Customer research workshop / 5 MIN READ
Use the co-created idea to uncover the need behind it
Preserve participants’ reasoning while separating a proposed solution from evidence of demand.
AI-assisted research and analysis for the SNS Creative Fieldbook
Sources checked 2026-11-06
Co-design invites people to shape possibilities with the team. The output becomes more useful when the record explains the problem each proposal addresses, the trade-offs participants made and what still needs investigation.
What you will leave with: A proposal record connecting participant contributions to open design questions.
Use this when
- Customers are helping develop a service concept.
- Workshop sketches are being treated as a validated product roadmap.
This is not a market-size estimate, a promise to build every suggestion or a replacement for testing how a proposed service works.
Explain the participants’ actual influence
IDEO.org describes co-creation as bringing intended users into developing ideas. Explain which part of the work participants can influence and what decisions remain with the organization.
Share meaningful constraints without making them a hidden answer key. Participants should know whether a session explores possibilities, develops a selected direction or resolves a specific design question. Avoid presenting a predetermined plan as an open invitation. Explain what will happen to contributions and how the team will communicate the result, without promising implementation or ownership terms that have not been agreed.
Invite reasoning alongside making
Offer a practical activity that participants can engage with through suitable formats. A sketch, rearranged process or role-play can make a proposal concrete, but drawing skill should not determine whose idea is heard. Ask what problem the proposal addresses and in which situation it would help.
Explore the choices participants make. If they remove a confirmation step, ask what they expect to happen instead and what would reassure them. Preserve conflicting priorities rather than forcing the group to create one polished design. Keep the facilitator’s additions distinguishable from participant contributions so the final artifact does not acquire a false author.
Separate proposal, rationale and evidence
For each substantial idea, record its intended user task, the participant’s explanation and the evidence currently available. A proposal for a live adviser may express a need for reassurance rather than a firm preference for a particular staffing model. Keep that alternative interpretation open.
Do not count repeated sketches as independent purchase commitments. Participants may build on one another’s work or respond to the materials offered. Identify assumptions that the activity did not examine, such as operating hours, cost or use under real time pressure. Respect the contribution without overstating what the session proves.
Choose a next investigation and close the loop
Select the unresolved question that most affects whether an idea can help. A prototype task, operational feasibility review or further conversation may answer different parts of it. Explain why the next step fits the uncertainty rather than calling every follow-up a validation exercise.
Share an appropriate account of what the team learned and how it used the contributions. If an idea is not pursued, give an honest explanation within the agreed confidentiality boundary. Keep approved artifacts linked to their original rationale so later teams can reconsider the need without assuming the first proposed solution was the only acceptable one.
Make the reasoning concrete.
A fictional building-services team invites tenants to redesign maintenance requests. Participants sketch a button that connects immediately to a person, especially after describing uncertainty about whether requests were received.
Treat the sketch as a service promise
Opening: Commit to an always-available adviser because the workshop chose it.
Hypothesis: The team appears responsive to participation.
Risk: The session did not establish feasibility or whether another response would meet the underlying need.
Preserve the reasoning
Opening: Record the reassurance need and compare possible ways to address it.
Hypothesis: The contribution guides a concrete next question.
Risk: The final service may differ from the first sketch and needs an honest explanation.
The team investigates how people recognize an acknowledged request and checks operational options. It reports the sketch as a co-created proposal, not proof of universal demand for immediate human support.
Take the questions into your next brief.
Use these prompts in your own notes. Nothing is submitted from this page.
Influence
Which decisions can participants shape?
Proposal
What did they create or change?
Rationale
Which task or concern does the idea address?
Assumption
What did the activity leave unexamined?
Return
How will participants hear what happened to their contribution?
Watch for the wrong conclusion.
- Inviting participation after the material decision is already fixed.
- Counting sketches as purchase commitments.
- Losing the participant’s reasoning when polishing the final artifact.
Your next action
Choose one co-created proposal and attach its underlying task, unresolved assumption and next investigation before adding it to a roadmap.
Sources & scope
The workflow, worksheets and hypothetical examples are original editorial analysis. Sources support only the identified principles. No measured business results or named human reviewer are claimed.
- IDEO.org Design Kit: Co-Creation Session →Primary method-publisher guidance · Supports: Co-creation brings intended users into making and developing ideas; the proposal-to-question worksheet is original editorial analysis.