THE MIT D-LAB PARTICIPATION TOOLKIT:

A SUITE OF TOOLS FOR UNDERSTANDING, CHARACTERIZING AND

IMPLEMENTING PARTICIPATION IN DEVELOPMENT AND
HUMANITARIAN CONTEXTS
Amy Smith1, Martha Thompson2
1
MIT D-Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA)
2
MIT D-Lab, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (USA)

Abstract
Design can be a powerful tool when addressing development and humanitarian challenges. A new filter design
could provide a community with safe drinking water, a new cookstove design can prevent acute respiratory
infections, a new app design can provide financial and government service to populations who never previously
had access, a new design for a peanut sheller can save countless hours of tedious labor. In addition to these tangible
benefits, however, there are also numerous intangible benefits of design: a sense of pride and accomplishment
when the design is completed and performs its intended purpose, a feeling of joy as a result of the creative
endeavour, improved self-confidence, agency and power derived from developing a product that can improve lives
or livelihoods. It then becomes a critical question: who reaps these intangible benefits? Frequently, students are
not challenged to think about the intangible benefits of design and where they accrue. Are the students creating
a climate of agency or dependence? Is their learning prioritized over local capacity-building and empowerment?
The way that the end-users are engaged in the design process plays a critical role in the answers to these questions.
Participation has many different levels, ranging from surveys and interviews, in which the end-user is a passive
source of information; to more dynamic focus groups where the end-user is engaged in interactive and sometimes
iterative exchanges; to user-led design and co-creation, processes that actively engage the end-users’ experience,
skills and creativity in the development of solutions. As students are trained in design and innovation for
humanitarian and development contexts, it is important that they understand the value of engaging the end-users
and beneficiaries of the solutions and that they appreciate the wide variety of options for doing so. Increased
participation can not only lead to more effective and efficient solutions and higher adoption rates; it can also
provide affected populations with greater agency and contribute to more culturally relevant designs. Too
frequently, however, participation consists only of brief consultation at the beginning and end of a project, and
does not take full advantage of the insights, knowledge and creativity of the end-users.
This paper puts forward a four-step approach to integrating participation into development and humanitarian
design projects and describes a set of tools that promote a shared understanding of the quality, extent, stages and
types of participation. The tools described in this paper were developed by MIT D-Lab in collaboration with the
Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) as part of the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Co-Creation Toolkit
for Humanitarian Innovation. The tools apply a design lens to participation, using the different phases of the design
process to identify points in a project where participation could occur; defining and suggesting different levels of
participation; and providing guidance for ensuring the quality of participatory approaches.
Keywords: participation, design, innovation, toolkit

1 INTRODUCTION
Design has long been acknowledged as an effective means of inspiring students, pulling together knowledge from
multiple disciplines and providing opportunities for applying theoretical learning to practice. In the MIT D-Lab
Humanitarian Innovation class, design projects and activities are always one of the most highly-rated elements.
Furthermore, design can be a powerful tool when addressing development and humanitarian challenges. At D-Lab,
students have developed water filters that provide safe drinking water in Ghana and reduced arsenic
contamination in Nepal; they have developed better fuels and new cook stove designs that can help prevent acute
respiratory infections, the largest cause of death of children between 1 and 5 years old around the world; they have
designed a mobile ambulance that improves heath infrastructure in Tanzania; and have developed a nut sheller
that provides a core service in the Moringa Connect business that has increased income of thousands of farmers
in West Africa. These are but a few examples of the dozens of design projects that have come out of MIT D-Lab;
numerous other universities have similar programs. Each of these projects has moved beyond the classroom, and
has had impact in the field, improving lives and livelihoods around the world. In addition to these tangible benefits,
however, there are also numerous intangible benefits of design: a sense of pride and accomplishment when the
design is completed and performs its intended purpose, a feeling of joy as a result of the creative endeavour,
improved self-confidence, agency and power derived from developing a product that can make a positive
difference in the world.
Looking at the basic needs laid out in Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, shown in Figure 1, we can apply a design lens
and see that while the technologies themselves address the basic needs: providing safe water and shelter,
processing food, etc., the higher-level needs can be satisfied by participating in a design process. Design is a team
activity, and therefore builds relationships between designers as well as with potential users. Esteem needs are
met as the designers build their confidence and capacity and gain pride in their accomplishments. Self-actualization
is achieved as the designers see the impact of their work and develop their creative problem-solving skills.

Creating Technology

Using Technology

Figure 1: Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs [1], with a design lens

It then becomes a critical question: who reaps these benefits. Frequently, students are not challenged to think
about the intangible benefits of design and where they accrue. Are the students creating a climate of agency or
dependence? Is their learning prioritized over local capacity-building and empowerment? The way that the end-
users are engaged in the design process plays a critical role in the answers to these questions. For there to be
long-term development and transformation in a community, all the human needs must be addressed and met;
engaging community members in the design process can be an effective approach [2-5] and developing a
participation strategy is critical for achieving this.
Participation has many different levels, ranging from surveys and interviews, in which the end-user is a passive
source of information; to more dynamic focus groups where the end-user is engaged in interactive and sometimes
iterative exchanges; to user-led design and co-creation, processes which actively engage the end-users’
experience, skills and creativity in the development of solutions. As students are trained in design and innovation
for humanitarian and development contexts, it is important that they understand the value of engaging the end-
users and beneficiaries of the solutions and that they appreciate the wide variety of options for doing so. Increased
participation can not only lead to more effective and efficient solutions and higher adoption rates [6]; it can also
provide affected populations with greater agency and contribute to more culturally relevant designs. Too
frequently, however, participation consists only of brief consultation at the beginning and end of a project, and
does not take full advantage of the insights, knowledge and creativity of the end-users.
This paper puts forward a four-step approach to integrating participation into development and humanitarian
design projects and describes a set of tools that promote a shared understanding of the quality, extent, stages and
types of participation. The tools described in this paper were developed by MIT D-Lab in collaboration with the
Humanitarian Innovation Fund (HIF) as part of the National Science Foundation (NSF)-funded Co-Creation Toolkit
for Humanitarian Innovation. The tools apply a design lens to participation, using the different phases of the design
process to identify points in a project where participation could occur; defining and suggesting different levels of
participation; and providing guidance for ensuring the quality of participatory approaches.
1.1 Participation, Participatory Development and Participatory Design
Because the term “participation” can be interpreted in such a wide variety of ways, there is a need to increase the
resolution of the terminology and improve our understanding of the impacts. This section begins by providing a
framework for characterizing participation and putting forward definitions of the different types and levels of
participation. It is followed by a brief discussion of participatory development and participatory design. There is a
vast literature on participatory techniques in both development and design; this paper does not attempt to fully
review them, but rather seeks to provide a brief summary and critique that sets the context for the need for more
sophisticated and nuanced tools for planning, assessing, evaluating, measuring and monitoring participation.

1.1.1 Types and Levels of Participation

Different types of participation can be characterized by the stakeholder’s level of engagement: specifically, the
role they play in a given stage of the process and their decision-making authority. Within each type, there are
different levels that further distinguish the stakeholder’s roles. Consultation is characterized by stakeholders
having an opportunity to share their opinions and give feedback; the levels are differentiated by the mechanisms
through which this occurs. Partnership adds direction-setting ability and decision-making authority to the
stakeholders, with the levels being distinguished by the relationship and power distribution between the
stakeholders and the design team. The levels of leadership are distinguished by the degree of autonomy that the
stakeholder has in the project. Table 1 describes the levels of participation through the specific engagement of the
stakeholder and their interaction with the design team.
Table 1: Types and Levels of Participation
Type Level Description

None The stakeholder is not engaged.

The stakeholder/stakeholder group provides information, shares their

opinions and/or gives feedback; however, there is no opportunity to interact
Input or discuss with the design team, and the stakeholder does not have any
decision-making power over how their input is incorporated into the project.
Consultation

The stakeholder/stakeholder group provides information, shares their

opinions and/or gives feedback through a two-way, interactive process with
Interaction the design team, who responds and reacts; however, the stakeholder does
not have decision-making power over how their input is incorporated into the
project.
The stakeholder/stakeholder group provides information, shares their
opinions and/or gives feedback in repeated interactions which are used by
Iteration the design team to make a series of refinements; however, the stakeholder
does not have decision-making power over how the refinements are made or
incorporated into the project.

The stakeholder/stakeholder group takes part in planning and implementing

the solution according to their field of expertise, but their role is determined
Collaboration
Partnership

by the design team; the stakeholder takes part in decision-making, but they
do not have the same decision-making power as the design team.

The stakeholder/stakeholder group takes part in planning, developing and

Co-Creation implementing the solution; they share equal decision-making power with the
design team.

The stakeholder/stakeholder group leads the planning, development and

Empowerment implementation of the solution with the design team providing input and
Leadership

support as needed; the stakeholder has final decision-making power.

The stakeholder/stakeholder group leads the planning, development and

Ownership implementation of the solution independently; they have the final decision-
making power.
1.1.2 Participatory Development
Participatory development is a process through which stakeholders influence and share control over development
interventions and the decisions and resources that affect them. In its best form, it is an empowering process which
enables local people to do their own analysis, to take command, to gain confidence, and to make their own
decisions. It requires a paradigm shift in which development workers must divest themselves of control of the
project and think with the perspective that "we" participate in "their" project, not "they" in "ours” [7].
In practice, this paradigm shift is rarely achieved: many of the resources necessary for the project are controlled
by actors outside of the community, which leads to an imbalance in power; there is a fear of accountability on the
part of development aid providers which makes them hesitant to give up control; and frequently, participatory
activities are often undertaken in a ritualistic way, going through the motions of participation without allowing the
space for genuine contributions to take place. Finally, designers and aid providers often fall into the trap of
“facipulation” (manipulation of outcomes through biased facilitation, either intentionally or unintentionally) in which
they influence the outcomes of the project towards their own goals, rather than those of other stakeholders [8].
Despite these pitfalls, however, there are fundamentally important aspects to participatory approaches,
particularly in the relationship that develops between the “provider” and “recipient”. In a project entitled The
Listening Project, researchers listened to thousands of aid recipients and found that stories which described
effective aid included interactions with specific staff who worked in ways that developed respect and trust [9]. This
relationship is often built through collaboration and participation. A deeper understanding of participation in its
many forms could enable students and university programs to build more effective relationships and provide more
effective interventions.

1.1.3 Participatory design

Participatory design is a process which engages diverse stakeholders, particularly the end-users, in creating
effective solutions. If this is done well, it has the potential to lead to better outcomes— whether building capacity
of communities or creating products that better meet the needs of users [2-4]. Furthermore, participation in the
design process leads to higher levels of satisfaction with the product and stronger relationships between the user
and the provider [3-5]. There is a wide range of participatory methodologies and paradigms which are more
established in the context of international development and are beginning to emerge in humanitarian innovation.
D-Lab defines three types of design processes:
1. Design for users is where external designers or technical experts develop a product or service to be used
by people experiencing a particular challenge. This can be a top-down approach where there is very little
interaction with the users; or in other cases, such as in “human-centered design” or “user-centered design”,
there is a focus on integrating input and feedback from the users at some or all stages of the design
process.
2. Design with users is a process in which designers respectfully and intentionally invite the people
experiencing the challenge or opportunity to participate in the entire design process with them, starting
with problem identification and continuing throughout the iterative process of creating and testing a
solution.
3. Design by users is an inclusive approach to design where the people experiencing the challenge or
opportunity, including those with low or limited literacy levels, first identify a problem they want to address
and then learn to use the design process to construct a solution. The user in this process identifies the
problem and leads the design of the end product.
A closer look at the examples in the literature, however, shows that the majority of the design projects in
humanitarian and development contexts fall into the “design for” category and have limited participation: the
designer strives to understand the users’ needs and aspirations and then tries to incorporate them into the end
product; however, the users are not actively engaged in the creation of the solution nor do they have a significant
voice in defining the problem or making decisions. This is also true in academia, where student learning is prioritized
and logistics make it challenging for students to interact with the end-users. Because this is the most prevalent
paradigm both in the literature and in the field, there is a danger of it becoming accepted as standard practice
when in fact, there are important benefits that arise from the other paradigms as well. Thoughtful consideration of
which of the three design paradigms is most appropriate in a given situation is critical to achieving long-term,
sustainable benefits. The goal of the Participation Toolkit is to provide a framework and a set of tools for
understanding, assessing, planning and evaluating participation in the design process and to provide guidance on
how to improve both the quality and extent of participation.

2 METHODOLOGY
The framework that forms the basis of the participation matrix was developed for the International Development
Design Summit (IDDS) Design Notebook in 2014, building off of a stakeholder analysis tool from a World Bank
resource for participation and social assessment [10]. The matrix was further refined for a presentation at the
International Humanitarian Studies Association conference in 2018 [11] and first used with humanitarian
practitioners at the Humanitarian Innovation Exchange in 2019. It was expanded through a collaboration with the
Humanitarian Innovation Fund in 2020 when the full participation toolkit was developed by a team from MIT D-Lab
and Link-4, a Guatemalan NGO. The tools were tested with both the Innovation Managers at the HIF and a select
group of their grantees. Their input was used to make additional improvements, which has been expanded to
include the current set of tools, the accompanying framework and guidance documents. Elements of the
Participation Toolkit were used is the Spring 2022 MIT D-Lab Class Humanitarian Innovation: Design for Relief,
Recovery, and Rebuilding as a basis for preparing students for a co-creation workshop in Uganda with teams made
up of designers, refugees, students and humanitarian workers. Their feedback was collected and used to further
refine the Toolkit.

3 RESULTS
This section begins by describing the different elements of the Participation Toolkit and the 4-step approach to
planning participation in a design project. It concludes with a brief discussion of how the toolkit was applied in a
classroom setting, and how it was received by the students.

3.1 The Participation Matrix

The Participation Matrix is envisioned as a tool to create a shared vocabulary and understanding around
participation that can be used to assess, plan and evaluate the extent of participation in a design project. It was
developed to help humanitarian innovation teams and organizations understand the full range of possible levels of
participation and the various points where it can occur in the innovation journey; it has also been used in several
D-Lab classes.

Figure 2: The Participation Matrix

The understanding and insights gained from the matrix can in turn help students, designers and innovators work
proactively to establish mechanisms, structures and organizational environments that foster more meaningful
participation.
The matrix is organized along vertical and horizontal axes. The vertical axis lists the types of participation, as
described above. The design stages, which are described below, are placed along the horizontal axis. Figure 2
shows the matrix, a larger version of which can be found on the D-Lab website [12]. Each cell of the matrix
represents a unique opportunity for participation; the matrix includes descriptions of these opportunities and the
interactions between the design team and the stakeholders.
It is important to note that different types of participation may be more appropriate at different stages of the
project, and that more than one type might be used. Furthermore, In the humanitarian and development context,
there is an additional layer of complexity because the “customer”, the “user” and the “beneficiary” are frequently
not the same person, which distorts feedback loops and requires a greater variety of participatory activities to
account for the multiple perspectives.

3.2 Stages of Participation

The stages of innovation used in the matrix are based on the design cycle that was developed by MIT D-Lab for
use in its Creative Capacity Building program as shown in Figure 3 [13].

Define the
Challenge or
Opportunity

Gather
Information
Think of Ideas

Identify
Opportunities
for Choose the
Improvement Best Idea

Work out the

Get Feedback Details

Build a
Prototype

Figure 2: The CCB Design Cycle

These stages can be distinguished and characterized as either divergent and or convergent, as shown in Table 2.
The divergent stages are those related to expanded thinking and generating possibilities, such as information
gathering and ideation, while the convergent stages are where options are prioritized, narrowed down and
decisions are made. It is useful to be aware which type of stage it is, as it may affect the type of participation that
is selected and implemented.
 Table 2: Stages of the Innovation Journey

Stage Type of Process

Providing and/or gathering information to build an understanding of

Divergent
Defining the challenge.
the Problem Deciding which aspect of the challenge will be addressed and what
Convergent
the priorities are.

Contributing ideas for possible solutions/approaches. Divergent

Choosing an
Approach Selecting one approach, or a narrowing down to a few options, from
Convergent
the many possibilities.

Developing Exploring options for the details of the proposed solution. Divergent
a Solution Building the actual solution. Convergent

Providing and/or getting feedback about the proposed solution. Divergent

Testing
the Solution Prioritizing and acting on the feedback to refine and/or finalize the
Convergent
solution.

3.3 The 4-Step Process for Planning Participation

The Participation Matrix provides the basis for a 4-step approach to participation and is part of a suite of tools that
can help students and practitioners improve the quality and extent of participation in their work. The issue of
participation is best addressed early and therefore these tools should be used at the beginning of the design
journey to plan the appropriate types and levels of participation along the way.

3.3.1 Step 1: Identifying the Stage and the Stakeholder

Different levels of participation should be employed when engaging different stakeholders at the different points
in the lifecycle of the project. It is important, therefore, to clearly identify what is being considered, and which
stakeholders are being engaged. When there is more than one key stakeholder group, the process should be
repeated for each of the groups at each stage of the journey.

3.3.2 Step 2: Choosing the Type of Participation

Many factors must be considered when selecting the appropriate participation approach. This frequently requires
difficult tradeoffs between the desired benefits of participation and the feasibility of implementing it effectively.
Furthermore, while inclusive participation can yield many benefits, it also requires several enabling factors for these
benefits to materialize. Different approaches to participation (consultation vs. partnership vs. leadership) can yield
different benefits and require different levels of investment and enabling conditions. The Participation Compass
Tool helps students and practitioners identify the appropriate type of participation for their project based on the
benefits they want to prioritize and the constraints they have to work within.

Figure 4: The Participation Compass

The Compass examines two main factors to consider when engaging key stakeholders in the process of innovating
and developing new solutions to humanitarian and development challenges:
• Benefits of Participation: What is the motivation for engaging stakeholders in the design process? What
benefits are desired from their participation? Which of these benefits are critical, “must-have” benefits for the
project? Which benefits are less important, “nice-to-have” benefits?
• Barriers to Participation: What constraints or challenges will be faced in ensuring the participation of key
stakeholders in the innovation process? Which of these barriers can be easily lowered or addressed? Which
barriers cannot be reduced or addressed.
These factors are integrated into two assessment questionnaires to help the design team evaluate the relative
importance of benefits and barriers to their project. Based on the results of these assessments, the Compass tool
generates a list of the top priorities, an overall score for each type of participation and a heatmap that reflects the
tradeoffs to consider when selecting the type of participation.
After identifying the most appropriate type of participation for their project, the design team can use the
Participation Matrix to determine what level of participation is suitable and further refine their plan for engaging
stakeholders in the design or innovation process.

3.3.3 Step 3: Identifying Tools and Activities

A large number of factors must be considered when selecting appropriate tools and activities for a given stage
and level of participation. Some of the constraints identified in the process of using the Compass will dictate the
tools and activities that can be employed. Furthermore the degree of representation that is required, both in terms
of the numbers of people and the variety of stakeholders who are involved will also influence the type of activity.
Verbal feedback processes which rely heavily on people speaking up in a large group can inhibit participation by
shyer people or more marginalized participants. Furthermore, written surveys tend to favor input from those with
higher literacy rates as do drawing and sketching activities. Switching the engagement modality to hands-on
activities that include building models, adapting prototypes and trying out products often provides those
participants who are less comfortable with a heavily verbal and literacy-based process new opportunities to
participate.
The Participation Matrix can be used to navigate a searchable database of activities that can be used at different
stages of the innovation journey that considers the length of time of the activity, level of complexity, age and
gender appropriateness, literacy levels of participants, optimal number of participants, among other factors (note
that this piece of the toolkit is still in progress). Ideally, the selected activities will build off of each other to form a
coherent suite of activities.

3.3.4 Step 4: Ensuring Quality

Providing stakeholders with the opportunity to participate and clarifying the terms of their engagement are the
first important steps towards bringing their voice and experience into the innovation process. In order to make
participation effective, however, it is necessary to understand that a person’s physical presence does not, in itself,
guarantee a high level of participation. A range of factors influence whether people will attend a participatory
session, whether or not they feel comfortable in contributing their ideas and experience, and/or if they feel that
their voices are not only heard, but valued. Paying attention to these factors ensures that participation is
meaningful, stakeholder’s contributions are valued and that the participation ultimately serves its end: to bring
stakeholders’ voices to the process in order to influence the solution for the better. The Quality Advisor can help
students and practitioners who have decided to involve stakeholders in any or all stages of an innovation process
ensure or improve the quality of that participation.
The Quality Advisor tool is an animated look-up table designed to help students and practitioners plan for an event
or session in which they want stakeholder participation. It guides them through the factors than can impact the
quality of participation and offers advice on how to ensure that good participation happens. The Advisor divides
activities into three main phases, and each phase is further subdivided into two steps. Important considerations are
listed under each of the steps and are shown in the table below.
 Table 1: The Quality Advisor Table
Before During After
Following Finishing
Planning Preparation Environment Engagement
Up Up
Building Physical
Representation Content Appreciation Reporting
Relationships Environment
Managing Enabling
Inclusion Facilitation Communication Reflecting
Expectations Environment
Building Skills,
Power Managing
Logistics Knowledge & Documentation Transition
Dynamics Relationships
Understanding
Mindsets Mindsets Mindsets Mindsets Mindsets Mindsets
Each cell can be expanded to show guiding questions and recommendations about what students and practitioners
need to consider for ensuring or improving the quality of participation.

3.4 The Co-Creation Workbook

The Quality Advisor forms the basis of the series of worksheets that make up the Co-Creation Workbook that was
developed to guide students through the process of preparing for and participating in co-creation projects that
are part of the D-Lab Humanitarian Innovation class. The worksheets address representation and inclusion; building
skills, knowledge and understanding; creating an enabling environment; facilitation and documentation. In addition,
classroom activities around mindsets, bias and power dynamics provided additional preparation for the students.
A small team of students was able to travel to Arua, Uganda to participate in a co-creation workshop that included
South Sudanese refugees, humanitarian NGO workers, designers and students. Following their experiences, they
gave feedback on the how useful they found the Participation Toolkit and the Co-Creation Workbook to be in
preparing for and participating in the co-creation workshop. All students indicated that they found the Participation
Matrix to be “very useful” (5 out of 5) for understanding the types and stages of participation. One student
commented:
“I was shocked to realize I didn't understand the difference between consultation and collaboration prior
to this class; these are terms I have been using in my work and studies for years. It was very helpful to
understand that 'co-creation' is at the foundation of collaboration- which is very different from asking for
community input and then designing from that input. It was also helpful to learn that there are appropriate
times for each type of participation.”
Overall, students appreciated the worksheets and activities that were part of the Co-Creation Workbook. The
worksheet and activities around creating an enabling environment received the highest positive feedback (5 out
of 5) followed by the representation and inclusion worksheet (4.7 out of 5) and then the power dynamics activities
and facilitation guide (4.3 out of 5). One student commented:
“I found that the enabling environment activity was very useful since by thinking about potential obstacles
in participation in advance, we were able to address them before they even occurred. Hence, thinking
about the background of people on your team is truly crucial.”
Note that the sample size was very small, as opportunities for travel have been restricted due to covid-19; only five
of the ten students who took the class travelled to Uganda.

4 CONCLUSIONS
In the field of humanitarian innovation and design, there appears to be consensus building around the need to
increase user engagement and participation of the affected population [14], however there is very little clarity or
consensus about what exactly that means. There is neither a body of literature or set of standard practices that
outline effective methodologies or provide evidence to support strategic planning around participation. The issue
of the quality and extent of participation is especially important in this context because of the historically low levels
of participation of the affected population and the inherent power dynamics between them and the aid providers.
When students become engaged in humanitarian and development projects, they frequently see themselves in the
role of problem solvers and may not appreciate the value that comes from the users being involved in the problem-
solving process, not just through consultation but also through the deeper levels of partnership and leadership.
Raising students’ awareness of this is particularly important in humanitarian situations with its associated culture of
dependency. Furthermore, the intangible impacts of participation become even more significant for people who
have been affected by crises, because they have so often lost agency during displacement. If students develop the
awareness that people affected by crises have their own potential and contribute valuable knowledge and
experience to designing a solution, they can develop a much more authentic relationship. This enables students to
work in humanitarian and development situations in a way that enhances people’s dignity rather than seeing them
as vulnerable or dependant.
The tools described in this paper attempt to address this gap in preparing students to work in innovation or design
in development and humanitarian situations by providing a clear set of definitions around participation and
practical techniques for integrating participation into the innovation journey. The toolkit provides a useful
framework for students, faculty and practitioners to characterize participation and break it down so they can
develop intentional strategies for engaging the users of their designs, thus allowing community members to reap
both the tangible and intangible benefits of the design process.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would like to acknowledge and appreciate collaborators Saida Benhayoune and Omar Crespo
Cardona, who contributed great skill and insight to the project and were an absolute pleasure to work with. We
also acknowledge the team at the HIF for their guidance and support and the Innovation in Graduate Education
(IGE) program at NSF for their ongoing support of the Co-Creation Toolkit.
REFERENCES
[1] S. McLeod, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, 2007. Retrieved from:
https://www.simplypsychology.org/maslow.html
[2] W. Hoyer, R. Chandy, M. Dorotic, M. Krafft & S. Singh, “Consumer co-creation in new product development,”
Journal of Service Research, vol. 3, no. 3, pp. 283-296, 2010.
[3] S. Kujala, “User involvement: A review of the benefits and challenges” Behaviour and Information
Technology, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 1-16, 2003.
[4] T. Roser & A Samson, “Co-creation: New paths to value,” Promise & LSE Enterprise, vol. 1, no. 1, 2009.
[5] M. Steen, M. Manschot & N. De Koning, “Benefits of co-design in service design projects,” International
Journal of Design, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 53-60, 2011.
[6] D. Hounkonnou, J. Brouwers, A. van Huis, J Jiggins, D. Kossou, N. Roling, O. Sakyi-Dawson, M. Traore, M.,
“Triggering regime change: a comparative analysis of the performance of innovation platforms that
attempted to change the institutional context for nine agricultural domains in West Africa,” Agricultural
Systems no. 165, pp. 296-309, 2018.
[7] R. Chambers, “Paradigm shifts and the Practice of Participatory Development” IDS working paper no. 2.
Brighton: IDS, pp. 2-3, 1994.
[8] B. Cooke & U. Kothari, Participation: the New Tyranny?. London: Zed Books, 2001.
[9] M. Anderson, D. Brown & I. Jean, Time to Listen: Hearing People on the Receiving End of International Aid.
Cambridge, MA: CDA Publications, 2012.
[10] J. Reitbergen-McCracker, D. Narayan, Participation and Social Assessment: Tools and Techniques, World
Bank, 1998.
[11] A. Smith, M. Thompson, “A Participation Index: A tool to measure the involvement of the affected
population,” IHSA, 2018.
[12] A. Smith, M. Thompson, S. Benhayoune, O. Crespo, Participation Matrix, 2022.
http://d-lab.mit.edu/resources
[13] A. Smith, S. Okurut, “CCB Training Manual,” 2013.
[14] A. Obrecht, A. Warner, More than just luck: Innovation in humanitarian action. London: ALNAP, 2016.

ICERI 2022 Proceedings | November 2022

MIT D-Lab 265 Massachusetts Ave. 3rd floor Cambridge MA 02139 | d-lab.mit.edu