Co-Producing Digital Solutions: Involving People in Technology Decisions

Technology becomes truly person-centred when people are involved in shaping how it is used in their own support. Co-production ensures that digital solutions reflect individual preferences, lived experience and personal outcomes rather than organisational assumptions.

Within the wider Digital Transformation in Social Care Knowledge Hub, providers are increasingly recognising that successful digital enablement depends as much on involvement, trust and co-production as it does on technology itself. The most effective digital solutions are rarely imposed. Instead, they are developed with people, adapted around their preferences and reviewed regularly to ensure they continue to deliver meaningful benefits.

For adult social care providers, co-produced digital enablement aligns strongly with Person-Centred Technology principles and complements effective Support Planning & Reviews, Co-Production, Choice & Control, Assistive Technology and Digital Care Planning. These approaches ensure technology remains focused on individual outcomes rather than organisational convenience.

What Co-Production Means in Digital Enablement

Co-production goes far beyond consultation. It involves people who use services actively contributing to decisions about whether technology is used, which tools are selected and how they operate in daily life.

True co-production means that individuals have meaningful influence over:

• whether technology is introduced at all
• which options are explored
• how information is presented
• what data is collected and shared
• how digital tools fit into daily routines
• how success is measured
• whether technology remains useful over time

In digital contexts, co-production also means adapting technology as confidence, needs, preferences and circumstances evolve. Technology that works well today may not remain appropriate six months later. Person-centred services therefore build flexibility and review into every digital arrangement.

Why Co-Production Matters

Technology often fails not because the software is poor but because the solution does not reflect what people actually want. When digital tools are selected without meaningful involvement, providers frequently encounter low engagement, resistance, inconsistent use and reduced outcomes.

By contrast, co-produced approaches create ownership. People are more likely to engage with technology when they understand why it has been introduced, how it supports their goals and how much control they retain over its use.

Co-production also strengthens:

• trust between people and providers
• engagement with support plans
• confidence using technology
• independence and self-management
• acceptance of digital tools
• personalisation of support
• outcome achievement
• regulatory assurance

Real-World Operational Example 1: Choosing Assistive Technology Collaboratively

A provider supported an individual to explore technology that could help them manage daily routines more independently. Rather than recommending a single device, staff worked alongside the person to trial several options over a six-week period.

The trial included:

• a smartphone reminder application
• a wearable prompting device
• a visual scheduling system
• voice-activated prompts

The individual preferred voice-activated reminders because they fitted naturally into existing routines and felt less intrusive than repeated staff prompts. The chosen solution was incorporated into the support plan and reviewed after three months.

Because the person selected the technology themselves, engagement remained high and the solution continued to deliver positive outcomes over time.

Real-World Operational Example 2: Designing Digital Care Records Together

A supported living service reviewed how people interacted with digital care records. Rather than simply implementing a provider-designed system, the organisation invited people receiving support to help shape how information was presented.

Feedback highlighted that some individuals wanted clearer language, more visual information and easier access to their own records.

Changes included:

• simplified language
• improved accessibility features
• greater transparency around recording
• clear explanations of information sharing
• more opportunities for people to contribute their own views

The result was improved trust in digital systems and greater involvement in care planning and review processes.

Real-World Operational Example 3: Reviewing Technology Through Co-Produced Reviews

A provider introduced digital wellbeing monitoring tools to support independence. Rather than assuming continued use, technology became a standing item within person-centred reviews.

During each review, individuals were asked:

• Does the technology still help?
• What do you like about it?
• What would you change?
• Do you still want to use it?
• Are there better alternatives?

Several people requested adjustments to notification settings. One person chose to stop using the technology entirely and moved to an alternative support arrangement. Another requested additional features that improved confidence and engagement.

This review process demonstrated that co-production continued beyond implementation and remained embedded throughout the technology lifecycle.

Building Co-Production Into Digital Support Planning

Co-production should not sit separately from support planning. It should form part of how digital enablement is assessed, introduced, monitored and reviewed.

Support plans should clearly document:

• the person's goals and outcomes
• options considered
• why a solution was selected
• what alternatives remain available
• privacy preferences
• consent arrangements
• review dates
• how the person's views will be captured

This creates clear evidence that technology decisions remain person-led and outcome-focused.

Commissioner Expectations

Commissioners increasingly expect evidence that digital solutions are personalised rather than standardised. Technology should support individual outcomes, independence and wellbeing rather than simply improving organisational efficiency.

Commissioners may look for evidence that providers:

• involve people in digital decision-making
• use co-produced support planning processes
• adapt technology around individual needs
• review digital solutions regularly
• capture feedback and lived experience
• measure outcomes rather than usage alone

Co-production demonstrates that technology is responsive, outcome-led and aligned with person-centred care principles.

Regulatory Expectations

Regulators increasingly focus on involvement, choice, control and person-centred care. Co-produced digital decisions help providers demonstrate compliance with the Mental Capacity Act, human rights principles and person-centred care expectations.

Inspectors may examine:

• whether people were involved in decisions
• how consent was obtained and reviewed
• whether alternatives were explored
• how technology affects daily life
• whether people understand how technology works
• how feedback influences ongoing practice

Strong evidence shows that technology is shaped around the individual rather than the individual being expected to adapt to the technology.

Governance and Assurance

Providers should embed co-production within digital governance frameworks. Involvement should be visible through documentation, review processes and quality assurance activity.

Governance mechanisms may include:

• audit of technology decision-making
• review of support plans
• feedback analysis
• co-production forums
• digital inclusion reviews
• manager oversight of consent and involvement
• quality assurance reporting

This creates assurance that technology remains aligned with individual goals and organisational values.

Outcomes and Impact

Effective co-production leads to stronger engagement, reduced resistance to technology, improved trust and better outcomes. People are more likely to use digital tools successfully when they have genuine influence over decisions affecting their lives.

Positive outcomes may include:

• greater independence
• improved confidence
• better engagement with support
• reduced frustration
• stronger relationships with staff
• higher technology adoption rates
• more personalised support
• improved quality of life outcomes

These impacts should be captured through reviews, quality monitoring systems and outcome measurement frameworks.

Common Pitfalls

• Consulting people after decisions have already been made.
• Offering only one technology option.
• Failing to review whether technology remains useful.
• Focusing on organisational benefits rather than personal outcomes.
• Assuming agreement means genuine involvement.
• Not adapting technology as needs change.
• Ignoring accessibility requirements.
• Treating implementation as the end of co-production.

What Good Looks Like

Strong providers treat co-production as a continuous process rather than a single event. Technology decisions are made collaboratively, reviewed regularly and adapted when circumstances change.

People understand what technology does, why it is used and how they can influence decisions. Their voice remains visible throughout support planning, implementation and review.

Providers can evidence:

• meaningful involvement
• documented decision-making
• clear outcome focus
• regular review
• adaptation over time
• evidence of choice and control
• improved engagement and outcomes

Conclusion

Person-centred technology is most effective when people are active participants in the decisions that shape its use. Co-production helps ensure digital tools reflect individual goals, preferences and lived experiences rather than organisational assumptions.

For providers, embedding co-production into digital enablement strengthens trust, improves engagement and creates stronger evidence for commissioners and regulators. Most importantly, it ensures technology remains focused on what matters most: helping people achieve the outcomes they want in ways that respect their rights, choices and independence.

---