I would like to…get my participants’ reactions to developed solutions so that I can evaluate them.
If this is your co-creation target, the tools of this category can help with that. Click on any tool you are interested in and find out more about what is needed to use it and reach your target successfully.
Below the name of each tool, you can find an overview of the selection criteria (reading the icons clockwise):
1. Format
2. Time frame
3. Target group (group size and group expertise)
4. Facilitation level
Critical Friend
A critical friend is a person who observes your actions and learning and finally provides you with critical yet friendly advice and feedback. Critical friend, as a tool, provides an excellent way to encourage participants to engage in a review and feedback process, to ask (the right) questions, and to get “fresh” recommendations – There are no bad recommendations! Having critical friends is useful, especially in study visits and meetings for peer-review purposes.
Tips and Limitations
- One hour duration for a 'short format' or one day for a long format' (more than 20 people).
- See the scoring format in the source link (URBACT EU).
Instructions
- A critical friend session is often organised after a presentation once the facilitator(s) present to the participants their project results.
- One person in the group is assigned as the critical friend.
- A feedback and Q&A session starts with the participants, who are asked to post their questions and/or comments on the whiteboards/posters.
- The critical friend is asked to sit with the facilitator(s)/presenter(s) and based on received questions and feedback, the critical friend will give their recommendations.
Sources and References
Dotmocracy
Dotmocracy is an easy-to-use tool for identifying participants' preferences and priorities among an extended list of options. The tool is based on voting with dot stickers or marks with a marker pen. An established evaluation tool used to describe voting with dot stickers or marks with a marker pen.
Tips and Limitations
- It is suggested to allocate 20 min for facilitating this tool.
- It is suggested that participants are provided with a fixed number of dot stickers (or be informed about the maximum number of votes they can use), preventing certain participants from voting more than other participants to the option they prefer and thus biasing the results.
- Different colours for the dots can be used for different values (e.g. green for “like” and red for “dislike” or for different types of participants, e.g. blue for management and red for staff).
Instructions
- At the beginning of this method, the facilitator(s) present to the participants the predefined list of options they have to vote for and provide them with the dot stickers or pens.
- The participants are then asked to place their dot stickers next to the presented option of their preference. They can vote more than once for an option and as many options as they like.
- In the end, the options with the most gathered dots at the end of voting “win”, and a group discussion follows, reflecting upon the result.
Sources and References
I like, I wish, What if
I like, I wish, What if is a tool for collecting, in a structured way, feedback from users. With this tool, the users are invited to provide open feedback by formulating three types of statements: "I like...", "I wish...", and "What if...".
Supporting files
I like. I wish. What if online template
Required Materials
- 3 Whiteboards or A0 blank posters
- Papers
- Post-its
- Pens and markers
- ICT: I Like, I wish, What if online template
Tips and Limitations
- It is suggested to allocate 15-30min for facilitating this tool. In the case of large groups, it is recommended to divide into smaller working groups, giving at least 15 min at the end for a group discussion/reflection.
- “What If” can also be rephrased to “I Wonder” or “How Might I” if preferred. It’s fun to change up the headers of this activity to fit the project as needed. Keep in mind that the purpose of this activity is to gain, at the end positive and constructive criticism. Positivity breeds openness and emotional safety, leading to a deeper exploration of ideas, while negativity stifles innovation and fosters an environment of isolation.
Instructions
- The participants are asked to think upon three statements, posting them on the posters/whiteboards or the online template, about a predefined topic/issue.
- Once everyone formulates their likes, wishes and what-ifs, a group discussion follows based on the collected results. Collect likes, wishes and what ifs.
- At the end of the process (without the participants), the facilitator(s) should then analyse the derived results, from which they can look for emerging patterns and plan their next steps.
Sources and References
Listening Levels
Listening levels is an interview technique that allows participants to be (more) aware of different levels of information received during a conversation. For this tool, three levels of listening are used: internal -inner dialogue, focused -to help someone else understand themselves, not judging, and global -listening to all the signals out there, transmits into curiosity.
Required Materials
- Papers
- Pens
Tips and Limitations
It is suggested to use this tool to divide the group into three working groups of 3 people each and allocate 20-40min for facilitating this tool.
Instructions
- Before starting the process, each member of the working groups is assigned to one role that reflects the three listening levels (internal, focused, and global). These roles are storyteller, interviewer and observer. Also, the facilitator(s) present to all the participants the predefined topic of the conversation.
- In each working group: one person is asked to share her/his thoughts (storyteller) while the other person asks powerful questions to encourage the storyteller to explore new possibilities (interviewer), and the 3rd person will listen on a global level (observer).
- A group discussion reflection follows, where participants are asked to express their impressions about their assigned roles.