stakeholders, we collected feedback in interviews with participants, service providers, intermediaries and government.

#### **Value for Older Adults**

Through a formative evaluation, participants confirmed that they were satisfied with the content of the service. They considered the 17 nice places and 75 service providing organisations as complete and the information as correct, comprehensive and appealing. However, the target group of older adults is larger than our group of cocreators. In a focus group with three neighbourhood managers, working in less privileged neighbourhoods in the district, they confirmed that *information provision* in general is a relevant factor for social inclusion. However, they saw limitations with regard to the general issue of accessibility of digital technologies (technical equipment, skills, interests, fear). That is why they produced the printed neighbourhood guide.

They recommended public access terminals and a *printed short version* of the most important content. As their printed district guide included the service providers but not nice places and walks, we decided to print a booklet with the 17 nice places. This was published on the day of the launch of the online service at bremen. online and was distributed via their offices as well as via the district office.

In addition, the intermediaries were critical about the accessibility of the service in terms of its sustainability and up-to-dateness. One of the neighbourhood managers stated:

Well, I'm not so sure if it's really going to reach the seniors. …If you are looking for something, when you search purposefully, for example, I want to go to the swimming pool in the OTE hall in Osterholz for example and when are the opening hours, then I would google it. Then I wouldn't find it. And then whether I bump into this site, I don't know. […] Well, I think that as supplementary information such a thing is good, but as I said before, it has to be kept up to date and if I am looking for it, I have to find it.

With the migration of the content to the city portal and its feature of self-administered updating by data owners on the one side and the commitment of the providers of the city portal to maintain the data of the 17 nice places for a duration of 2 years, sustainability is ensured.

An open question is the relevance of the information provided for different groups of older adults, in particular with regard to issues around social inclusion, connectivity and participation. The relevance of the objects and attributes selected reflects the needs of a particular subgroup, which is mobile, comparatively welleducated, and engaged. One of the neighbourhood managers suggested that for older people with health issues or financial constraints this kind of information provision might not be as relevant: "Well, I think that's going to do well for those who are better off." The other neighbourhood manager explains:

And very few have a large iPad or a PC with a large screen. I saw that also in this PC course for older people. Some people said: "Oh, that's interesting, now I dare to buy one of those things, now I know how to do it. That's what the residents are like, but I'll tell you, those from the blocks that don't live in condominiums or in single-family houses, they're really into it, they like it. However, most of these residents are poorer people who don't have these financial possibilities, they miss it.

#### **Value for Intermediaries and Service Providers**

The interviews with the neighbourhood managers also demonstrated, that the service is not only relevant to older adults but also to intermediaries and local service providers as it may support them in fulfilling their tasks:

It would be more important to have all these multipliers. And I think that's good for them, because for many of those who work in Blockdiek [area with low socio-economic status], they don't know what the neighbouring facility does and can do. It is so… The managers might know about it, but the normal employees, if they work part-time even, they don't know what the institution around the corner is doing, what they have to offer, or that there is one at all. In this regard, the service is totally valuable, because they could say I have a web page here, take a look at it. That would be important.

In this regard, the digital district guide can support the *networking of local service providers* and consequently facilitate better service provision. The intermediaries also assessed the content as being oriented towards older adults as target audience (addressing their needs and interests). Categories that were defined in the process were confirmed by the neighbourhood managers as being relevant to older adults when moving outside.

#### **Value for Government**

At the launch event of the service in February 2018, a director of the State Ministry of Social Affairs, Women and Senior Citizens confirmed that the content of the services is highly relevant and compliant with the objectives of the recent political priorities and four central issues with regard to seniors (Table 5):

The service supports all four policy objectives and hence the ministry can support similar processes in other districts of Bremen. The director outlined some of these correspondences and explained why such as service could be a "good practice case" for other districts. He welcomed the offer by bremen.online to provide the templates of the Osterholz-Guide to other districts.

**Table 5** Value for government

## **Lessons Learned**

The following section summarises our lessons learned. These have been taken-up and evaluated in the second co-creation project, which is presented in the next chapter.11

# *Governing and Managing Co-creation*

To select a district where already a group existed that provide a information for senior adults and to start recruiting co-creators from and with this group turned out to be a good choice and should be repeated with regard to subsequent co-creation processes.

Lesson O-1.1: Start with an existing group of stakeholders that provides information of the desired kind for the target audience.

Given the broad range of contributions that are necessary for developing an interactive district guide that is relevant, up-to-date and accessible, we found that each of our participants had only some of the necessary skill set. Therefore, we challenged our initial view whether the recruitment of one single core group over the whole co-creation process is indeed the best model. Our partner in the data collection phase that had developed several printed district guides for older adults in other districts of Bremen followed a two stage model. She established a project team of intermediaries working with older adults to plan and coordinate the process and asked them to recruit focus groups to identify relevant objects and provide information. This model may be extended to other tasks such as specifying requirements for software design or editing of texts as well in order to engage older adults as representatives or advisors.

Lesson O-1.2: Establish a project group that helps coordinating different cocreation contributions by different co-creation partners.

In an action research project there is a time conflict between research-related activities and the practical co-creation activities required from the participating older adults: In order to get a better understanding of the members of our core cocreation groups, their personal background, relation to the district, digital literacy, we spent some time to develop cultural probes that demanded a lot of time from the

11Please note that the lessons learned were also used for the interim good practice guidebook.

participants as well. On the other hand, more support in introducing the tablet PCs was desired.

Lesson O-1.3: Consider *activities that are feasible* for other co-creation processes, in particular if the co-creation facilitators are not researchers but public authorities or service providers.

Lesson O-1.4: Consider *activities that are supporting the use of technology* in order to ensure a higher motivation and satisfaction and more effective contribution by older adults.

There is a need to be transparent about the decisions to be made during the cocreation process and to reach agreement on the appropriate decision-making method, i.e. open idea generation and discussion, choice between a few alternative options or discussion of and consent on a preferred solution by the co-creation team. It is also important that such decisions are documented in a transparent and accessible way in order to keep participants up-to-date.

Lesson O-1.5: Establish transparent decision-making procedures.

# *Engaging Stakeholders*

In general, it can be said that engaging stakeholders worked best through the collaboration with local stakeholders and existing groups. Promoting the project on two district fairs did not work well.

*Role of Intermediaries* Intermediaries were equally important and helpful as the co-creating older adults with regard to field exploration, recruitment of participants, idea forming up to the service development and sustainability considerations. Depending on the topic area their role in the co-creation process differs (from information providers and/or supervisors, topic experts to future users).

Lesson O-2.1: Identify the different roles which intermediaries may assume throughout the co-creation process (data providers, maintenance, recruitment support, future users) and establish corresponding collaboration relationships.

"Cold recruiting", e.g. on fairs, markets etc. did not work well, as one intervention showed. Recruitment may be effective when starting from already existing groups and aligning with their interests (e.g. older citizens' computer group). Nevertheless, there is a dilemma of recruiting for well-targeted and well-framed activities, and simultaneously keeping the co-creation process open. Recruiting people for a co-creation process, lasting about half a year, with only vague objectives and tasks unfamiliar to most older people is a great challenge. We had to provide a notion of the project's objective and what people would commit themselves to for about half a year, what kind of input, in particular what local knowledge, we would like them to contribute. As these issues are difficult to communicate clearly, for the information event and the kick-off meeting we were looking for a venue which is easy to reach for people in the district and a host that is trustworthy. We asked the head of the local district government of Osterholz and he agreed to open the assembly room of the district council and welcomed participants at both meetings. All participants received a participant information sheet.

Lesson O-2.2: Recruitment activities must consider the context in which they address older citizens as potential co-creators.

Lesson O-2.3: Engage intermediaries who are ready to support recruiting older adults.

For our process, it was important to establish the co-creators as experts and to appreciate their local knowledge. This established an engagement of mutual respect between the project team and participants, as both parties wanted to learn from the other. Establishing the participants as experts was facilitated through methods such as the card game or the probes. In particular the probes and related individual interviews were one of the interventions that resonated with participants most. They further helped to establish a trusting relationship with the participants. They also manifested the expert status of the participants with respect to knowledge about the district and their experience of becoming older. What was particularly helpful with probes throughout the process (idea forming as well as evaluation), was their ability to prompt participants to reflect about their everyday life. In subsequent interviews and focus groups, participants were much better prepared to give an account about for example their mobility and socio-spatial inclusion within the district. Cultural probes sensitised participants about certain aspects of their everyday practices and were hence tremendously helpful in identifying needs and resources.

Lesson O-2.4: Establish older adults as experts.

During a co-creation process, participants need to "find" their role from a customer/user of a service to service designer. The co-creation facilitators hence need to think about ways to facilitate role shifts and consider the following questions:

In the different phases of a co-creation process different capabilities are required. In a permanent core group there will always be some participants with limited ability to contribute to particular aspects and activities. Therefore, it is worth investigating to assemble different participants for each of the phases rather than one core co-creator group. This allows for defining expectations more clearly and may be more satisfactory for the participant. Overall, there are several areas in which cocreators may engage:

Lesson O-2.5: Establish procedures to facilitate role shift of participating older adults.

# *Co-creating a Service Concept*

*Personas* and scenario-based design were an important co-creation method for our project in Osterholz. On the one hand they *helped to anticipate future users*, on the other they *helped to tease out the relevant characteristics* (socio-economic, social relations, general health & mobility, attitude towards technology) of older adults. Personas were developed based on the participants and complemented with statistical information. They enabled participants to discuss matters of concern not only from their perspectives but also by taking other people's perspective into account. In particular, with respect to sensitive aspects such as financial constraints or limited mobility, personas helped participants to articulate needs without feeling intimidated to speak about themselves. The personas were subsequently used to develop use case scenarios and facilitated communication for the concept developing, codesign and evaluation stages. Personas and scenarios also served as a thread throughout the co-creation process, connecting different activities (such as identifying information needs to map design).

Lesson O-3.1: Make use of methods that help to tease out defining characteristics and that allow establishing a thread throughout the process.

Given the low internet use among older adults they may not become the main users of a digital service such as a local district guide. If the topic is nice places and walks, intermediaries that organise and advertise walks for older adults in their district may be the direct users and the guide should be designed in a way that supports their work.

Lesson O-3.2: Intermediaries should be considered and integrated as main users of a service.

We learned that there is a dilemma that most people who are socially excluded or at least not well included (e.g. because of poor social status, being unemployed or having language problems) will not volunteer for co-creating a district guide on nice places. Therefore, the value proposition and the announced impact of our co-created service needed to be more modest and restrictive. Addressing intermediaries could be effective in this respect as well. The focus should not only be on future users, but also on (complementary) existing services these intermediaries provide. They can facilitate contact with different experts for e.g. identifying needs, services, or relevant content.

Lesson O-3.3: Information is a necessary but not sufficient condition for social inclusion. Consider more activating services.

## *Working with (Open) Data*