 In this episode, you'll learn how you can take co-creation to the next level based on lessons from the Swiss Direct Democracy. This promises to be a good one. Here's the guest for this episode. Let the show begin! Hi, I'm Peter and this is the Service Design Show. Hi, I'm Mark and welcome to the Service Design Show. This show is all about helping you to design organizations that put people at the heart of their business. The guest in this episode has a passion for business, technology and human-centered design and he's the co-founder of the Service Design Network chapter in Switzerland. His name is Peter Horvath. So when Peter reached out to me and proposed to talk about the Swiss Direct Democracy, I was immediately intrigued because usually lessons from outside of the design field brought into design give us new insights on how we can do our work better. At least it helps us to ask different questions. So the goal of this episode and what you'll be hearing about is how we can actually improve our co-creation process based on the lessons from the Swiss Direct Democracy. If this is your first time here on this channel, I'd love to have you to subscribe because we bring new videos that help to level up your service design skills at least once a week. That's all for the introduction and now let's quickly jump into the really interesting chat with Peter. Welcome to the show, Peter. Hi, Mark. Welcome to be here. Good to see you. We're going to talk about some really interesting stuff that we haven't covered on the show in the previous 85-ish episodes, I think. No pressure, right? No pressure, no pressure at all. Peter, we've known each other through the service design community and I think you're also a member of one of the courses that are run. But for the people who don't know who you are, can you give a 30-second introduction? Sure, Mark. So my name is Peter Horvath. I'm currently based in Switzerland, Geneva. Originally, I am from Hungary. I've also spent some time in Canada. I am by training an economist, but please don't hold that against me. I've been active in the digital space throughout my career and I have worked in consulting, freelance, and also in agencies. I have worked with enterprises as well and in startup ecosystems as well. Most recently, I have concluded the MBA program of EPFL, which is the Swiss Institute of Technology. And this was focused on the management of technology and innovation. So something quite well-fitting the service design topic. I'm right now a freelance service design and digital strategy consultant. And I am on the side also the co-founder of the service design network Swiss chapter. And I lead the biggest and most active meet-up community here in Geneva around the topics of digital strategy and user experience. Wow, that's mouthful. It balances out. Sometimes there's stuff to do on one and sometimes stuff to do on the other. In regarding service design, what is your first experience with service design? When did that happen? So I dreaded that question since the time that I've been listening to your podcast. But I'm happy that there are also other people who say that, you know what, Marc, I can't really remember. And I have to admit that as well that I can't really remember. It was some time around seven or eight years ago. It was some of my colleagues then at an agency or ex-colleagues rather who pointed it out to me. And I started looking into it and it seemed like, yeah, that's kind of what the interesting thing is. And quite early on I've been looking at sort of this combination of digital strategy and user experience. And what I see is that and some people are surprised that I see this as that they are really the same thing. Because they ensure that the people flow through a series of touch points which are predefined but also need to be dynamic and they fulfill both needs of the organization and the person. And it's really the scope that differs because in strategy or digital strategy, it's a bit wider scope. And in terms of user experience design, if we think about it as the interfaces, then it's a bit more defined. And service design is really the same thing. It connects the user interface design and the usability and the strategy of an organization. I think this already will raise some questions for people listening. Perfect. Yeah, let's not go into that right now. Because we're going to talk about a topic that is there to your heart. You've been researching it for the last 12, 18 months and it has to do with the country you're right now in Switzerland. Exactly. Let's not give too much away, but this will be really interesting. Again, the question that I ask most of the people, are you ready to do some interview, Jasper? I am ready. OK, drumroll. So here we go. And let's start with this first topic. It's the topic of direct democracy. All right. And you show us your question starter. Of course. And that will be why and more in more detail. Why do people really don't know too much about direct democracy? I have to be honest. I never heard about direct democracy until you mentioned it. It's perfect. So then the perfect that the question is perfectly fitting. So Switzerland has a or is a country that has officially say semi direct democracy. Very often it's referred to as as being the best example of direct democracy and direct democracy basically means really power by the people. And it goes back really to the origins of democracy and how it should be handled or how it was originally seen as power by people. And then really the representative democracy, if we can say that stepped into its place a bit, meaning that, OK, instead of hundreds of thousands or millions of people coming together and then having discussions around how things should be handled, people are elected to do that sort of representation of their communities. And then in addition to that, the what Switzerland has these does a Switzerland has a parliament and then has a government. Both are a bit strange. And on the side, Switzerland is a direct democracy, meaning that the three traditional branches of power, if you have it, the parliament, government and the courts, there's a fourth power to this, which is the people. And this is quite rarely pointed out this specifically that the fourth power is people. But if you look at it, that is the fact. The way that this is done, the two main things that really set apart Switzerland and its direct and defined its direct democracy is on the referendums and the two main. There are three types of referendums, but the two are the most important here. One is where citizens, a small group of citizens, seven people can propose any change to the constitution. And if there are certain barriers defined, you need to have a set number of signatures and so on. And then at the end, people vote about it. But basically, if these barriers are jumped through, then their proposal will go through and will be part of the constitution. And the other part, quite the opposite, is that whatever law comes out of parliament, there's a set amount of time during which any one person or even a group of people can attack that law and say, I do not like that. Let's not have that. And so basically, during that period, anyone can challenge this law. And again, there's a signature collection and then there's voting. But basically, if these steps are done, then that law will not enter into force at that time, maybe revisited later. But at that point, it is challenged. And the combination of these two give people in Switzerland, citizens, the power of first and final say, because they can initiate legislation and they can also challenge anything that comes out of the parliament. Yeah, so that's is Switzerland like the only country that has a system like that? Or have you found so there are other countries as well. And just to put a bit more context, my primary research wasn't really a political focus one, but a commercial focus one. And we'll get into that later in the show. But no, there are other countries to do this. And if I see a referendums and that these are referendum types, that most people will say, yeah, we have referendums. I know one that they had in England. Exactly, exactly. And we can get back to that because it's interesting. But there are similar tools being used in multiple countries. My home country, Hungary, being one of them as well, which has referendums. What really sets Switzerland apart is on one side that these referendums are binding. In most countries, not all of them, there are mentioned three, and I explained two, but there are multiple variations to these. But a point is that most of them are binding, meaning that if this and this happens, then it needs to get done. And in many countries, referendums are sort of like a recommendation that the government or parliament can listen to and they can say, yeah, that sounds nice, but not right now. Or just say, yeah, we heard you, but sorry, we have more important things to do. Is that why you also mentioned that it's a real fourth power because it's binding? Yes, exactly. And one of the things also, if you look at that in Switzerland, there's no real constitutional court power that is basically taken over by the people. Because if there's something in the Constitution that people don't like, they can change it. If there's something that seems to talk against the Constitution, then people can challenge that law. So this is basically replaced a bit like this. And there are other countries as mentioned that use this. But what's really interesting is that in Switzerland, there are more referendums than in the rest of the world combined. So it's very on one side, it's labor intensive. Yeah. Exactly. It is labor intensive, but not as much as you would think. At least that's the information that I got. But on one side, it's binding. And on the other side, it's very heavily used versus other countries. So maybe we step up to the next topic before we dive into that. What made you decide to think and look at direct democracy in the context of service design? Sure. So that was the fact that I see direct democracy really as a next level version of co-creation. Because basically, if we think about service design or similar topics, one of the core elements is that it's heavily co-creative, involving and talking with the customers, getting their point of view as something that's heavily used. And this is similarly done in Swiss direct democracy. But it's not perfect in a slightly different way, but also in a way that's extremely unique. The fact that people or citizens have such a power on the parliament and government is very rare. And what I like is that Switzerland is often even being referred to in political contexts as something either rare or something that, according to political theory, shouldn't exist. And yet it's been here for a while. So the direct democratic processes have started to arise around 150 years ago, or a bit more, and have been in power for around 130 years. So it's been around. It's not that it was a decade-long experiment and it failed. No, it's been around. You can argue whether it's perfect or not, but it's something interesting. And when looking at involving people, involving customers or constituents in the decisions of an organization, there are many books that come not from a service design or co-creation perspective, but from more from a business perspective, yet argue for the inclusion of people or customers. Many of these books or papers often point out that people should be listened to, but it's not that we should do everything they say. And, you know, not doing everything they say is one thing, but then we are a bit at the other extreme, meaning that all the decisions currently regarding the input from customers is really in the hands of the company, meaning that companies are a bit using their customers one and how they like without really giving any binding processes behind it. So I think you're already making the transition into into the topic, which we think could pick this one, co-creation, because that's the interesting part, I guess, like direct democracy is a form of co-creation. But I'm really curious what your questions are around co-creation as we know it within service design. Yep, so I'm looking at, yeah, so let's look at this, maybe. How can we embed co-creation more strongly into an organization? And, you know, starting with that question, the one of the elements is, OK, should we even do that? Or why should we do that? So I went through a four and, you know, this is the topic of my thesis basically looking at combining co-creation and with direct democracy and what can be learned from one and for the other. And the piece here is that, OK, how is co-creation defined? What are its elements? And if we would want to embed it more strongly into an organization, how could we convince senior stakeholders, the management to do that? And so what I did, I went through a number of books and papers around co-creation, which also some of them also look at multiple papers and really do a sort of like bringing together all the previous thoughts and then defining where we are. It's interesting that there is an arc to co-creation. And in services, the involvement of customers was initially looked at as, you know, like a pesky little thing, like they were not seen as someone who can contribute, but rather someone who disturbs the service process with unknown elements. And that then involved or evolved into involving customers as temporary workers, so to say, using the resources there. And then more and more, it's coming to a point where it's strategic inclusion, meaning that, you know, they are not just there for, you know, putting together the IKEA table, but there maybe are also there for defining what the table should be like or whether it's really a table that is needed. And so more and more coming from this being seen as a disturbance to being seen as a resource, to being seen as a strategic resource is the arc. And I would argue that that's not, you know, really, it's not over yet this evolution, because if you think about it, people, customers have been getting more and more say within what an organization does. And I would argue that as people in any situation get more and more of something, they expect that as a minimum and then a bit more if you want to satisfy their needs. And this will lead to the fact that people in my view will start slowly demanding that it's OK. Like, you know, you've been asking me, you know, surveys and workshops and whatnot, but I get a really small view. I want to know where that survey led, like what happened then or my order of workshop that I participated in, what happened after and also to a point where it's not just that, hi, their customer, I'm the company and I would like to involve you in this. But also I have the opportunity to say, hi, company, I'm the customer and I would like to discuss this and this. So there there should be or will be, in my view, a continuation where this will become the expectation for this dialogue will be even stronger from the from the customers towards the companies. How would you describe the current state of co-creation within let's let's keep the boundaries to service design? Like it was maybe just getting feedback and getting survey results, like getting the qualitative data. How what is the general tendency towards co-creation within service design right now? How would you describe that? I mean, it's definitely getting, you know, stronger. And I do think that co-creation cannot be separated from service design because almost any kind of discussion includes the the customers in a way that it could be looked at as could be looked at as co-creation, but maybe at a lower level, which brings us to an interesting part is that we can look at, you know, a service delivery as a, you know, probably it's a circular thing, but as a process which starts from ideation, then validation and goes on to to delivery and then usage and repeated usage. And we can also look at it as co-creation as having various levels. So one level of co-creation is really this, you know, just a survey or something where there is a discussion, but there's not, you know, a real really high level of engagement from the from the audience from the customers. And then there is a higher level where there is strong inclusion in terms of workshops and people spend, you know, potentially even multiple days there with the company or repeatedly come into discussions. And there could and should be probably an even higher level where this is proactive. And many of the co-creation or many pieces of co-creation literature argue around this, that's really important for co-creation is having some sort of platform where this dialogue can be had. And it's interesting what I also did is I looked at, OK, what are these specifics? What's the specific layers of co-creation, which includes things like, you know, drivers, like what drives an organization towards adapting co-creation and what the mindset of the organization should be all the way down to how its measurement is done. And there are a few things that are well-defined. So, for example, what the mindset of an organization should be as well-defined in publications in general. Also, a lot of the drivers are quite well-defined. But there are a few things that are not so well-defined. And many publications even point this out, one of them being measurement, which is in terms of co-creation, there are really, there's not yet a strong collection of KPIs that are specific to co-creation. And that, of course, you know, the fact that drivers, some drivers are well-defined, but it's not really from a, from, let's say, manager perspective. Like, it often lacks numbers. It lacks, you know... What kind of numbers? Like... So, for example, you know, increased revenue or time to market or anything like that. It's even strange because there are some publications that argue that doing co-creation will mean that the organization functions, you know, will be quicker and will be more efficient. And then there are some other publications who say the exact opposite. That because we're involving people, it will be, you know, it will take a bit longer and it may be a bit less efficient as well. But in the end, it will be better, but getting there will take a while. So, that is not yet fully sort of defined or reassuringly done. And another part is the measurement, which is like, okay, what should we measure? How can we say that, you know, we started co-creation at the beginning and then looking at what we defined as KPIs? And at the end, we are there. So, those things are questions that, you know, also looking at everything that we learned at the MBA is that if you are trying to convince the organization, you should have, you know, your numbers straight and not just the theory or the qualitative arguments behind it. Yeah. So, yeah. So, let's say that this is like the current state of co-creation. We know where it's coming from. We sort of know where it's heading. But I would like to dig into the third topic because this will probably create a bridge on this third topic as commercial setting. I'm expecting that this will be the bridge between direct democracy and current state of co-creation and how we can use things from the one in the other. So, let me use this. What if we could use or handle Swiss direct democracy as a case study of co-creation, which gives more power to, let's say, customers or citizens in this case, than what you would normally think of as acceptable or even, you know, used. Yeah. So, this is like exploring a future scenario, like direct democracy, Swiss direct democracy applies to a commercial organization. Yes. And as it's very often argued that when you, you know, when you do a service designer or user experience design, you should, you know, look at, of course, what people usually do, but you should also look at outliers and define specifically for those as well. And Swiss direct democracy is one of these outliers in inclusion of stakeholders. And granted, it's a quite a drastic one. But as it is a drastic one, it's worth looking at. Sure. And what did you find? Yeah. So, what I find is that if we recall this matrix of, you know, the whole process of service and delivery and then the levels of how much co-creation there is, then Swiss direct democracy is really good at the beginning and top, meaning that at the ideation and the validation phase, it's really strong in co-creation because people have very few barriers to be able to propose something and, you know, jumping a bit ahead, even if even if a proposal from the people, from citizens doesn't go through and in the end doesn't get voted by the people, it still enters political debate. And that's one of the important elements of the system is that it didn't go through because maybe, you know, it wasn't properly defined or it was too early, but it's now in the public mind and it's in the mind of parliament or government and politicians and they can think about it and, you know, it could be picked up later on. And it's strong there in this identification of issues and of validating something as, you know, if the law comes out from parliament, people have the right to challenge it. So the validation is there. What's not really there is afterwards. So at that point, really in Swiss direct democracy, the initiators are no longer officially involved in the process and there have been even cases where those who initiated a vote or a referendum, they attacked the law that came out of it because they argued it was not in the original, it did not follow the original idea of that proposal. So that happens as well. And this really calls out the importance of co-creation. So if we involve someone at only the very beginning and then, you know, don't really co-create it, but just ask them, they give you something and then you implement that, maybe talking with internal stakeholders, it might become something that they never wanted. So really what this shows is that it's important to be able to get the input from customers or citizens, but also to follow through. And that is still a bit of a gap in direct democracy or in the Swiss version of direct democracy. And what I did is sort of, I created a kind of process that takes the most important learnings from direct democracy, but adds on levels to it that are missing so that in a commercial organization, this could be used. And one of those things, for example, is the fact that this inclusion of the people of the people who propose it should be kept. And the connection should be kept all the way until implementation. There should be some discussions. Another element that, for example, is missing in direct democracy in Switzerland, but is very heavily pointed out in co-creation literature is that it should be an experience and it should be looking at the emotions as well as the information and the data. What are the people who are participating in the process? On one side, who are the people? And really, what do they feel like when participating? Exactly, yeah. And in Swiss direct democracy, you have the power to change the constitution, but the way that the process is actually done is very bureaucratic. There is no, let's say, little celebrations, there is no lights in there. And that is something that if an organization does this, then there should be a frame of experience that collects all of this. And the usual things like peak and experience are pointed or pointed out. And that the brand itself is somehow implemented in there or bounded into it, meaning that if it's a playful brand, then at least the words that describe this participation should be playful or the discussion should be somewhat playful. And it's a serious one, then it should be serious. But this is not really heavily used in direct democracy in Switzerland. Now, let's take one step further. I think a lot of people listening to the show will sort of agree that co-creation, we see the value of that. And we already struggled to get participants for our workshops and to get internal stakeholders to participate. If I go to my client and say, I want to increase the level of co-creation, we'll just probably need a little bit more time and then a bit more budget. How are we going to actually, what is the first step to implementing in the next level of co-creation? Maybe that's the better question. Yeah, well, that's not a small question, but let me start by looking at the participation. So if you look at Switzerland, and as you mentioned, it's a heavy process, right? There's a lot of things. It seems like, yeah. There's referendums about four times a year normally, and that every referendum, people vote on multiple topics. And that topics are sometimes municipal, sometimes on a continental level, which is the regions within Switzerland, which are quite, by the way, very strong, or they might be at the very highest level regarding the whole country or all the canton. And what's interesting is that looking at the participation in referendums, it's quite low. It can range from as low as around 30% to as much as about 80%. But going high is more rare, so it's usually more between 40 and 50%. And when looking at, and this might be someone who looks up in Switzerland, inclusion of people, one of the good things that can be, by which countries can be compared is participation in elections. And Switzerland is one of the lowest election percent, has the lowest election percentage. But it's important to point out that elections, the election of the parliament, is not as important in Switzerland as in other countries, precisely because people have other means to make their voices heard. Nonetheless, it is true that, looking at individual referendums, the participation can be argued is not very high, but there's been a lot of research around this and it's also argued that within any five-year period, 90% of the people vote, which means that it might be that I don't want to participate in a referendum because I'm happy either way and I just don't feel strongly that I need to express my opinion. But even the lowest numbers of 30% participation, which from a democratic perspective looks very frighteningly low, if we look at traditional numbers in participation in digital platforms, for example, it's usually argued that there's 1% and 10%. So 1% being the average users and 10% being the more active ones and the rest of the 89%, they don't really participate. In some cases, these are even lower numbers. So it needs to be pointed out that, yes, there is this part that needs to be figured out and what kind of a brand are we? How much do we include the customers? Because if you want to get this to this next level of co-creation or participation of customers, what you need to realize is that you need to crawl before you can fly. See, it's a gradual process. And if you want to say that, okay, we are giving our customers the power to propose some new feature and we guarantee that if X% of the people vote and participate, then it will be rolled out. Well, before that, you need to make sure that people are, do you have a strategy? Is it clear what your organization wants to do? Or the customers well-defined, like who is your target audience? Because if those two things are missing and there's a number of prerequisites that your organization should have before going to the next level. And one of them is, is your strategy clear internally and also externally? Do customers know what you are trying to be and fulfill as an organization? What your role in their life is and what your role in generally in the world is. Because that's really important for them to be able to propose things that make sense for the organization and also for the organization to be able to say, to push back on some proposals saying, we are not that organization and you know it. So, it doesn't count. Yeah, you don't want people driving your organization in a direction that doesn't align with who you are. Exactly. And that's one of the things that for example, in Switzerland, direct democracy has, to some degree, no limitations. Because apart from the fact, apart from the definition of when or how people can participate, there's hardly any limitations on what people can propose. There have been proposals to say, let's abolish the army. Yeah, or change the flag. I don't think they would do that. They really like there. But exactly, they could change. They could propose the change of flag. Change the number of the parliament. Like there's a lot of things that people could propose with hardly any limitations. So they really started broad. And there were a few efforts. I wouldn't say that they wanted to limit the freedom of people, but they wanted to look at, okay, would it make sense to say that to introduce some more pieces in there? And as soon as sort of people found out that this is even a topic being considered, there was a big uproar. So basically there's no movement. There's no space to find you in this. Right now it's almost everything and there's very little chance of that being reduced. So if an organization wants to do something like this, they should rather start the other way around. They should define a topic that is important enough for people to be involved, to be motivated, to be involved and to co-create it. But the company really is willing to say that, okay, if a change in that topic comes from people, then we will implement it. Yeah, that's exactly the question I wanted to ask and maybe you have a brief answer to that. Like how important is that binding aspect? I think it's very important to on one part know how far you theoretically would be willing to go as an organization, but at the same time be able to define where you could start. What is the smallest thing that still makes sense for people but you are willing to basically give up some control in? Because that is the whole end point of co-creation is you're not fully in control, but there are multiple publications and books coming from business consultants of well-renowned consultancies going back 15 years who have argued that strategy is no longer about a singular person or a small group of people knowing where to go, rather it is navigating in fog as they put it. And if some companies or people might still live in the previous era where they think that they know best and there might be geniuses and genius CEOs who really do know best, for them it's probably not the right thing, but more people think they are a genius than who actually are. And so very often it is this navigating in the fog and being able to include as many points of view as possible and that really then requires you to give up some control, not because you are forced to give up, but you never really had it in the first place. You just thought you have it, but really sharing this control and this finding of the direction or the specific steps is something you can give up. And yeah, sorry. Well, sort of maybe that's if we have to summarize why co-creation, well, when complexity increases, when the number of variables increases, it's less likely that you have all the answers and that you actually... Exactly, I mean, there's a lot of discussions saying that we no longer have industries, we have arenas. Like what industry is Facebook in? What industry is Google in? It's very hard to define and many of the startups nowadays are trying to fight for not fitting into one industry. So that's just one of the things. The other thing is that customers are becoming much more professional customers. They have more choice, they understand more. And as it's argued that the younger generation to the younger generation, it comes more natural to challenge companies just as people, initially in history, were ready to be controlled by the king or government. And now more and more throughout the decades, there has been more changes being requested. Similarly, the same is happening around organizations that customers, they want to have a say in what happens. So they have more choice and if it's not done by one company, they can go to another one. There's many of these things, but this is what I pointed out earlier around the co-creation drivers is that some of these things are quite clear. It's hard to argue around some of these things. It's hard to also put a number to it. But at the same time, there's some books and publications who argue that this will come, but it might take a few more decades. So it's not that this will be a five-year process. And even if those books were written 15 years ago, some of them argue that it will take 40 to 50 years until this really happens. And as with many other things, there are companies who are already doing it. There are companies who have people vote on their decisions. Now, whether that's done at Hock or whether it's done in the right way is another question. What, for example, Swiss Direct Democracy really does well or is really done well here is the informing people. So it's called the Red Booklet, which really summarizes the decisions in a one-pager. It has some illustrations to it. There's also videos. There's also a minority report, meaning that, okay, in Parliament, how much or for or against this decision. So there's a lot of things that are being proposed to people or presented to people to understand it quickly, but also all the details are proposed or shown to those who are more interested. So if you just ask and there was an example, like this where a company was asking, which platform should we use for whatever? People will not necessarily know about your backend unless your users are all developers, in which case, sure, go for that. But elements like informing, that needs to be there very heavily to ensure that people actually know what they're making a decision on. So I think that it's clear that we're heading in that direction. We're getting the means, the culture is developing. There's still a lot to be put in place. I would be curious like, if you could ask the people watching and listening to the show one question, what is it that we should be thinking about or what should we comment upon in this episode? Sure, so I do have a blog that I'm writing about. Yeah, we'll link to that for sure. If we can link to that and also for those who are more press time, I'll write it up in the medium article and then we can link to that as well. Absolutely. But basically, one question that we can start discussing about already here is, do you see in your organization that senior management is really devoted into including customers at a higher level and not just at a point where, yes, sure, let's send out surveys. Sure, yeah. And I think one of the important things that is missing in co-creation literature are the processes that really ensure that people, customers, if they want something to happen, that there's a process both visible and known to them as well as the organization that is transparent but potentially there's also binding, something that they know is worth pursuing because there will be something coming out at the end of it. If you look at, like, there's really a few really interesting very recent examples. So very on two sides, one being Facebook, who recently started introducing or talking about having a group of people to who people can send their arguments if they want something to be removed from Facebook as a content. I see that as a very archaic approach to it. I don't think it's that Facebook, it's really on Facebook to come up with something so very, I don't know, governmental type and something that smells of slowness and inefficiency. But it shows that hopefully they're not doing it just for as an excuse, but that there is a willingness even from that kind of organization to put a process in place. And then a very different example is the recent Sonning the Hedgehog movie where the trailer came out. The internet approached like, what does Sonic look like? It's terrible. And the studio completely redesigned what Sonic looks like and did a completely new CGI character. And now the internet is like, yeah, let's watch this film just so that we can show them that we really appreciate them listening to us. As you think about it, this is chance. Like, what are the odds that people in comments start writing ads, character is ugly, and that they actually do it. Movies to do so, okay, we'll just redo it. It's random. So is there a chance in your organization to ensure a process that becomes a binding for inclusion of customer voice and the co-creation as a process? So I would be really interested if we get some comments on examples slash case studies of organizations that have some kind of process where you as a customer can actually invoke changes that might potentially be binding. I would be interested to see some examples if they are. Likewise, I'm sure some I know is scattered around there and I'm really interested in it. Don't give any hints. Let's see what people come up with. Exactly. I'll absolutely link to your blog with the research done in the past when I have years because I think there's much more to be said and learned about this topic and how to be applied. So it will be somewhere in the show notes. Peter, thanks so much for making us curious about taking co-creation to the next level because I think this is what it is. It's not the end. It's just the start of this new journey. So yeah, thanks for sharing what you've been thinking about for the last 18 months. Marc, thank you very much for having me. It's been a pleasure. Cool. Thanks. So do you have any examples of businesses that have embedded co-creation in such a way that customers actually have an influence on what the business does? We would love to see some examples. So leave your comments down below. If you enjoyed this episode, please grab the link and share it with somebody who might find it interesting as well that will help us to grow the service design show community. Thanks for watching. And if you want to see more, click this next video because we're going to continue over there. See ya.