Leadership | Entrepreneurship | Management | Planning | Strategy | Writing for Finance | Development finance expert | International speaker
In the evolving landscape of social impact, nonprofit organizations are increasingly challenged to transcend traditional models of service delivery. The old paradigm — one in which communities are seen primarily as passive beneficiaries — is giving way to a more participatory approach: community co-creation. This shift invites local populations not only to use the products and services of nonprofits but to actively participate in designing them. It is not merely a methodological change; it is a philosophical repositioning that redefines the relationship between organizations and the communities they serve.
Co-creation, in its essence, is the collaborative development of value by organizations and stakeholders through shared contributions, decision-making, and mutual learning (Prahalad & Ramaswamy, 2004). Within the nonprofit sector, this approach offers a powerful means of ensuring that services are not only more relevant and context-sensitive but also more sustainable. When communities are involved in the ideation, prototyping, and refinement of interventions, the resulting solutions are more likely to resonate with real needs and local capacities.
The idea of co-creating with communities is rooted in participatory design and human-centered innovation. According to Sanders and Stappers (2008), this approach “supports the idea that people are experts of their own experiences,” and therefore, their inclusion in design processes is not a luxury but a necessity. In practice, co-creation can take many forms: community advisory boards, participatory workshops, storytelling and design sprints, or even digital platforms that gather ideas and feedback. These tools not only democratize innovation but foster a sense of ownership that increases the likelihood of long-term success.
From a practical standpoint, co-creation benefits nonprofits in several ways. First, it reduces the risk of misaligned interventions. When solutions are designed in isolation from the people they are meant to help, they often fail to account for cultural nuances, social dynamics, or logistical constraints (Brown & Wyatt, 2010). Second, co-creation enhances trust and legitimacy. Engaging local voices can transform organizations into more transparent and empathetic actors. Finally, it can generate innovations that are both creative and grounded in real-world complexity — a rare combination in program design.
Consider the case of IDEO.org’s work in East Africa, where local communities were involved in designing health communication tools to address maternal mortality. The process moved beyond consulting the population to involving them as co-researchers, co-designers, and testers. As a result, the final solutions — from mobile health apps to visual guides — were culturally embedded and highly adopted (IDEO.org, 2015). This is one among many examples that demonstrate how co-creation is not only ethically sound but also strategically advantageous.
Yet, for co-creation to be meaningful, certain conditions must be met. Power imbalances must be acknowledged and actively mitigated. Language, access to technology, and time constraints can hinder participation unless consciously addressed. Moreover, organizational cultures that value expert-driven knowledge must shift towards humility and openness to community wisdom (Liedtka, 2011).
This shift has implications not just for program design but also for funding models. Donors and grantmakers increasingly recognize the value of participatory approaches. Initiatives like the Participatory Grantmaking movement advocate for shifting decision-making power directly to communities (Gibson & Graham, 2020). This realignment supports a broader ecosystem in which nonprofits, funders, and communities form a triangle of mutual accountability and shared authorship.
Community co-creation is more than a technique — it is an ethos. It repositions communities from the margins to the center, not only improving the quality and impact of nonprofit products and services but also honoring the dignity and agency of the people these organizations aim to support. In a world increasingly shaped by complexity, uncertainty, and diversity, designing with rather than for is no longer optional — it is essential.
References
Brown, T., & Wyatt, J. (2010). Design thinking for social innovation. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 8(1), 30-35.
Gibson, K., & Graham, J. (2020). Participatory grantmaking: Has its time come? Ford Foundation.
IDEO.org (2015). The field guide to human-centered design. IDEO.org
Liedtka, J. (2011). Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy & Leadership, 39(5), 13–19.
Prahalad, C. K., & Ramaswamy, V. (2004). Co-creation experiences: The next practice in value creation. Journal of Interactive Marketing, 18(3), 5–14.
Sanders, E. B. N., & Stappers, P. J. (2008). Co-creation and the new landscapes of design. CoDesign, 4(1), 5–18.
