Co-production is widely regarded as the byword for equal partnership. By involving people with lived experience in shaping decisions, it helps create services, products and spaces that people actually want, rather than what other people assume they want. Done well, it’s powerful, and so much more than a box-ticking exercise.
But co-production poses a question that doesn’t get talked about enough. What happens when the people in the room have conflicting needs? What do you do when a solution that works for one group actively creates a barrier for another?
We take a look at why these conflicts arise, and more importantly, how to navigate them without losing what makes co-production so valuable.
The issue of conflicting needs
Power imbalances. Tokenism. Time and money constraints. Co-production by its very nature presents a number of challenges, not helped by the fact it means different things to different people, depending on the setting and approach.
But while co-production approaches can vary, to be successful it should ideally follow some core principles, such as those recommended by SCIE (the Social Care Institute for Excellence
Equality: no one group, or person is more important than anyone else
Diversity: it should be as inclusive and diverse as possible, and if feasible, include seldom heard groups
Accessibility: everyone should have an equal opportunity to participate and give their views in a way that suits them best
Reciprocity: people should get something back for putting something in
But when we consider equality and diversity in more detail, it highlights a potential issue. If groups should be as inclusive and diverse as possible, and if no one group, or one person is more important than anyone else, what happens when you get conflicting needs? What happens when a suggested solution designed with one disabled group in mind actively disadvantages another?
Let’s look at some examples.
- Black and white used together provides excellent visual contrast with huge benefit to most for vision impaired users, but for neurodivergent individuals (and a minority of others) it can cause sensory overload / visual distortions where the different colours meet.
- Tactile ground indicators such as blister paving, or a corduroy warning surface are an important way of warning vision impaired people there is an upcoming hazard. But that same tactile paving creates a physical barrier for wheelchair users with the raised patterns causing uncomfortable vibrations as well as making manual propulsion difficult and increasing the risk of tipping.
- Bright and even lighting can help people with low vision to read signage and orientate / navigate safely and more easily, but for many autistic or sensory-sensitive people, harsh lighting can be painful, so dimmer, warmer lighting is preferable.
- Easy-Read documents are often used to help people with a learning difficulty, but heavily image-based material is hard to navigate digitally and can disadvantage vision impaired users who rely on screen readers.
As will be clear from just a few examples listed above, this is not a niche problem, but one that extends across spaces, services and formats.
Why these tensions exist
In many ways, these tensions are inevitable. As defined by the Equality Act 2010, disability is a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on your ability to do normal day-to-day activities.
In other words, disability doesn’t nicely fit into one box. The barriers faced by disabled people will vary significantly and, by default, so will the solutions.
It’s also a reflection of how society has evolved over recent years. Disability prevalence in the UK has risen steadily since 2003, driven largely by a rise in mental health conditions. A study shows between 2018-2024 there was a 63% increase in the diagnosis of hidden disability. This has been fuelled by the COVID-19 pandemic, which significantly exacerbated mental health challenges (figures also showed an increase due to better awareness and more screening around neurodiversity).
The publication of Design for the Mind back in 2022 reflects this changing landscape. It was the first ever BSI advisory publication on neurodiversity and the built environment and broadened the concept of inclusive design by covering sensory needs and highlighting the importance of creating a neurodivergent-inclusive environment.
These societal shifts are to be applauded but as awareness grows so does the likelihood of encountering conflicting access needs.
How to balance conflicting demands
The irony is if you do get conflict during a co-produced project, it shows it’s working as you only get pushback when real voices are in the room; however, to ensure all views are heard and respected you need to find a way to manage that conflict.
- Ensure everyone is represented
While this might seem counter-intuitive, one of the solutions is to ensure everyone has a voice. Extend participation beyond the same, familiar voices to ensure areas of conflict surface early on, rather than once final decisions have been made and changes are harder to implement. - Embrace disagreement
One of the reasons why co-production is so powerful is it highlights issues other people won’t have thought about. In fact, having disagreements and arguments is all part of the creative process. Not only does it show people are fully engaged, but it will also lead to better results.
It will also stop the group being accused of just paying lip service to co-production.
However, it’s important to make sure people feel comfortable enough to voice their concerns and actually feel heard.
Whatever you do, don’t pretend conflicts don’t exist as that will just store up resentment and could lead to a breakdown in the whole process.
- Incorporate adjustability and flexibility
Sometimes there won’t be a single answer, so where possible design for adaptability. For example, could lighting feature adjustable orientation, intensity and colour-temperature (warmth)?
This reduces the need to choose one group’s preferences over another’s.
- Accept you won’t always be able to compromise
Sometimes it simply won’t be possible to compromise, and the final decision won’t please everyone all of the time.
For this reason, it’s worth having an agreed framework in place which outlines a hierarchy of priorities. For example, safety-critical needs may take precedence over other features.
Being transparent about this hierarchy from the outset will make difficult decisions more defensible. In fact, we’d recommend co-producing this approach with group members to get their buy-in.
- Serve both needs where possible
In some cases, it might be possible for two different approaches to co-exist. For example, produce an Easy Read document as well as a version in Plain English.
- Refer to existing guidance and best practice
Existing guidance is a good place to start when trying to resolve difficult issues. For example, Guidance on the Use of Tactile Paving Surfaces; Approved Document M; and BS 8300, all provide useful information on tactile paving and how the conflicting needs of vision impaired people and wheelchair users can be managed.Also look for examples of best practice that go beyond regulations and standards and talk to the group about whether they have faced a similar situation in the past and what solutions were proposed.
Navigating guidance and applying it to a specific project is complex – and this is where an inclusive design and access consultant can add real value. One of the reasons why the TV Access Project (TAP) was so successful was because we were an integral part of the team from the outset working alongside disabled people, not just commissioners and TV studio managers.
Aiming to create full inclusion for d/Deaf, Disabled and Neurodivergent talent by 2030, we used our insight and expertise to produce the TAP Audit checklist to enable businesses to assess their own access barriers. The list also links through to the relevant Building Regulations and their Approved Documents which guide you to achieving the required standard.
- Be honest about what can’t be resolved
Despite best efforts, sometimes creating a space or service that meets everyone’s needs just can’t be achieved.
Being honest about this and thinking about alternatives, perhaps options to use at the next phase of works is a better approach than pretending everything is fine. Remember, co-production is about having equal relationships and part of that is being honest about what is and isn’t achievable.
The power of co-production
Conflicting needs are not a sign co-production has failed. In many ways, they’re a sign it’s working and that the right people are involved.
The key is to ensure everyone has a voice, that difficult conversations are embraced and everyone works together to make final decisions. Those decisions might not please everyone, but if they are based on mutual respect, dignity and fairness, then they will be the right ones.