Co-Creation is Not Collaboration: Why Most 'Inclusive' Strategies Fail Before They Begin
The Illusion of Inclusion
Everyone’s talking about co-creation. From corporate strategy decks to social innovation labs, the term has become shorthand for progressive, inclusive ways of working. But here's the uncomfortable truth: most so-called co-creation is little more than glorified collaboration - a performance of inclusion without any real shift in power. It looks inclusive, feels participatory, and yet the outcomes are still driven by the same few voices that started the conversation.
Co-creation is often misunderstood because it gets lumped in with brainstorming sessions, workshops, and stakeholder engagement strategies. These are valuable tools, but they don’t make a process co-creative. Real co-creation begins much earlier: at the point of problem definition, and it goes much deeper, requiring the people affected by decisions to share ownership of the entire process, from framing to implementation.
This misunderstanding matters. Organisations spend millions on inclusive strategies that are structurally incapable of being inclusive. Why? Because they invite people to the table only after the menu has been set. Participation becomes a checkbox. Feedback becomes theatre. And trust, once lost, is difficult to rebuild.
The Power Gap: Co-Creation vs. Collaboration
The gap between collaboration and co-creation is power. Collaboration tends to happen within existing hierarchies. Co-creation, by contrast, asks organisations to question those hierarchies. It is inherently political. It surfaces discomfort. It challenges leaders to let go of control and embrace uncertainty - and that’s precisely why it works.
Working Within Real Co-creation Constraints
But how realistic is this shift, especially within the constraints organisations face? Resources are limited. Timelines are tight. Accountability structures are rigid. And most organisations are not flat collectives; they are layered, goal-driven entities under pressure to deliver. Co-creation doesn’t eliminate these constraints - it works within them. The key is transparency. Rather than pretending that the process is open-ended when it’s not, organisations should be upfront about what can and cannot be influenced. Co-creation thrives not on boundless freedom, but on honest boundaries.
One way to navigate this is by distinguishing between design parameters and decision space. Design parameters define the non-negotiables (e.g., budget, regulatory requirements, strategic direction). Decision space is where genuine input can shape outcomes. Making this distinction visible - and negotiating it in partnership with participants prevents the illusion of agency that leads to disillusionment.
Who Gets to Co-Create?
Of course, opening up decision space introduces real challenges. Representation is a major one. Who gets to be in the room? Are they speaking for themselves or for a wider group? Co-creation that relies on a narrow or self-selected group can reproduce inequity rather than dismantle it. Thoughtful design here is essential: stakeholder mapping, community engagement, and layered participation methods can help ensure that the process is representative without being tokenistic.
When Conflict Is a Feature, Not a Bug
Then there’s conflict. Real participation surfaces difference. That’s a feature, not a bug. But many organisational cultures are conflict-averse. Co-creation demands spaces that can hold disagreement without collapsing. This may require facilitation skills, psychological safety protocols, and a reframing of conflict as a generative force not a threat to cohesion.
From Events to Ecosystems: Embedding Co-Creation in Organisational Culture
Sustainability is another hard question. Co-creation is often treated as a project phase: a burst of participation that ends when implementation begins. But sustainable co-creation requires embedding participatory structures into the core of the organisation. This could mean standing stakeholder panels, participatory budgeting practices, or long-term community partnerships. One-off engagement is not enough. Trust builds over time, not in pilot rounds.
How to Measure Successful Co-Creation?
So how do we know if co-creation has really happened? What does success look like?
There are no universal metrics, but some signs are clear:
-
Decision traceability: Participants can see how their input shaped decisions.
-
Distributed ownership: Implementation is shared, not delegated.
-
Process legitimacy: People who didn’t participate directly still perceive the process as fair.
-
Capacity shifts: Organisational culture becomes more open to participation - not just in this project, but the next one too.
-
Structural embedding: New participatory methods or governance mechanisms are adopted longer-term.
These are not KPIs in the traditional sense, but they are measurable in qualitative ways - through narratives, case documentation, stakeholder interviews, and longitudinal impact studies.
Co-Creation as a Transformative, Long-term Practice
To design truly co-creative processes, organisations need to stop scripting participation and start opening space. This means:
-
Bringing stakeholders in before the problem is defined
-
Sharing decision-making authority within a clear, bounded framework
-
Being transparent about constraints and tensions
-
Prioritising process over speed
-
Building the skills to handle conflict, complexity, and co-ownership
Co-creation is not a tool; it’s a posture. It doesn’t promise efficiency - it promises transformation. It asks more of us. But it also offers more in return: deeper trust, better solutions, and a chance to build systems that reflect the people they serve.
Until organisations learn to sit in that discomfort, co-creation will remain a buzzword - and inclusive strategy will continue to fail at the moments when it matters most.
